This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I just wanted to suggest that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is not the founder of Islam! Think about it, if you say he was only preaching what Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (Peace be upon all) preached who again were chosen and sent by the same God, how could that same God have different religions for different prophets? So the truth is that Islam came into existence when the first ever human being was created that is Prophet Adam (Peace be upon him). 49.206.50.102 ( talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No sect of islam can ever doubt on the finality of prophet hood of prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. If anyone does not believe him to be the last prophet, he is not muslims or follower of islam according to holy quran.The Holy Quran, Surah Al Ahzab 33:40
Two translations of this Ayah follow:
O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, butverily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (heis) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
(The Holy Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:40)
Muslim Scholars, since the time of our belovedProphet(sallallaho alaihe wassallam), have understood this verse to mean that no new Prophet or Messengerwill be sent to humanity until the day of judgment. 154.192.47.71 ( talk) 17:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE ADD THE SYMBOL " ﷺ " AFTER EVERY TIME THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD v IS MENTIONED AS IT IS OBLIGTORY FOR EVERY MUSLIM TO TELL " ﷺ " EVERY TIME WE TAKE OR HEAR THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD ﷺ. AND PLEASE INSERT " رضي الله عنهم " EVERY SINGLE TIME THE NAME OF A COMPANION رضي الله عنهم OF MUHAMMAD ﷺ IS TAKEN. PLEASE ENTER " عليه السلام " EVERY TIME THE NAME OF A PROPHET OF ALLAH سبحانه و تعالى ( EG- IBRAHIM عليه السلام, ISMAIL عليه السلام, MOSA عليه السلام, ISA عليه السلام, ADAM عليه السلام ) IS TAKEN. AND ENTER " سبحانه و تعالى EVERY TIME THE NAME OF ALLAH سبحانه و تعالى IS TAKEN, WHICH MEANS " MAY HE BE GLORIFIED AND EXALTED " A MUSLIM, REGARDS 31.205.59.137 ( talk) 19:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was an spelling mistake on name of Prophet Muhammad. It's correct spelling is Mohammad And the correct name of the prophet Mohammad birth place is Makkah not mecca. Mecca is the wrong spelling according to the Islamic scholors 103.199.182.251 ( talk) 06:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mustafa Muhammed 92.234.139.64 ( talk)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhammad pbuh was born in 570 AD or 571 AD 43.231.29.161 ( talk) 09:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
He is, not was 182.190.218.195 ( talk) 06:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
this page should add this symbol ﷺ. Quran it makes clear mention that whenever we say the Prophet Muhammad’s name it should be said with one of the following SAW, SAWS, pbuh, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, or the symbol ﷺ. Mr.Mwiki.ion ( talk) 03:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Please add ﷺ after the name of prophet Muhammad ﷺ. If You want to add 'peace be upon him' instead of ﷺ . because ﷺ in Arabic some people can't understand who is non muslim. its also ok to write peace be upon him after the writing name of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. because without telling this it is not good so please give respect to our prophet. Thank You♥️ Hamidlz786 ( talk) 16:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Age is given wrong. Have to change it. حارث ابن ناصر ( talk) 04:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, please change the starting lines. Muhammad ﷺ [a] was an Arab religious, social, and political leader..... I said this because on the articles of Abraham and Moses and other prophets, the same starting is seen so why not on Muhammad ﷺ. Also there should be Hebrew as well since Hebrew was spoken by Jews of Arabia at the time (See Sahih al-Bukhari 7362). ShuratiMuslim 7:04 4 October, 2021
The first line is also ghastly wrong by saying Muhammad founded Islam. Who says that, except non Muslims! And ill-informed Muslims. So biased. According to Islamic teachings, it was founded by God and practised by all the prophets including Jesus. Thus the opening line is an anti-Islam lie. I expect nothing less from Wikipedia actually. Just letting the odd good folks know.
I requested you that add the of Muhammad with (PBUH) this is the very important thing for every muslim Muhammad Akbar khan kakar ( talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
اسمه محمد عبد الله 2402:3A80:1909:3AB4:7C33:611D:1938:23CC ( talk) 13:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
His name is Muhammad Abdullah. We will leave the title as it is per WP:COMMONNAME Signed, IAm Chaos 05:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
it is quite misleading and misguiding for it to be written as muhammed is the founder of Islam... This is a biased view since Islam has no founder but rather you should've written it as muhammed was the final prophet of Islam according to Muslims and so and so.... it is also misleading for a person who doesn't know about Islam come here and see muhammed "founded" Islam... Ameershahul29 ( talk) 14:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
You clearly haven't read the Quran. This is incorrect as the Quran is more factually and historically correct than the Bible making it more accurate to the stories and prophets within it. And before YOU respond. Google who wrote the Gospels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.215.80 ( talk) 09:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Prophet Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. This article is incorrect. He's the final prophet of Islam. The statue of him in the US Supreme Court even expresses this. Please update this article or allow us to provide the correct content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.215.80 ( talk) 09:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In two years after the signing of the Hudaybiya Treaty, Muhammad’s army had become strong enough to overrun the Quraysh. Therefore, he altogether threw away the ten-year treaty and ordered preparations for attacking Mecca. He wanted to take the Quraysh by surprise. As preparations went on, he kept praying to Allah: ‘‘O Allah, take eyes and ears from the Quraysh so that we may take them by surprise in their land.’’ Ravan Agnihotri ( talk) 10:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC) <M. A. Khan : Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery>
I had given evidence from Authentic Sources of islam Ravan Agnihotri ( talk) 10:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Use Template:Hidden image for the images which seems to be unwanted to watch by some readers. 103.230.107.2 ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Please write SAW after name Muhammad Aslamofficial ( talk) 19:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet Correction: he is the Last prophet. 2400:ADC1:121:B300:CC6E:C48B:2F11:2D89 ( talk) 20:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad(S.A.W) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sajjad Naseem ( talk) 03:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Source 30 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kindly correct Ref#30, which appears to incorrectly link to a work of fiction. Perhaps this is the intended reference Plaidfury ( talk) 03:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Please change the title 'Muhammad' to 'Muhammad (PBUH).' Adding 'PBUH' (peace be upon him) after his name is the very basic form of respect given to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Even when taught in Religious Education, 'PBUH' is included with his name.
This is, after all, the most influential person in human history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.120.179 ( talk) 13:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Why are racist evangelicals the source under criticism? Some of these sources are pure conjecture and hateful rumors. Muhammad seems to be the subject of the longest-running smear campaign in history. Nice try, people can think for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.110.236 ( talk) 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Please Add " ﷺ " After the Name of Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ﷺ. This is Compulsary — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyedNaqwi ( talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Muhammad (s.a.w) was not founder of islam. But he was the last profet of allah Islam is a deen not a religion. The founder of islam is adam(a.s) 103.111.34.163 ( talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Kindly go through the Quran where Prophet muhammad (pbuh) is always shown as a messenger of islam not the founder..Islam was way behind Muhammad pbuh birth..from the time of first human being Adam alaisalam..kindly go through the Quran there are number of refrences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:B:FB95:6A78:46CC:85F2:B2A ( talk) 13:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The signature that is there is true it is false misconception 105.160.93.62 ( talk) 05:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
As per various early sources, documented by Stephen Shoemaker, Muhammad bin Abdullah died in 634-5 AD and not 632 AD, after launching the conquest of Palestine. On the other hand, as per Shoemaker, the Islamic biographies indicating that Muhammad died in 632 AD are 8th century texts, thus less reliable. Teerthaloke102 ( talk) 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The lead section currently states he is: "believed to be the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though the modern Ahmadiyya movement diverges from this belief". This is not entirely accurate and the difference is actually more subtle. Virtually no branch of Islam, except perhaps the Quranists and some modernists, believes him to be final in an absolute and unqualified sense since they believe Jesus is still alive and expect his return after prophet Muhammad's death, though they do not see this as violating his finality. Conversely, Ahmadis too believe him to be the final prophet though they too do not view the coming of a subordinate prophet upholding the law of Islam as violating his finality. Both positions qualify the finality in some way and the Ahmadi position on this doesn't diverge from this belief, if it does at all, any more than that of most other Islamic groups who believe in a living Jesus. The statement as it currently stands is therefore misleading.
I propose that the statement: "he is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets in all branches of Islam" more accurately covers both positions. The different understandings of the term 'Seal of the Prophets' can also be outlined in a footnote, or reference to the Ahmadiyya movement omitted altogether from the lead. I would welcome other ideas. -- Sirius86 16:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for the input. I will edit the statement accordingly and add a note. -- Sirius86 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:6A7:7D00:68F3:CBD1:5CEE:AB2 ( talk)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph it is wrongly mentioned as prophet Mohammed is the founder of islam . But according correct islamic sources from sahih bukhari and Muslim and also from quran itself , prophet Mohammed is not the founder of islam, he is final messenger of islam . Please correct it. Thank you 2409:4071:D94:2578:0:0:FAC8:D601 ( talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This talk page seems to continuously recieve the same sort of questions about things that are already covered in the FAQ. I think we need to at least consider the idea of reverting these basic questions instead of constantly answering them, as they don't add any substantial value to conversations about improving the article. Has a moratorium on these questions been considered before? -- Spekkios ( talk) 01:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this to other religion section: By some members of the Ahmadiya Muslim Community, Islamic Prophet Muhammad is believed to be the Hindu Avatar Kalki; some of the Muslim scholars and a few of the Hindu scholars [1] [2] including also argued that Kalki is mentioned indicating Muhammad in some Hindu scriptures. [2] [3] Ved Prakash Upaddhayya, a Hindu scolar, claimed Muhammad as Kalki in his book Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb, [4] which arguement was both welcomed and criticised by both Hindu and Muslim scholars. 116.58.202.38 ( talk) 04:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request for a substantive change (Redacted)
Kindly mention book: Quran 82.7.175.94 ( talk) 22:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The Quran is the central religious text of Islam. Muslims believe it represents the words of God revealed by the archangel Gabriel to Muhammad.
