Talk:Muhammad in Islam/Archive 1

Congrats
Congrats to Aminz for putting in the hard work getting this article started and to Zora for the idea. — Aiden 04:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Aiden, :) --Aminz 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Shahnawaz Ali
I am no sufi, I am a lay man with only the basic knowledge of Islam. It is my belief that Muhammad(pbuh) was a man and has passed away. The proof that i present is a quote from none other than Abu Bakr(may Allah be pleased with him) after the Prophet(pbuh) had passed away he addressed the grieving Muslims by saying that those who worship Muhammad should know that Muhammad is dead, but tell those who worship Allah that Allah shall never die.


 * I removed this from the article - please see WP:NOT for an explanation. Can you find a citation for this? --87.112.78.48 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspectives on Muhammad
Please see Category talk:Perspectives on Muhammad. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge
There is no reason to have an article named Islamic view of Muhammad and another named Islamic views of Muhammad. No objection has been raised on talk, so I will be merging. --BostonMA talk 14:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, was the merge done properly? Is all the information preserved? --Striver 09:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All the information is preserved. However, I'm not sure if that means that I performed the merge properly.  --BostonMA talk  12:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my question. Thanks. Can we rename the article to "view", it sounds better. Im going forth and mirroring the merge in the Muhammad template. --Striver 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the word "view" should not be included, as it is not only our views, rather well-documented history. − Ascetic Rosé 15:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul
This article needs a major overhaul: it currently reads like a short excerpt from Muhammad's basic bio with numerous irrelevant facts about his personal life, but almost no useful content about his historical place within the religion that he founded. The first part of fixing this is easy - removing the crap that doesn't belong at all. The next stage will be harder; it will require finding and using RS to expand the necessary content. For this, the works of recognized scholars would be preferable to quotes from the Quran and hadith. Doc  Tropics  16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes this article needs a complete overhaul by experts on this topic. I like to invite those who have good referenced materials to do this. I also will try as far as possible. − Ascetic Rosé 12:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Expand
Can you help expanding this article? Sunni view is lacking now. In addition, there are unsourced statements. It could be great if you can expand the page with adding beliefs in Islam related to the prophet. Kavas (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when do Sufis believe that the Prophet has the 'power of invisibility' and is still alive? That is not within the orthodox Sunni tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.236.94 (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

HELP EXPAND THIS ARTICLE
This article lacks vital sections and information. Plz help expand this incomplete article. − Ascetic Rosé talk  10:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, your edits are good but I have a question, there is already a page Muhammad, what's the relationship of this page to that page? Kiatdd (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not get your point. Are you saying that this page has no relevancy? Or, what do mean by relationship? -− Ascetic Rosé  talk  15:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No,I did't mean that!, I am actually asking you that what this page is going to cover? is this page about the prophet as seen by muslims? or the role of prophet in islam? or another view? thanks. Kiatdd (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you have raised an important issue. Apparently, my edits intend to describe the prophet as seen by Muslims, but I'm not quite sure how this page actually should be. I request you to present your suggestions about how this article should be. Additionally, the role of Prophet Muhammad in Islam is also important. That should also be included. In that case you and the others can put your comments about what items or information can be included here so that we can enrich this article accordingly. Someone else also should contribute to this important article. -- Ascetic Rosé  talk  01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion proposal for two sections
The sections namely "Marriage" and "Death of Muhammad" do not seem to be relevant with the purpose of this article. The info on death will come when relevant sections will be created, no need for a separate section. If no one objects, I'll delete them after a few days. -- Ascetic Rosé  talk  17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, as they are irrelevant, I support their deletion! Faizan (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Ascetic Rosé  talk  08:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

