Talk:Muhammad/Archive 31

What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?
The following paragraph from the Muhammad article is in dispute. "Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[150][227][228] with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.[150][227][229][230][231][232][233] She was therefore a virgin at marriage.[227] A small number of modern Muslim writers have estimated her age between 12 and 24.[234][235][236]"

The dispute ranges on whether the statement about Aisha reaching puberty is WP:UNDUE, whether the paragraph itself is WP:UNDUE, or if a footnote should be included to say that young marriages during the 600s was normal.(UTC)

The discussion and additional sources can be found on this talk page in sections: 1) Aisha "reaching age of puberty", 2) Removal of paragraph, 3) The thing that should actually be disputed, 4) Proposal for changes on Aisha's mariage. The discussion most relevant to the questions below can be found in #2 and #4. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative paragraph proposed by User:Eperoton: Main text: It is thought that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached physical maturity.(current refs, plus Jonathan Brown [], Reza Aslan []) Footnote: Such marriages were common in the seventh century. (A Concise History of the Middle East []; Reza Aslan []) The traditional view estimates that the marriage was consummated when Aisha was about nine.(refs) However, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.|(“Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texas Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏ }} ) Denise Spellberg has reviewed Islamic literature on Aisha's virginity, age at marriage and age when the marriage was consummated and speculates that Aisha's youth might have been exaggerated to exclude any doubt about her virginity.(Spellberg, Denise (1994). Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231079990):
 * Strong support. More precise paragraph providing a genuine representation of academic and peer-reviewed reliable sources. I should inform here that the book of Asma Barlas has been cited ~300 times by the academic community. The book of Denise Spellberg has been considered the best overview of 'A'isha's life and legacy within Sunni Islam.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support.. Seems the most NPOV text proposed till now. Side note: @Eperoton I am bolding up the other statements below so that they are clear. I hope you won't mind. Feel free to revert me without ping. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose Saying we should X and just puttings "refs" after it is not serious, and only goes to show that the whole purpose is to first construct an argument, then cherrypicks refs. That's not how wikipedia works, nor how any serious writing works. One starts with the refs, then the arguments, not the other way around. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would normally refrain from debate here, but since this is a misrepresentation of preceding discussion, I feel compelled to comment. Cherrypicking means selecting some of the relevant sources and dismissing others. After repeated invitations to provide RSs for views not reflected in this proposal, none have been produced. The invitation is still open. Feel free to cite the sources contradicting the statements on puberty and 7th century customs here. Eperoton (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think restructuring of what we currently have would be a better option. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Not detailing the evidence for the traditional viewpoint, which holds that Aisha was 9 years old when Muhammad consummated their marriage, yet devoting such a sizable quantity of text with such depth of detail to the arguments that assert she was older than 9 seems like an attempt at giving WP:UNDUE weight to idea that she was older than 9. What the article currently says is sufficient. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Human10.0. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The traditional viewpoint that you refer to,, is essentially nothing more than the repetition of a Hadith in which Aisha estimates her age to be 9. One has to remember that knowing one's age was an exception, and not the rule in 7th century Arabia (actually the world). Academics even disagree the year Prophet Muhammad was born, and yet we are to take Aisha's estimate of her age as precise? --Peace world  10:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant ahadith do not “estimate” Aisha’s age; in the ahadith Aisha herself explicitly states that she was nine years old (there is not even a hint of estimation).
 * There is no evidence to suggest that knowing one’s actual age was an impossibility in 7th century Arabia. On the contrary, the custom of counting years was prevalent among Arabs and their neighbors. Even before the advent of Islam and the eventual adoption of the Islamic calendar, the Arabs possessed a pre-Islamic lunar calendar (composed of 12 months a year) that was not significantly different from the Islamic one and that pre-Islamic calendar played a significant role in their culture (e.g., it was agreed upon that fighting and raiding was forbidden certain months, called the haram months, and the Arabs are said to have generally respected this rule). In addition, the Arabs participated in a pre-Islamic version of the Hajj pilgrimage each year. So when keeping track of time played such an important role in their culture and daily lives, it is highly unlikely that keeping tabs on their age in years or months was difficult for the Arabs of the 7th century.
 * Muhammad’s year of birth is widely accepted to be 570 AD. To my knowledge, even the few contemporary academics that currently doubt that date estimate his year of birth to be 568 or 569 AD (i.e. the difference is of only one or at best, two years). This does not at all necessarily imply that Aisha’s age is similarly disputable. And to the best of my knowledge, this dispute is over his year of birth according to the Gregorian calendar. Aisha’s age of nine as recorded in ahadith is not according to the Gregorian calendar so I do not see how a dispute over Muhammad’s age in the Gregorain calendar can possibly be used to argue that Aisha’s age cannot be definitively stated either.
 * I am unsure of what you are implying when you say that the traditional view is “nothing more than" the repetition of ahadith. Are Islamic viewpoints not suppose to reflect or be based on one of the most reliable sources on Islam?
 * Whatever anyone’s personal opinion on the traditional viewpoint, it has to be given more weight than any minor views as per WP:DUE. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * People estimate all the time without saying "estimate" or hinting towards estimation. You are conflating: I never denied the existence of a form of calender that recognized years and months. The fact that references to age exist (as in the case of Aisha) is because there was a time-keeping system in place. I am well aware that that the recognition of months, such as the forbidden months, the annual observance of festivals such as pre-Islamic version of the Hajj pilgrimage, and the recognition of notable events, such as the Year of the Elephant, were all prevalent in Arab societies. But this is not equivalent to remembering one's date/year of birth. In fact, the year 570 is said to be the date of Prophet Muhammad's birth, not because he said so, not because any one of his companion's said so, but because he was born roughly during the period of the Year of the Elephant. That's how the ages of notable individual 7th century Arabs are calculated and this is the approach of some scholars towards the age of Aisha. --Peace world  20:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are merely making an assumption. How do you know Aisha was 'estimating' her age when she explicitly said she was six years old at marriage and nine years old at the time of its consummation? "People estimate all the time" is not at all evidence that Aisha herself was estimating. I am willing to concede that the presence of a reliable time-keeping system does not forego (though it certainly does decrease) the possibility of somebody not remembering their precise age but there is no evidence in the case of Aisha to suggest that she could not have known her precise age and had to estimate it. If there is any direct evidence to suggest so then you need to show it. In the absence of such evidence your assertion is just an assumption and any further argument over this is pointless.
 * I do not see any relevance to the discussion of Muhammad's Gregorian year of birth since the dispute (raised by a few contemporary academics) isn't whether Muhammad was born in what the Arabs called the "Year of the Elephant" but whether the Year of the Elephant conforms to 570 AD or 569 AD or 568 AD on the Gregorian calendar. The consensus is that Muhammad was born in the Year of the Elephant (not "roughly during the period of the Year of the Elephant") and that this corresponds to the year 570 AD on the Gregorian calendar. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Hadith does not align with what some scholars say, her age being estimated at 12-24, as briefly mentioned in Criticisms of Muhammad, on reasons based on incidents before and after her marriage, clearly shows there is some issue, possibly a transmission error or an estimate. I think it's somewhat naive to assume that her suggested age is necessarily accurate regardless. Even till this day, disconnected villagers in some third world countries have no clue when asked the exact day/year of birth. Perhaps, I can go look around some sources that do discuss the relevance of birth dates, in medieval or historical Arab societies. But I have a different opinion regarding this, and I think Xtremedood's suggestion is the most sensible one, that is to remove the entire paragraph. I see no other reason for adding the age of marriage, particularly when there is debate on her actual age. It's relevance only comes under Islamophobic circles and belongs to Criticism of Muhammad article. --Peace world  15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my proposal as well at Removal of paragraph!  Sh eri ff  | report  | 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my proposal as well at Removal of paragraph!  Sh eri ff  | report  | 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement that she had reached puberty is WP:DUE concern for this article.
 * Oppose There is enough false justification for child marriage around that campaign groups such as "girls not brides" have to cope with without adding this. Muslims refer to the "prophet Muhammad" and not to the "historical figure Muhammad" and, as such, the sentence "Such marriages were common in the seventh century" is pure apologetics.  However I have a similar problem with the sentence "She was therefore a virgin at marriage."  Even in a society in which trust might not exist, I do not think that this is not a valid reason to take a child from a more typical experience of childhood.  A key issue here is age and the current text presents a rounded view of relevant views.  GregKaye 09:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. The issues of consummation age and puberty go together, because modern assumptions about nubile age have been systematically exploited by anti-Islam polemics. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. As per the rationale I have provided in the four discussions (links in the RFC text above) Marriage and puberty go hand in hand. In an age where puberty was the sign of being "fit" for marriage the world over this a Due concern. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't an article about Aisha. Since it doesn't impact The articles subject this is pointless extra fluff. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. & Strongly support. The statement is well-sourced and directly relevant to the statement about the marriage.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Any statement about puberty is irrelevant to this biography about Muhammad, and relies on personal interpretations and opinions of Wikipedia editors. There is no policy based argument to support its inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Of what relevance is that she reached puberty to a bipgraphy of Muhammad? No one has provided a satisfactory answer? DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would add to that: Of what relevance is her age of marriage? --Peace world  10:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless there is direct reference made within the Quran as to whether Aisha had reached puberty, this is pure WP:Crystal. The main article Aisha contains no mention of puberty.  All we know is that Aisha was young and that Muhammed followed a teaching with its own moral principles.  GregKaye 09:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement that she had reached puberty is WP:UNDUE concern for this article:
 * Agree. This article isn't about Aisha, and irrelevant details like this definitely fall into WP:UNDUE territory. The bit about "until she reached puberty" is a recent addition unsupported by anything except editorial opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree the puberty statement in question isn't about the article subject, and doesn't even get mentioned on Aishas' page. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The issues of consummation age and puberty go together, because modern assumptions about nubile age have been systematically exploited by anti-Islam polemics. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is just an opinion, and dealing with anti-Islam polemics is out of scope for this biography article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This seems to be a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The statement is well-sourced and directly relevant to the statement about the marriage.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal interpretations of primary sources are not relevant to this article; take it to Talk:Aisha instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement that Aisha had reached physical maturity is NOT a personal interpretation of primary sources. It is a direct representation of primary sources that is supported by mainstream reliable secondary sources.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly Disagree. The detail about puberty puts everything in a neutral light, and not mentioning it is basically "mentioning" the Islamophobic propaganda albeit through omission. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree No convincing case has been made for the statement. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree I am also unsure of the statement's veracity, especially in light of this sahih hadith that says only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam and this sahih hadith that says Aisha's dolls were with her when she was sent to live with Muhammad permanently at the age of nine —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The text of the first hadith you linked to does NOT say that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". This statement is NOT in the original text of the hadith. The person (seems to be a wahabi) who translated the hadith from Arabic to English added this unoriginal false statement between two brackets. In other words, this English translation of the hadith is forged.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Human10.0 So you are basically bringing your own OR and POV into this discussion. Where exactly in the Arabic text does this phrase appear that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". I am sure you will be able to point out the exact phrase as you seem to be able to read eastern languages as per your user page. Let us see now how you defend this misrepresentation, feel free to make an excuse to save face. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @FreeatlastChitchat I just stated a reason for why I have doubts about the veracity of the puberty claim. Your belligerent attitude is not appreciated. I thought it was abundantly clear that the statement "The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty" is an explanation of the hadith taken from Fath al-Bari because the English text explicitly mentions that it is quoting "Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13." I see why you are concerned though; if I had written "this explanation of this sahih hadith that says only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam", it would have been clumsier but more accurate. That being said I strongly disagree with your attempt to pass off that statement as a misinterpretation. It is an explanation of the hadith from Fath al-Bari, which is the most authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari. The belief that only prepubertal children can possess dolls in Islam is shared by the Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki schools of jurisprudence:
 * "We have already explained that it is haraam to make images and statues (question no. 7222) and that it is haraam to buy and sell them (question no. 49676). But if these images and dolls are toys for children, the Sunnah indicates that they are permissible. In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and I had female friends who would play with me…” al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440. Ibn Hajar said: This hadeeth indicates that it is permissible to have images of girls (i.e., dolls) and toys for girls to play with. This is an exception from the general meaning of the prohibition on having images. This was stated by ‘Iyaad and was narrated from the majority. They permitted the sale of dolls to girls so as to teach them from a young age how to take care of their homes and children. Ibn Hibbaan stated that it is permissible for young girls to play with toys."
 * "Most of the scholars have exempted the making of girls’ toys from the prohibition on making images and statues. This is the view of the Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis." Hanafis also believe that only young children are allowed to play with dolls but they stress that the dolls should not have a detailed human-like or animal-like appearance and should not have a head, otherwise even children aren't allowed to play with them:
 * "In a Hadith recorded by Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The most severely punished on the day of Qiyamah will be those who make (animate) pictures.” (Sahih al-Bukhari) Therefore, if the dolls are fully structured, meaning they have the head with the eyes, ears, mouth, etc, then it will be impermissible to acquire them, give them as a gift or for small children to play with them.  However, if the dolls do not have a head, meaning they do not have eyes, ears, nose and mouth which make them incomplete, then it will be permissible to make them and give them to small children." I hope that this matter is settled now and that you do not try to needlessly argue with me any further. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @5.107.45.226The statement is not "false." It is an explanation of the hadith found in Fath al-Bari, please look it up to believe for yourself. The translator is not a Wahhabi/Salafi, that translation was provided by USC-MSA, i.e., the Muslim Students Association at University of Southern California, you can see the same translation on the USC's website (scroll down to hadith no. 151). Even if the translation was provided by a Wahhabi, I do not see how that does not automatically makes it false. Anyways, USC-MSA's translations of hadith books are reliable, not "forged", and are extensively used on Wikipedia. In the hadith translation you are disputing, all they did was is that they added a clarification from Fath al-Bari to the hadith's English translation and made it sufficiently clear that the text in brackets is not part of the hadith's literal translation but is an authentic explanation. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Human10.0 None of those narrations point out that Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s marriage to The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) was consummated when she used to play with dolls in front of him. It only says she used to play with dolls in front of him and her friends used to come and play with her. The narrations does not specify the location of the playground in any manner. It could have been her father (رضی الله عنہ)'s house as The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) was a dear friend to him. You are just making your own POV conclusions from these narrations.  Sh eri ff  ( report ) 14:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Sh eri ff  This sahih hadith from Sunan Nasai states: "'Aishah said: The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls." Sunan Nasai is one of the six authentic books of ahadith, the hadith is sahih (authentic) and it is clear. I hope its settled now that "Aisha's marriage to the Holy Prophet was consummated when she used to play with dolls." —Human10.0 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Human10.0 so basically you admit that you lied about the sourcing and the text is not a part of hadith. That is what I wanted to hear ty for that. Admitting ones error is the first step to recovery. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You're going to accuse others of "lying" and talk about "admitting ones error is the first step to recovery" when at best you made several BLATANT errors (if we are to take you at your word) and at worst bold face lies?  Oh, man this is hypocrisy at its finest.Trinacrialucente (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @FreeatlastChitchat I did not admit to "lying" since I didn't lie, I admitted to making a slight unintentional error in phrasing that seems to be important to you (even though whether a hadith's Arabic said it or Fath al-Bari explained it does not change the fact that only prepubertal children, like Aisha at the time, are allowed to play with dolls in Islam as additionally evidenced by the consensuses of schools of fiqh). I did not purposely make the error in phrasing so please stop pretending like you "caught" me or something. That's childish. "[F]irst step to recovery"? Sheesh, did you hear that in a TV show? This isn't even the right context to use that phrase in. Anyways, do not patronise me and do not downplay how you were wrong and/or lied about the authenticity of the statement (i.e., that only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam) by calling it a "misinterpretation." Since you appear to have a Muslim background and are active on Islam-related parts of Wikipedia, I doubt that you did not figure out that the statement was from Fath al-Bari and doubt that you don't know what that book is and how authoritative statements from it are.—Human10.0 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Human10.0 yes you made an "error". why thank you so much for admitting that again. That is all I wanted you to admit to be frank, that you had "made an error". Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're purposely not getting the point, I see. I guess I'll just summarise for anyone else reading this thread that I did not make an "error" when I stated only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam (this is evident from my earlier comments) and that FreeatlastChitchat did make an error, or simply lied, when he denied that fact. Since all the points that could have been made have been made, I won't be wasting my time by coming back to this thread again.—Human10.0 (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Human10.0Quite true. I was the one who "lied" when he caught you misrepresenting and misinterpreting a primary source. Very bad of me. I was the one who showed you that not a single word in the entire hadith you quoted says that only children should play with dolls, even though you were vehement in stating this. Again, very bad of me to point out your error. Would you like an apology from me in the written form or only a verbal one? I will ask you again what I asked earlier. Where in the hadith is it written that only children should play dolls. Feel free to quote the exact text. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing us your scandalous dishonesty in citing primary sources. The hadith you cited in the beginning surely doesn't say that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". That statement doesn't exist in the original text of the hadith. Given that you claimed in your original post that the hadith says that statement when in fact it doesn't, I won't be surprised if someone reported you for dishonesty or at least for incompetence.--5.107.78.212 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing Fath al-Bari (which is neither a book of history nor a book of tradition, but a book of commentary written in 1372-1449 CE) for that statement is actually a false citation. I checked "Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13." here and there the author Ibn Hajr Asqalani was actually representing various opinions of various persons on whether dolls are considered prohibited images or not and discussing them. In his course of this discussion, he mentions one opinion of one person suggesting that playing with dolls is allowed only for those who haven't reached puberty, but he the author Ibn Hajr Asqalani himself says that this opinion is unlikely . He Ibn Hajr himself affirms on that same page that Aisha played with dolls when she was adult. He Ibn Hajr cites this hadith which says that after the return of Prophet Muhammad from the battle of Tabouk (took place in 9 AH) or from the Battle of Khaybar (took place in 7 AH), he found Aisha playing with dolls. Ibn Hajr concludes that Aisha was definitely adult at that time. This is because if you consider the age of Aisha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet Muhammad in 1 AH to be 9 or 10, then her age at the time of the battle of Khaybar was 15 or 16 and at the time of the battle of Tabouk was 17 or 18. This clearly shows that playing with dolls is not prohibited in Islam at all (even adults can play with them). This applies in modern times on watching cartoons and animation movies. They are not considered in Islam to be prohibited images at all and Muslims all over the world watch them (even adult Muslims). The only exception is the extremist group of the "Wahabis" who are neither orthodox nor mainstream.--5.107.78.212 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "the English translation is provided by USC-MSA, i.e., the Muslim Students Association at University of Southern California" and that "USC-MSA's translations of hadith books are reliable" is actually also indicative of your dishonesty or incompetence. USC-MSA has NO RULE AT ALL in that translation just as sunnah.com also has NO RULE AT ALL in that translation. All what these websites do is that they give an online access to the translation of Sahih Bukhari that was carried out by Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Muhammad Muhsin Khan has no relation at all with USC-MSA and according to this biography, his field of specialty is medicine. This means that he is not qualified in fields of religion or history.--5.107.78.212 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally, I also want to add my notice that islamqa.info is a Wahabi website run by Wahabi Sheikhs (meaning that it is not reliable secondary source and that it doesn't represent mainstream Sunni Muslims).--5.107.78.212 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree per Amatulic. DeCausa (talk)

The entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE concern for this article: The entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE concern for this article: Footnote should exist about the marriage age during the 6th and 7th centuries: Tivanir2 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2015 A note so no one is surprised. I left an open invitation on jimbos' talk page with a link to the conversation. Unsure if there is anywhere I can post a general invitation to participate that would reach a wide audience. If anyone has suggestions let me know. As a reminder this isn't canvassing as I have no idea who is going to show up, since a ton of people visit his talk page. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Also a note on wp: pump. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The paragraph was fine for years before someone came along to add a disruptive statement to make a point about something. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree almost every major source talking about Muhammad's life talks about Aisha and mentions age. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This is a prominent topic in biographies of Muhammad. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree.. Please refer to my above comments for rationale. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree as per all users above. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree Like user Tivanir2 said, almost all major sources talking about Muhammad's life discuss his marriage to Aisha and mention her age. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree The article of Jesus doesn't make mention of the age of Mary at the time she became pregnant with him, which is according to traditional sources 12-14 years. Why then should this article about the Prophet Muhammad mention anything about the age of Aisha. The article about Muhammad on the Arabic wikipedia doesn't mention anything at all about the age of Aisha.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree again, per Amatulic. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? This is just pandering to Islamophobic tendencies. Xtremedood (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As per Xtremedood, I see no reason to add at what age the marriage took place. --Peace world  15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Does no harm to include words from the FAQ in a footnote, although such a footnote, if included, need not mention puberty either. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree this is already covered in the FAQ (under the isn't he a pedophile question that used to be pushed by POV warriors and socks) and goes into marriage customs. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is the job of historical writing to provide historical context for readers when they are likely to misinterpret raw data. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Information should be provided in context. This is the correct context. Do I dare point out that even the TP FAQ mentions this prominently? So why would it be undue in the article? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why "should" it? The only purpose seems to be whitewashing, no factual reasoning has been provided. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems like a request for the reader to practice moral relativism. Do all other articles about people who married minors point out that marrying minors was common in the past? Why is it even necessary to point this out? —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. It is valuable also to compare the Age of Aisha with the age of Mary because of the similarities between the two figures. If Aisha was that "child bride" at the age of 10, then Mary was that "child pregnant" at the age of 12. If Mary became miraculously pregnant, then Aisha became miraculously mature. This comparison can also be added to the FAQ. --5.107.45.226 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree Heavy handed and unnecessary contextualising for a POV purpose. Covered by the FAQ. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A different suggestion

 * You still don't seem to get it: if the Sahih ahadeeth are to be believed/taken as the narrations of the parties involved then they are "primary sources"...you don't need secondary or tertiary speculations which are based on the ahadeeth anyway. Knowing that there are sources which can AND WILL attest to either side of the propaganda machine, in order to avoid any "can of worms" on EITHER side of the apologist spectrum I would propose the following:

Main text: "The hadith give several differing accounts concerning Aisha's age at the time of her betrothal and marriage to Muhammed, which have lead to lengthy discussions on the matter by a number of scholars." Done. Full stop. Cite the ahadeeth AND whoever you want after that. It lets the reader go to any/all sources to see what they have to say and infer whatever they want about her puberty/virginity/consummation whatever without putting polemics into the article. I can't overstate, for your own sake, less is more here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While we disagree on points of substance and policy, I have no objection to a generic statement that leaves discussion of age and related matters to a footnote. Eperoton (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * VERY wise decision. I invite you to make the edits...and be sure not to sneak anything in or as per the dissent above, I guarantee there will be issues.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I just made the textual change per above, but ask that you add back any/all/as many source citations as you wish based on our discussion/clarifications. This way it will show we have done this as a collaborative effort.  As an FYI, I am actually impressed that we arrived at a conclusion here, given the amount of editors, strong personalities and subject matter.  We'll see how long it lasts.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone else has seen this appendage to the RfC. I agreed to your proposal in principle, but I don't entirely agree with your wording -- ironically, because I think you're right about the literal text of the hadith (it's their interpretation and assessment that's under dispute). I would write more vaguely "the primary sources suggest". However, I suspect that's a moot point, as I'm skeptical this group will arrive at any sort of consensus on this topic. Eperoton (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the suggested change. I also find it strange to include it in an ongoing RfC that has not finished. I don't get the reasoning for removing a large part (especially as several users explicitly has opposed the removal) that is very well sourced. Jeppiz (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OpposeThis proposed change will not give due weight to the majority traditional view. The current article correctly notes that ony a "small number of modern Muslim writers" have estimated Aisha's age to be more than 9. Changing the whole text and eliminating any hint as to what is the traditional view just to accommodate the view of a few writers is not justified in my opinion. If various ahadith are cited to support various viewpoints, then their grading (i.e. whether they're sahih, hasan, daif, etc.) will need to be mentioned to show which hadith is more reliable. Obviously any sources that use daif (weak) or unreliable ahadith to promote their viewpoint will assert that the ahadith they are using are not daif or unreliable. I feel the resultant text will just be a confusing piece of text that will cause more disagreement. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A Different Proposition
This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. It was primarily Western orientalists and modern day Islamophobes that have used this as a point of contention. It does not belong in this article. Aisha has also stated about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "his character is the Quran," and "his morals are the Quran." . Why is this not included? If we include all of the positive statements that Aisha had about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (which by the way is far more relevant to the household section) then the whole article would be too large to be deemed as reasonable for WP standards. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? Why is there so much focus on one wife? Clearly the age of Aisha when she got married is of no significance to the section. It is an attempt to divert and to promote an anti-Islamic agenda. This belongs in the criticisms article, not here, and it is already there. I propose that the whole paragraph to not be included. Otherwise, then all of the positive statements from the wives about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and other ages of the wives of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ should be included. Xtremedood (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To add, the inclusion of the paragraph is indicative of a bias towards Western conceptions of morality. It totally neglects the moral systems of other civilizations, that do not rely on man made standards (i.e. age of marriage is 18), such as puberty being the permissible age of marriage, which according to other forms of morality is governed by nature or what God brings about through naturally occurring processes (i.e. puberty). It is a moral issue brought up by proponents of Western conceptions of morality, and therefore it belongs in the criticism article and not here. Since WP claims to adhere to a policy of neutrality WP:NPOV, the Western conception of morality should not be given precedence here. Xtremedood (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also a hadith which is attributed to Aisha, which indicates that she had never seen the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ naked. This hadith has been deemed as authentic by Sufi sources. Here is the hadith "It was narrated from a freed slave of Aishah that Aishah said: "I never looked at or I never saw the private part of the Messenger of Allah (saw).'"" So clearly things are more complicated than they appear and by simply including this passage, it neglects the complexities involved in the situation and is overtly biased and limited. Xtremedood (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That hadith from Sunan Ibn Majah is not sahih, it is daif (i.e., weak, inauthentic, or in other words it is totally unreliable). Not only that, it is contradicted by actually sahih ahadith from the same book, and the other authoritative books of ahadith, that explicitly state that Prophet Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine years old, that he used to have sexual intercourse with all his wives in one night at a time when he had nine wives (keep in mind that Aisha was the third female he married), that he and Aisha used to perform ghusl janabat (the ritual bath after sexual intercourse) together, etc. It is disingenuous of you to ignore the abundance of sahih ahadith that make clear the nature of Prophet Muhammad's relationship with Aisha and instead try to pass off a rejected, daif hadith as a reliable one. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The hadith do not qualify as reliable sources of information on this (or any) subject. c Ө de1+6 TP  05:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Why virgin sentence? Not needed. BurtReynoldsy (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2016
Please change term "founder" for prophet Muhammad instead of it use "Last Prophet" because according to Islam Muhammad(Pbuh)was the final messenger however islam was existing before humans. sources- islamqa.com Answering-Christianity.com Irf.com Trueislam.com

thankyou

Sheik Saad (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done We write articles according to academic consensus, not according to Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert this change:. At best, it's pointless and potentially confusing; at worst, it's an attempt to push POV.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done It was already reverted days ago in this edit. Honestly don't see why though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why AD instead of CE in Google?
On Google when u search for the Prophet, the dates on the Google infobox (FOR Wikipedia) state the years in AD instead of CE... here on wikipedia is fine, but why can we can Google to change from AD to CE on their site? They are representing wikipedia, and I didn't know how to contact them or if they get direction from here.... please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.43.177 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Because AD (Anno Domino) and CE (Christian Era) have the same meaning – Google apparently prefers to use AD. I don't think that there is anything you can do about this. AstroLynx (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * CE means "Common Era" actually. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not control Google or the Google infobox. We are not affiliated with them, they just use whatever they feel like.  That's their fault, go talk to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He clearly said "I didn't know how to contact them" you might wanna go easy on him Ian. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only the paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" is taken from us. See Template:HD/GKG. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016
Hey! I'd like to add to the Early social changes under Islam I'd like to add: Before the Conquest of Mecca by Muhammad, Mecca was renown for its religious tolerance and anyone could pray at the Kaaba which held many gods, and was also a safe sanctuary. Hundreds of idols were housed along with a black meteorite worshipped by Muhammad's Quraish Tribe. Two years after making a peace treaty with the Meccans, he returned with an army and took Mecca by force. With his companions he broke all the idols at the Ka'aba except the Black Stone ending religious tolerance in Mecca.

CriticalRationalThinking (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE. All this does is put a tendentious spin on events already described elsewhere. The source is marginal and does not reflect a mainstream academic interpretation. Eperoton (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of uncritical irrational thinking. Treaty of Hudaybiyah was signed so Muhammad and his followers can make Umrah, Mecca wasn't for religious tolerance, nor is the black stone a meteorite nor is it worshiped. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "tendentious spin" could be fixed simply by removing the last phrase "ending religious tolerance in Mecca" which smells like an editorial opinion. If that phrase is removed, then the paragraph just re-states what is already described elsewhere. The article should focus more on Muhammad's biography. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016
Please remove the comic character you used to describe prophet Muhammad PBUH. Its a request from all the muslims.

Anaskhan5023 (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ - There are no "comic characters" there are some historic images, which will stay for the reasons given in FAQ 1 at the top of this page. - Arjayay (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC for opening sentence in the lede
Should the very first sentence of the article Which now reads "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder. " Be Changed to include a referenced note at the end which says something like "He is considered by some Muslims to be the founder Islam, while according to other Muslims he should not be called the founder as in their view Islam is the first primordial faith given by God and has no human founder. Non-Muslims, however, consider him to be the founder of Islam". The note should contain at least three references, one for each viewpoint. Similar note technique has been used to give various viewpoints on his station as the "Last Prophet". I propose using Amina Adil's book Muhammad as the source for opinion that he is founder, this history book as a source for the opinion that he is not considered the founder and Esposito as the non-muslim source. As per the discussion given below it is being clarified through this edit on January 18th 2016 that ''This RFC is NOT an attempt to increase content through a step by step process with the note leading to direct mention and the direct mention leading to linked mentions. Rather this note is an attempt to LOCK(for the want of a better word) the content. To create a long lasting compromise between two opposing POv's and create a NPOV lede comprised of both version''  FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)(Edited 18 January)