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add author-link= Muhittin Serin to the source Serin, Muhittin (1998) Gazozlu ( talk) 00:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please don’t write Muhammad it is disrespect please write *The Holy Prophet* and add peace be upon him or salallahu alayhiwasalam.also the Holy Prophet Salalahu alayhiwasalam passed away at the age of 63. 92.239.10.85 ( talk) 20:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is not founder of Islam he actually completed islam. He was the last prophet sent to mankind by the Almighty 217.165.146.205 ( talk) 22:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the death of Muhammad box, the medina, hejaz, Arabia is not linked, while the birth of place is. Egyptio ( talk) 16:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Considering there is very little evidence that Muhammad was a real person, shouldn't the article address the historicity of his existence? 47.40.144.152 ( talk) 14:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was not founder of Islam. But, according to Islamic doctrine, he was the last prophet of Islam. Islam started at the beginning of time, and not with Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This is basic Islam. The Qu'ran itself is the main source of this. Holy Qu'ran, Chapter 33, Verse 40. Please change the detail, in this article which incorrectly says that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the founder of Islam, as per the most authentic source about Islam - the Qu'ran itself. Change it into stating, that according to the Holy Qu'ran itself, he (pbuh) is the last prophet of Allah (swt). 77.71.186.229 ( talk) 03:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Did Muhammad have a surname or a family name? I maybe have missed it but i was unable to find anything info in the article 82.13.90.63 ( talk) 18:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason Help:Shortened footnotes have not been implemented here? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I saw the criticism at the end of the main page and I wonder why it is not written that early Christians labeled Muhammad as heretic Christian? It's said in Medieval Christian views on Muhammad so why not include it here too? Temp0000002 ( talk) 19:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
There are several citations pointing to Peters, 2003, but there are two entries in the reference table. Without the books in-hand, I can't resolve where the pointers are supposed to go. Typically I would add "2003b" to one of them, but I would just be guessing which one was intended. If someone has the books, please help, or I might just remove them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add to the parents section. Halimah al-Sa'diyah is his milk mother. Islamic tradition makes her Muhammed’s mother. 24.130.10.160 ( talk) 12:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MUHAMMAD IS PROPHET NOT LEADER 62.166.245.222 ( talk) 11:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello i would like to edit this page because a link to Muhammad's father is a redirect to another link i would like to edit that, thank you. Abu calaf ( talk) 14:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from Muhammad was copied or moved into Criticism of Muhammad. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Pastelitodepapa ( talk) 22:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) Asmasadhak ( talk) 01:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
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.Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
So are we sure that marrying a 6 year old girl is not pedophilia? This sounds like NPOV and religious appeasement to me. Or do we go by whatever the culture at the time believes is pedophilia? is there no cutoff age for pedophilia if there is a culture for it? Jamesman666 ( talk) 16:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
|
I just added “circa 610 CE” to the Intro. This timing launches the sequence of Islamic events in that paragraph, and I believe that this small additional clarification will help students of this major Article. However, I know that more experienced editors review all changes, and I happily defer to your judgment on this. Thanks for your consideration. Left Central ( talk) 11:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Arabic Pronunciation be added? It's not even under the name section, yet it lists the Anglicized pronunciation. I don't want to edit this page without asking first, I'm sure this page is a controversial one to edit, to say the least. Yoleaux ( talk) 21:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad's death was mostly likely caused due to him eating poisoned food served by a Jewish lady following the conquest of Khaibar. He himself believed it to be the cause of his death. The reason given for the poisoning is because she wanted revenge for her family who were killed.
Sources for poisoning: Sahih Bukhari 3:47:786 , Sahih Muslim 26:5430, Ibn Ishaq The Life of Muhammad p.516.
In Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713, Aisha is narrated to have said: "The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."
In Ibn Sa'd, Vol. 2, p. 252, : "The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaybar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein, which is a vein in the back"
A very important detail which is left out.
Donalddoco12 (
talk)
15:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it should be removed that he is the "founder of Islam" and instead be who carried the message of Islam Zouzouzozoo ( talk) 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mohammed is not the founder of Islam. He was a messenger and prophet that delivered the message of Islam. 113.23.202.21 ( talk) 13:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One of the information written contradicts one of its sources. This WP article says:
Due to his upright character he acquired the nickname "al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين), meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and "al-Sadiq" meaning "truthful" and was sought out as an impartial arbitrator.
While one of the sources, Esposito agrees with this; the other source, Buhl and Welch, state that "al-Amin" might be just the name his parents gave him, which is the masculine version from the same root as his mother's name "Amina".
I propose changing the sentence to
"Muhammad was often called “al-Amin” when he was young, meaning "trustworthy.” While Esposito considers this to be a reflection of his nature, Buhl and Welch argue “al-Amin” as a common Arabic name at the time, and suggest that it could have been his given name, which is a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name, "Amina.”
Kaalaka ( talk) 19:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
In creating his religion, Muhammad, apart from adopting Abrahamic doctrines, was also inspired by the Meccan polytheistic religious traditions. This is evident in how he kept the belief in the existence of djinn, who are frequently mentioned in the Quran, as well as in how he Islamized a number of Meccan pilgrimage rituals into the hajj. [page 362]
In his moments of inspiration, Muhammad was reported to have had seizures several times, which led him to be accused of being djinn-possessed, a soothsayer, or a magician by a number of people in his time, but was considered strong evidence of his prophethood by those who believed in him. [page 363]
Muhammad didn't encounter any significant opposition from the Meccans during the early stages of his prophethood as they were mainly indifferent in him. This was true until he publicly attacked polytheism in the area. [early part of page 364]
References
Kaalakaa ( talk) 15:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Can we have an article describing the Sexuality of Muhammd? 13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC) 43.242.178.35 ( talk) 13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Please remove the word 'Founder' from the introduction. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not the founder of Islam. Islam is not something created by any human or any other creation. Allah Himself introduced it since He created the universe. It is the complete code of life chosen by Allah. Islam has always been there. With the passage of time people have deviated from Islam and Allah has sent prophets and messengers time to time and prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet and messenger in this chronology. Also, every messenger is a prophet but not vice versa. So, "The last and final messenger of Islam" would be more accurate and better introduction I believe. Ihtishamqabid ( talk) 19:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change the birth date of prophet Muhammad as seeing the date of Eid milad un nabi 203.101.164.104 ( talk) 20:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
More Epithet (laqab) of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ should be added. Like Rahmatul lil Aalameen, khayri khalqillah, etc from the page /info/en/?search=Names_and_titles_of_Muhammad Hhkk kkhh ( talk) 14:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have put this in twice, but it was reverted twice. There is no debate as to if he was given given poison, but the debate is whether or not it led to his death. Why though, does it keep getting removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Muhammad&diff=1154713830&oldid=1154667491 BlackAmerican ( talk) 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
References
References
I have no issues with that at all. I do wonder if it would get reverted as well. 04:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
":::Zaynab bint al-Haarith, a widow of a man killed during the Battle of Khaybar, is said to have offered Muhammad a roast sheep laced with poison, killing one man who ate of it and making Muhammad ill. Some Muslim traditions argue that this contributed to his death three years later." BlackAmerican ( talk) 15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prophet Muhammad was not the founder of Islam so please could you change it as Islam actually began when man stepped foot on Earth. Deezwhodeeznuts ( talk) 16:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
217.165.164.62 ( talk) 07:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, he just spread the message of it from Allah
Please be advised that the infobox image was changed in this edit. I do not opine on the change; I just mention it here in case it slips by anybody's watchlist. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad is one of the most important individuals in history and founded a religion with more than two billion followers today. How can it be that this article hasn't yet been featured? Marginataen ( talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SALAM, Kindly add (S.A.W)(ﷺ) or PBUH with the name/title. kind regards, Rahirules ( talk) 09:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhammad was a killer he killed 700 jews in 1 day ,he has 12 wives and 25 slaves he also marry a 9 years old girl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:85F:E841:E45B:A0CB:164B:FDE5:1098 ( talk) 10:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@kaalakaa has taken the Prophet Muhammad's action out of context to promote an Anti-Islamic bias. His edit in the "Onset of frictions with the Quraysh" section, says this "Around 613, Muhammad began to preach to the public. Initially, he had no serious opposition from the inhabitants of Mecca, who were indifferent to his proselytizing activities, but when he started to attack their beliefs, tensions arose." this is false, as the teachings of Muhammad has been prosecuted when he began teaching it.
Next in the "Beginning of armed conflict" section, the user Kaalakaa, had put that he had received divine revelation to attack the Meccans while in a time of peace, however, before the revelation of Surah At Tawbah Meccans had confiscated the property and had violated the
Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which gave a 10 year truce between the Muslims and Non Muslims. One of his sources is Islamic Imperialism: A History by
Efraim Karsh, a pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian author.
Also, in the Battle of Badr, the false claim that Umar desired for all the enemies to be slain, which is cited by Muhammad by
Maxime Rodinson, a book which came under controversy.
As well, the user had changed the "Battle of Uhud" section, originally was "The Meccans were eager to avenge their defeat. To maintain economic prosperity, the Meccans needed to restore their prestige, which had been reduced at Badr". The user changed it to "In 625, the Quraysh, wearied by Muhammad's continuous attacks on their caravans, decided to take decisive action. Led by Abu Sufyan, they assembled an army to oppose Muhammad."
As well, the user falsely claimed that "according to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad disclosed that he had received a divine revelation of a planned assassination attempt on him by the Banu Nadir, which involved dropping a boulder from a rooftop. Muhammad then initiated a siege on the tribe", this claim can not be found in any of Ibn Ishaq works, in English or in Arabic.
As well, the user sites numerous other anti-Islamic sources besides the two above:
Islam and the Infidels: The Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah by David Bukay, another pro-Israeli.
Religion in Politics by Arun Shourie, a Hindu nationalist who has who has voiced support for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a militant Hindu nationalist group
Muhammad and Jesus: A Comparison of the Prophets and Their Teachings by William E. Phipps, this book has been criticized for its poor scholarship on the Prophet Muhammad.
The user has done this with numerous of other articles including the
Battle of Badr, the
Battle of the Trench, the
Battle of Uhud, the
Raid on Nakhla, the
Quraysh tribe, and and other Wikipedia articles.
I request that any edits done by this user should be undone. It is likely that these edits were to reflect on the user's personal or ideological agenda.
I left a note on his talk page but failed to respond. I am in need of third party to resolve this, as the user seems to lack communication with me.
- Chxeese ( talk) 00:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
"Around 613, Muhammad began to preach to the public. Initially, he had no serious opposition from the inhabitants of Mecca, who were indifferent to his proselytizing activities, but when he started to attack their beliefs, tensions arose."
Kaalakaa ( talk) 07:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)At first Muhammad met with no serious opposition and in not a few cases his preaching fell on fruitful soil. In the words addressed to Salih in sura XI, 62 we may find a hint that Muhammad had at first aroused considerable expectations among the Meccans. In addition to Khadidja, who is consistently said to have been the first believer, and several men including Abu Bakr, the manumitted slave Zayd b. Haritha, Zubayr b. al-Awwam, Talha b. Ubayd Allah, Abd al Rahman b. Awf, Sacd b. Abi Wakkas, and Muhammad's cousin AH [q.vv.], who are also said to have been among the early followers of Muhammad, the sources mention a number of other converts in Mecca, the majority of whom appear to have been young or of no great social standing, while the well-todo and influential held back (XIX, 73; XXXIV, 31 ff; LXXIII, 11; LXXX, 1 ff; for a detailed analysis of the social standing and the tribal affiliations of the Meccan converts, see Watt, Mecca, 88-96). This became still more the case when the full consequences of Muhammad's preaching became clear, that is, when he openly attacked the polytheism of his native town. Up until this point most Meccans appear to have had little interest in devotional meetings, and thus had been rather indifferent to Muhammad's activities.
He also feared that others would dismiss his claims as being possessed. Shi'a tradition states Muhammad was not surprised or frightened at Gabriel's appearance; rather he welcomed the angel, as if he was expected.