section name changing
It would be better if the section name "Divine revelation" is changed into "Prophethood". That would be more clear, direct, and in line with the article's purpose. "Divine revelation" and "Muhammad’s early teachings" can be kept as sub-sections with relevant info. -- Ascetic Rosé  talk  03:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with Amendments, Well I think that the sub-sections of "3.2 Divine revelation, 3.3 Muhammad on preaching ,3.4 Muhammad’s early teachings ,3.5 Opposition and persecution, 3.6 Last years in Mecca ,3.7 Migration to Medina ,3.7.1 Medina at that time, 3.7.2 Hijra ,3.8 Muhammad in Medina, 3.8.1 Establishment of first Muslim state" should be under the section of "Prophethood" (Location:After the sub-section of "3.1.1 Social welfare"), and the sub-sections of "3.8.2 Persistent hostility of Quraysh, 3.8.3 Causes of and preparation for fighting, 3.8.4 The Battle of Badr" Should be moved to a new section of "Opposition"(Location:After Prophethood). I hope than the concerned sections would be perfect. Faizan (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Partially agree with Faizan. First of all, sections like 3.6 Last years in Mecca ,3.7 Migration to Medina ,3.7.1 Medina at that time, 3.7.2 Hijra ,3.8 Muhammad in Medina etc. may need to be cut out as far as possible due to the risk of content forking, hence they probably can't come under section "Prophethood". I'm completely agree with Faizan that sub-sections like "3.8.2 Persistent hostility of Quraysh, 3.8.3 Causes of and preparation for fighting, 3.8.4 The Battle of Badr" should be moved to a new section of "Opposition". -- Ascetic Rosé  talk  09:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure! As consensus has been reached by users participating in the discussion, the section of "Prophethood", be expanded and section of "Opposition" be created. Faizan (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Ascetic Rosé  talk  13:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Early years: sub-section name proposal
In this article, the texts in section Early years should come under some headlines. I have the following proposal: "Orphanhood: a divine plan" for the second para; "God's protection" (combining the third para and the lower text of the first para), and "Early sign(s) of Prophethood" for the last para. (the sub-sections will come in sequence as has been mentioned). -- Ascetic Rosé  talk  09:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I agree! As per the aim of the Article, these corrections and amendments are necessary and undeclinable! Faizan (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As consensus has been reached by the participants of this discussion, and no one has presented any alternative view, I'm going to create these headlines. -- Ascetic Rosé   11:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, good work! Faizan (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sunni view?
Some of article text is in my opinion Sunni view, since it cites Bukhari and other Sunni hadith books. But the part named "Sunni beliefs" is missing. The main text of the article, relying on Sunni hadith books, is decribed as "Muhammad in Islamic thought". I assume Shia accept most of those beliefs too, but through different hadith books. What about moving Sunni sources to Sunni beliefs section? Any ideas? Kavas (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The section "In Islamic thought" uses only one citation from Bukhari. Even if it used more from there, I don't see any problem. I don't agree with the idea that the section should be moved to Sunni beliefs section as that section is the main section of the article. It would be better if we don't go for Sunni-Shia distinction as their views on Prophet Muhammad (SW) are almost same.-- Ascetic Rosé   05:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this article is not about comparative sects in Islam. We should remove the section: "Views of different Madhhabs". Fai  zan  06:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree to remove this section.-- Ascetic Rosé   10:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I counted Bukhari 4 times (not including different Bukhari references for the same information) in the whole text. Kavas (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So what????? It can be cited more than that if necessary!-- Ascetic Rosé   13:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It can be cited more than that if necessary. But, I wonder what a Shia expert Wikipedia editor would reply to my above comment about Shia's view on Bukhari. Kavas (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we will have to wait for a Shia. This article is not about comparative sects' reverence about the Prophet Muhammad. Removing the sections for now. Waiting for the editor required. Fai  zan  15:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Prophet's Surname is Missing
It was Al-Qorashi القرشي after his tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.108.101.54 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Prophet's name should be limited to his grandfather, whom he saw. He did not see his great grandfather.

Correction
' "al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين), meaning "the Faithful".[8][9] ' The correct meaning is "the Trustworthy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilaila (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

vandalism
User:The Almightey Drill, you seem to be an experienced editor. It has appeared that you offended User:Kww by calling him as "Wahabbis". Please read Civility. Moreover, I can report you due to your bad action, but I will not do it. Change your behaviour. --Lippolop (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