 * Support: Please see the previous discussion given above, and the archived ones. Sources exist for all viewpoints and this has been a major point of contention. This note will be a major step forward in consensus creating and will allowthis article to gain some stability. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not think any Islamic sect considers Muhammad the founder of Islam. Instead, all Islamic sects acknowledge ancient prophets of Islam before Muhammad, so by definition he is only one in a series of Islamic religious figures. The only exception might be the sect of Alevism, which gives a divine status to Muhammad and fails to distinguish him from God Himself. In my opinion, a statement can possibly be added with a direct link to the Alevist concept of Haqq–Muhammad–Ali, so as to be more WP:NPOV than the current lede which seems biased towards Ahmadism. (Ahmadis considers Muhammad as a human, but nevertheless not as the final prophet, and that is WP:UNDUELY covered in the current lede.) Khestwol (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. If reliable sources are given for each view and none is a fringe view, I think the suggested change is a good WP:NPOV suggestion. Jeppiz (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Partial support. I support a note clarifying the distinction between prevailing Muslim and non-Muslim views on this point, but I haven't seen sourcing justifying discussion of the alternative view within either of these two groups. In Adil's book I see this statement only in the back cover description, which is normally written by the publisher rather than the author. Eperoton (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It doesn't matter what "some" muslims or non-muslims thinks. It is not way of writing that "non-muslims thinks XYZ" or "Muslims thinks XYZ". Not everyone has same perception of religion even if they belongs to same religion. We should look for what is written in religious book and interpretation of religious book by scholarly sources. Attribution should be given to "Islam". Means it should be written that "According to Islamic faith Muhammad is not founder of Islam....". I think that will be the better way of writing. But instead of writing it in "note", we can have such statement in lead itself.-- Human 3015   Let It Go   21:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. --92slim (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It is very dangerous to mix facts with beliefs. It is an historical fact that Muhammad was the founder of Islam. While it might be the belief amongst followers of Islam that Islam doesn't have a human founder as such, and that it is a renewed continuation of earlier beliefs, it is just that - a religious belief. As a belief this aspect of Muhammad should be explained in the context of detailing the beliefs of the group holding the beliefs. Historical facts detailing the foundation of a religion are different from the beliefs of that religion and need to be clearly distinguished from beliefs. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I think this proposal is good enough. I have no idea what would constitute an 'ideal' opening sentence for this article, so I'm ok with compromising on this suggestion for now. UBER  ( talk ) 23:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe If this is a significant view then a note is a good way to keep the majority view in the lead and still mention it without undue weight. I would be wary of using three different sources in the note though as that can lead to synthesis. If there is one reliable source that provides all three views that would be better. AIR corn (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As explained before and in agreement with, Muhammad is not considered the founder of Islam by any Muslim, even if a secondary source claims so, since that is against core Islamic beliefs. Note: Amina Adil is a Sufi theologian, so regardless of the this I don't think we can use her as the source for this claim. Sufis are heterodox in many matters. 92slim (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this sort of canvassing appropriate: ; ; ? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * [inserted 03:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)]
 * Whether or not it's canvassing depends on how and why those particular editors were chosen to receive the message. I'm willing to assume good faith for the time being, but I'll admit it does seem just a bit suspicious.  Perhaps  would be willingly to clarify it. Richard27182 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no Muslim editors voting so I think their opinion counts too. As for canvassing, User:Freeatlastchitchat did that here and in many other places and I have proof of that and the editors he is close with. The ones I called I contacted for the first time. 92slim (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @92slim You said 'As for canvassing, User:Freeatlastchitchat did that here'. My response is that you are a frigging liar. Yes you heard that right, you are a LIAR, now I just called you an imbecilic liar, so if you have 'ANY' Proof that I Canvassed anyone to this RFC present that proof, and if you do not have proof, shut the hell up and stop spreading lies. Kinda tired of these idiotic baseless accusations. @Richard27182 he went to my contributions page, noted the guys who had reverted me recently and then posted a msg on their talkpages. He can provide no other rationale for this blatant canvassing on his part. His statement that he canvassed "muslims" is also a complete lie as he canvassed D4iNa4, who has never told anyone that he is a muslim. So how does slim know that D4iNa4 is a muslim? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For one you wouldn't react like that if you weren't lying, lack of WP:CIVILITY shining through as a bonus here, would expect less. As for canvassing, I have the proof that you do but it's fruitless since I already reported you and we both got blocked. Admit it instead of being a pest, or have you forgot about this? You pinged all your stoolies mate, so better own up to it. As for this article, better check your email account and all that. Yeah. 92slim (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Those editors are random editors who edit from a pro Muslim POV, and usually they are Shia so I think it was necessary to call them here, since Freeatblabla likes to do the same. 92slim (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * [inserted 09:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)]
 * Pinging:
 * I had no idea what a can of worms I'd be opening just by commenting on Tiptoethrutheminefield's canvassing comment! I think the best way to avoid this kind of problem is to avoid inviting individual editors to participate in discussions/RfC's, and promote them in more general ways such as posting a neutrally worded notice in the Miscellaneous section of the Village Pump; that would eliminate any risk of being accused of canvassing, and would usually attract the attention of more editors as well. Richard27182 (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So 92slim has been canvassing editors that he asserts "edit from a pro Muslim POV". This is unfortunate - what we need are not editors who might be blinded by their religious dogma but editors who are free from any pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I was trying to teach to Freeatleastchitchat, but he doesn't even think that's canvassing; I guess it's not, if it doesn't even get reported. He must be right, after I exposed what he continually did, I guess. Nice joke. --92slim (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * [inserted 09:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)]
 * I appreciate that you apparently respect my opinion on this canvassing issue. But I think I would do well to stay out of that whole aspect of this RfC.  I would prefer to neither accuse nor defend anyone concerning canvassing, but to focus all my attention on the main subject matter (the lede of the  Muhammad article).  Just for the record, I am making the personal assumption that everyone has been acting in good faith. Richard27182 (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 92slim I have already asked you to provide the proof that you have of me canvassing people to this RFC. As you have provided no such proof and have been running your mouth off about canvassing, canvassing, canvassing, I hereby invoke my God given right to tell you to shut the fuck up. So please! be kind enough to Shut the Fuck up!. P.S I am still waiting for a single diff which shows that I canvassed anyone to this RFC. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You've done it before many times, with impunity, so it's all we need to suppose you would do it again, apart from the fact that you said that you would do it again. Again, you have no defense apart from insults, which show your intellectual level. This is all we need to know. Read preemptive war - it helps to fight against behaviour like yours. --92slim (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

*Oppose. For the same reasons as. Richard27182 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

[inserted 09:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)]
 * Qualified Support. I am changing my !vote because of the additional material added to the RfC question on January 16, 2016.  I believe this change to the RfC question totally changes the nature of the RfC.  As I understand it now, the purpose of the addition of the referenced note to the beginning of the lede is to reduce or eliminate the need to add anything more involved to the beginning.  My !vote should be construed primarily as opposition to adding anything more than the proposed referenced note. Richard27182 (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * CLARIFICATION: My "Support" !vote is to use a referenced note (not inline text (as seen when viewing the actual article)) at the beginning of the article to describe, to whatever extent necessary, the teachings and beliefs of the Moslem religion concerning Mohammed. It's not important to me what, or how much, or how little that material contains.  The important thing is that it be handled as a referenced note, not the actual text, being placed there at the beginning of the article.  The beginning of the article should be limited to a factual, historical, and secular description of the subject of the article. Richard27182 (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Khestwol. Proper Muslim opinion should be stated in the lede, not in a note, it is significant enough. --  Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  20:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * However, that "proper" Muslim "opinion" needs to be completely separated from historical facts as sourced in non-religious tracts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe Tiptoethrutheminefield is making a very important point here, and that that point is not getting the attention and consideration it deserves. Richard27182 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If we went by that logic, the first sentence in the lede for Jesus should be "there is no evidence Jesus existed at all". So I disagree. 92slim (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . As a matter of fact, I do seriously question whether Jesus existed at all.  To the best of my knowledge the only historical documentation of him is the Bible and, in my opinion, the Bible has so many self-contradictions that I don't consider it of much value as a historical reference.  But I'm getting way off topic here; what really needs to be done is to focus on the issue at hand, the Muhammad article, and specifically the issue this RfC is about: the opening sentence of the article's lede. Richard27182 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that unless it is a policy issue, referring to what other articles currently have or do not have, or do or do not do, is mostly pointless. What an article has as its content today could be edited out tomorrow. What we should be discussing here is just the content of THIS article. However, regarding articles on religion and religious beliefs in general, a policy discussion about the uses of religious tracts or discourses produced by the followers of that religion is needed, imho. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Tiptoethrutheminefield and Richard27182, I started this rfc to get a neutral NPOv version of lede in place. I am very fine with the current state of the lede however if we see the history, and you should see the history dating back to the time when the current lede was not in place, you will see that the lede gave a fully POV text saying that he is considered the founder by "non-believers" or in some edits it was non muslims. And then went on to state that he is not considered the founder by Muslims. If this RFc fails then the ones who have been inserting that kind of POV into the lede will once again be back to re insert it into the article, therefore I have started this rfc as aa compromise in order to get some sort of stability back into the article. Seeing that this article is viewed by a lot of people it is kinda bad that it lacks the basic stability of a simple wikipedia article. So please be kind enough to review the history of the article and perhaps you can change your vote. I am writing this just to clarify that I am in no hurry to change the current version of the lede and it appears very much NPOV to me, and to clearup any misunderstanding that may have occurred due to me creating this rfc. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware that I am voting against an option that is also opposed by editors whose own options (if they were to be presented) I am certain that I (and probably Richard27182 too, I think) would be obliged to even more strongly oppose. But I can only vote on the option that is presented. My response was based on observations on the wording (and often the very existence) of other articles on religious subjects rather than a detailed look at the edit history of this article. Maybe I'm guilty of wanting things to be the ideal option rather than accepting what might be the best option that is actually obtainable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ping:
 * &emsp;Please correct me if I'm wrong, FreeatlastChitchat; but my understanding of what you're writing is that there has been a history of conflict between editors who want the article to begin more or less as it currently does and those who want "" And that the reason you started this RfC was (in my own words) more or less to establish a consensus on a compromise to prevent the more radical (for lack or a better word) language from coming back in.  Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. &emsp;Assuming I'm interpreting things correctly, I would say a serious flaw with the RfC as it currently stands is the ambiguity of an "Oppose" !vote.  An editor may Oppose because he feels the proposed language change is too much; or he may Oppose because he feels it doesn't go far enough.  So if we end up with a consensus for "Oppose," it would not be clear if the consensus was opposed to making any change at all, or opposed to making a small change instead of making a big change.  And if the RfC consensus is "Support," that could be seen by some as the first step toward bringing back the more "radical" language. &emsp;I could possibly support this RfC if a "Support" !vote specifically meant something like "include the referenced note but do not go any further than that."  But as I see it, whichever way the final result goes, I don't see it as establishing an actual consensus against reintroduction of the more "radical" language.  Perhaps an additional option could be added to allow participants to make their overall feelings more clear.  Aside from that, I'm afraid I really can't think of any constructive suggestions. Richard27182 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping:  Added clarification. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * [inserted 09:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)]''
 * Ping:
 * &emsp;Taking into consideration the recent addition made to the definition of this RfC, I believe I will feel comfortable changing my !vote to a qualified Support; but I will emphasize in my posting that my support is totally dependent on the idea of the proposed change to the article being strictly limited to "[ING]...........". And that I am opposed to anything more than a referenced note. I am not making the change right now because it is late and I must be getting to bed for a very busy day tomorrow; but I will make the change by the middle of the week. &emsp;If I may make a suggestion, I believe it would be a good idea to ping every editor who has contributed so far to notify them that there has been some additional language added to the original RfC. Richard27182 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Really? Jesus article, unrelated, Tiptoe? Why don't we post the fact that there is no proof Muhammad existed either? Come on. It is a fact too. Oh, and dear skeptics, please post it in the lede too. --92slim (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

*Comment Strong Oppose - "founder" should not be mentioned in the lede. I think "central figure" suffices as neutral enough. The Muslim perspective should also be mentioned. We can also see in the Jesus article that the lede primarily focuses on the Christian perspective. Xtremedood (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tiptoethrutheminefield. Hunc (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Xtremedood Oh My GOD please do not ever compare the two articles. The Jesus article has 45% christian views, 22% MUSLIM views and about 33% academic views in the lede according to word count. While this article has almost 86% muslim views and 12% academics, and we are now fighting over the remaining two percent. So are we ready to let in 22% views from another religion into the lede? I am not. Are you? If not then, shush please, lest someone hears and inserts the said views into the lede. Best way is to delete your comment and this reply alongwith it before anyone else reads it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are incorrect. The Jesus article relies heavily on Christian scripture, whereas this article is primarily Western sources, such as Watt, Lewis, etc. Your numbers are baseless. Xtremedood (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Xtremedood so according to you it quite OK to insert christian view into the lede and give it 20% space? Would you be kind enough to insert it? You do know what the christian view is right? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument does not hold weight. Jesus (AS) is mentioned in the Quran and Muslims accept Jesus (AS) as a figure in Islam. Whereas there is no universally accepted position of the holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in Christianity (there are however perspectives from people who happen to be Christian), since the Bible was published several hundred years prior to the holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) being physically born in this world. Some Unitarian Christians also accept the holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as a true man of God. Xtremedood (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Xtremedood Now you're just pushing POV. Your argument is that "we should not mention christian views because they do not believe in him as a prophet". This violates almost every wikipedia policy on balance and weight that there is. so please stop comparing the two topics. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Chitchat, I am pretty sure that you got your calculator from a toy store. The ratios you came up with are utterly wrong. The lede in Jesus article is composed of 4 paragraphs: 3 of them are totally Christian views, and one only (the last one) is an inaccurate selection of Muslim and Jewish views. There is no mention, for example, of Judaism's orthodox views which maintain that Jesus was born of adultery and that Jesus died by stoning. There is no mention, also for example, of Islam's orthodox views which maintain that Jesus was sent only to bring the Good News about the Advent of Muhammad. There is no mention, also for example, of the Academic established views which maintain that the Christian version of Jesus is no different than the pagan idols in Ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt. In comparison, the lede in this article here is totally composed of inaccurate historical information about Muhammad (based on the inaccurate works of the western orientalists). There is no mention of the Muslim views at all except in the very short sentence saying that "Muslims believe Muhammad to be the last prophet". while in Jesus article there are 3 full paragraphs telling "what Christian believe about Jesus", here there is not even one single paragraph (only one sentence). Moreover, the body of the Jesus article is heavily focused on the Christian tradition "gospel accounts". Here in this article, the body is heavy focused on the inaccurate works of the western oriantalists. For example, all of "Isra and Miraj" paragraph is given for the western oriantalists.--2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Alternative sentence: "Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam, in the same Abrahamic series as Moses and Jesus." c Ө de1+6 TP  13:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: after the last change by the OP to his original suggestion, the RfC has become confusing for me. But I still strongly oppose adding the phrase He is considered by some Muslims to be the founder Islam into anywhere in the article (whether lede, or note section). No Islamic sect (not even Ahmadism) says so. So the phrase the OP wants to insert into the article is simply false. Khestwol (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, what?! I also strongly oppose the "some muslims" bit! Didnt know that was being proposed. c Ө de1+6 TP  20:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For the same reasons mentioned by . 11:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Comment: It is inappropriate to cite the Muslim belief in Muhammad's pre-existence in order to attest the non-Muslim belief in Muhammad being the founder of Islam. While Amina Adile, the Muslim theologian cited by the original poster, believe that Muhammad was God's first creation, she doesn't say anywhere that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Islam doesn't have a human founder. It is also inappropriate to say that Muhammad is regarded by non-Muslims to be the founder of Islam because the non-Muslim views on Muhammad differ from one person to another. Stating that "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam" is quite sufficient and neutral.--91.184.194.173 (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * whoa, ok, agree with IP 91.184.194.173 as well, this "pre-existence" business is totally fringe. c Ө de1+6 TP  13:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support I'd change the 'founder' with central figure and viewed as the final prophet of Islam, with plentiful citations.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: We have an ongoing RfC, so could everybody please respect that and let RfC run its course. Xtremedood's latest edit was not helpful and has been reverted. Once the RfC finishes, we'll use the version decided upon. Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the current version was not decided upon. Xtremedood (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: called by bot. I have no strong feelings about this either way - I honestly think that including or excluding this phrase makes little difference. But I'd like to note that the entirety of the first paragraph of the lead, if we omit the statement "widely regarded to have founded Islam," conveys they same point. The last sentence of the first paragraph in particular is another way of saying that Muhammad founded Islam. Including the additional statement is therefore unnecessary, perhaps even redundant. -Darouet (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose: As Darouet states, the current lead appears to be sufficient. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 09:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I find both the current and the proposed version unsatisfactory. The current wording is very weaselly, and the new version hardly an improvement. I would suggest something like "Muhammed was a historical figure who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic doctrine, he is considered the prophet of god." This is straightforward statement of fact, and avoids the hedging that is currently going on. I think Tiptoethrutheminefield is making a similar point above.Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. It's obviously needed to satisfy the religious views of people who aren't here to edit due to difficulty of a foreign language. --BurtReynoldsy (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Qualified Support. It is only the second comment that needs to be stated, and it should go in the body not in a footnote according to MOS:LEAD ("summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies".) However "other Muslims [think] he should not be called the founder as in their view Islam is the first primordial faith given by God and has no human founder" is not enough, because it doesn't say what they regard Muhammad as. A suitably revised version of this comment belongs in the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I don't think that there should be a separate note. Both the secular and religious points of view could expressed in the lede without having to determine which is correct. Might I suggest something like:
 * Muḥammad is an important figure in Islam. Known to Muslims as the "Holy Prophet" and considered by most of them to be the last prophet sent by God to mankind to restore Islam, which they believe to be the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Secularly, Muhammad is viewed as the founder of Islam. He united Arabia into a single Muslim polity and ensured that his teachings, practices, and the Quran, which Muslims believe was revealed to him by God, formed the basis of Islamic religious belief. Louieoddie (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be a preferable to keep everything inline. However, your second sentence lacks a clear grammatical subject. It should perhaps start 'Known to Muslims as the "Holy Prophet" he is considered...' or be recast some other way. William Avery (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per all the above.VictoriaGraysonTalk</b> 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove 'founder of islam' reference
I have debated beforehand that Muhammad is quite far from being 'widely considered' the founder of Islam, at least not by Muslims authors and society in general (which represent 1.6 billion people in the world). There are only a handful Muslims, mostly authors from the UK and Pakistan (non scholars of Islam) who consider him the 'founder of Islam' and I urge you to prove it otherwise; of all the sources found, most are from encyclopedias and books on terrorism, and a few from Christian authors. This induces a Christian POV into the text. I suggest removing the phrase, for the sake of the article itself. Note: Jesus is never considered the founder of Christianity, for example, since these people are considered prophets of religion and not founders, and whoever says otherwise is inadvertently adding a point of view which doesn't fit with the style of the text. --92slim (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you are playing a numbers-game, there are almost three times as many non-Muslims walking the planet who consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam. Ergo, according to YOUR game of semantics, it is the majority consensus in the world that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. This is not a "Christian POV" as you state, but an academic one. And not sure who is giving you your (mis)information, but all Christians believe Jesus founded Christianity, and it even says so clearly here on Wikipedia that Jesus founded the church. I appreciate that you brought the topic here for discussion, but it is beyond settled at this point.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. Can you prove that the 5 billion+ non-Muslims all consider Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the founder? That's like saying that the 5 billion+ non-Christians of the world consider Jesus (A) to be the founder of Christianity, which is unproven and not true. Xtremedood (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I must say I find 92slim's comments bordering on the offensive. Constantly dragging up the alleged "Christian POV" is just ridiculous. Sure, Christians no doubt think Muhammad was the founder of Islam. So do Hindus, and Buddhists, and Jews, and Jainists, not to mention atheists. There's not "Christian" about it. And the claim that he is generally considered the founder of Islam is perfectly accurate. Jeppiz (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The premise isn't accepted by anyone outside that narrow subset, and to be honest... From the textual and archaeological record, it's been reliably demonstrated ad infinitum by scholars to not be the case. With all due respect, of course, to those who still choose to believe it. This makes it a specifically religious belief, and one that is mentioned in the article, with the proper weight. So claims that it's a "Christian" POV are incredulous, given that it's the POV of everyone in the world outside of one specific group of people. Requests like this are clearly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, stemming from a system bias some editors have, pure and simple. The guiding principle here is WP:RNPOV. That being said, this isn't a religion-specific issue, and can be found in numerous subject areas. We go with the factual consensus of the preponderance of reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't censor itself for the benefit of any group, whether it be advocates of homeopathic medicine, or a group of religious practitioners. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with Trinacrialucente and Jeppiz here. The argument that Muhammad was not the founder of Islam is a purely theological one, based on the supposition that all prophetic figures throughout history preached a doctrine in perfect agreement with his (though later corrupted), and is one that is specific to believing practitioners of Islam.
 * Your comment is purely POV with no source or reasoning in it. The consensus among reliable scholars of comparative religion is that the Message of Muhammad confirms the one identical message of all Abrahamic prophets of Islam. Muhammad sealed these prophets just as the Black Stone (which is the heavenly stone) sealed the rest of the (earthly stones) in the Ka'aba. Moses' message was (Deuteronomy 6:4) "O Israel! the Lord our God is one lord". Jesus' message was (Mark 12:29) "O Israel! the Lord our God is one lord", and Muhammad's message was (Farewell Sermon) "O Mankind! the Lord our God is one lord".--Spring 857 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the above user was blocked indefinitely for trying to push a religious POV at various articles. I've personally only ever seen the Shema mined and used this way in the realm of apologetics; it's rather tenuous to suggest a positive correlation and a "proof" of some divine providence simply because a quote is re-used. I have studied comparative religion academically (and hold a degree in it to boot), and there is no such consensus among Religious Studies scholars; that's a completely disingenuous and dare I say, fraudulent statement.
 * Since I've been asked twice now what I meant, I'll make a simple illustration of the varying historiography in the analogy drawn by the user: only Islamic historiography regards the Ka'aba as being plausibly constructed by the figure of Abraham, if he is indeed historical, given that no documentation placing him in the Arabian peninsula exists prior to the preaching of Muhammad; there is literature placing him in traditionally Nabaetean lands (the Transjordan and the like), however, and of course of Ishmael being the founder of the Arab tribes (enumerated as twelve in the Genesis account, and obviously meant to be analogous to the Twelve Tribes of Israel). It's also noted that stones effigies, especially black meteorites, were a common feature of pre-monotheistic Arab religion (the episode of Elagabalus being a prime example). This isn't speaking to the falsity of anyone's beliefs. As I said earlier. Just noting that there are conflicts in the chronology and localised theology (of the Israelite/Judahite prophets, for example), and an absence of sources attesting to what is later claimed. As always, people can readily reconcile such things with their religious beliefs, especially if they frame it in the context of a restoration of things 'forgotten' or 'corrupted'. Archaeologically, there's no evidence of non-Judaic monotheism in the Arabian peninsula prior to the Christians and Manicheans, though scholars agree that there was likely a quasi-monotheistic nucleus from which Muhammad drew in Mecca. This isn't a forum, so 'nuff said on that front. Should be noted, however, that the consensus of scholars is not a "Christian" one, as was repeatedly said, but a secular and an empirical one. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I too thoroughly disagree that calling Mohammed the founder of Islam is a Christian POV.  If one absolutely must see it as a biased POV, at least be more accurate and call it a secular POV.  Personally, I consider it to be NPOV. Richard27182 (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I believe that the reference to Mohammed as being widely regarded as the founder of Islam is neutral in its POV and is supported by reliable sources.  I oppose its removal from the article. Richard27182 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's common parlance for "founder" to mean the person with whom a movement or institution started. In this case, that Islam started with Muhammad is not debated. -- DanielKlotz (talk ·  contribs) 13:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - Granted this is going to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I don't see a rational against using the exact same language found at Jesus Christ (i.e. "Jesus .... is the central figure of Christianity"). That said, I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with the word "founder", and I'd suggest the nom here simply provide references/sources we can look at to determine what the most common language is. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)+