The spirit ordered Muhammad to "Recite!" three times before he composed himself well enough to receive his first revelation, which became the first part of sura 96 or the Qur'an. He decided to throw himself off the mountain to end the insanity or curse, but the spirit moved closer and repeated, "Oh Muhammad, you are the Messenger of God."
Muhammad was deeply distressed. 'I considered throwing myself from the top of a mountain scar,' he said.
References
Buhl, F.; Welch, A.T. (1993). "Muḥammad". Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). Brill. pp. 360–376. ISBN 978-90-04-09419-2.
This part in the lede
Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity
Is not sourced at all. So I thought it was probably based on the body text. But the body only says:
Muhammad united several of the tribes of Arabia into a single Arab Muslim religious polity in the last years of his life.
Uniting several of the tribes of Arabia is not the same as uniting Arabia. And after I checked the sources given. It turns out that none of them state either the former or the latter or anything along those lines. And in Richard A. Gabriel's Muhammad: Islam's First Great General p. 208, it is noted that it was only after the conquests during the caliphate of Abu Bakr that Islam came to rule over the entire Arabian Peninsula.
Abu Bakr’s military operations were carried out simultaneously and in four different directions over almost eighteen months with the result that all Arabia fell to the Muslim armies and accepted Islam.
So it's clear that this is another case of original research, and should be removed. Kaalakaa ( talk) 00:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Iskandar323 You removed sources, including those published by distinguished university presses, on the basis of them being unreferenced. Then you deleted the statements that were supported by them. What do you mean by that? Please explain. Kaalakaa ( talk) 11:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Sexual intercourse with female captives or self-owned slaves was allowed in Islam, and no consent was required from the women.
"Just so you know, I didn't modify this part."is meant to be refer to. The sentence I removed is not about the subject (Muhammad) or the specific episode in question; it is a piece of broad-brush off-topic side-commentary of little biographical merit. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The use of expressions like "دخل بي" (dakhala bi) and "وبني بها" (wabanaa bihaa) do not mean having sex. It is said by people including a person having scholarship in Islam there is not a single reference which says at what age this wife had consummated marriage with with Islamic prophet Muhammad. Mistranslation of expressions like dakhala alaiha, dakhala bi as "consummation" maybe for ease of use or for perhaps non-availability of a single word for "living together after marriage" appears to have caused all the misunderstanding. Moreover the Qur'anic verse 3:37 contains the phrase دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا (dakhala alaiha). Any of the interpreters we know have not said it refers to intercourse, says M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, an Islamic scholar (Vedam Yukthi Vadam : page 354, M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, publication date : 2 July 2022) where he says expression like "dakhala alaiha" is seen to have to used both in the hadith and (Islamic) history to refer to the meeting with this wife and Islamic prophet Muhammad. He also says this linguistically means only "met", "lived together at night", "Nabi (Islamic prophet Muhammad) entered one's aramana -- which could mean a palace as per https://ml.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%B4%85%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%A8 ". M. P. Musthafawal Faizy states that there is no evidence which says what happened at that night. The book's publication program can be seen here : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3lQeXk-JIg
whose 25 August 2023 archived version can be seen here : https://web.archive.org/web/20230825042631/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Q3lQeXk-JIg
M. P. Musthafa Faizy conclude that the expression like "dakhala biha" and "dakhala alaiha" does not firstly mean intercourse and ascertaining any meaning for such expression could be done only after knowing what happened afterwards.
Neutralhappy (
talk)
04:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The recent edits have gathered controversy, rightfully so. One problem I noticed regards Safiyyah bint Huyayy.
The article claims that the Prophet didn't wait for Safiyyah's next menstrual cycle before having intercourse with her, supposedly violating his own commands. What the author rather purposefully seems to ignore is that there is a general consensus that Safiyyah was the Prophet's wife. In that case, he wouldn't have to wait for her next menstrual cycle.
For the sake of argument, let's ignore that there is a consensus of Safiyyah being the Prophet's wife. Three sources have been cited for this particular matter. The first one is "Essential Islam" by Diane Morgan. Morgan seems to write just about anything from food recipes to dogs to eastern religions. I couldn't find anything about her credentials or who she even really is. The second one is "Understanding Hadith" by Ram Swarup. A Hindu Nationalist that heavily dislikes anything abrahamic, especially Islam. The third source is "Muhammad" by Maxime Rodinson. This book has caused a lot of controversy in the Muslim world, not without reason. Rodinson had a very interpretive and politically motivated approach to Islam and the Prophet, and he arguably isn't a good source for the more detailed aspects of Muhammad's life. Admiral90 ( talk) 23:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Efraim Karsh's work Islamic Imperialism seems like a particularly problematic work to reference. Karsh is generally known for his polemical stances and this book has been singled-out by many reviewers for that exact problem, with Richard Bulliet pointing to it as "selling ideology, not historical acumen" and having "myriad problems", while Jonathan Berkey remarked that it "misconstrues its history in some important ways". The weight of these statements strongly suggests that we should not treat this book as a particularly reliable source, or use it without attribution. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
and he postponed the allocation of the spoils until a verse was ultimately revealed, legitimizing the attackisn't supported by what Karsh says. The timing of the distribution of the booty and the appearance of the Quranic verse aren't, as far as I can see, linked. DeCausa ( talk) 13:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kaalakaa ( talk) 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Muhammad gave him a sealed letter... to proceed to Nakhlah... to ambush a Meccan caravan. ... There, however, some misgivings were expressed on account of the Meccan having been killed in the sacred month of Rajab, when bloodshed was forbidden. Muhammad at first kept the booty undistributed and did not accept the fifth they offered him. But eventually a revelation justified their action.
References
This article has gone through extensive changes since it underwent a GA review last time. The changes have been so substantive, with wholesale replacement of prose and sources, that it's hardly the same article anymore.
It may still be a good article, but it isn't the same article that was previously assessed as "good".
On this talk page, there have also been disputes raised about the changed content.
Therefore, I think it's time for a reassessment. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There are at least a few sources with pretty suspect scholarly credentials being used unattributed and without buttressing by more academic works. Two works in particular that have drawn my eye are the 1961 book Muhammad by Maxime Rodinson, a Marxist historian with strong political leanings. Aside from being dated, the work was written with a expressly sociological slant, which is fine as an analytical viewpoint, but makes a poor recipe for unbiased statements. Then we have the 1970 book The Life and Times of Muhammad by John Bagot Glubb, another dated and even less scholarly work by a British military officer with a hobbyist interest in Arab military history. A more recent source example with quality issues of the same vein is the 2017 The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah by Russ Rodgers, this time an American former military man and public speaker who has dabbled in academia as a side-gig, but who falls well short of subject-matter expert. I have no doubt that there are plenty of other sources of this ilk that have found their way onto the page, but if this page is to restore any semblance of quality, it is going to need to return to mainstream subject-matter experts and biographies. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer review and are slated for publication, ensuring that the peer review process is thorough.
@
Iskandar323:, you said that Russ Rodgers falls well short of subject-matter expert.
I'm sorry, but that Bloomsbury
link that you provided seems to disagree with your claim:
Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army
Also, keep in mind that this isn't some self-published work. This is a University Press of Florida publication that's been peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. [25] Thus makes the books highly reliable, as our WP:RS states:
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
Also, please remember that we have WP:AGEMATTERS. Your argument that accuses a recent source of being obscure just because it has much fewer citations compared to a source released in the 1950s is completely inconsistent with that guideline. Kaalakaa ( talk) 14:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
insurgency movementsor any kind of warfare in general (clearly his main specialism), but a personal biography, so even if we were to trust these COI extollations, it would still not be a perfect source for extracting well-rounded biographical material on an individual.] But mainly just A & B. If you take anything that you find on the internet as golden then we are never going to be able to have a mature source discussion. Please use WP:COMMONSENSE. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
early Islamic warfarepart? We always refer to the Early Muslim conquests as the conflicts that began during Muhammad's time, not the wars that took place in the early 20th century. Kaalakaa ( talk) 15:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The text is probably written by Rodgers himself and submitted to the publisher to post" is merely your WP:OR, as well as this "
Rodgers is no expert by any of the usual metrics." So they don't actually hold any weight here.
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
This means that the "citation counts" in the next prong are to find out whether works outside the above category are reliable. Kaalakaa ( talk) 19:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)* Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
No one is using the Bloomsbury link for anything; it is worthless - I merely held it up to point out that Rodgers has little to no academic background.
Kaalakaa ( talk) 20:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer review and are slated for publication, ensuring that the peer review process is thorough.
That doesn't make Rodgers a necessarily good source on this subject
"We learn that her wealth gave him the leisure for retreat and reflection." (p. 114)
"A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad" (p. 270).
The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer reviewis irrelevant. It was "peer reviewed" by a potentially a couple of academics. That's it. In any case, who cares what 11 universities in Florida think. WP:DUE means that Rodgers POV needs to carry weight in the global Muhammad scholarship community and you've consistently smoke screened addressing that issue. DeCausa ( talk) 18:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Hi again, @ Anachronist. Regarding your recent revert that cites WP:BURDEN, [8], the policy states that
The passage already has a citation with it, however, in case you want the text from the source, here you go:
Muhammad’s night journey. The qur’anic grounding of the ascent (mi’raj) of Muhammad is tenuous in two ways. In the first place, the ascent is not described and the term mi'raj is not used in the Qur’an. Secondly, the Qur’an stresses that Muhammad brings no miracle (q.v.) other than the divinely-wrought miracle of the Qur’an itself (see inimitability).
Also, I think there has been consensus among secular scholars that the historical Muhammad had no miracles, a notion supported by the Quran. However, Muslims living a few centuries after his death began attributing miracles to him. Here's a text from the Cambridge Companions to Muhammad, page 39: [1]
When we read the Qur¯anic Meccan passages alone, without benefit of post-Qur¯anic interpretation, Muhammad emerges as a mortal prophet who still has no miracle other than the Qur¯an, the book he received from God over the last twenty-two years of his life, first in Mecca (610–622 CE) and then in Medina (622–632). Muhammad appears in these passages as a man who both warns of the oncoming Judgment Day and brings God’s message of mercy. But in the post-Qur¯anic sources, a different Muhammad emerges; these sources move away from the mortal Qur¯anic warner toward an ideal hero whom later generations of devoted believers have shaped and read back into the Qur¯an by means of its exegesis.
The book is very good, I really recommend it. Kaalakaa ( talk) 18:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I think there has been consensus among secular scholars that the historical Muhammad had no miracles, a notion supported by the Quran.
However, Muslims living a few centuries after his death began attributing miracles to him.