this is not complicated.
I add source already Quran 2:285. http://www.muslim.org/islam/int-is33.htm and http://abuaminaelias.com/is-prophet-muhammad-better-than-other-prophets-making-no-distinction-between-the-prophets-of-allah/ and that source that messengers of ALLAH have no distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpleabd (talk • contribs) 05:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Islamic belief
Since this is article is about Islamic belief of prophet Muhammad, Kindly fix this page. In islamic belief, It is strictly stated that messengers of ALLAH have no distinction. in Islamic belief, some christians and jews deceived in the view of the prophet Jesus stated in Holy Quran. Muslims must not deceived in the view of any prophets of ALLAH. that is why Muslims are humble submission to the will of Oneness of ALLAH The God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaktry (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Infobox
The article is about Muhammad in Islam, so the infobox is supposed to reflect "what Muhammad in Islam is". This is why this change is not controversial.--The Coffee Monster 1 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing misleading references to so-called "Main Article"
I have previously removed references to the so-called "Main Article" (the page "Muhammad"); which uses a secular POV and intentionally quotes misleading historical POVs; namely the well-known mistranslated Quran / biographies by André du Ryer (sanctioned by the King of France), subsequent version from French to English by Alexander Ross (see: English translations of the Quran) and subsequent "Western" "scholarly" works based entirely on these two primary misinterpretations. These works differ drastically from first-hand accounts of Muslim historians, and this page serves the perspective of these individuals. I have argued that the two articles (the aforementioned page "Muhammad" and this article Muhammad in Islam) serve entirely separate purposes, and therefore the reference to "Main Article" is misleading and "nefarious" (I do not use this word lightly). This is why I believe so, the so-called "Main Article" does not contain any references to this page or its POVs, and yet WP editors insist on redirecting this page to "Muhammad". I will argue therefore that references to "Main Article" should be removed as it is not in good faith.

I have been requested by editor to obtain consensus before removing the links. In my experience, consensus is rarely achieved on WP as TP discussions are largely ignored, I am however creating an entry on the TP for that purpose. As people tend to largely ignore these discussions, I will remove the said links / references to "Main Article" after 24 hours of this entry. Vdr11 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest waiting at least a week, if not more, before taking action. Talk pages aren't as low-traffic as you may think. clpo13(talk) 00:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the two articles is that Muhammad is the main article about the historical person and this article deals with how he is represented in Islam. @Vdr11: Are you suggesting that Muhammad in Islam is not about the historical person? That's the only reason there should not be a link between the two articles.
 * I do not think this article is a POV fork; I think there is a good cause for a separate article on how he is portrayed in Islam and his historical personage overall. Since the two articles are thus related, we need navigation back and forth between them. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * - Thank you for your suggestion., you actually answered your own question; this is the Muslim POV, while the former is the secular POV. This page was created because of these two conflicting POVs. They are being written about the same historical person, but with entirely separate perspectives (as you may also see Muhammad in Islam contains various Quranic references). You cannot call the page "Muhammad" a "Main Article" linked to the page Muhammad in Islam (herein the former and the later). It is utterly misleading. And again, as you suggested that "we need navigation back and forth between them"; there are ZERO links from the former page to the later page, which adds creed to me my argument that you are imposing the POV of the former page on to the later. While not making any mention of Muhammad in Islam page to the so-called "Main Article". This is entirely not in good faith. Calling it a "Main Article: is not true. The only rational conclusion would be to present a "See Also" on both pages or to have no links between the two. Vdr11 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a POV fork, then the other question is, should this article exist at all? —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, I feel like I am going around in circles. You are avoiding the main issue, the reference to "Main Article" is misleading and not true and the only rational conclusion would be to present a "See Also" on both pages or to have no links between the two. as stated by me earlier. I have also stated why it is not in good faith to include such a link, i.e. the fact that you are imposing a secular POV on this page, but not making any mention of this page vice-versa. Also, this is not a POV fork (contrary to forking, editors often create spin-offs or new article for related material. "This is acceptable" per WP). As I said in my very first post at the start of these discussions, the TP entries most often go in circles and consensus is never reached. But this issue is rather clear, either link both articles to each other with a "See Also" or don't link at all. Otherwise, it is not fair. Vdr11 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that similar articles like Judaism's views on Muhammad, Medieval Christian views on Muhammad, and others don't have this "main article" note at the top, I decided to remove it. If you think that it should stay, then please go and add it to the similar articles I mentioned.--31.218.178.125 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The introduction to Judaism's views on Muhammad now parallels this article in the linking process. I'm happy with the current situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

, thank you for your changes and for our consensus. It is appreciated. May I please also remove the link to the other page using double brackets " " around the name Muhammad in the introduction paragraph? Because I feel again, it is essentially the same issue / argument that I put forward earlier. There are no linking to this page from the other ones, so it would only be fair. Vdr11 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Vdr11: No, I disapprove of removing the link for the reason I stated above: similar articles like Judaism's views on Muhammad also link to Muhammad in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article refuse to knowledge Quranists?
With statements such as "Muhammad, is considered in Islam to be the greatest messenger.", "regarded by them as the greatest of all the prophets", "is considered by them as the greatest of all the prophets", "Muslims see Muhammad as primary intercessor and believe that he will intercede on behalf of the believers on Last Judgment day.".