 * Strong Support - "Central Figure" is neutral enough. "Widely considered" is not justified by the sources, nor is it an established idea that warrants being included in the lede in the manner it is currently in. The term "widely considered" is also far too general. The fact that other similar articles, such as Jesus, do not include the term 'founder' in such a context adds to the justification for its removal. Xtremedood (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Uber Strong Popeye on fortified Spinach OPPOSE The suggestion is not NPOV, rather it is highly POV. This appears to be a kneejerk reaction to the consensus being reached above that the lede is fine "as it is now". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: remove the word "founder" from the lede, to make the wording consistent with other articles about prophets of Abrahamic religions (see Jesus and Moses etc). Khestwol (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The analogy with Jesus and Moses is relevant, but the opposite of what some users say. The Christian POV is that Jesus founded Christianity, the Jewish POV is that Moses founded Judaism. Mainstream Academia rejects both views, considering Jesus a historical person but not intent on founding any religion and doubting Moses even existed. For Muhammad, the Muslim POV is that Muhammad did not found Islam, while Mainstream Academia considers him the founder. So to say we should not say founder here because we don't say it for Jesus and Moses is in effect to say that since we follow mainstream academia for Jesus and Moses (we don't term them founders), we should not follow mainstream academia. I think it's relevant to compare with the articles Jesus and Moses, but since each religion has different beliefs, the comparison should not focus on whether we say "founder" or not. The relevant comparison is whether we follow mainstream academia or the view of the "believers". For Jesus and Moses, we report the mainstream academic view. I see no reason why we should do the opposite here, and the mainstream academic view is that Muhammad founded Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Falsifying the views of mainstream academia in your comments and contributions is quite evident. Please refrain in the future from repeating the same bad-faith behavior. Your comment doesn't represent the views of any reliable source. Instead, it only represent your own biased and unreliable POV. Concerning the Jesus article, everyone can see that the opening paragraph in it is totally Christian POV (focused on what Christians believe Jesus is). Concerning This article, mainstream academia don't consider the Prophet Muhammad to be the founder of Islam as User:Spring 857 recently pointed out to the fact that you and some other POV deceptive editors have falsified the content of two sources in order to support your POV false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Attempting to use an RFC to push a religious dogmatic POV is uncompelling and borderline bad faith. Resolute 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Attempting to falsify the content of two sources in order to push a biased dogmatic POV is uncompelling and a very clear bad faith.--2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose What is it with you people claiming other articles of "Abrahamic faiths" do not mention founders? I <B>JUST</B> cited and linked the article on Jesus which (once again) says CLEARLY Jesus founded the church.  It takes 30 seconds to verify this instead of repeating a lie.Trinacrialucente (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We also don't have any problem at all in saying that Muhammad founded the Ummah. Also, if you want to make a good comparison, the lead in Jesus article is focused on telling "what Christian believe" while here the article is not focused on telling what Muslims believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per multiple editors, especially Jeppiz, who has this right on the mark. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Men make religions to remember God then it goes pear shaped. Like Jesus, the religion came after, Mohammads not to blame <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 08:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per all the above.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose -per previous discussion. Muhammad is clearly the founder of Islam, and unless we assume the Quran is inaccurate, intentionally so. -OpenFuture (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Support there are prophets before Muhammad in Islamic thought Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

° Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, he is just a model figure for it. Allah is the creator of Islam. Plz change it...NimXaif6290 17:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrainayat6290 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment I go to an article about a belief system largely to find out what the adherents of that belief do believe. Therefore to not record that Muslims do not believe that Islam had any human founder or creator, and briefly why, is failing to inform me. It is equally a fact that most non-Muslims do regard him as founder, in the ordinary sense of the word. I do not know precisely how a balance be struck between those two positions but it should not be impossible to record 'what people believe' and 'what is commonly seen as' by non-believers. Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Traditional sources dictate"
I agree with 's proposal to reword this passage "According to traditional sources". "Claim" runs afoul of WP:SAY and it's even hard to tell whether or not "dictate" does too, because it just isn't idiomatic English. Sources can "dictate" a choice, but not a proposition. Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO, "dictate" seems weird when talking about old documents, so, if "claim" is an issue to some, then I would definitely go with "According to traditional sources" instead. Dhrm77 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dhrm77 here. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Widely regarded as the founder?
Why does the article not simply say that he is the founder? Is there any doubt whatsoever that he is the founder of the religion? --Oddeivind (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Because he is regarded as the founder mainly because of Western historians, and he is not regarded as the founder based on Muslim historians and Muhammad himself. So "widely regarded as its founder" is a good phrase right in the middle. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency in age of death
With a year of birth of c. 570, and a year of death of 632, the infobox calculates an age of death of 61-62. However, in the few sources I saw, including the main article itself, he is reported to have died at the age of 63. I am not an expert about Muhammad. I don't know which source on this subject is considered reliable. Can an expert on the subject fix this? Dhrm77 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All that inconsistency comes from his birth which occurred during Year of the Elephant Wikipedia chooses the c.570 C.E. route to keep consistency. His age of death is around 62 years old. 63 meanings the Year of Elephant was on 569. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it be correct to say that not all the days of 570CE match the Year of the Elephant? If so, then it is possible that, according to traditions, Muhammad died in fact at the age of 63, and was therefore born in 569CE?
 * My point is, even if most days of the Year of the Elephant fall in 570CE, if specifying a birth year of 570CE makes the template calculate an age of date wrong, then we should probably change the western version of the year of birth. Dhrm77 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we don't know exactly, we just know it is around 570, that is why we have circa. Also you have to note that the age of 63 is a common age of Muhammad when he died in Islamic sources which uses the Lunar Calendar, there might be inconsistency because we use Solar Calendar here. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * His lunar age was 63 years. By solar years (which are on average 11 days longer than lunar years), his age was less than 63. Khestwol (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the islamic lunar year is always 12 moon cycles, it lasts 12*29.53 days or 354.36 days. So, 63 lunar years would be 61.12 solar years. Now if we broaden the meaning of "63 years" to 62.9 to 63.9 years because of likely rounding, we get 61.02 to 61.99 years. So Muhammad would have lived 61-62 solar years (or probably died in his 62nd year). Would that be the consensus?
 * If so, can we add "(solar)" and "(lunar)" in relevant places to clear out the apparent confusion? Dhrm77 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this discussion:Talk:Muhammad/Archive 30.  AstroLynx is claiming that there is no consensus to write "AD 570" as the birth year.   We know he died on Monday, 8 June AD 632, which is 12 Rabi' I, AH 11.   He was born in the Year of the Elephant.   Most sources assign this year to AD 570.   Most sources give his age at death as 63, which will be lunar years as Muslims use a lunar calendar.   The day of the week and the date enable us to pinpoint his birthday to Monday, 12 Rabi' I BH 53 in the lunar calendar in use at that time (which kept the months fixed relative to the seasons), which is 2 June 570.   His age in lunar months at death was exactly 767 which, converted to the fixed - length lunar year introduced by Omar, is 63 years 11 months.   I propose that in the infobox we give his dates as 2 June 570 - 8 June 632.   His age at death will then automatically appear as "62".   Dhrm77's proposal is defective because it doesn't take account of the nasi which was inserted throughout Muhammad's life until he cancelled it at the Farewell Pilgrimage.
 * AstroLynx points to sources which suggest alternative dates for the Year of the Elephant, but he is wrong to deduce from that that the AD 570 birth date is unreliable.  It is independently verified by what we know about other things in his life, for example Ali and Khadija's dates and the date of the Call to Prophethood, which can be pinpointed astronomically.   We also have his age at death discussed above.   He cites two books which are referenced in de:wp:


 * M J Kister, "The Campaign of Huluban: A New Light on the Expedition of Abraha", Le Museon 78 (1965), pp 425 - 436


 * Lawrence I Conrad, "Abraha and Muhammad: Some Observations Apropos of Chronology and Literary Topoi in the Early Arabic Historical Tradition", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 50 (1987), pp 225 - 240.

The German article says these sources date the Year of the Elephant to 547 or 552. However, Kister refers to a tradition that Muhammad was born 23 years after the "Expedition of the Elephant", and 547 + 23 = again 570, so AstroLynx's objection does not stand up. 86.160.51.6 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wives
The placement of the section

"These marriages were contracted mostly for political or humanitarian reasons. The women were either widows of Muslims killed in battle and had been left without a protector, or belonged to important families or clans whom it was necessary to honor and strengthen alliances with.[249]"

after discussing the marriages to Sawda bint Zama and Aisha not before implies that those marriages after Sawda bint Zama and Aisha were for political or humanitarian reasons and the marriages to Sawda bint Zama and Aisha were not. Is this intentional or just poor placement? Sawda bint Zama was a widow and nn the page about Aisha her marriage to Muhammad is referred to several times as having political significance and there are several references supporting this view. Perhaps this section should be moved to follow after the death of Khadijah bint Khuwaylid or corrected to: "These marriages and those to Sawda bint Zama and Aisha were contracted mostly for political or humanitarian reasons. The women were either widows of Muslims killed in battle and had been left without a protector, or belonged to important families or clans whom it was necessary to honor and strengthen alliances with.[249]"

Thoughts? NickPriceNZ (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversed the meaning of cited source
In this edit, did the following: I reverted that edit with a request to support the changes on this talk page. That didn't happen; instead, Xtremedood reverted back.
 * Reversed the meaning of a sentence cited to Lewis, that is, changed this: "Economically uprooted with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with Mecca" to this: "After the Muslim had moved to Medina, the Meccan pagans turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with the Muslims" (notwithstanding the nonsensical part in the middle about Meccans raiding Meccans).
 * Removed a relevant sourced statement "According to Watt, the change may have been less sudden and definite than the story suggests – the related Quranic verses (–) appear to have been revealed at different times – and correlates with changes in Muhammad's political support base, symbolizing his turning away from Jews and adopting a more Arabian outlook."

Because this is a 1RR article, I am requesting here an explanation for those two rather significant changes. I do not have the Lewis source, so I cannot check it, but it seems odd to me that the meaning of a statement would be changed to the opposite. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The introduction of the new source clearly indicates that the raids were started by the Meccan Pagans. I have added a quote for further clarification. As for Watt's perspective on the change of prayer direction, this is a POV of the author and focusing on one point of view is not encyclopedic. Xtremedood (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Focusing on the point of view of that obscure source you introduced is even less encyclopedic. At least Watt is a widely recognized historian. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, Lewis writes: "The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be wholly dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its exercise. Raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war." He doesn't seem to say explicitly how this state of war came about.
 * This is obviously a complex and controversial issue, and I think there's room to reflect a greater diversity of perspectives, including Islamic perspectives, perhaps using more careful phrasing and putting some details in a footnote. What I'm not clear about is the nature of this new source. There are hundreds of modern biographies of Muhammad written by Muslims, dozens of them by leading Islamic scholars and public intellectuals. I can't find any information about Afzalur Rahman. Who is he, and how do we know his view is significant enough to be featured here? Eperoton (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Watt writes: "In the raids the Muslims were taking the offensive. Muhammad cannot have failed to realize that, even if the raids were only slightly successful, the Meccans were bound to attempt reprisals. In these little raids, then, he was deliberately challenging and provoking the Meccans. In our peace-conscious age it is difficult to understand how a religious leader could thus engage in offensive war and become almost an aggressor. The first thing to be said in explanation of Muhammad's behaviour is that the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life. It was a kind of sport rather than war. [...]" A lengthy analysis follows. Eperoton (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Al-Dawoody discusses various views on these: (ref to Firestone) "first, the emigrants saw that the Meccans’ caravans were lucrative targets and second, and more importantly, he adds, contradicting his earlier portrayal of the Muslims as initiators of aggression, that the emigrants sought revenge because “they had been treated so abusively by their own Meccan kith and kin.” He also admits that Muslims “avoided physical aggression at almost any cost and suffered physical and emotional abuse as a consequence.”..." and in another instance "Armstrong accepts the idea that the Muslims resorted to the then “national sport” of ghazw against the caravans of the Meccans because the Meccans persecuted and expelled them from their homes." and, "The alleged intention of the Muslims to take the property of a Quraysh caravan in compensation for the property they had been forced to leave in Mecca was met by Abū Jahl’s determination to prove the unchallengeable". He also has an extensive discussion on ghazw in Arab history.
 * 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Watt also highlights the element of revenge: "The Emigrants went on razzias because they thought they had been badly treated by their fellow-Meccans." I've rounded up other major academic sources, and I feel compelled to quote them here because the variety in their ways of telling and analyzing this sequence of events makes it extremely difficult to reflect the range of views adequately in the article. A couple of things seem clear enough, though: the current sentence oversimplies what we get in the RSs and there is no suggestion of the Meccans initiating the armed conflict.