References
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The prophet favourite wife according to sunni tradition was Khadija SN2004 ( talk) 02:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Note: I have set the status of this request to "answered" while editors seek consensus on what edit to make. Xan747 ( talk) 18:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
add this in "in other religion" section: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar claimed in his book "Hinduism and Islam: The Common Thread" that Muhammad is explicitly prophesied in Bhavishya Purana. [1] 116.58.200.170 ( talk) 09:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The Prophet Mohammed and His Appearance in Vedic Literature The Vedic text Bhavishya Purana (Parva 3, Khand 3, Adya 3, texts 5-6) predicts the appearance of Mohammed. Therein it states: "An illiterate teacher will appear, Mohammed is his name, and he will give religion to the people of the desert."
Declined based on the discussion above, but we can revisit this if more reliable sources are found. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The Arabs placed the Hindus including the Buddhists, in the second category of Ahl-i Zimma, the Mushabaih-i Ahl-i Kitab. The verdict to give the status of Mushabah-i Ahl-i Kitab to the Hindus, including the Buddhists, was probably based on the fact that although there is no mention of Hindu scriptures in the Qur'an, there are specific references and prophecies about the Prophet himself in the Hindu scriptures. The one in the Bhavishya Purana rendered in English runs thus: 5. Just then an illiterate man with the epithet teacher, Muhammad by name, came alongwith his companions; 6. Raja (Bhoja in a Vision) to that Great Deva, the denizen of Arabia, purifying with the Ganges water and with the five things of cow offered sandal wood and paid worship Foundation of Sadarat in India 37 to him, 7.0 denizen of Arabia and Lord of the Holies to thee is my adoration. O thou, who hast found many ways and means to destroy all the devils of the world, 8. 0 pure one from among the illiterates, O sinless one, the spirit of truth and absolute master, to thee is my adoration. Accept me at thy feet. One passage in the Atharva Veda reads: "O people, listen this emphatically, the man of praise (Muhammad) will be raised among the people. We take the emigrant in our shelter from sixty thousand and ninety enemies whose conveyances are twenty camels and she-camels, whose loftiness of position touches the heaven and towers it. He gave to Mamah Rishi hundred of gold coins ten circles, three hundred Arab horses and ten thousand cows." Accordingly, the life and property of the Hindus were assured, 'they were permitted to reconstruct their temples (damaged in war or otherwise) and to live in their houses in whatever manner they liked.(8) References: 6. Bhavishya Purana, Parv 3, khand 3, Adhyay 3, Shalok 5-8. 7. Atharva Veda, Kanda, 20, Sukta 127, Montra 1-3. 8. Chach-Nama, E.D.I. p. 185.
:::::@
Anachronist and
Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I found another reference
here from
Siasat Daily, and you can also add
Ved Prakash Upadhyay#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad's quotation and references.
202.134.14.151 (
talk)
09:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In light of the many above recent discussions, and as suggested in a recent edit summary, it seems best to restore the article to this version due to the major overhaul causing neutrality issues, what do others think? 23.150.152.38 ( talk) 21:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was given a "POV" tag back in August, and has received some discussion on this talkpage, but I think it's worth dedicating a discussion topic specifically to it. Is the section as currently written undue? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I changed the section heading to "Tensions with followers of Judaism". ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Should the following statements:
Historian Russ Rodgers argues that while there are accounts of some Muslims being beaten and a few being tortured, the early record shows that only one, or perhaps two, were killed, and even these cases are questionable. He further contends that had the Quraysh acted more aggressively, Muhammad’s nascent movement would have been obliterated.
According to the 19th-century orientalist Julius Wellhausen, when Muhammad arrived in the city in 622, the Jewish tribes were allied with the two Arab tribes as subordinates. However, 21st-century historian Russ Rodgers disagrees. He argues that during Muhammad’s second pledge of Aqaba, members of the two Arab tribes stated that they had to break certain alliances with the Jews due to the nature of the pledge. Rodgers infers from this that it was the two Arab tribes who held a subservient or, at most, an equal position to the Jews, since otherwise, the Jews would have been drawn into the covenant.
Be kept or removed? Are there any better sources discussing the same topics or are these not worth discussing at all? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
…
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion
falls well short of subject-matter expert." When I checked the link, the content actually contradicts what Iskandar accused, stating instead that:
Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army
the link is worthless" and he "
only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [13]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, he avoided the questions and went to another section, repeating the similar accusations [14]. His typical arguments are that Rodgers is just a person with modest military expertise [15] who has a hobby in history [16]. He appears to be unaware that there exist historian positions within the U.S. Army [17](even a specific directorate dedicated for them [18]), and Rodgers is their command historian [19], whose research results are, among other things, used to furnish the commander and staff with historical perspectives during the planning and implementation of operations [20]. And as far as I know, his book is the only publication from the University Press of Florida that discusses in detail the life of Muhammad from the standpoint of his generalship. And this tells something. ~ Kaalakaa ( talk) 11:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
falls well short of subject-matter expert,' [21] is a false accusation [22]. The same goes for your accusations that Rodgers is just a person with modest military expertise [23] who has a hobby in history [24] and "
has little to no academic background" [25]. Because the fact is,
Is there any diffs that you have refuted these or proved your accusations? Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you can quote it here. Kaalakaa ( talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)there exist historian positions within the U.S. Army [26] (even a specific directorate dedicated for them [27]), and Rodgers is their command historian [28], whose research results are, among other things, used to furnish the commander and staff with historical perspectives during the planning and implementation of operations. [29]
Title. MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit ( talk) 10:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change '''Muhammad'''{{efn|He is referred to by many appellations, including '''Muhammad ibn Abdullah''', '''Messenger of God''', '''The Prophet Muhammad''', '''God's Apostle''', '''Last Prophet of Islam''', and others; there are also many variant spellings of Muhammad, such as '''Mohamet''', '''Mohammed''', '''Mahamad''', '''Muhamad''', '''Mohamed''' and many others.}} ({{lang-ar|مُحَمَّد}}; {{circa}} 570 – 8 June 632 [[Common Era|CE]])
to '''Muhammad ibn Abdullah'''{{efn|He is referred to by many appellations, including '''Messenger of God''', '''The Prophet Muhammad''', '''God's Apostle''', '''Last Prophet of Islam''', and others; there are also many variant spellings of Muhammad, such as '''Mohamet''', '''Mohammed''', '''Mahamad''', '''Muhamad''', '''Mohamed''' and many others.}} ({{Naskh|{{lang-ar|مُحَمَّد بِنْ عَبْدُاللّٰه}}}}; {{transl|ar|Muḥāmmad bin ʿAbd ʿAllāh}}, <small>lit.</small> 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah'; {{circa}} 570 – 8 June 632 [[Common Era|CE]])
.
"Muhammad ibn Abdullah" is technically Muhammad's full name, not an appellation. ― Emperor ÖSMAN IXXVMD ( talk) 11:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles regarding the NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" which may be of interest to editors of this article. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 18:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently our article, under the household section, there's a paragraph (which I haven't touched yet) that reads:
According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, [1] [2] [3] with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old. [a] She was therefore a virgin at marriage. [2] Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage. [b]
The issue is the latter part that I italicized. There are 4 sources provided, two of which:
Both of them clearly don't satisfy
WP:RS.
While this one:
Doesn't talk about any recalculation based on her sister Asma's age at all, but
Aqqad cleverly skirts the authenticated Hadith found in Sahih Bukhari in which Aisha herself reports that she was nine at the time, addressing it only obliquely by suggesting that Aisha was fond of emphasizing her childhood spent in the nascent days of Islam and how young she was during the faith’s formative days. ‘Aqqad thus allows his readers to reconcile their faith in the Prophet’s complete rectitude and even in Islam’s collective historical corpus with what many had come to accept as the ‘natural’ and ideal norms for marriage.
More conservative Muslim scholars objected to this rereading of the Prophet’s life. They sensed the epistemological turnover behind ‘Aqqad’s defense of Islam. Not only did it upturn the hierarchy of authority within the Sunni scriptural canon by ignoring a clear text contained in Bukhari’s august Sahih, it also broke with the Shariah consensus on marriage age. No member of Egypt’s religious establishment showed more displeasure with ‘Aqqad than Ahmad Shakir. In the spring of 1944 he penned a number of popular journal articles excoriating the famous wordsmith’s book on the Prophet’s most active wife.
The only reliable source that supports the statement (of our article) is the following one:
On the other hand, 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. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
However, the author has released a revised edition [15] of the book in which that statement no longer exists, seemingly having been retracted. And according to Kecia Ali in "The Lives of Muhammad" (2014) published by Harvard University Press, p.173:
In the late twentieth century, in a renewed climate of criticism of Islam, divergent tendencies emerge in Muslim and non-Muslim sources. Muslim scholars engage in apologetics to justify Aisha’s marriage. The dominant strategy is to contextualize it as historically appropriate to its time and place and to play up, as with the multiple marriages, the politi cal motivations behind it. A less common strategy recalculates Aisha’s age at marriage based on other indicators in the sources.
Which means this statement in our article:
Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.
is clearly a WP:FRINGE. Thus its inclusion is WP:UNDUE and creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Kaalakaa ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Kaalakaa ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
About 19 days have passed. It appears there are 4-0 in favor of removal of the text, so I deleted it in accordance. If anyone disagrees and has reliable sources to back it up, feel free to raise it here. Kaalakaa ( talk) 21:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Watt-encyc-online
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Evidence that the Prophet waited for Aisha to reach physical maturity before consummation comes from al-Ṭabarī, who says she was too young for intercourse at the time of the marriage contract;
On the other hand, 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. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
Ibn Kathir: Vol 2: pg 94:95
Aisha (ra) was earlier engaged to Jubayr ibn Mut'im ibn Adi. Later, when Prophet ﷺ proposal came, Abu Bakr went to discuss with his friend Mut'im. His wife's Umm al-Sabi replied: If Abu Bakr doesn't come back to his previous religion, then engagement is off.
Above incident proves
- Aisha-Jubayr engagement happened before Abu Bakr accepted Islam 610 CE.
- Further, Aisha-Prophet's marriage = 624 CE.
- Also, Imam ad-Dhahabi: Marriage occured in 4th year after Hijra 626 CE. (Tarikh al Islam wa al-Wafiat al-Mashahir wa al-Alam, Vol III, p 288) ed by Dr. Umar ‘Abd al-Salam Tadmuri Beirut 1st print.
Hence, Aisha age should be ‘more than’ 14-16 years. So, Bukhari/Nasai hadees on 6 years of marriage is #fake.
Please update. I am unable to as page is protected. 43.252.251.78 ( talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please correct to Prophet Muhammad was the last messenger of Islam. He was an Arab..... Mustafarahman01 ( talk) 18:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Tollens (
talk)
19:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)It made sense to have a sub–talk page just for images discussion back when it seemed like we were getting arguments about the Muhammad images several times a day, but now it happens so seldom I don't see why we need it anymore. The regular talk page should be able to field all discussions now. Anyone object to discontinuing it? The archives will still be accessible. — Chowbok ☠ 14:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this sentence/passage : "In December 629, after eight years of intermittent fighting with Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The conquest went largely uncontested and Muhammad seized the city with little bloodshed"
There is almost no context at all on this event, and makes it seem like a conquest without reason, it is highly advised that the reason is mentioned, so, Please Change the above passage in itallics to: "...fighting with Meccan tribes, a peace treaty was broken and Muhammad gathered an army...", as mentioned in this article " /info/en/?search=Conquest_of_Mecca".