All of which Quranists, and even non Quranists have differed over. Jahelistbro (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately our article on Quranism doesn't go into any detail about how Quranists view Muhammad except as the person who first received the Quran. One could qualify the statements you quoted above by saying "most Muslims believe..." or "...is widely considered in Islam...". These are sort of WP:WEASEL words however, so it might be best to state the Quranist view directly if it opposes the view attributed to Islam and Muslims in the article.
 * Do you have any specific suggestions on how the text should change? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A weasel word is when you use a word like that for unsupported assertions, Wikipedia is straightforward about that, and "muslims believe", "is considered in Islam", "according to muslims", these all seem much closer to Wikipedia's description of weasle words than what you suggest. It's like it used to state most, then someone saw that description on weasel words, and went, well these're unsupported assertions, I'll just take out the "most" and noone will care. I do suggest we write in "most Muslims believe", because to state otherwise is a fabrication, and is against the NPOV of Wikipedia. And then perhaps, although I am unsure if this would be helpful, because as I stated there might be as much perspective between Quranists, we could write a sort of "A minority of muslims believe that we shouldn't distinguish between the prophets (2:136, and 3:84). I wouldn't write Quranist though, because there isn't a sure Quranist perspective but that "we all follow the Quran", some Quranists might be of the perspective that 2:136, and 3:84 don't mean that, and some non-Quranists might be of the perspective that those do. Also since I am referencing to the Quran, what does the reference to 48:29 have to do with the statement "Muhammad is considered in Islam to be the greatest messenger", it doesn't state that. (And the linguistics of this article, noooooooo) Jahelistbro (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Visual Representation
Muhammad is never depicted visually by any Muslim. Because this considered as un-islamic action. <>


 * Depictions of Muhammad proves otherwise. TharkunColl 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * this action is non-islamic in other words no Muslim can do under the rules of islam => not considered to be Muslim.what is ur definition of Muslim someone who follow Muhammad or someone he said "i'am muslim"! <>


 * It is not up to you, or Wikipedia, to decide who is and isn't a "true" Muslim. TharkunColl 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yes its called "Islamic views of Muhammad" not u. Its a fact that Islam forbid this. Return to Depictions of Muhammad. <>


 * It is a fact that some Muslims throughout history have depicted Muhammad. The article Depictions of Muhammad proves it. What you're trying to do is impose religious dogma on Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. TharkunColl 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * anyway not "quite often". <>

Depiction ofLiving things in any form is forbidden in Islam and it is rystal Clear .What ever one ortwo muslims do we don't subsribe them.Shabiha 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs)

Why are earth is this here? There are no images on this article. Zazaban (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people bother so much about Depictions of Muhammad which is not good from Islamic perspective. Which one is more important to a Muslim? His depictions? Or his great ideal that he left behind? Surely the latter one. Yes, some Muslims throughout history have depicted Muhammad. Surely they are wrong. All the Islamic scholars are unanimous on the point that depictions of Muhammad are prohibited in Islam. No depiction should be allowed on this article, because it is Muhammad in Islam, not in general. Any such violation must be reverted immediately. − Ascetic Rosé 12:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is blatant censorship and POV. For example, to the Shia, only sculpture is illegal, not drawings. The Persians and Ottomans depicted Muhammad, and in a reverent way. Who are you to say that they weren't Muslims? It helps the reader to see reverent images made by Muslims in honour of Muhammad. The views of the Amish and Puritans are not overriding pictures of Jesus are they? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Muhammad has been depicted by Muslims, such as Rashid-al-Din_Hamadani. The Qu'ran does not prohibit images of Muhammad. The Qu'ran only prohibits worships images and idols. An image simply depicting Muhammad, therefore does not go against Islamic beliefs. Also saying "any image must be reverted" is not true. Wikipedia is a neutral source for information, and does not censor itself, AsceticRose, please check out their FAQ regarding the matter Martin Van Ballin&#39; (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Content
Why is this page so short? This doesn't even contain a discourse of Ali's views of Muhammad! --IHusain 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a new article. Please add the sourced content you speak of. — Aiden 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why you didnot write the honour words of Prophet Muhammad Sallallaho Alaihi Wa Alihi Wasallam when writing His name? Rashkehoor (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What part of question 5 of the FAQ was unclear in explaining that? —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Page views
Leo1pard (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad in Islam. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927205845/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/SeptBiblicalSt2y6.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/SeptBiblicalSt2y6.html