He was soon drawn into an armed struggle with Quraysh, perhaps for control of the trade-routes, and in the course of the struggle the nature of the community was shaped. They came to believe that it was necessary to fight for what was right: 'when Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected his gracious purpose. . . He gave permission to His apostole to fight and protect himself'. Albert Hourani. A History of the Arab Peoples, p. 18.

Why did Muhammad take up arms? Leaving aside the vexed question of the vulnerability of Medina to its powerful neighbour, we can be fairly sure that Muhammad wished his followers to be able to worship in Mecca or its environs, perhaps especially on the hills of Marwa and al-Safa', which, as much as or even more than the Kaaba itself, were integral to early Islamic ritual. Perhaps this wish, combined with the powerfully activist nature of his belief, led Muhammad to begin hostilities soon after the hijra. p.190 Chase F. Robinson, in New Cambridge History of Islam

Beyond Medina the most determined opponents of Muhammad’s efforts to extend his influence and his message were his erstwhile fellow citizens, the Quraysh of Mecca. Mecca and Medina became locked in an intense struggle to win over other towns and groups of nomads, a struggle in which Mecca, with its established commercial and tribal ties, initially appeared to have the advantage. Muhammad, however, launched raids against Meccan caravans, seizing valuable booty and hostages, and, more important, disrupting the commercial lifeblood of Mecca. p. 10 Fred Donner, in Oxford History of Islam

When visiting the holy places in and around Mecca became a duty of the Muslims, it became inevitable that some way would have to be found for them to gain entrance to the sacred territory from which they were excluded (XXII, 25 f.). Since some peaceful agreement appeared most unlikely, the result was the inevitable necessity of forcing admission to Mecca. The Prophet also had an account to settle with the Meccans, for by expelling him they had triumphed over him in the eyes of the world and the punishment repeatedly threatened upon them, partly in the form of the stereotyped retribution of the godless in the "punishment stories", had not materialised. This led to a new divine command, referred to in the Sira literature as "permission to fight" the polytheists. The Helpers had pledged themselves to defend Muhammad only if he were attacked, and the merchants of Mecca were not inclined to oblige him by initiating hostilities. The Emigrants had not pledged to fight, and it went very much against their feelings as Meccans to fight members of their tribe and blood relations. [...] After he had sent different men with small armed forces who did not succeed in encountering the enemy, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Nakhla [...], where they succeeded in capturing a caravan. One of the Meccans was killed, however, and, although possibly unplanned, the fighting took place during the month of Radjab, one of the sacred months in which all fighting was forbidden. The rich plunder was taken to Medina, where in the meanwhile a storm of indignation had broken out. The people eventually accepted the tragedy, after being calmed by the revelation of II, 217. (F. BUHL-[A.T. WELCH]) "Muhammad", Brill Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed.

Always commanding the Muslims to turn the other cheek when they were in Mecca, God now allowed them to stand up for their rights: "Permission has been given to those who fight because they have been wronged. Indeed God is most able to give them succour; those who were driven from their homes unjustly, for but saying ‘Our lord is God’. And if God did not repel one group of people with another, monasteries, temples and places of kneeling where God’s name is mentioned would be destroyed." (Quran 22:39–40) The Muslims soon began raiding Meccan caravans, and Muhammad began pursuing alliances with other Arab tribes, both Muslim and pagan. pp. 30-31 Jonathan A.C Brown. Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford.

One of Muḥammad's moves early on in Medina was to organize raids (ghazw) against his own tribe and its allies. [...] Although the significance of the raids has been debated, with some designating them as mere Arab “sport,” other analysts of Muḥammad's political strategy view them as part of a larger mission to liberate Mecca for the believers in order to establish the religion of the one true God. Muḥammad did not personally participate in all of the raids, and on one such occasion, at Nakhlah, his followers engaged in a skirmish, in spite of Muḥammad's instruction to merely scout, which resulted in the shedding of Meccan blood at the hands of Muslims in one of the four “Sacred Months.” Although Muḥammad is said to have been aggrieved by the incident, the Qurʾān legitimized the action by stating that “oppression is worse than slaughter” (2:191). The Qurʾān further empowered Muḥammad and the believers to engage in armed conflict because “they had been wronged” (3:195, 22:39). Mahan Mirza, "Muhammad", The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics

I'll give myself and others a chance to process this before suggesting how to handle this in the article. Eperoton (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Based on this, I think we can safely ignore the opinions of Xtremedood's non-notable source. The best way to treat this would be to omit any mention of who initiated the conflict; it is enough to say that there was a conflict between Meccans and Muslims, and perhaps describe some key events. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This current article, is largely written from the perspectives of orientalists. To put the ideas of orientalists over the 1400 year old research of non-orientalist academics, thinkers and writers of the Mid-East is highly biased. I think it is important to take into consideration these perspectives, as to get closer to neutrality. I also do not see it as a non-notable source as well, since the author has authored a variety of publications which have been well-received. Xtremedood (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out repeatedly, it's clear that Xtremedood is not here to build and encyclopaedia but to right great wrongs. I would ignore it, just revert and take any further violations directly to ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, I agree that this article should also reflect Islamic or non-Western perspectives, but we need to distinguish several different issues here. First, statements of fact have to be sourced by mainstream (i.e., secular) academic sources, while religious sources can be used as RSs for beliefs and viewpoints. Secondly, NPOV requires reflecting views in proportion to their prominence in RSs, and it so happens that Western universities and publishers like Oxford and Cambridge are the most influential academic players worldwide. This may lead to some cultural bias (though these publishers give voice to many more authors connected with Islam through cultural or religious background than they used to), but that's a side-effect of following NPOV. Thirdly, to reflect non-Western perspectives, we need to make sure that we are doing so appropriately. I find this challenging, both because with books published in some Muslim-majority countries, and especially on this topic, it can be difficult to distinguish secular history from religious history, and because it's more difficult to figure out "significance" of the source. If you have credentials for the author you cited or reviews of his work, please share them.
 * I'll make my own attempt to gather some significant Islamic viewpoints: 1) Muhammad Husayn Haykal, a leading Egyptian public intellectual in the first half of the 20th century, whose biography of Muhammad "attempted to synthesize Islamic piety and “scientific” historical method", per The Oxford Dictionary of Islam; 2) Mohammed al-Ghazali, "arguably one of the two or three most influential Sunnī Islamic thinkers of the twentieth century" per The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World; 3) Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, whose book is cited by The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World in its article on Muhammad with a note that it represents a "devout and traditional perspective on Muḥammad's life"; 4) Tariq Ramadan, who probably needs no introduction. Here are the relevant portions, conveniently available in English:

The majority of historians think that the Muslims, led by Muhammad, thought of avenging themselves on the Quraysh and of declaring war against them. [...] That by means of these raids, [...] the Muslims sought to wage war against Quraysh and to attack its caravans is an opinion which cannot be accepted without hesitation and scrutiny. [... analysis ...] It is more likely, therefore, that these early expeditions had only psychic objectives, and were meant to press home to the Quraysh the realization that their own interest demanded that they come into some kind of understanding with the Muslims. [...] Rather than to bring war and hostility, these expeditions were intended to put an end to the old hostility, to guarantee to the Muslims the feedom they sought for calling men to their religion and to ensure for Makkah the security it needed for its caravans to al Sham. The Life of Muhammad. Muhammad Husayn Haykal pp. 258-260

The wisdom behind sending out these expeditions in succession can be summarized in two points. Firstly, it made the idolaters and Jews of Madinah and the desert Arabs around it feel that the Muslims were strong and that they had overcome their former weakness, that weakness which enabled the Quraish in Makkah to put a ban on their beliefs and liberties and seize their homes and properties. [...] Secondly, those expeditions were a warning to the Quraish of the consquences of their folly [in opposing Islam and persecuting Muslims] Fiqh al-Sira. Mohammed al-Ghazali pp. 238-239

Provocative actions continued and Quraish sent the Muslims a note threatening to put them to death in their own homeland. Those were not mere words, for the Prophet (Peace be upon him) received information from reliable sources attesting to real intrigues and plots being hatched by the enemies of Islam. [...] At this precarious juncture, with Quraish intent on pursuing their aggressive and devilish plans, Allâh, the All-High, gave the Muslims the permission to take arms against the disbelievers: [...] The permission to fight was already there, but in the light of the status quo, it was wise for the Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah under their control. [...] With a view to implementing these plans, the Muslims commenced real military activities, which at first took the form of reconnaissance patrols delegated to explore the geopolitical features of the roads surrounding Madinah and others leading to Makkah, and building alliances with the tribes nearby. The Prophet wanted to impress upon the polytheists and Jews of Madinah as well as the bedouins in its vicinity, that the Muslims had smashed their old fears, and had been too strong to be attacked with impunity. He also wanted to display the power of his followers in order to deter Quraish from committing any military folly against him which might jeopardize their economic life and means of living, and to stop them from persecuting the helpless Muslims detained in Makkah, consequently he would avail himself of this opportunity and resume his job of propagating the Divine Call freely. The Sealed Nectar. Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. p. 91-92

Some of the Quraysh went further and even decided, in violation of the honor code respected by all the clans in the peninsula, to seize the property and belongings the emigrants had left behind in Mecca. When they heard of this behavior, which was considered shameful and cowardly, the Prophet and the Muslims who had settled in Medina were angry. It was decided, six months after their exile, that they would attack the Meccan caravans passing near Medina in order to take back the equivalent of their belongings expropriated in Mecca. Ramadan, Tariq. In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad (p. 96). Oxford University Press.


 * I'll take another breather before attempting to put this all together. Eperoton (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Good work dude. I'll support the addition of these details, they definitely help the article clear up a controversial point. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 00:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Relatives and 'Ahl al-Bayt'
Relatives and 'Ahl al-Bayt' aren't the same people. Ahl al-Bayt is/are Muhammad's "Family of the House" that is, Spouse(s) & children. (I've corrected the Infobox person)..--Eğitmen (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted, as the edit had obvious factual errors. Please provide academic sources, not opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from transliteration and sourcing problems, I don't see why we need a "relatives" field in the infobox. The term "ahl al-bayt" is discussed under "children", and there's already a "parents" field. The infobox isn't for listing every second-degree relative. Eperoton (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As a minimally invasive solution, I've added a link to Family tree of Muhammad to the relatives field. Eperoton (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding Frequently Asked Questions
So, in the answer to the first FAQ, it states that Wikipedia is bound to the laws of "Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted." However, in the article on Wikipedia, it states in Wikipedia that Wikipedia is bound by the laws of the "state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located." Which one is it: Virginia or Florida? Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Hobbes Novakoff perhaps you can peruse this particular section, it will give u the info u need. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so that one says Florida. But then, I go here and it says that "By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia had migrated its primary data center to an Equinix facility in Ashburn, Virginia." But, in the sentence before, it repeats the line about Florida and Amsterdam... Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't these questions really belong somewhere else? They don't have anything directly to do with Muhammad. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They are directly related to an assertion about legality in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Maybe the sentence in the FAQ could be restated in more general terms, that Wikipedia is bound by the laws of "states in which Wikipedia's servers are hosted." ~Amatulić (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what is happening here and why we should care about Florida or Virginia? Do different state laws really have an effect on Wikipedia articles? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are a resident of the United States, you should know that state and local laws regarding internet content can be significantly more restrictive than federal laws. Snarky comment: you live in Mordor according to your user page, so you are probably unaware of such things that happen in the land of mere mortals.) Florida has its own obscenity laws, and the state can (and has) shut down servers that host content deemed obscene by local standards. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have edited Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to remove references to specific states, referring to "laws of locations where Wikimedia Foundation servers are hosted" and linking to Wikimedia Foundation, which more likely to be kept up to date than this FAQ page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

About Muhammad (SAW).
Please remove the depictions of Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.). Ans review this article in the light of book "Seerat un Nabi (SAW)" by Shubli Numani. And add "P.B.U.H." or "SAW" everywhere with name of Holy Prophet(SAW). The Free Contributer (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done. Both of these situations are addressed in the FAQ at the top of the page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To The Free Contributer: Why do you care? What difference does it make to you what Wikipedia says? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To Doctorx0079, why add unnecessary comments when C.Fred answered his request. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * They're honest questions. I'd like to know. I would like him to explain what he hopes to achieve with his comment. Although I suppose he probably won't elaborate. But I thought it was worth a try. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * His achievement is to bless him every time Muhammad is mentioned, as Quran 33:56 "Indeed Allah and His angels bless the Prophet; O you who have faith! Invoke blessings on him and invoke Peace upon him in a worthy manner." Wikipedia editors are striving to have NPOV, you can bless Muhammad at your own discretion. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if they want to get brownie points they should do it somewhere else. WP:NOTHERE . -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Editing is a brownie point. let's just focus on the neutrality of the article. NPOV Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Image of mohammad?
Isn't it offensive to muslims to see Mohammed depicted in a visual form? Why aren't they having a shitfit about this page trying to take it down? leopheard (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the archives. Also, that image was created by a Muslim, at the request of Muslims, for other Muslims.  It's only particular sects that have a problem with it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sunni and shia differ. Read depictions of muhammad. BurtReynoldsy (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016
Please extend the word MUHAMMAD to MUHAMMAD(ﷺ) ThankYou

Ahmedkaleemmohammed (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please see WP:SAWW. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Rasullah (not 'Rasul')
The top section should state, under other names known by, "Rasullah" or "Rasul Allah," and not, as incorrectly stated, "Rasul." Muhammad Abdullah 1434 (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Names and titles of Muhammad shows the name as ar-Rasûllah. Is there objection to the following change?
 * Rasul ar-Rasûllah (Messenger of God )
 * That would seem to present the name and its translation more correctly, and I don't see it as a great inefficiency of space in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ar-Rasûllah is not correct: there's a syllable missing. We can use the form ar-Rasûl'Allâh, which is misidentified as toponymic at the bottom of the infobox. Eperoton (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also ar-Rasûl'Allah is linguistically incoherent, there's also no chadha to use the double r in ar-R..., it should be Rasûl'Allah.
 * 15:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Ah, of course! No definite article in the construct state. Eperoton (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tafseercomparison.org/study2.asp?TitleText=Study%202:%20Verse%205:3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016
Would like to edit this page, as this page contains depicted picture of Prophet Mohammed SAW. Would like to remove the depicted pictures from this page.

Wsmanzoor (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. However, there is a longstanding consensus that, because Wikipedia is not censored, pictures of Muhammad are included on this page. Users may opt out of viewing the images; directions are in the FAQ. Users who attempt to remove the images will find them quickly restored. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

11 Rabbi-ul-Awwal 11 AH
71.191.11.9 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This Hijri Date corresponds to Friday, 8 June 632 CE
 * 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal AH (Hijri Date) on Arabic calendar corresponds to April 25, 571 which is the correct birth date of the Prophet, this can be checked by any Islamic Calendar : Hijri Date Converter..
 * On the other hand, 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal corresponds to April 24-26, 571 AND May 6, 570: Thus CE 570 cannot be a correct birth date.