Context is important, and adding a link to the treaty ( /info/en/?search=Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah) is preferable as well. This is a major event, and mentioning the 8 years of fighting makes it only fair to let the reader know about a treaty that existed, and a brief on what caused the event to occur after 8 years. Thank you. Yahya AGX ( talk) 21:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Iskandar323, in your latest edit to the article [31], you wrote the edit summary as:
"retitling - "Opposition" was the stable section title, and "Quraysh" is incorrect, as various Meccan tribes were in opposition"
Are there reliable sources that support this, that there were Meccan non-Quraysh tribes that were also in opposition to him? Kaalakaa ( talk) 06:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
"Meccan opposition escalated from derision and verbal attacks to active persecution. The core of the opposition came from the Umayyad clan of the Quraysh tribe."(my bolding there - the emphasis being on the Quraysh being the core, not presumptively the totality of the opposition) ... so this example and other similar sources make this pretty clear. In contrast, I don't see sources suggesting that the opposition was exclusive to the Quraysh. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
the Umayyad clan of the Quraysh tribe", so it's still the Quraysh tribe.
Hi Team,
Please add (s.a.w.) next to Muhammad name.
Must be Muhammad (s.a.w)
Thanks,
A.S
Averaciousspeaker (
talk)
19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Compare the Muhammad Wikipedia entry to those on Christ and the Buddha. The latter have a sympathetic tone. Whoever wrote this has no understanding of Muhammad's teaching, and they are trying, at every point, to deconstruct. 76.212.86.226 ( talk) 17:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I assume that's due to Jesus and Buddha generally adhering to a strict moral code of peace and love while Muhammad's known history and that of Islam is based on military conquest & death, therefore the tone will follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
[mʊ'ħɑ:mæd] GreatLeader1945 ( talk) 21:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In sub-section 3.1.8 Hijrah, Muhammad's action is described rather subjectively as "prudence." Seeking consensus to replace "Muhammad acted with prudence and sent an agent" with "Muhammad sent an agent" in order to retain the purported fact while removing the judgement call as to whether that action was prudent or not, hopefully better adhering to WP:NPOV by prefering nonjudgmental language. ShoneBrooks ( talk) 02:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
If the sources have "judgmental" subjective opinion and we don't reflect that then that is a violation of NPOV.No, not really. How we reflect that matters. A source using biased or loaded language isn't a license for us to do the same, using non-neutral language in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Doing so violates NPOV. Inclusion of non-neutral terminology would need attribution in the prose to whoever uses that terminology, and simply citing a source isn't enough. If it seems awkward to attribute the biased terminology, then we remove it and just report the facts. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone else find the timeline template too long and distracting? I just changed it to collapse by default, but it doesn't seem to work on mobile. I checked other historical figures like Jesus and Alexander and none of them have this template. What is the best approach to do here? Move it, delete it or else? — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I just wanted to suggest that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is not the founder of Islam! Think about it, if you say he was only preaching what Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (Peace be upon all) preached who again were chosen and sent by the same God, how could that same God have different religions for different prophets? So the truth is that Islam came into existence when the first ever human being was created that is Prophet Adam (Peace be upon him). 49.206.50.102 ( talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No sect of islam can ever doubt on the finality of prophet hood of prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. If anyone does not believe him to be the last prophet, he is not muslims or follower of islam according to holy quran.The Holy Quran, Surah Al Ahzab 33:40
Two translations of this Ayah follow:
O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, butverily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (heis) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
(The Holy Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:40)
Muslim Scholars, since the time of our belovedProphet(sallallaho alaihe wassallam), have understood this verse to mean that no new Prophet or Messengerwill be sent to humanity until the day of judgment. 154.192.47.71 ( talk) 17:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE ADD THE SYMBOL " ﷺ " AFTER EVERY TIME THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD v IS MENTIONED AS IT IS OBLIGTORY FOR EVERY MUSLIM TO TELL " ﷺ " EVERY TIME WE TAKE OR HEAR THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD ﷺ. AND PLEASE INSERT " رضي الله عنهم " EVERY SINGLE TIME THE NAME OF A COMPANION رضي الله عنهم OF MUHAMMAD ﷺ IS TAKEN. PLEASE ENTER " عليه السلام " EVERY TIME THE NAME OF A PROPHET OF ALLAH سبحانه و تعالى ( EG- IBRAHIM عليه السلام, ISMAIL عليه السلام, MOSA عليه السلام, ISA عليه السلام, ADAM عليه السلام ) IS TAKEN. AND ENTER " سبحانه و تعالى EVERY TIME THE NAME OF ALLAH سبحانه و تعالى IS TAKEN, WHICH MEANS " MAY HE BE GLORIFIED AND EXALTED " A MUSLIM, REGARDS 31.205.59.137 ( talk) 19:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was an spelling mistake on name of Prophet Muhammad. It's correct spelling is Mohammad And the correct name of the prophet Mohammad birth place is Makkah not mecca. Mecca is the wrong spelling according to the Islamic scholors 103.199.182.251 ( talk) 06:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mustafa Muhammed 92.234.139.64 ( talk)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhammad pbuh was born in 570 AD or 571 AD 43.231.29.161 ( talk) 09:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
He is, not was 182.190.218.195 ( talk) 06:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
this page should add this symbol ﷺ. Quran it makes clear mention that whenever we say the Prophet Muhammad’s name it should be said with one of the following SAW, SAWS, pbuh, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, or the symbol ﷺ. Mr.Mwiki.ion ( talk) 03:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Please add ﷺ after the name of prophet Muhammad ﷺ. If You want to add 'peace be upon him' instead of ﷺ . because ﷺ in Arabic some people can't understand who is non muslim. its also ok to write peace be upon him after the writing name of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. because without telling this it is not good so please give respect to our prophet. Thank You♥️ Hamidlz786 ( talk) 16:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Age is given wrong. Have to change it. حارث ابن ناصر ( talk) 04:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, please change the starting lines. Muhammad ﷺ [a] was an Arab religious, social, and political leader..... I said this because on the articles of Abraham and Moses and other prophets, the same starting is seen so why not on Muhammad ﷺ. Also there should be Hebrew as well since Hebrew was spoken by Jews of Arabia at the time (See Sahih al-Bukhari 7362). ShuratiMuslim 7:04 4 October, 2021
The first line is also ghastly wrong by saying Muhammad founded Islam. Who says that, except non Muslims! And ill-informed Muslims. So biased. According to Islamic teachings, it was founded by God and practised by all the prophets including Jesus. Thus the opening line is an anti-Islam lie. I expect nothing less from Wikipedia actually. Just letting the odd good folks know.
I requested you that add the of Muhammad with (PBUH) this is the very important thing for every muslim Muhammad Akbar khan kakar ( talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
اسمه محمد عبد الله 2402:3A80:1909:3AB4:7C33:611D:1938:23CC ( talk) 13:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
His name is Muhammad Abdullah. We will leave the title as it is per WP:COMMONNAME Signed, IAm Chaos 05:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
it is quite misleading and misguiding for it to be written as muhammed is the founder of Islam... This is a biased view since Islam has no founder but rather you should've written it as muhammed was the final prophet of Islam according to Muslims and so and so.... it is also misleading for a person who doesn't know about Islam come here and see muhammed "founded" Islam... Ameershahul29 ( talk) 14:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
You clearly haven't read the Quran. This is incorrect as the Quran is more factually and historically correct than the Bible making it more accurate to the stories and prophets within it. And before YOU respond. Google who wrote the Gospels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.215.80 ( talk) 09:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Prophet Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. This article is incorrect. He's the final prophet of Islam. The statue of him in the US Supreme Court even expresses this. Please update this article or allow us to provide the correct content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.215.80 ( talk) 09:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In two years after the signing of the Hudaybiya Treaty, Muhammad’s army had become strong enough to overrun the Quraysh. Therefore, he altogether threw away the ten-year treaty and ordered preparations for attacking Mecca. He wanted to take the Quraysh by surprise. As preparations went on, he kept praying to Allah: ‘‘O Allah, take eyes and ears from the Quraysh so that we may take them by surprise in their land.’’ Ravan Agnihotri ( talk) 10:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC) <M. A. Khan : Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery>
I had given evidence from Authentic Sources of islam Ravan Agnihotri ( talk) 10:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Use Template:Hidden image for the images which seems to be unwanted to watch by some readers. 103.230.107.2 ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Please write SAW after name Muhammad Aslamofficial ( talk) 19:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet Correction: he is the Last prophet. 2400:ADC1:121:B300:CC6E:C48B:2F11:2D89 ( talk) 20:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad(S.A.W) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sajjad Naseem ( talk) 03:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Source 30 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kindly correct Ref#30, which appears to incorrectly link to a work of fiction. Perhaps this is the intended reference Plaidfury ( talk) 03:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Please change the title 'Muhammad' to 'Muhammad (PBUH).' Adding 'PBUH' (peace be upon him) after his name is the very basic form of respect given to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Even when taught in Religious Education, 'PBUH' is included with his name.
This is, after all, the most influential person in human history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.120.179 ( talk) 13:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Why are racist evangelicals the source under criticism? Some of these sources are pure conjecture and hateful rumors. Muhammad seems to be the subject of the longest-running smear campaign in history. Nice try, people can think for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.110.236 ( talk) 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Please Add " ﷺ " After the Name of Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ﷺ. This is Compulsary — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyedNaqwi ( talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Muhammad (s.a.w) was not founder of islam. But he was the last profet of allah Islam is a deen not a religion. The founder of islam is adam(a.s) 103.111.34.163 ( talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Kindly go through the Quran where Prophet muhammad (pbuh) is always shown as a messenger of islam not the founder..Islam was way behind Muhammad pbuh birth..from the time of first human being Adam alaisalam..kindly go through the Quran there are number of refrences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:B:FB95:6A78:46CC:85F2:B2A ( talk) 13:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The signature that is there is true it is false misconception 105.160.93.62 ( talk) 05:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
As per various early sources, documented by Stephen Shoemaker, Muhammad bin Abdullah died in 634-5 AD and not 632 AD, after launching the conquest of Palestine. On the other hand, as per Shoemaker, the Islamic biographies indicating that Muhammad died in 632 AD are 8th century texts, thus less reliable. Teerthaloke102 ( talk) 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The lead section currently states he is: "believed to be the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though the modern Ahmadiyya movement diverges from this belief". This is not entirely accurate and the difference is actually more subtle. Virtually no branch of Islam, except perhaps the Quranists and some modernists, believes him to be final in an absolute and unqualified sense since they believe Jesus is still alive and expect his return after prophet Muhammad's death, though they do not see this as violating his finality. Conversely, Ahmadis too believe him to be the final prophet though they too do not view the coming of a subordinate prophet upholding the law of Islam as violating his finality. Both positions qualify the finality in some way and the Ahmadi position on this doesn't diverge from this belief, if it does at all, any more than that of most other Islamic groups who believe in a living Jesus. The statement as it currently stands is therefore misleading.