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) 08:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Swingoswingo
Some of the recent edits by user Swingoswingo were problematic. Persecution of newly converts by the Quraysh was not a 'reportedly' incident. Almost every book on Prophet Muhammad mentions this. Again, Swingoswingo's deletion of the line Following the emigration, the Meccans seized the properties of the Muslim emigrants in Mecca is sourced and comes from the main article Muhammad where it is standing for a long time. And please remember that the scope of this article is to present the Islamic view on Muhammad, to narrate how the Muslims see Muhammad. I've left a note on Swingoswingo's talk page regarding my concern about his edits. - Ascetic Rosé   14:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Main branches of Islam vs Muslims
The issue is pretty clear. Almost all the sources say 'Muslims', and we go by sources. It is in act an original research to use 'main branches of Islam'. Currently, I'm not going to start a debate as I assume we both know the past saga. And the main article is not an excuse because if this article adheres to the Muhammad article in its viewpoints, what was the need to have this separate Muhammad in Islam article? It is better to first discuss such sensitive changes before editing. - Ascetic Rosé   14:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This article isn't a vehicle to state a religious POV in Wikipedia's voice, even if sources do that. The same rules apply here as in the Muhammad article, and arguments that led to certain choices of words there, also apply here.


 * If you are familiar with the discussions that led to the "main branches" wording (see Muhammad article, you should understand why the wording is needed: because not all people who describe themselves as "Muslim" agree with the assertion that "Muhammad is regarded by Muslims as the final prophet." Therefore, the statement is factually incorrect, which is why I revised it for consistency with the Muhammad article. That revision doesn't contradict the sources; it's just more precise than the sources. Some people might not consider the Ahmadiyya as "true" Muslims, but they do, and it isn't up to us to decide who is an who isn't Muslim. As an analogy, the main branches of Christianity don't consider Mormonism to be a Christian faith (the Mormons consider Joseph Smith to be the final prophet after Jesus), but the Mormons do; therefore the Christianity article includes them as a branch of Christianity. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Poisoning
This topic pops up now and then at Talk:Muhammad, latest at Talk:Muhammad. I mention it since it may have a place in this article, the book by A. C. Brown looks like a decent source. I note that Zaynab bint Al-Harith is an article, but not a very good one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"His Prophet" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect His Prophet. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020
Many Shi'a scholars say the Prophet (saww) was born on the 17th of Rabi ul Awwal 104.37.130.115 (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to include pp semiprotect
Forgot to add Pp semiprotect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.129.56 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Issues
After skimming through the article, I saw that many sentences are unreferenced. The names and titles of praise section need a Quranic reference for each name, but it is currently not the case. Fo this article to keep its good status it must have appropriately referenced material. Wretchskull (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

About the Infobox
Why is it categorized as a saint? He was a prophet and a religious figure, the term saint belongs to other religions but not in islam. As for the background color, someone please change it from yellow to white or green. Our prophet(SAW) disliked the yellow color and it is a great insult to use this color for his infobox. Ishan87 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Medina Piazza Umbrella.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Medina Piazza Umbrella.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022
Change Hegira to Hijrah اخسجہ (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: makes sense, given that the relevant article is Hijrah not Hegira. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Baggaet (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022
Muhammad(sallallaho alaihe wasallam) haven't founded Islam but he spread it all over world, Like Adam(alhe slaam),MUSA(alhe slaam),ISSA(alhe slaam, Also known as Jesus) they are messenger of Allah(SWT). 134.238.14.6 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Cannolis (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2022
213.230.78.114 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Muhammad isn't the founder of Islam he was the prophet sent by Allah


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As stated in the FAQ at Talk:Muhammad: "While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a Wikipedia biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as 'Islam' exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region. The word 'founder' is used in that context, and not intended to imply that Muhammad invented the religion he introduced to Arabia." —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

About prophet Muhammad SAW.
Hi my name is md dilkash. In this time we all know about birth of prophet Muhammad from this wikipedia's. But earliest about 10 years before we don't know about this date. Any conflicts about this date? People are said that born date is not written anywhere. Can you give a fact reference about the date ? Thankyou 27.61.115.206 (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, you'll see that the birth year of 570 has two footnotes, one to a reliable source, and the other footnote explains that there are differences of opinion. It is not clear what you are asking. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)