71.191.11.9 (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC) 71.191.11.9 (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * April 25, 570 cannot be the CORRECT birth date Because May 6, 570 corresponds to  another Hijri 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal date 
 * Since it is well-known that the birth date of the Prophet was on April 24-26 (Hijri 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal), this corresponds to April 25, 571 Because the other Hijri 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal matches to May 6, 570


 * Don't try and calculating, it is not worth it, you are also entering SYNTHESIS area. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable sources (and you would need quite a few since scholarly consensus is no confirmed date) that supports your assertations? If not this is non actionable. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This topic has been discussed several times in the past on the Muhammad talk page – I suggest that you first read the talk page archives. B.t.w. 8 June 632 (Julian) was a Monday, not a Friday. So before you post more misleading dates, try to find a reliable date converter. AstroLynx (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

lead rewrite
I think the lead as written isn't necessarily bad, but there are things discussed that aren't exactly fitting (such as his work as a merchant.) I am proposing a rewrite to prune some of the unnecessary portions that aren't super noteworthy or weighted in the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I need to sit down and do a full rewrite from scratch. Some of the sentences are setup weird and will need some major work. I will do that when I can get some Tim at a computer. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Those must be the poorly healed scars of old edit wars... Hopefully, we won't get into another big controversy. I'm happy to help if needed. Eperoton (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer and I will let you know. My hope I it should be a concise set of paragraphs, and if I find anything difficult to correct I will post it here in this section. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well crud. My school workload just doubled so this will be on the back burner for a bit. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until you're out of school and have a career and kids. I'm amazed I find time for Wikipedia at all anymore. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal - Mawlid (possible birthdays of the Prophet)
There may be a 2 days of shift on the above dates. 71.191.11.9 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 24-26 April 571 at the age of 61++++ which is the closest correct date since it matches to the last week of April
 * 5-6 May 570 at the age of 62+++ this cannot be true since it was on the first week of May
 * 16-17 May 569 at the age of 63++
 * 27-28 May 568 at the age of 64+
 * 8 June 567 at the age of 65 which is not possible.


 * You still haven't posted a reliable source that definitively states what you want changed. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal - Mawlid date does not match to CE 570 this is obvious and CE 570 should be deleted.

71.191.11.9 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You do not indicate which date converter you are using but the dates which you cite suggest that you are using a date converter based on the current Islamic calendar in which the days slowly drift through the year as the years pass on. However, there is plenty of evidence that the Meccan calendar in the days of Muhammad was actually luni-solar and was kept in approximate synchrony with the seasons by intercalating an extra month (probably at the end of the year) every two or three years. As we do not know how the intercalary months were actually regulated during Muhammad's time it is impossible to exactly convert Meccan calendar dates into Western calendar dates. I would also be interested to learn which "Islamic" sources claim that Muhammad was born in April or in May. AstroLynx (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Further reading:here 71.191.11.9 (talk) 16:18,7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't support the notion that a specific, exact day is known. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What supports that it was 570 then ?71.191.11.9 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources already cited in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] Nothing, as far as modern historiography is concerned. Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed) says: "There is better reason to believe that he may have been born later in the 570s." The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World says "The exact year of his birth is not known, but the early 570s appear likely." However, the latter lists the dates as "c.570–632 ce" in the same article, as do several other Oxford encyclopedias. Our use of "c. 570" reflects RSs. Eperoton (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reasoning: If 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal - Mawlid = The celebrations for the birthday of the Prophet has overwhelmingly accepted and the Gregorian birth month of the Prophet is well-known as April, then the only possibility from the above list should be CE 571. This corresponds to the date of 25 April 571 which is 12th of Rabi' al-awwal in Arabic months [[Special:Contributions/71.191.11.9|71.191.11.9 (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please consult WP:V and WP:RS. This article separates traditional beliefs from what WP:RSs tell us about the facts. The dates reflect prevalent use in academic sources. Eperoton (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I read that The 12th Day of Rabi' al-awwal is the most popular date from a list of many dates that are reported as the birth date.71.191.11.9 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with 'popular' or 'traditional' reports is that they are unreliable. There are also traditional sources which claim that Muhammad was born on a Monday – your preferred date, 25 April 571 (Julian), fell on a Saturday. AstroLynx (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Article claims that: 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal (25 / 26th day of April, 571 CE) (Sunni Islam), 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal (30th day of April / 1st day of May 570 CE) (Shia Islam)71.191.11.9 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the cited articles do not support your claims. And please stop inserting similar unsourced claims on the Mawlid page. AstroLynx (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

12th day of Rabi' al-awwal & 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal

 * 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal corresponds to (25 / 26th day of April, 571 CE) in Sunni Islam
 * 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal corresponds to (30th day of April / 1st day of May 571 CE) (Shia Islam

I'm just asking you to write these dates 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal & 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal properly. What are these dates?


 * The possibilities for 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal are as follows:

71.191.11.9 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 25-26 April 571
 * 6-7 May 570
 * 17-18 May 569
 * 28-29 May 568
 * 8-9 June 567
 * Note that: 65 Gregorian years corresponds exactly to 67 hijri years. The difference is 11 days in between each year.


 * It isn't clear to me exactly what you're asking to change in the article. In fact, the list of dates given above is why "circa 571" is most appropriate for designating the birth of the Prophet. A discussion about beliefs and traditions related to Muhammad's birth date is out of scope for this article, which is a biography of Muhammad, not about religious traditions. Muhammad in Islam might be a better place to include such a discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The most widely accepted birthday celebrations are done on 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal which corresponds to (25 / 26th day of April, 571 CE)  Thi is written in Mawlid article...71.191.11.9 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but I don't see a convincing case for the relevance of a birthday celebration date to an historical biography article. As I said earlier, religious traditions are not in the scope of this article. As an analogy, the most widely accepted birthday celebration of Jesus is December 25, but nearly all scholars of the subject agree that wasn't his actual birth date. We could mention that Muhammad's birthday is widely celebrated on the 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal, but the article can't assert that's the actual birth date. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this new user doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates, wants to add un-needed detail. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Existence
Some researches and studies demonstrated that this figure of Arabia never existed historically. Anything about this? --79.75.61.180 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * A right wing fringe theory Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And there is an article titled at Historicity of Muhammad. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

dîn
The verb (dâna) from which this noun is derived means 'become obedient'. It has nothing to do with 'path' See E.W Lane Arabic-English Lexicon p.942 (Pamour (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2016
My request is that after the name Muhammad (representing the ONLY the prophet Muhammad) i would like to insert (s.a.w) so his name anywhere stated on Wikipedia should state Muhammad (s.a.w) this is due to the fact that Peace be upon him (Arabic: عليه السلام‎- ʿalayhi as-salām), abbreviated "pbuh", and peace be upon them (abbreviated "pbut"), are phrases that Muslims say after uttering or hearing names of any of the prophets.

In Arabic, these salutations are called ṣalawāt. In English texts they are often abbreviated with the use of "SAW" (in accordance with the Arabic words (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or pbuh (which stands for "peace be upon him" in English).

Quranic Evidence:

(33/56)Allah and His angels send prayers on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye prayers on him, and salute him with all respect.

The Islamic scholar, ibn Kathir, titled the section in his Tafsir (i.e., explanation of the Quran), regarding this verse, the Command to say Salat upon the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Hadith: The evidence for sending salat on Muhammad is not limited only to the Quran

The prophet Muhammad said:" the miser is the one in whose presence I am mentioned, and then he does not send the Salat upon me."Narrated by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad.

Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, "May he be humiliated, the man in whose presence I am mentioned and he does not send Salat upon me; may he be humiliated, the man who sees the month of Ramadan come and go, and he is not forgiven; may he be humiliated, the man whose parents live to old age and they do not cause him to be granted admittance to Paradise." Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi,

ranked by him as "Hasan gharib" (Good but only reported once).

Abu Hurayrah said,that the prophet said:


 * "Whoever sends one Salat upon me, Allah will send ten upon him." Hadith narrated by Muslim, Abi Dawood, al-Tirmidhi, and  al-Nissai.

Mismail123 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done. Please read WP:SAWW. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also reading the FAQ section in this talk page is recommended. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also it looks like you are not here to build an encyclopedia but trying to score points with your deity. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead rewrite draft
Muhammad is the central figure in the Islamic faith and widely regarded by non-Muslims as its founder. In the majority of Muslim traditions he is considered to be the last prophet sent by God. Traditionally Muslim doctrine states that he was sent to restore Islam, which Muslims believe is the original, unaltered monothestic faith of other prophets. (footnote of prophets)

Muhammad was born approximately 570CE in the Arabic city of Mecca. Orphaned at an early age, he was raised by his paternal uncle Abu Talib. Periodically he would retreat to a mountain cave for seclusion and prayer, which would later be the site that he claimed his first revelations from Gabriel. Years later he would begin to preach his revelations which angered the Meccan leaders eventually forcing him to flee the city. As he gained followers and converts war became a constant, and eventually the city of Medina was conquered by Muhammad. Before his death in 632CE Muhammad had united the Arabian peninsula under a single religious banner.

Beyond his military accomplishments Muhammads importance to the Islamic faith is paramount. He proclaimed that there was one God, and only through complete surrender to his will was the only acceptable path. The revelations that he received from his secluded prayer from Gabriel would form the basis for the Quran, while his teachings and practices would form the sunnah. These materials are seen as the perfect word of God and form the basis for many Islamic practices that continue to present day.

Well, comments and queries welcome. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Any feedback before I get bold? Tivanir2 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the second reminder. The first one slipped off my radar. A couple of points:


 * 1) People are Muslim. Doctrines and traditions are Islamic.
 * 2) I think we should mention something about the "other prophets", either through examples or in another form. I like the existing version because it lets us avoid tricky definitions (biblical, etc).
 * 3) "for seclusion" sounds odd. I prefer "a secluded mountain cave for reflection and prayer".
 * 4) "which" in the same sentence has an ambiguous referent. How about: "and it is there that he reported being visited by Gabriel to receive his first revelations at the age of 40"
 * 5) For the remainder of the lead from that sentence on, your proposal doesn't strike me as an improvement over the existing text, which seems fine to me (aside from the OR about way/din which I keep forgetting to fix).
 * Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I will mark up the changes and expand on the religious portion a bit. Mainly I am trying to trim it and make it more concise without losing anything of importance. I will give another stab at it when I can get on my comp again. Tivanir2 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's possible. The lead isn't that long, and likely reflects some cases of hard-won consensus. I suspect removing further content from it will prompt other editors to insert their version, leading to further disputes. Eperoton (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I know a lot of people over the years have fought long and hard over it but it jumps around a bit and does need some trimming. My overall goal is to get the article to FA status by the end of the year. It's going to be a long frustrating road, but I think it's possible. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break as I am resetting the lead template. Fixed up with concerns addressed from above:


 * Muhammad is the central figure in the Islamic faith and widely regarded by non-Muslims as its founder. In the majority of Islamic traditions he is considered to be the last prophet sent by God. Traditionally Islamic doctrine states that he was sent to restore Islam, which Muslims believe is the original, unaltered monotheistic faith of previous prophets.


 * Muhammad was born approximately 570CE in the Arabic city of Mecca. Orphaned at an early age, he was raised by his paternal uncle Abu Talib. Periodically he would retreat to a secluded mountain cave for reflection and prayer, and would later be the site that he proclaimed his first revelations from Gabriel. Years later he would begin to preach his revelations which angered the Meccan leaders eventually forcing him to flee the city. Muhammad migrated to Medina with his followers in 622CE in an event known as the Hijra. In Medina he united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina. In a largely uncontested attack, Muhammad gathered 10,000 men and marched on the city of Mecca, which was seized with little resistance. Before his death in 632CE Muhammad had united the Arabian peninsula under a single religious banner.


 * Beyond his military accomplishments Muhammads' importance to the Islamic faith is paramount. He proclaimed that there was one God, and only through complete surrender to his will was the only acceptable path. The revelations that he received from his secluded prayer from Gabriel would form the basis for the Quran, while his teachings and practices would form the sunnah. These materials are seen as the perfect word of God and form the basis for many Islamic practices that continue to present day. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm inspired by your can-do attitude and I agree that the lead can be improved. However, taking a closer look at our discussion so far, I'm afraid we haven't been moving in the right direction. For example, we've been working out a long sentence about the cave, which isn't an important detail. The Conquest of Mecca is also given more space than it deserves. Conversely, the existing lead largely leaves out the events in Medina, which actually form the bulk of biographies of Muhammad as well as of our article. We also have to say something about the content of his preaching in Mecca.


 * I'd like to make a counter-proposal. I once summarized this material in History_of_Islam (last two paragraphs). This version also reflects a current scholarly perspective on the state of the peninsula at the time of Muhammad's death, while what we have now is rather idealized. How does this version look to you? Eperoton (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are good paragraphs from what I see. I will re-read the article again and see what we have for weight to try to fix up the article better later today or tomorrow. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the current lead has undue weight issues (hell I have removed at least three things so far because of weight) and I am doing the rewrite based off what is in the lead currently, which might be causing a few issues. Give me a day or two and I will get it squared away with another rewrite that is hopefully better and more concise. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why I am unable to download the main article of the Mohammad? MAXhTareen (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Name
"Mohammed" is the English-language version, enshrined in the old saying "If the mountain won't come to Mohammed." English idiom permits no revisionistic alteration of such phrases, and the spelling and pronunciation are the time-honored plain ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.149.180 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. See the article Muhammad (name). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016
14.139.206.66 (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC) only two Wives 1 Khadija bint Khuwaylid 2 Aisha bint Abi Bakr
 * What is your request? Are you claiming he had only two wives? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Figured something out
If you read through the texts it constantly switches back and forth from what would be near excerpts from a religious document, and the rest reads like normal text. I just realised it today when I was adjusting a passage for tone. I think a large review of all the rest is going to be necessary for this to but FA status. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

better main image needed for historical reference purposes
This is an article about a person of history. If available an image of the actual person should be made available for historical reference, every other page of historical peoples has an image of the person for historical reference purposes of identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.247.103 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ... Is this an attempt at Reverse psychology? There are no historical pictures of him, but we are not removing the artistic representations featured throughout the rest of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The most common depiction is calligraphic, so that's what we use here. This has been discussed in the past. Maybe we should have another FAQ entry about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from Q4? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. Right. It's covered already. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016
Prophet Muhammad's (Peace be upon him) name must carry the following words after his name " Peace be upon him ". Usman 13 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not on this wiki, see WP:SAWW. Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a neutral encyclopedia, and Muhammad's name will not feature Islamic honorifics and nor will anything else on this website. As has already been said by Materialscientist, see WP:SAWW as well as the Wikipedia rules on Islamic honorifics Bitsdotlies  talk  03:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Main Mistake
Please dont change the name of Allah! Allah is not a god. Allah is one. God has goddess. So please edit the mistake. Change God to Allah.. MD Zahidul Islam Fahim (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont know which policy is this the result of. Swingoswingo (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are people who have a strong preference for one or the other usage. Current consensus of WP community on this point is expressed in the Manual of Style (WP:ALLAH), and it favors using the word "God". Eperoton (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This request makes no sense in English. Taken at face value it says that Muslims worship something that is not a god, not divine. I can't believe that Muslims would accept such a characterization of their faith. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with the previous commentator. Allah is the Arabic word for god used by Arabic speakers of all religions, as is clear from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Yster76 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017
I want to edit few pictures in this article because it is violating a religion that prohibit pictures of God and his messengers,followers etc. 39.45.157.64 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Requests must be posted to the pictures subpage, but unless you have very compelling arguments this request will not be granted. Jarkeld (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

material reverted from inclusion - the material: Name in full
please see: User:Ymblanter Talk > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ymblanter#content_reverted.2C_article:_Muhammad

the proceeding material:

Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim, <- (was born about the year 570 )

I can't see any reason to not include this material, User:Ymblanter has suggested: If there are objections to your edits there is always material to discuss....You may ask yourself first why in this article, which is very high profile and exists almost since the very beginning, nobody before you added this material to the lede. 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

1a16 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, it isn't appropriate to cite WP:TERTIARY sources, such as other encyclopedias, for the purpose of supporting claims like that. Britannica got that information from somewhere else, and that's where we should look.