I propose that the statement: "he is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets in all branches of Islam" more accurately covers both positions. The different understandings of the term 'Seal of the Prophets' can also be outlined in a footnote, or reference to the Ahmadiyya movement omitted altogether from the lead. I would welcome other ideas. -- Sirius86 16:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for the input. I will edit the statement accordingly and add a note. -- Sirius86 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:6A7:7D00:68F3:CBD1:5CEE:AB2 ( talk)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph it is wrongly mentioned as prophet Mohammed is the founder of islam . But according correct islamic sources from sahih bukhari and Muslim and also from quran itself , prophet Mohammed is not the founder of islam, he is final messenger of islam . Please correct it. Thank you 2409:4071:D94:2578:0:0:FAC8:D601 ( talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This talk page seems to continuously recieve the same sort of questions about things that are already covered in the FAQ. I think we need to at least consider the idea of reverting these basic questions instead of constantly answering them, as they don't add any substantial value to conversations about improving the article. Has a moratorium on these questions been considered before? -- Spekkios ( talk) 01:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this to other religion section: By some members of the Ahmadiya Muslim Community, Islamic Prophet Muhammad is believed to be the Hindu Avatar Kalki; some of the Muslim scholars and a few of the Hindu scholars [1] [2] including also argued that Kalki is mentioned indicating Muhammad in some Hindu scriptures. [2] [3] Ved Prakash Upaddhayya, a Hindu scolar, claimed Muhammad as Kalki in his book Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb, [4] which arguement was both welcomed and criticised by both Hindu and Muslim scholars. 116.58.202.38 ( talk) 04:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request for a substantive change (Redacted)
Kindly mention book: Quran 82.7.175.94 ( talk) 22:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The Quran is the central religious text of Islam. Muslims believe it represents the words of God revealed by the archangel Gabriel to Muhammad.
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add author-link= Muhittin Serin to the source Serin, Muhittin (1998) Gazozlu ( talk) 00:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please don’t write Muhammad it is disrespect please write *The Holy Prophet* and add peace be upon him or salallahu alayhiwasalam.also the Holy Prophet Salalahu alayhiwasalam passed away at the age of 63. 92.239.10.85 ( talk) 20:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is not founder of Islam he actually completed islam. He was the last prophet sent to mankind by the Almighty 217.165.146.205 ( talk) 22:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the death of Muhammad box, the medina, hejaz, Arabia is not linked, while the birth of place is. Egyptio ( talk) 16:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Considering there is very little evidence that Muhammad was a real person, shouldn't the article address the historicity of his existence? 47.40.144.152 ( talk) 14:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was not founder of Islam. But, according to Islamic doctrine, he was the last prophet of Islam. Islam started at the beginning of time, and not with Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This is basic Islam. The Qu'ran itself is the main source of this. Holy Qu'ran, Chapter 33, Verse 40. Please change the detail, in this article which incorrectly says that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the founder of Islam, as per the most authentic source about Islam - the Qu'ran itself. Change it into stating, that according to the Holy Qu'ran itself, he (pbuh) is the last prophet of Allah (swt). 77.71.186.229 ( talk) 03:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Did Muhammad have a surname or a family name? I maybe have missed it but i was unable to find anything info in the article 82.13.90.63 ( talk) 18:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason Help:Shortened footnotes have not been implemented here? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I saw the criticism at the end of the main page and I wonder why it is not written that early Christians labeled Muhammad as heretic Christian? It's said in Medieval Christian views on Muhammad so why not include it here too? Temp0000002 ( talk) 19:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
There are several citations pointing to Peters, 2003, but there are two entries in the reference table. Without the books in-hand, I can't resolve where the pointers are supposed to go. Typically I would add "2003b" to one of them, but I would just be guessing which one was intended. If someone has the books, please help, or I might just remove them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add to the parents section. Halimah al-Sa'diyah is his milk mother. Islamic tradition makes her Muhammed’s mother. 24.130.10.160 ( talk) 12:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MUHAMMAD IS PROPHET NOT LEADER 62.166.245.222 ( talk) 11:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello i would like to edit this page because a link to Muhammad's father is a redirect to another link i would like to edit that, thank you. Abu calaf ( talk) 14:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from Muhammad was copied or moved into Criticism of Muhammad. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Pastelitodepapa ( talk) 22:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) Asmasadhak ( talk) 01:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
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.Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
So are we sure that marrying a 6 year old girl is not pedophilia? This sounds like NPOV and religious appeasement to me. Or do we go by whatever the culture at the time believes is pedophilia? is there no cutoff age for pedophilia if there is a culture for it? Jamesman666 ( talk) 16:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
|
I just added “circa 610 CE” to the Intro. This timing launches the sequence of Islamic events in that paragraph, and I believe that this small additional clarification will help students of this major Article. However, I know that more experienced editors review all changes, and I happily defer to your judgment on this. Thanks for your consideration. Left Central ( talk) 11:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Arabic Pronunciation be added? It's not even under the name section, yet it lists the Anglicized pronunciation. I don't want to edit this page without asking first, I'm sure this page is a controversial one to edit, to say the least. Yoleaux ( talk) 21:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad's death was mostly likely caused due to him eating poisoned food served by a Jewish lady following the conquest of Khaibar. He himself believed it to be the cause of his death. The reason given for the poisoning is because she wanted revenge for her family who were killed.
Sources for poisoning: Sahih Bukhari 3:47:786 , Sahih Muslim 26:5430, Ibn Ishaq The Life of Muhammad p.516.
In Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713, Aisha is narrated to have said: "The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."
In Ibn Sa'd, Vol. 2, p. 252, : "The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaybar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein, which is a vein in the back"
A very important detail which is left out.
Donalddoco12 (
talk)
15:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it should be removed that he is the "founder of Islam" and instead be who carried the message of Islam Zouzouzozoo ( talk) 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mohammed is not the founder of Islam. He was a messenger and prophet that delivered the message of Islam. 113.23.202.21 ( talk) 13:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One of the information written contradicts one of its sources. This WP article says:
Due to his upright character he acquired the nickname "al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين), meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and "al-Sadiq" meaning "truthful" and was sought out as an impartial arbitrator.
While one of the sources, Esposito agrees with this; the other source, Buhl and Welch, state that "al-Amin" might be just the name his parents gave him, which is the masculine version from the same root as his mother's name "Amina".
I propose changing the sentence to
"Muhammad was often called “al-Amin” when he was young, meaning "trustworthy.” While Esposito considers this to be a reflection of his nature, Buhl and Welch argue “al-Amin” as a common Arabic name at the time, and suggest that it could have been his given name, which is a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name, "Amina.”
Kaalaka ( talk) 19:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
In creating his religion, Muhammad, apart from adopting Abrahamic doctrines, was also inspired by the Meccan polytheistic religious traditions. This is evident in how he kept the belief in the existence of djinn, who are frequently mentioned in the Quran, as well as in how he Islamized a number of Meccan pilgrimage rituals into the hajj. [page 362]
In his moments of inspiration, Muhammad was reported to have had seizures several times, which led him to be accused of being djinn-possessed, a soothsayer, or a magician by a number of people in his time, but was considered strong evidence of his prophethood by those who believed in him. [page 363]
Muhammad didn't encounter any significant opposition from the Meccans during the early stages of his prophethood as they were mainly indifferent in him. This was true until he publicly attacked polytheism in the area. [early part of page 364]
References
Kaalakaa ( talk) 15:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Can we have an article describing the Sexuality of Muhammd? 13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC) 43.242.178.35 ( talk) 13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Please remove the word 'Founder' from the introduction. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not the founder of Islam. Islam is not something created by any human or any other creation. Allah Himself introduced it since He created the universe. It is the complete code of life chosen by Allah. Islam has always been there. With the passage of time people have deviated from Islam and Allah has sent prophets and messengers time to time and prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet and messenger in this chronology. Also, every messenger is a prophet but not vice versa. So, "The last and final messenger of Islam" would be more accurate and better introduction I believe. Ihtishamqabid ( talk) 19:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to change the birth date of prophet Muhammad as seeing the date of Eid milad un nabi 203.101.164.104 ( talk) 20:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
More Epithet (laqab) of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ should be added. Like Rahmatul lil Aalameen, khayri khalqillah, etc from the page /info/en/?search=Names_and_titles_of_Muhammad Hhkk kkhh ( talk) 14:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have put this in twice, but it was reverted twice. There is no debate as to if he was given given poison, but the debate is whether or not it led to his death. Why though, does it keep getting removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Muhammad&diff=1154713830&oldid=1154667491 BlackAmerican ( talk) 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
References
References
I have no issues with that at all. I do wonder if it would get reverted as well. 04:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
":::Zaynab bint al-Haarith, a widow of a man killed during the Battle of Khaybar, is said to have offered Muhammad a roast sheep laced with poison, killing one man who ate of it and making Muhammad ill. Some Muslim traditions argue that this contributed to his death three years later." BlackAmerican ( talk) 15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prophet Muhammad was not the founder of Islam so please could you change it as Islam actually began when man stepped foot on Earth. Deezwhodeeznuts ( talk) 16:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
217.165.164.62 ( talk) 07:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, he just spread the message of it from Allah
Please be advised that the infobox image was changed in this edit. I do not opine on the change; I just mention it here in case it slips by anybody's watchlist. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad is one of the most important individuals in history and founded a religion with more than two billion followers today. How can it be that this article hasn't yet been featured? Marginataen ( talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SALAM, Kindly add (S.A.W)(ﷺ) or PBUH with the name/title. kind regards, Rahirules ( talk) 09:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhammad was a killer he killed 700 jews in 1 day ,he has 12 wives and 25 slaves he also marry a 9 years old girl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:85F:E841:E45B:A0CB:164B:FDE5:1098 ( talk) 10:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@kaalakaa has taken the Prophet Muhammad's action out of context to promote an Anti-Islamic bias. His edit in the "Onset of frictions with the Quraysh" section, says this "Around 613, Muhammad began to preach to the public. Initially, he had no serious opposition from the inhabitants of Mecca, who were indifferent to his proselytizing activities, but when he started to attack their beliefs, tensions arose." this is false, as the teachings of Muhammad has been prosecuted when he began teaching it.
Next in the "Beginning of armed conflict" section, the user Kaalakaa, had put that he had received divine revelation to attack the Meccans while in a time of peace, however, before the revelation of Surah At Tawbah Meccans had confiscated the property and had violated the
Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which gave a 10 year truce between the Muslims and Non Muslims. One of his sources is Islamic Imperialism: A History by
Efraim Karsh, a pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian author.
Also, in the Battle of Badr, the false claim that Umar desired for all the enemies to be slain, which is cited by Muhammad by
Maxime Rodinson, a book which came under controversy.
