Talk:Muhammad: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:47, 28 July 2011

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad are allowed and will not be removed from this article. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Wikipedia settings not to display them, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

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

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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

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

Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?

A1:

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

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

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

Q2: Aren't the images of Muhammad false?

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

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

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

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

Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?

A3: If you do not wish to view Muhammad images, you can hide the depictions in this article from your personal account by following these steps:

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

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

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

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

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

Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?

A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.

Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?

A5: Wikipedia's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Q6: Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?

A6: While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a 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.

Q7: Why does it look like the article is biased toward secular or "Western" references?

A7:

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

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

Q8: Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?

A8: Persistent disruption of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts, while still allowing edits by more experienced users who are familiar with Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, so long as the original authors (Wikipedia contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license.

Q9: Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?

A9: No. The official policy is that Wikipedia is not censored.

Q10: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?

A10: This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period; therefore, there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia.^[1] Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is as young as eleven years old, or any age inside of a marriage. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha for further information.

References

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

Template:Pbneutral

Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 7, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 30, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
July 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

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

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

Biography: Core GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

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

Islam GA‑class Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Arab world GA‑class Top‑importance

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

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

Saudi Arabia GA‑class Top‑importance

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

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

Middle Ages GA‑class Top‑importance

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

Military history: Biography / Medieval / Early Muslim GA‑class

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

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, and June 8, 2006.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

Image archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Mediation Archives

Archive Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

Some Muslims "experience Muhammad as a living reality"?

This edit drew my attention to this sentence in "Muslim views". What is it supposed to mean? Is it meant to be taken literally: they believe that M. is still alive? Or metaphysically, if so in what way? And what is "experience" supposed to mean anyway? It should be reworded (or if no one knows its meaning, deleted). DeCausa (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims do not believe he is still alive(physically). They also do not believe in him being resurrected.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. What is the sentence supposed to mean? DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a NOTE: There are some offshoot Islamic school of thoughts, who view Islam in ways which can be regarded as Bidat, Shirk or Kufr in mainstream schools (Sunni, Shia). Many Sufi beliefs can be classified as such. Some such believers regard Muhammad in a godly fashion, while most other would not (most Muslims think, such beliefs are Shirk). I don't know much about authentic Sufi sources, but I assume they have such belief (I'm not pretty sure though, but I've heard some people expressing as such). » nafSadh did say 18:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true but I'm still asking what does "experience Muhammad as a living reality" mean? Just to be clear: I think it means nothing and should be deleted or re-worded. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny... Yep, that edit got my attention too (thanks for pointing it out). I don't believe there is any base to re-word on, so I support deletion. Sources consider that they believe all prophets are living in heaven, but it doesn't make sense with the rest of the sentence. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 06:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the end of that sentence is pretty odd too:"believing in his ongoing significance to human beings as well as animals and plants". Plants??? DeCausa (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple deleting of that sentence will do. A Sufi branch's view is a fringe view, and does not need to be included here. Unflavoured (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion might do best. Sufi view only, but do not tune with the context. Rather disruptive sentence than informative. » nafSadh did say 11:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the sentence. Sorry for being late in notifying here. » nafSadh did say 04:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad the space traveler

An editor is attempting to add the assertion that Muhammad was the first space traveler. The source used does not mention the word "outer space," and I doubt any scholars consider "the heavens" to be synonymous with "outer space." This wouldn't be any different than asserting that Jesus was able to ascend into outer space, like Superman. I also note that the first attempt at this referred to a mythological horse as an [Islamic space shuttle, which I initially interpreted to be sneaky vandalism given the dubious wording and vague edit summary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is no real editorial control over articles (which anyone can submit), and in any case I note that the editor has been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed obvious enough to me, but some around here are quick to make edit-warring accusations even when the additions seem like obvious BS to me. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something new

I was searching through Reddit and I found this [[1]]. What do you Muslims think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.154.126 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT A MESSAGE FORUM. Sorry. This has nothing to do with the article on Muhammad. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JERUSALEM

The reference to Mohamed going to Jerusalem should be updated to include the information that this was a recent addition with no historic validity for the purpose of claiming the Jewish Temple Mount and the Western Wall as Islamic. It was only after the 1967 Six Day War that it became the 3rd holiest site to Islam. There is no mention of Jerusalem in the Koran. Moslems in Jerusalem pray with their backs to the Western Wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.27.202 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source, go ahead and add it yourself. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

founder of islam?

He just a human.Allah(God) sends rules.Allah sends İncil(youre calling holy bible), Tevrat(Tora), Kur'an, Zebur(Hz.Davud's book-you calling David).Allah is the greatness.Allah sends all messengers and books.Hz.Adem(you calling Adam), first human, he is a messenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.189.240 (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources all state that Muhammad was the founder of Islam. The article also notes that this is contrary to many Muslim religious beliefs. Unfortunately, "my religious belief says otherwise" is not a reliable source. Singularity42 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the following (ref 4) is the reference referring to "Muhammad" being the "founder" of Islam... the reference doesn't seem to quote such a thing. It states the term "preached", but it doesn't seem to define him as the "founder". On top of that the source isn't really on the topic of general held opinions that Muhammad is believed to be the "founder" of islam or even about the origin of islam. Surely perhaps a source referring to general held beliefs through the ages of what people assumed Muhammad as being would be more suitable than a source that doesn't seem to provide any insight to the claim? Faro0485 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's reference 2. It's a major text on the history of Islam, but it's not online. Singularity42 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should say: "He is regarded by Muslims as the final messenger of Allah for humanity, but not the founder. Muslims consider the start of Islam among humanity with Adam, the prophet considered to be the first human being. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says that Muslims don't hold the view that Muhammad is the founder. Also, this article isn't about Islam, therefore explaining a theological point seems unnecessary in this article. In the past I have proposed re-wording it to remove the word "founder" and instead say that Muhammad introduced Islam to the world, but that proposal didn't go anywhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire page is slanted propoganda

The page appears quite biased (see European/Western Views). How can this page be locked off in its current form?? It's full of opinion and stereotypes about the views of Mohammed. If it causes so much belly-aching that there has to be a special FAQ catered to Muslims, then we're all fooling ourselves thinking we live in a free country and that Wikipedia's a shared resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP123 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire page is slanted propoganda and should be edited high and low! This is NOT an informational piece ('he was happily married...'). I think there are accounts of Muhammad raping, plundering, and being killing... Where are these FACTUAL accounts??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP123 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, PLEASE, add new topics at the bottom of this page instead of all over the place. THANK YOU. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With your editing history, you should be able to edit the article. If you have reliable sources, go ahead and edit it yourself. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it mentions the Bah'hai people in the top header - as if that makes any sense - that's completely out of place.

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

[1]

Revision as of 00:38, 28 July 2011 edit Doctorx0079 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,402 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:47, 28 July 2011 edit undo 208.120.13.190 (talk) →This entire page is slanted propoganda Next edit →
Line 162:		Line 162:

	:With your editing history, you should be able to edit the article. If you have [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]], go ahead and edit it yourself. -- [[User:Doctorx0079\|Doctorx0079]] ([[User talk:Doctorx0079\|talk]]) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)		:With your editing history, you should be able to edit the article. If you have [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]], go ahead and edit it yourself. -- [[User:Doctorx0079\|Doctorx0079]] ([[User talk:Doctorx0079\|talk]]) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

			Lol, it mentions the Bah'hai people in the top header - as if that makes any sense - that's completely out of place.