I don't have an opinion either way on whether to include the full name in the lead sentence, or display it in the infobox as it is already. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The lead box shows > Born Muḥammad ibn `Abdullāh

Britannica shows > Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim

1a16 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The Britannica version is corroborated at
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?381048-Translation-of-Muhammad-s-full-name Publisher Springer, 2016 p.655 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f9f7CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA655&lpg >
 * published Springer Publishing

http://muslimmuseum.org.uk/the-birth-the-revelation-the-hijra/ > http://muslimmuseum.org.uk/about/ (no wikilinks to individuals or organisations) p. xiv https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qA0hDQAAQBAJ&pg NYU Press, 8 Nov 2016 edited by Tahera Qutbuddin Associate Professor of Arabic Literature at the University of Chicago > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahomet https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maometto https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed
 * published NYU Press
 * Wikipedia France
 * Wikipedia Italy
 * Wikipedia Germany

1a16 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Corroboration in forums and other Wikipedias are meaningless. But there are other good sources up there. That's fine.
 * Now the real question is, what do Wikipedia policies or guidelines say about this?
 * Is there a guideline that supports using Muhammad's full name in the lead sentence of the article? We do it in other articles after all, such as Bill Clinton. However, this being the English Wikipedia, putting Bill Clinton's full name in the lead doesn't add any unnecessary confusing detail. In the case of Muhammad, however, adding a long, complex, foreign-language (Arabic) name in the lead needlessly complicates it.
 * We have a guideline MOS:INTRO that explains"It is even more important [in the introduction] than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid ... over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."One could argue that a long Arabic name in the lead sentence of an English Wikipedia article is over-specific for the lead.
 * In the same guideline WP:LEADSENTENCE also says"While a commonly recognisable form of name will be used as the title of biographical articles, fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead. For instance, in the article Paul McCartney, the text of the lead begins: 'Sir James Paul McCartney ...'."So according to the guideline, the full name may be used, but there is no requirement that it must be used.
 * The full name already appears elsewhere in the article. It may be more appropriate in the Arabic Wikipedia to start the first sentence with the full name. Whether doing that is also appropriate in the English Wikipedia is a topic that needs some consensus. Whlie I find myself leaning slightly toward having the lead sentence refer just to "Muhammad" instead of the full name, I don't have strong views about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The full name is given in a named footnote and elsewhere in the article. I don't think opening the main body of text with it would improve the article. The lead is already fairly long, and it would further make readers wade through a full line of text (more on mobile devices) to get to the main verb. Eperoton (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017
Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) Syedrizzwaan (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Cause of death
The policy WP:PRIMARY prohibits us from interpreting primary sources such as hadith. To keep this addition you need to find a non-primary WP:RS which interprets the poisoning mentioned in hadith to be Muhammad's cause of death. If you find an academic source making this inference, we can mention it as a fact; if it's a source that describes a traditional belief, we'll describe it as such. Otherwise, this is a violation of WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the policy violation was not addressed, I'm reverting the addition. Eperoton (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Appearance inaccurate
The first part written in the appearance section looks inaccurate when you compare the description given in Sahih Al-Bukhari, widely known among muslim scholars as the most authentic book of hadith. The current description is written by Al-Tirmidhi, a notable scholar who wrote one of the most famous books of hadith, among the list of the kittabu-sittah, the six most well known books of hadith. That book he made though had many weak, false hadiths, and also many authentic hadiths, but Sahih Al Bukhari is known to be fully authentic due to the rigorous process the author betook to verify them. Al-Tirmidhi also got the description through narrations attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, and many of these prove doubtful as the Shia's could have mixed false ones with them too. Bukhari says that he had neither curly hair nor lank hair, but the description in Al-Tirmidhi says he had curly hair. On these conflicting descriptions, the authenticity of Bukhari is hugely more reliable. Please edit it according to the more authentic texts. --AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All this article is doing is quoting a passage, not making any judgment about the reliability of the description. Do you have a substitute quotation? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be doing WP:OR into authenticity of primary sources, with or without sectarian arguments. The section is based on academic citations, and that's how it should be. Eperoton (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @AbdullahwaMuhsin- There are better things to study than this Mo's hairstyle i.e. Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, Banu Mustaliq, and (oh yea) Aisha and female slaves. Swingoswingo (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We have two conflicting sources, and we must take the source that has the strongest authenticity. This is pre-existing scholarly work, not anything new. I haven't followed up on this for a few weeks by the way, I was a bit busy. Also, I noticed how after I wrote the main body above the exact quotation attributed to Ali ibn Talib which I challenged changed. Look at the edit history. It did not have what it has now, "did not have lank or crisp hair", and surprisingly, it says crisp, instead of curly which it is suppose to be as I quoted,, nn purpose, so it doesn't contradict the statement further on saying "He had thick, curly hair". In the beginning of the quote, it says "was not fat", but in later in the same quote in says " was proportionate, stout," which goes against the beginning statement. The author changed it after I talked about it, and I used evidence from Sahih Bukhari, not from Muhammad ibn Isa at-Tirmidhi's book Shama'il al-Mustafa, yet he wrote what I said that was given in Sahih Bukhari. I strongly challenge the historical accuracy of this source because not does it go against the established books of islamic tradition, the hadith, but also itself. It's just very odd. I say we instead replace the descriptions given from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most authentic books of Islamic recordings of the prophet, the first one being in Book 61, Hadith 57 of Sahih Bukhari, which says "Narrated Anas: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was neither very tall nor short, neither absolutely white nor deep brown. His hair was neither curly nor lank. Allah sent him (as an Apostle) when he was forty years old. Afterwards he resided in Mecca for ten years and in Medina for ten more years. When Allah took him unto Him, there was scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard." and "Narrated Al-Bara: The Prophet (ﷺ) was of moderate height having broad shoulders (long) hair reaching his ear-lobes. Once I saw him in a red cloak and I had never seen a more handsome than him."" (Bukhari Book 61, Hadith 60) --AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored material cited with academic sources. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is an academic source itself is doubtful. The statement contradicts itself. The author changed the "academic source" after I pointed out it's fault. These academic sources are drawn from primary sources. The primary sources themselves are corrupted, if the author wrote what he actually read. I have clearly explained my position. I kindly request the review of a more prominent administrator. AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that Schimmel's book is an academic source. We're using the translation it gives and our quote hasn't changed since early March, though different translations of these descriptions are likely to diverge because of the rather difficult Arabic vocabulary they use. Now, it actually looks like Schimmel concatenates two different narratives from al-Tirmidhi (by Ali and his son Hasan). I think we can correct that based on the primary source. However, we can't just use a different primary source based on our judgement of its authenticity. That would violate WP:PRIMARY, and modern historians often have very different assessments on authenticity of Islamic sources from the traditional Islamic assessments. Eperoton (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That clears up some of that. Early March was actually when I wrote this part of the article and when the quote changed. Modern historians may often have very different assessments, but they relie on Islamic assessments, and at the end, the Islamic scholars know their work, which was based on honesty, reputation, and other tight guidelines. Any Islamic scholar would agree that Sahih Bukhari is more authentic than the book of Tirmidhi Schimmel has took from. Since this is a grey area for some part and you have clarified on the matter through pointing out two narratives, I will put those two recordings from Sahih Bukhari and leave yours in place. Thank you for cooperating on this matter.
 * In terms of authenticity assessments, the differences are due to methodology. Traditional Islamic scholars have relied on isnad criticism and consciously avoided judging authenticity on the basis of matn. Modern historians tend to be skeptical about the chains of transmission and use standard methods of historical criticism instead. As a result, modern historians tend to give more credence to earlier sources than the later canonical hadith compilations.
 * I think the additions are ok, though the section may have become a bit too long. If other editors find them problematic, I would recommend moving the quotes from Bukhari to Muhammad in Islam, which reflects the Islamic perspective. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Simplify hatnote?
How would it be if the hatnote just read For other uses, see Muhammed (disambiguation) ? Siuenti (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How would it be if the hatnote just read '' For other people named Muhammad, see Muhammad (name). For other uses, see Muhammad (disambiguation)''

I.e. remove the "Muhammed redirects here" which doesn't seem to need to be said. Siuenti (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Siuenti (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't say "Muhammed redirects here". And it hasn't been changed recently either. I don't see anything wrong with what it says now, that is "This article is about the Islamic prophet. For other people named Muhammad, see Muhammad (name). For other uses, see Muhammad (disambiguation)." It says all that needs to be said. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, on autopilot. You wouldn't want to remove "This article is about the Islamic prophet" I presume? Can you explain who is benefiting and how? Siuenti (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's hard to put into words but you still don't like the idea, don't worry about it. I'm still trying to figure out the right answer. Siuenti (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus and Abraham both have lengthy hatnotes, while the one on Napoleon (for comparison) is shorter. --Acjelen (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I might have a go at simplifying some of them. Siuenti (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits by User:ERDINC
The user is edit-warring in the article, presenting sources written in the 7th century and contradicting every mainstream literature as "reliable secondary sources". They revert me and call me "vandal", I am involved, and I have no time now to bring them to WP:3RR. Will try to do this in the morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "We" already had a discussion about this at Talk:Muhammad. I just left them a 3RR warning. Eperoton (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note This user has now been blocked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert
Please explain this undiscussed revert which seems to have wiped out many uncontentious changes. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The revert is to the version of 21:57, 25 December 2016‎ and the reverted changes didn't result from any "edit warring" that I'm aware of. It sounds like the editor was away for a few months and thinks the last version of the page they remember is the current consensus. It's not. Intervening changes were reviewed by active watchers of the page and got consensus status in the interim. Eperoton (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I missed their comment above. "This history is a mess" - well, yes, the same as any other actively edited article. Wanting to change one paragraph does not mean you wipe out months of other changes. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above isn't even about changing an entire paragraph, but rather replacing the two opening sentences. Eperoton (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:NeilN and Eperoton. Yes I restored a version that is quite old, but when I cam online there actually was an edit war sort of thing going on. So I just went ahead and reverted to a version which I knew was stable. Of course my revert is open to revision as I have made no attempt to reinstate that version. My only effort was to prevent an edit war. I can see that the holy warrior has been blocked now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternate Spelling
I added an alternate spelling. <b style="color:green">Mohammed</b><b style="color:red">Mohammed</b>محمد 06:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a number of alternate spellings, but they're all so obviously related that I don't see the point of listing them besides "Muhammad", which is clearly preferred in modern academic sources. Eperoton (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Quran verse references.
Should all the Quran verse references be changed to https://quran.com ? It seems like a better website as it also has English translation right below the Original Arabic verse. Knightplex (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's better than Perseus for Arabic speakers, since the Arabic text on Perseus is often badly mangled, but Perseus has the benefit of providing multiple translations, which is more useful for those who can only read the translations. Also, the Quran template used to point to the USC CMJE version, and was redirected to Perseus when that site temporarily went offline. It will probably be redirected back now that it's back on. Eperoton (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph
With all due respect, what is with the first paragraph of this article? This is a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is supposed to represent reliable sources, which, almost be definition, are secular historical sources. We are currently engaged in hedging that suggests that the historical perspective is treated the same way by Wikipedia as the doctrinal perspective. Well, it's not. The paragraph should say "Muhammad was a historical figure who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic doctrine, he is the prophet of God" or something to that effect. And before somebody takes off and decides I'm an Islamophobe: I've spent a long while dealing with similar stuff on Hinduism, the religious POV of choice in some of the articles I have dealt with. Vanamonde (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It didn´t use to read like that. Here´s an example from january: . Calling someone a "prophet" in WP:s voice like that is problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is problematic. May I take it that you support a rewording, possibly similar to what I have suggested here? Vanamonde (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we not just revert to the January version? Or do you find that problematic? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You may. I think the january version is pretty ok, better than the current. Is there some recent lead-rfc that could help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The version in January is slightly better, because it says "central figure of Islam" rather than "prophet"; but it still is trying to hedge, by saying "known among non-Muslims", thereby creating a false balance problem again. Wikipedia's voice should say what the scholars say, period. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was ok with the phrasing "central figure of Islam" for quite a while, and have even personally reverted some attempts to change it, given how prone to dispute the definition has been in the past. However, that has changed when another editor pointed out that it only appears in a couple of marginal sources, while "prophet of Islam" is used by Encyclopedia of Islam, which is the most authoritative academic encyclopedia of Islamic studies. It's also used by the Oxford encyclopedia cited there. I'm not personally enamored on either definition, but changing it back based on our subjective assessment of false balance would not be a WP:NPOV treatment of the currently available sources. I'm pretty sure there's no single definition that will satisfy everyone, and I'm open to other policy-based rationales for arriving at a "least bad" version. Eperoton (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think that if we say he is a "prophet of Islam" that we are violating the NPOV policies, as we are not making the claim but Islam and it is well supported that (most of) Islam considers him a prophet. It is worth noting that other religions such as the Bahá'í Faith identify with him as a prophet too, and so it would be a blatant lie to say he is only a prophet in Islam. However he is not a central figure in that faith, but is in Islam. The encyclopedias that you mention likely suffer from a systemic bias of looking at Muhammad from a single departmental perspective instead of holistically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * At that time, I also reviewed all entries on Muhammad at oxfordreference.com, though unfortunately I didn't save the definitions and my subscription is currently being renewed. "Prophet of Islam" also appears in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. "Founder of Islam" is found in several other encyclopedias. Several encyclopedias use other wording or don't attempt to start with a definition at all. None used "central figure", as far as I can recall. I do have a concern about the current use of these sources, namely that it's not entirely clear whether they're saying "Muhammad is the prophet of Islam" or "this article is about the Muhammad, prophet of Islam, and not another Muhammad'. Eperoton (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In the past, disputes about this passage devolved into editors arguing about the truth and trying to construct their own definitions rather than examining and arguing about RSs as WP:NPOV demands. I don't think those discussions were policy-compliant and I didn't participate in them. If that happens here, I'll step aside again. I do want to point out that the cited Jan 3 version of the opening paragraph was a syntactic monstrosity. Eperoton (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the past, there have been many discussions about the word "founder", but those have died down now that the word isn't being used in Wikipedia's voice. I have no problem with the current lead sentences, myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with the current version is false balance. There are no reliable sources I know of which deny that he is the founder of Islam. There are plenty which state that Muslims believe him to be the prophet of god, which is something we should say: but we cannot equate doctrine with reliable sources, nor imply that reliable sources are un-Islamic. is right, the "central figure" phrase is probably a problem, so how about the following (ignoring the last two sentences for the sake of simplicity). This is a straightforward statement, from the same sources.  Would any of you be opposed to this formulation? Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"Muhammad (محمد; ; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was a religious, political, and social reformer who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic belief he was a prophet, or God's Messenger (rasūl Allāh), sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets."

WP:FALSEBALANCE is about balancing mainstream scholarly views and fringe scholarly views, so it's not relevant here. The relevant part of the policy is WP:RNPOV. It doesn't explicitly state that academic views should have primacy over religious views, though I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the body of WP policies. I think by placing the secular interpretation first, we follow that general idea. In a different article, stating the secular view in WP's voice would have been ok (though I can't resist noting that you're following a tradition in these discussions by changing phrasing without changing sourcing, so that your refs don't really support your text). In this case, practical experience shows that doing so would likely revive the endless disputes which plagued this page before. This page just happens to attract stronger reactions than most. For example, you're objecting to the definition here, and not, say, the definitions at Moses ("a prophet in Abrahamic religions"), Aaron ("a Prophet of God"), or Isiah ("Jewish prophet"). Likewise, others will come along to present strong objections if "founder" in WP voice goes back online. Eperoton (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Eperoton, I have dealt with a vast number of objections to content on Wikipedia based on religion, and I know the form that they take. Their persistence/frequent occurrence does not make them legitimate. If the price of encyclopedic language is more disputes, then so be it. The version I proposed above is based on the sources therein, because it is a basic enough statement that all reliable sources are going to support it. The other prophets are utterly irrelevant. If changes need to be made there, they should be made there. If you really want a counter-example, I'd suggest you take a look at Jesus, which avoids these problematic formulations, and is a featured article. Do you have specific issues with the wording I am proposing? Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If I had come across either the current or your proposed version without looking into the sources, I would not have objected to either. They can both be reliably sourced. Having done some systematic source review, I believe that the current version should get somewhat stronger weight due to the sources involved (the two encyclopedias currently cited may not seem "encyclopedic" to you, but they happen to be arguably the two most authoritative ones on the subject). Because of this, I don't think your proposal is an improvement, and your objection strikes me as ideological rather than policy-based. That would translate into a "weak oppose". Additionally, I believe that your version has little chance of gaining long-term consensus, and I'm concerned that what will come in its place will be even less of an improvement. This strengthens my objection somewhat, but not enough to stand in the way if I see consensus clearly swinging your way. At this point, I'm not sure how to interpret the recent silence of the other participants in this thread. Eperoton (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. By the way, here's another phrasing the currently cited sources would support: Muhammad was a religious, political and social reformer who gave rise to the Islamic civilization. From a modern historical perspective, he was the founder of Islam. etc Eperoton (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As per Vanamonde's suggestion The paragraph should say "Muhammad was a historical figure who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic doctrine, he is the prophet of God" or something to that effect., I have reverted the article to a stable version. It now says that according to non muslims he is the founder, but muslims do not believe that and consider him to be a "holy Prophet". There seems to be edit warring going on as well, the history is a mess. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Show of hands
You've all articulated your views in this discussion, so I just would like to get a quick show of hands to verify where everyone stands. Please note below whether you support or oppose the following versions of the opening (I'll take the liberty to add the other alternative I proposed above). Everyone else is also welcome to participate, of course, though if you're just coming to this discussion, it would help to also add detailed commentary to the threaded discussion above.