As well, the user had changed the "Battle of Uhud" section, originally was "The Meccans were eager to avenge their defeat. To maintain economic prosperity, the Meccans needed to restore their prestige, which had been reduced at Badr". The user changed it to "In 625, the Quraysh, wearied by Muhammad's continuous attacks on their caravans, decided to take decisive action. Led by Abu Sufyan, they assembled an army to oppose Muhammad."
As well, the user falsely claimed that "according to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad disclosed that he had received a divine revelation of a planned assassination attempt on him by the Banu Nadir, which involved dropping a boulder from a rooftop. Muhammad then initiated a siege on the tribe", this claim can not be found in any of Ibn Ishaq works, in English or in Arabic.
As well, the user sites numerous other anti-Islamic sources besides the two above:
Islam and the Infidels: The Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah by David Bukay, another pro-Israeli.
Religion in Politics by Arun Shourie, a Hindu nationalist who has who has voiced support for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a militant Hindu nationalist group
Muhammad and Jesus: A Comparison of the Prophets and Their Teachings by William E. Phipps, this book has been criticized for its poor scholarship on the Prophet Muhammad.
The user has done this with numerous of other articles including the
Battle of Badr, the
Battle of the Trench, the
Battle of Uhud, the
Raid on Nakhla, the
Quraysh tribe, and and other Wikipedia articles.
I request that any edits done by this user should be undone. It is likely that these edits were to reflect on the user's personal or ideological agenda.
I left a note on his talk page but failed to respond. I am in need of third party to resolve this, as the user seems to lack communication with me.
- Chxeese ( talk) 00:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
"Around 613, Muhammad began to preach to the public. Initially, he had no serious opposition from the inhabitants of Mecca, who were indifferent to his proselytizing activities, but when he started to attack their beliefs, tensions arose."
Kaalakaa ( talk) 07:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)At first Muhammad met with no serious opposition and in not a few cases his preaching fell on fruitful soil. In the words addressed to Salih in sura XI, 62 we may find a hint that Muhammad had at first aroused considerable expectations among the Meccans. In addition to Khadidja, who is consistently said to have been the first believer, and several men including Abu Bakr, the manumitted slave Zayd b. Haritha, Zubayr b. al-Awwam, Talha b. Ubayd Allah, Abd al Rahman b. Awf, Sacd b. Abi Wakkas, and Muhammad's cousin AH [q.vv.], who are also said to have been among the early followers of Muhammad, the sources mention a number of other converts in Mecca, the majority of whom appear to have been young or of no great social standing, while the well-todo and influential held back (XIX, 73; XXXIV, 31 ff; LXXIII, 11; LXXX, 1 ff; for a detailed analysis of the social standing and the tribal affiliations of the Meccan converts, see Watt, Mecca, 88-96). This became still more the case when the full consequences of Muhammad's preaching became clear, that is, when he openly attacked the polytheism of his native town. Up until this point most Meccans appear to have had little interest in devotional meetings, and thus had been rather indifferent to Muhammad's activities.
He also feared that others would dismiss his claims as being possessed. Shi'a tradition states Muhammad was not surprised or frightened at Gabriel's appearance; rather he welcomed the angel, as if he was expected.
The spirit ordered Muhammad to "Recite!" three times before he composed himself well enough to receive his first revelation, which became the first part of sura 96 or the Qur'an. He decided to throw himself off the mountain to end the insanity or curse, but the spirit moved closer and repeated, "Oh Muhammad, you are the Messenger of God."
Muhammad was deeply distressed. 'I considered throwing myself from the top of a mountain scar,' he said.
References
Buhl, F.; Welch, A.T. (1993). "Muḥammad". Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). Brill. pp. 360–376. ISBN 978-90-04-09419-2.
This part in the lede
Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity
Is not sourced at all. So I thought it was probably based on the body text. But the body only says:
Muhammad united several of the tribes of Arabia into a single Arab Muslim religious polity in the last years of his life.
Uniting several of the tribes of Arabia is not the same as uniting Arabia. And after I checked the sources given. It turns out that none of them state either the former or the latter or anything along those lines. And in Richard A. Gabriel's Muhammad: Islam's First Great General p. 208, it is noted that it was only after the conquests during the caliphate of Abu Bakr that Islam came to rule over the entire Arabian Peninsula.
Abu Bakr’s military operations were carried out simultaneously and in four different directions over almost eighteen months with the result that all Arabia fell to the Muslim armies and accepted Islam.
So it's clear that this is another case of original research, and should be removed. Kaalakaa ( talk) 00:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Iskandar323 You removed sources, including those published by distinguished university presses, on the basis of them being unreferenced. Then you deleted the statements that were supported by them. What do you mean by that? Please explain. Kaalakaa ( talk) 11:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Sexual intercourse with female captives or self-owned slaves was allowed in Islam, and no consent was required from the women.
"Just so you know, I didn't modify this part."is meant to be refer to. The sentence I removed is not about the subject (Muhammad) or the specific episode in question; it is a piece of broad-brush off-topic side-commentary of little biographical merit. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The use of expressions like "دخل بي" (dakhala bi) and "وبني بها" (wabanaa bihaa) do not mean having sex. It is said by people including a person having scholarship in Islam there is not a single reference which says at what age this wife had consummated marriage with with Islamic prophet Muhammad. Mistranslation of expressions like dakhala alaiha, dakhala bi as "consummation" maybe for ease of use or for perhaps non-availability of a single word for "living together after marriage" appears to have caused all the misunderstanding. Moreover the Qur'anic verse 3:37 contains the phrase دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا (dakhala alaiha). Any of the interpreters we know have not said it refers to intercourse, says M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, an Islamic scholar (Vedam Yukthi Vadam : page 354, M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, publication date : 2 July 2022) where he says expression like "dakhala alaiha" is seen to have to used both in the hadith and (Islamic) history to refer to the meeting with this wife and Islamic prophet Muhammad. He also says this linguistically means only "met", "lived together at night", "Nabi (Islamic prophet Muhammad) entered one's aramana -- which could mean a palace as per https://ml.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%B4%85%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%A8 ". M. P. Musthafawal Faizy states that there is no evidence which says what happened at that night. The book's publication program can be seen here : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3lQeXk-JIg
whose 25 August 2023 archived version can be seen here : https://web.archive.org/web/20230825042631/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Q3lQeXk-JIg
M. P. Musthafa Faizy conclude that the expression like "dakhala biha" and "dakhala alaiha" does not firstly mean intercourse and ascertaining any meaning for such expression could be done only after knowing what happened afterwards.
Neutralhappy (
talk)
04:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The recent edits have gathered controversy, rightfully so. One problem I noticed regards Safiyyah bint Huyayy.
The article claims that the Prophet didn't wait for Safiyyah's next menstrual cycle before having intercourse with her, supposedly violating his own commands. What the author rather purposefully seems to ignore is that there is a general consensus that Safiyyah was the Prophet's wife. In that case, he wouldn't have to wait for her next menstrual cycle.
For the sake of argument, let's ignore that there is a consensus of Safiyyah being the Prophet's wife. Three sources have been cited for this particular matter. The first one is "Essential Islam" by Diane Morgan. Morgan seems to write just about anything from food recipes to dogs to eastern religions. I couldn't find anything about her credentials or who she even really is. The second one is "Understanding Hadith" by Ram Swarup. A Hindu Nationalist that heavily dislikes anything abrahamic, especially Islam. The third source is "Muhammad" by Maxime Rodinson. This book has caused a lot of controversy in the Muslim world, not without reason. Rodinson had a very interpretive and politically motivated approach to Islam and the Prophet, and he arguably isn't a good source for the more detailed aspects of Muhammad's life. Admiral90 ( talk) 23:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Efraim Karsh's work Islamic Imperialism seems like a particularly problematic work to reference. Karsh is generally known for his polemical stances and this book has been singled-out by many reviewers for that exact problem, with Richard Bulliet pointing to it as "selling ideology, not historical acumen" and having "myriad problems", while Jonathan Berkey remarked that it "misconstrues its history in some important ways". The weight of these statements strongly suggests that we should not treat this book as a particularly reliable source, or use it without attribution. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
and he postponed the allocation of the spoils until a verse was ultimately revealed, legitimizing the attackisn't supported by what Karsh says. The timing of the distribution of the booty and the appearance of the Quranic verse aren't, as far as I can see, linked. DeCausa ( talk) 13:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kaalakaa ( talk) 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Muhammad gave him a sealed letter... to proceed to Nakhlah... to ambush a Meccan caravan. ... There, however, some misgivings were expressed on account of the Meccan having been killed in the sacred month of Rajab, when bloodshed was forbidden. Muhammad at first kept the booty undistributed and did not accept the fifth they offered him. But eventually a revelation justified their action.
References
This article has gone through extensive changes since it underwent a GA review last time. The changes have been so substantive, with wholesale replacement of prose and sources, that it's hardly the same article anymore.
It may still be a good article, but it isn't the same article that was previously assessed as "good".
On this talk page, there have also been disputes raised about the changed content.
Therefore, I think it's time for a reassessment. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There are at least a few sources with pretty suspect scholarly credentials being used unattributed and without buttressing by more academic works. Two works in particular that have drawn my eye are the 1961 book Muhammad by Maxime Rodinson, a Marxist historian with strong political leanings. Aside from being dated, the work was written with a expressly sociological slant, which is fine as an analytical viewpoint, but makes a poor recipe for unbiased statements. Then we have the 1970 book The Life and Times of Muhammad by John Bagot Glubb, another dated and even less scholarly work by a British military officer with a hobbyist interest in Arab military history. A more recent source example with quality issues of the same vein is the 2017 The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah by Russ Rodgers, this time an American former military man and public speaker who has dabbled in academia as a side-gig, but who falls well short of subject-matter expert. I have no doubt that there are plenty of other sources of this ilk that have found their way onto the page, but if this page is to restore any semblance of quality, it is going to need to return to mainstream subject-matter experts and biographies. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer review and are slated for publication, ensuring that the peer review process is thorough.
@
Iskandar323:, you said that Russ Rodgers falls well short of subject-matter expert.
I'm sorry, but that Bloomsbury
link that you provided seems to disagree with your claim:
Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army
Also, keep in mind that this isn't some self-published work. This is a University Press of Florida publication that's been peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. [25] Thus makes the books highly reliable, as our WP:RS states:
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
Also, please remember that we have WP:AGEMATTERS. Your argument that accuses a recent source of being obscure just because it has much fewer citations compared to a source released in the 1950s is completely inconsistent with that guideline. Kaalakaa ( talk) 14:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
insurgency movementsor any kind of warfare in general (clearly his main specialism), but a personal biography, so even if we were to trust these COI extollations, it would still not be a perfect source for extracting well-rounded biographical material on an individual.] But mainly just A & B. If you take anything that you find on the internet as golden then we are never going to be able to have a mature source discussion. Please use WP:COMMONSENSE. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
early Islamic warfarepart? We always refer to the Early Muslim conquests as the conflicts that began during Muhammad's time, not the wars that took place in the early 20th century. Kaalakaa ( talk) 15:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The text is probably written by Rodgers himself and submitted to the publisher to post" is merely your WP:OR, as well as this "
Rodgers is no expert by any of the usual metrics." So they don't actually hold any weight here.