 * 1) Muhammad is the prophet of Islam.[3][4] From a secular historical perspective he was a religious, political, and social reformer who founded the religion of Islam.[4][5] From an Islamic perspective, etc [current version]
 * 2) Muhammad was a religious, political, and social reformer who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic belief he was a prophet, or God's Messenger etc [Vanamonde93's proposal]
 * 3) Muhammad was a religious, political and social reformer who gave rise to the Islamic civilization. From a modern historical perspective, he was the founder of Islam. [my alternative proposal]

Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support 1, 3; oppose 2 Eperoton (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 2, oppose 1, as above. Proposal 3 is interesting, but does not go far enough (does not address the "prophet" issue), and I'm not a fan of the phrase "gave rise to the Islamic civilization" which is a definite overstatement. Vanamonde (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 3, oppose 1. I dislike how 1 places the importance on him being a prophet, ignoring the role that members of other religions identify with him being, rather than an undisputed central figure of Islam. I think 2 is better than one, but I again am not sure about the "prophet" issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those. I favor the last stable version of 5 March 2017, before changed "central figure" to "prophet". Even that change of only one word is more acceptable than the proposals above, because the assertion "is the prophet of Islam" isn't singled out into its own sentence, both the religous and secular views are given equal weight in the same sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have included the original in the list of options as well. I think it will be easier if we do a separate show of hands, which I'll start below. Eperoton (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support 2, oppose 1 and 3. Came here from RfC page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, per many ARBCOM decisions, it should be written from the modern scholarly viewpoint. One should read here, what one would expect to read in a university textbook or an academic reference book on the subject. Hence, it should state that Muhammad founded the religion of Islam, and describe religious viewpoints as such. LK (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in. May I trouble you to express your opinion on the RfC below (which is what drew you here, I think....probably shouldn't have two polls open at the same time)? Thanks and regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Show of hands on "central figure"
Here's another show of hands prompted by 's response above. Do you support restoring the long-standing version of the definition: "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims." Eperoton (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose: not false, but the use of "central figure" in RSs in marginal and I can't even imagine seeing the phrasing of the second half in a RS. My opposition would weaken a bit if "and widely" were replaced with a comma. Eperoton (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Use next version - Wiqi55's replacement of "central figure" with "prophet" is acceptable to me. It avoids the use of "central figure" which isn't found in RS, and also avoids undue emphasis on a religious POV by presenting the viewpoints in the same sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anachronist. So here is my copy paste . Wiqi55's replacement of "central figure" with "prophet" is acceptable to me.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary of definition discussion
As expected, it's hard -- perhaps impossible -- to find a variant of the definition everyone agrees on. It looks like all of the newer proposals have too much opposition to reach consensus. Based on all of the discussion above, the two variants with the most support and least resistance appear to be the "central figure" phrasing from before and Wiqi55's replacement of "central figure" with "prophet" from Mar 5. and stated their support for the former. , and  support the latter (I'm making that assumption for Wiqi55 based on their edit). agreed with me that "central figure" is problematic. I've opposed both these variants, but I prefer the Mar 5 version. Based on the above, the balance seems to tip towards that version. I'll restore it with the updated sources. If anyone would like to argue for further changes, we can continue this discussion. Eperoton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the importance of this article, I'd suggest we open an RFC; the fact that we are unable to come to consensus on this is largely because there are so few of us, and we are mostly pulling in different directions. I could of course just open one myself, but I think we need clarity on what we are trying to answer here, so I will propose some questions below. Please free to suggest more/alternative phrasing, so that we get the RFC right. My questions:
 * 1) Should the "secular historical perspective" be presented in Wikipedia's voice, or not? ie should we say "Muhammad was the founder of Islam" or should we say "from a secular, modern perspective, Muhammad was the founder of Islam?"
 * 2) Should the first paragraph include the phrase "central figure of Islam" or its equivalent?
 * 3) Should the first paragraph include the phrase "Mohammad is the prophet of Islam"?
 * Is this an adequate summary of the disagreement, or are there questions I am leaving out? Vanamonde (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do agree that we should have more people to help develop consensus. You have summarised the disagreement well. I feel that the proposed phrases place the emphasis on his relation to Islam, and fail to mention his rule as the political leader and his role in other religions such as in the Bahá'í Faith. However I do accept that I am proposing something which could give undue weight, but I still think that we should take these into consideration. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We can add that question in. Vanamonde (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These are some aspects of the disagreements, but the debate so far been expressed in terms of choice for the phrasing of the whole definition rather than binary choices. This is significant because what's involved is due weight, as expressed in specific form and placement of clauses. Some participants opposed both presenting the secular perspective in WP voice and the phrasing "from a secular...". I'm not sure an RFC would help reach consensus when several editors aren't able to do so, but if we do open one, I would suggest listing specific variants that have gotten support from multiple editors so far. These would include at least the current version, the "central figure" version, and Vanamonde's version. I guess my #3 above would qualify, since it got support from Emir of WP, but we can keep it out to simplify things. We may also include an open-ended "none of the above". Eperoton (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see why that seems like I good idea, but honestly, those RFCs become real complicated real fast, and are frequently unproductive (I subscribe to the feedback request service for political articles, so I should know). Far better to reach consensus on the building blocks. Even the three of us in this discussion could probably come up with five different versions; and probably, none of them would achieve a clear consensus. The last time there was an RFC here about the first paragraph, neither the proposed nor the original version addressed any of the issues we have raised here. So I ask again; are there further specific issues you think we should include in an RFC? Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If your questions don't correspond to what the discussion has been about (concrete formulations), how will the answers bring us closer to a consensus? If you'd like to open an RFC, I would suggest the following formulation, so that we're inviting comments on concrete modifications of an existing text and presenting the supporting sources:

The current definition states [quote definition with citations]:
 * 1) Should the definition state "Muhammad is the founder of Islam"[refs] without qualifying it as a non-Muslim/secular/etc view?
 * 2) Should the definition begin "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam"[refs or note that the change is unsourced] instead of "Muhammad is the prophet of Islam"?

Eperoton (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is not substantively different from what I've said above, except that your second question provides two options that are not really mutually exclusive, and therefore need to be broken up. I'll leave this open for a day or so more, and then open an RFC. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe this discussion has been about the definition rather than the entire opening paragraph, and no one has proposed including both those phrases in the definition. Hence, for the purposes of the RFC the two options seem to be mutually exclusive. Eperoton (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision in progress
Before I tackle the lead rewrite I am going through the main article to improve the flow and information presented. If I should bork something feel free to revert as my wording is not always the best. Since I have time (and some of my personal issues are better) I will be attempting to stop by more to work on this article for cleanup. Hopefully FA won't take too many hours or submissions once the rewrite is complete. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Lede revision
WIP, posted shortly. 2604:2D80:840A:EA71:7D1F:45B6:DF37:2122 (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Again this was me, and again I am fairly late on this. Once the body is written a bit better I will submit a few lead paragraph options to better encapsulate the entire article. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong age of death
The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) died at the age of 63. The Qur'an was revealed to him at the age of 40 and it was revealed over a span of 23 years and he died after the revealation. Shadman Sakib Sami (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable scholarly sources to support your assertion? The age of death reported in this article is based on reliable sources. What sources can you offer? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We know exactly when the Prophet was born:

He was born on 2 June 570 (12 Rabi'I) and he died the day after his birthday (i.e. 13 Rabi'I). He thus lived for 62 years and 1 day. This is not unusual - Husayn ibn Ali lived 55 years to the day, from 10 October 625 to 10 October 680. Muhammad thus died in his 63rd year. By our reckoning he lived for 62 years and 6 days (he died on 8 June 632). The historians of the time, however, didn't use our reckoning - they reckoned in terms of the Muslim calendar of the day (which is the same as the present Muslim calendar). Muhammad lived for 767 months and 1 day by their reckoning, which is 63 years, 11 months and 1 day. 84.9.195.162 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I was brought here by the RFC to look at the lead paragraph. It was poorly written. Here is how it is now:

"Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎‎; pronounced [muħammad]; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) is the prophet of Islam and widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims. According to Islamic doctrine, he was God's Messenger (rasūl Allāh) sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. He is viewed as the final prophet of God in all branches of Islam, except some modern denominations. Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity and ensured that his teachings, practices, and the Quran, formed the basis of Islamic religious belief."

The lead should "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Generally speaking, it should use words and context for the average reader. Like you're explaining it to your grandmother who knows absolutely nothing about the topic. Here are some of the problems:


 * 1) Pronunciation is extraneous information that is included a few paragraphs further below. Including it here balloons the first sentence and makes it less readable. The whole bracketed phrase with arabic and dates is removed by Google when trying to bring the important text out first, so it appears... "Muhammad is the prophet of Islam..."
 * 2) Prophet-founder is a term used by most encyclopedic sources and a term that a normal person would understand quickly. Alternatively it could read: "prophet, on whose teachings Islam was founded"... or "religious leader and founder of Islam". The religion of Islam is based on Muhammad's revelation, I'm not sure what the objection could be of calling him founder.
 * 3) Saying "...widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims" is poorly worded and smells like it's the result of people fighting over wording. That needs to go. This phrase does not establish context or notability, and it is not among the most important points about Muhammad.
 * 4) Starting a sentence with "according to Islamic doctrine" is also poor form. It says, "what's coming next is not a neutral POV". You need to explain what he did to become notable, not what he is according to doctrine.
 * 5) His notability is largely: he converted most of the polytheistic tribes of Arabia into monotheism, and he established the second largest world religion. Neither of these are currently mentioned.

Here is my attempt to very briefly identify, establish context, explain notability, and summarize important points:

"Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎‎; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) is the prophet-founder of Islam, the world's second largest religion. He was a trader who began teaching monotheism among mostly polytheistic tribes of Arabia. By the end of his life, most Arabians had converted to his teachings and Muslims regard him as a Messenger of God in succession to Jesus, Moses, and Abraham."

If that is unacceptable, I welcome better suggestions. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  05:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I oppose this rewrite. In order: 1) Inclusion of pronunciation and life span is standard on WP; 2) "Prophet-founder" is an idiosyncratic term that isn't used for Muhammad by most (if indeed any) encyclopedias; 3) I don't like that phrase either, but as you can see from the discussions above, there's no consensus for changing it; 4) Attributing religious views is exactly what we should be doing per WP:RNPOV, and Muhammad's place in the Islamic doctrine is a major part of his notability; 5) Both those things are mentioned, though not precisely in that form.


 * Many people (including me) have made suggestions in the RFC above and the preceding discussion. However, they haven't been able to reach consensus on their proposals. That has also happened many times in the past, and what we have now is a result of slowly evolving compromise. Your bold rewrite was a well-meaning attempt, but it suggests a lack of familiarity with the long discussion found above and the issues involved. Eperoton (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Consensus and compromise has left a poorly worded introduction. You need a wider range of input, someone with a fresh look. If you ignore commentators (who happen to be familiar with the subject and Wikipedia) then you will remain defending a poorly written lead section. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  22:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Fresh perspectives are welcome and your views aren't ignored, but we all need to work within the limits of WP:CONSENSUS. If you'd like to change the first paragraph, I would suggest reviewing the RFC and related discussion above to get a sense of which proposals have been opposed and which incremental improvements have a chance of getting consensus. Eperoton (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tafseercomparison.org/study2.asp?TitleText=Study%202%3A%20Verse%205%3A3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323131933/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=10061 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=10061

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Update Request - Important Information Left out and Incorrect
'''I strongly suggest the editors of this article to please do deeper research into muhammed. There seems to be a lot of important information left out of this, in order to make the prophet appear prosecuted.

Please refer to the Quran - also to this website:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/'''

In the Article referring to muhammed, this is stated under the "Opposition Section"

According to Ibn Saad, opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that condemned idol worship and the polytheism practiced by the Meccan forefathers.[76][80] However, the Quranic exegesis maintains that it began as Muhammad started public preaching.[81] As his followers increased, Muhammad became a threat to the local tribes and rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Ka'aba, the focal point of Meccan religious life that Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad's denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba.[79] Powerful merchants attempted to convince Muhammad to abandon his preaching; he was offered admission to the inner circle of merchants, as well as an advantageous marriage. He refused both of these offers.[79]

What is written in the article portrays muhammed as being persecuted. The following was taken from www.thereligionofpeace.com and you can at the below link information on the website such as:

"TROP is not associated with any organization. The site does not promote any religion, but it is not hostile to religion.  We generally support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, women, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/site/about-site.aspx''' ''' According to Muslim historians, the Meccans were actually quite tolerant of Muhammad preaching his new religion. Mecca was an open society where different religions were respected. Polytheists, Jews and Christians lived and worshipped side-by-side, especially during the holy months, when pagan pilgrims would travel long distances from beyond the city to perform their rituals at the Kaaba.

Muhammad brought on the resentment of the local people not by preaching Islam, but by breaking with Meccan tradition 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), "[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by “condemning” the local religion, causing the Meccans great anxiety:

[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)."We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods.  We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)

Not only was this an insult to the people and their traditions, but it also threatened the local economy, which depended on the annual pilgrimage. Still, they were so eager to live at peace, that they offered Muhammad money if he would stop stirring up trouble:

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) Further proof that the Meccans did not have a problem with Islam existing side-by-side with their own religion is found in the episode known as the Satanic Verses. According to Muslim historians, Muhammad briefly agreed to their demand to cease disparaging the local gods and recognize the rights of others to their religion:

When [the Meccans] heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him… When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command. Those mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods. In the whole mosque there was no believer or kāfir who did not prostrate. (al-Tabari, the Tarikh Vol. 1)

The Meccans were clearly relieved that the unprecedented tension over religious beliefs was broken. They rejoiced by praying alongside the Muslims at the Kaaba. They accepted the Muslims once Muhammad accepted them.

Unfortunately the period of peace and brotherhood was short-lived. Muhammad soon reneged on his words after his own people began to question the contradiction between his previous claims and his new-found tolerance for other faiths. This incident, particularly his about-face, had the effect of ratcheting up the tension and hostility all the more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curarenatura (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&action=edit&section=5


 * TROP can hardly be considered an unbiased source with a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy. Their own "about" page clearly shows their stated purpose is to "explain the threat that Islam truly poses to human dignity and freedom, as well as the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist teachings." The website does a decent job linking to other reliable sources, though, but for as a source of history I wouldn't consider it reliable; we should instead defer to other sources cited by TROP and examine them on a case by case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yea that website is known to be a Zionist disinformation website that can be easily debunked as non-sense by anyone with a degree in Islamic history, a modern term for that website would be "fake news" Not to mention that website does not cite to any valid sources and when it claims to cite to valid sources, the sources do not back up what it claims. Pretty much anyone trying to copy and paste that Islamophobic drivel onto Wikipedia is just some conspiracy theory historical revisionist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force#Criticism 67.80.214.161 (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That website is an unreliable, biased source, but so are you. It is surprising how you aren't part of their website. I guess you are just trying to look sly by opposing them, just for this one matter, when you actually deeply believe in their website as a whole. When Muhammad said those verses, Shaitan had slipped it upon his tongue, as the books record it. Also, notice how it was the only event like that. That mistake only occurred once. You aren't any different. Muhammad didn't just reject their beliefs and many, many, gods, but also their traditions, such as burying their daughters alive because they were considered a shame to the family, and their trivial tribal wars over negligible matters such as someones's camel drinking from another's well or eating from another's garden, along many others. They were so deep rooted in these matters, they couldn't see what was right or wrong, so anyone opposing them, they saw them as enemies in their delusional minds without even thinking. AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The painting portraying Rasulullah (peace be upon him) are totaly objectionable cause it hempers the gravity of the article and it hurts cause it is against the order of Rasulllah(peace be upon him).my request to the editor is to remove the paintings. Srzs1 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes the painting is inappropriate and false. Rgabido (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)