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
This means that the "citation counts" in the next prong are to find out whether works outside the above category are reliable. Kaalakaa ( talk) 19:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)* Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
No one is using the Bloomsbury link for anything; it is worthless - I merely held it up to point out that Rodgers has little to no academic background.
Kaalakaa ( talk) 20:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer review and are slated for publication, ensuring that the peer review process is thorough.
That doesn't make Rodgers a necessarily good source on this subject
"We learn that her wealth gave him the leisure for retreat and reflection." (p. 114)
"A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad" (p. 270).
The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer reviewis irrelevant. It was "peer reviewed" by a potentially a couple of academics. That's it. In any case, who cares what 11 universities in Florida think. WP:DUE means that Rodgers POV needs to carry weight in the global Muhammad scholarship community and you've consistently smoke screened addressing that issue. DeCausa ( talk) 18:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Hi again, @ Anachronist. Regarding your recent revert that cites WP:BURDEN, [8], the policy states that
The passage already has a citation with it, however, in case you want the text from the source, here you go:
Muhammad’s night journey. The qur’anic grounding of the ascent (mi’raj) of Muhammad is tenuous in two ways. In the first place, the ascent is not described and the term mi'raj is not used in the Qur’an. Secondly, the Qur’an stresses that Muhammad brings no miracle (q.v.) other than the divinely-wrought miracle of the Qur’an itself (see inimitability).
Also, I think there has been consensus among secular scholars that the historical Muhammad had no miracles, a notion supported by the Quran. However, Muslims living a few centuries after his death began attributing miracles to him. Here's a text from the Cambridge Companions to Muhammad, page 39: [1]
When we read the Qur¯anic Meccan passages alone, without benefit of post-Qur¯anic interpretation, Muhammad emerges as a mortal prophet who still has no miracle other than the Qur¯an, the book he received from God over the last twenty-two years of his life, first in Mecca (610–622 CE) and then in Medina (622–632). Muhammad appears in these passages as a man who both warns of the oncoming Judgment Day and brings God’s message of mercy. But in the post-Qur¯anic sources, a different Muhammad emerges; these sources move away from the mortal Qur¯anic warner toward an ideal hero whom later generations of devoted believers have shaped and read back into the Qur¯an by means of its exegesis.
The book is very good, I really recommend it. Kaalakaa ( talk) 18:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I think there has been consensus among secular scholars that the historical Muhammad had no miracles, a notion supported by the Quran.
However, Muslims living a few centuries after his death began attributing miracles to him.
References
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The prophet favourite wife according to sunni tradition was Khadija SN2004 ( talk) 02:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Note: I have set the status of this request to "answered" while editors seek consensus on what edit to make. Xan747 ( talk) 18:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
add this in "in other religion" section: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar claimed in his book "Hinduism and Islam: The Common Thread" that Muhammad is explicitly prophesied in Bhavishya Purana. [1] 116.58.200.170 ( talk) 09:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The Prophet Mohammed and His Appearance in Vedic Literature The Vedic text Bhavishya Purana (Parva 3, Khand 3, Adya 3, texts 5-6) predicts the appearance of Mohammed. Therein it states: "An illiterate teacher will appear, Mohammed is his name, and he will give religion to the people of the desert."
Declined based on the discussion above, but we can revisit this if more reliable sources are found. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The Arabs placed the Hindus including the Buddhists, in the second category of Ahl-i Zimma, the Mushabaih-i Ahl-i Kitab. The verdict to give the status of Mushabah-i Ahl-i Kitab to the Hindus, including the Buddhists, was probably based on the fact that although there is no mention of Hindu scriptures in the Qur'an, there are specific references and prophecies about the Prophet himself in the Hindu scriptures. The one in the Bhavishya Purana rendered in English runs thus: 5. Just then an illiterate man with the epithet teacher, Muhammad by name, came alongwith his companions; 6. Raja (Bhoja in a Vision) to that Great Deva, the denizen of Arabia, purifying with the Ganges water and with the five things of cow offered sandal wood and paid worship Foundation of Sadarat in India 37 to him, 7.0 denizen of Arabia and Lord of the Holies to thee is my adoration. O thou, who hast found many ways and means to destroy all the devils of the world, 8. 0 pure one from among the illiterates, O sinless one, the spirit of truth and absolute master, to thee is my adoration. Accept me at thy feet. One passage in the Atharva Veda reads: "O people, listen this emphatically, the man of praise (Muhammad) will be raised among the people. We take the emigrant in our shelter from sixty thousand and ninety enemies whose conveyances are twenty camels and she-camels, whose loftiness of position touches the heaven and towers it. He gave to Mamah Rishi hundred of gold coins ten circles, three hundred Arab horses and ten thousand cows." Accordingly, the life and property of the Hindus were assured, 'they were permitted to reconstruct their temples (damaged in war or otherwise) and to live in their houses in whatever manner they liked.(8) References: 6. Bhavishya Purana, Parv 3, khand 3, Adhyay 3, Shalok 5-8. 7. Atharva Veda, Kanda, 20, Sukta 127, Montra 1-3. 8. Chach-Nama, E.D.I. p. 185.
:::::@
Anachronist and
Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I found another reference
here from
Siasat Daily, and you can also add
Ved Prakash Upadhyay#Kalki Avatar and Muhammad's quotation and references.
202.134.14.151 (
talk)
09:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In light of the many above recent discussions, and as suggested in a recent edit summary, it seems best to restore the article to this version due to the major overhaul causing neutrality issues, what do others think? 23.150.152.38 ( talk) 21:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was given a "POV" tag back in August, and has received some discussion on this talkpage, but I think it's worth dedicating a discussion topic specifically to it. Is the section as currently written undue? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I changed the section heading to "Tensions with followers of Judaism". ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Should the following statements:
Historian Russ Rodgers argues that while there are accounts of some Muslims being beaten and a few being tortured, the early record shows that only one, or perhaps two, were killed, and even these cases are questionable. He further contends that had the Quraysh acted more aggressively, Muhammad’s nascent movement would have been obliterated.
According to the 19th-century orientalist Julius Wellhausen, when Muhammad arrived in the city in 622, the Jewish tribes were allied with the two Arab tribes as subordinates. However, 21st-century historian Russ Rodgers disagrees. He argues that during Muhammad’s second pledge of Aqaba, members of the two Arab tribes stated that they had to break certain alliances with the Jews due to the nature of the pledge. Rodgers infers from this that it was the two Arab tribes who held a subservient or, at most, an equal position to the Jews, since otherwise, the Jews would have been drawn into the covenant.
Be kept or removed? Are there any better sources discussing the same topics or are these not worth discussing at all? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
…
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion
falls well short of subject-matter expert." When I checked the link, the content actually contradicts what Iskandar accused, stating instead that:
Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army
the link is worthless" and he "
only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [13]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, he avoided the questions and went to another section, repeating the similar accusations [14]. His typical arguments are that Rodgers is just a person with modest military expertise [15] who has a hobby in history [16]. He appears to be unaware that there exist historian positions within the U.S. Army [17](even a specific directorate dedicated for them [18]), and Rodgers is their command historian [19], whose research results are, among other things, used to furnish the commander and staff with historical perspectives during the planning and implementation of operations [20]. And as far as I know, his book is the only publication from the University Press of Florida that discusses in detail the life of Muhammad from the standpoint of his generalship. And this tells something. ~ Kaalakaa ( talk) 11:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
falls well short of subject-matter expert,' [21] is a false accusation [22]. The same goes for your accusations that Rodgers is just a person with modest military expertise [23] who has a hobby in history [24] and "
has little to no academic background" [25]. Because the fact is,
Is there any diffs that you have refuted these or proved your accusations? Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you can quote it here. Kaalakaa ( talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)there exist historian positions within the U.S. Army [26] (even a specific directorate dedicated for them [27]), and Rodgers is their command historian [28], whose research results are, among other things, used to furnish the commander and staff with historical perspectives during the planning and implementation of operations. [29]
Title. MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit ( talk) 10:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change '''Muhammad'''{{efn|He is referred to by many appellations, including '''Muhammad ibn Abdullah''', '''Messenger of God''', '''The Prophet Muhammad''', '''God's Apostle''', '''Last Prophet of Islam''', and others; there are also many variant spellings of Muhammad, such as '''Mohamet''', '''Mohammed''', '''Mahamad''', '''Muhamad''', '''Mohamed''' and many others.}} ({{lang-ar|مُحَمَّد}}; {{circa}} 570 – 8 June 632 [[Common Era|CE]])
to '''Muhammad ibn Abdullah'''{{efn|He is referred to by many appellations, including '''Messenger of God''', '''The Prophet Muhammad''', '''God's Apostle''', '''Last Prophet of Islam''', and others; there are also many variant spellings of Muhammad, such as '''Mohamet''', '''Mohammed''', '''Mahamad''', '''Muhamad''', '''Mohamed''' and many others.}} ({{Naskh|{{lang-ar|مُحَمَّد بِنْ عَبْدُاللّٰه}}}}; {{transl|ar|Muḥāmmad bin ʿAbd ʿAllāh}}, <small>lit.</small> 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah'; {{circa}} 570 – 8 June 632 [[Common Era|CE]])
.
"Muhammad ibn Abdullah" is technically Muhammad's full name, not an appellation. ― Emperor ÖSMAN IXXVMD ( talk) 11:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles regarding the NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" which may be of interest to editors of this article. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 18:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently our article, under the household section, there's a paragraph (which I haven't touched yet) that reads:
According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, [1] [2] [3] with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old. [a] She was therefore a virgin at marriage. [2] Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage. [b]
The issue is the latter part that I italicized. There are 4 sources provided, two of which:
Both of them clearly don't satisfy
WP:RS.
While this one:
Doesn't talk about any recalculation based on her sister Asma's age at all, but
Aqqad cleverly skirts the authenticated Hadith found in Sahih Bukhari in which Aisha herself reports that she was nine at the time, addressing it only obliquely by suggesting that Aisha was fond of emphasizing her childhood spent in the nascent days of Islam and how young she was during the faith’s formative days. ‘Aqqad thus allows his readers to reconcile their faith in the Prophet’s complete rectitude and even in Islam’s collective historical corpus with what many had come to accept as the ‘natural’ and ideal norms for marriage.
More conservative Muslim scholars objected to this rereading of the Prophet’s life. They sensed the epistemological turnover behind ‘Aqqad’s defense of Islam. Not only did it upturn the hierarchy of authority within the Sunni scriptural canon by ignoring a clear text contained in Bukhari’s august Sahih, it also broke with the Shariah consensus on marriage age. No member of Egypt’s religious establishment showed more displeasure with ‘Aqqad than Ahmad Shakir. In the spring of 1944 he penned a number of popular journal articles excoriating the famous wordsmith’s book on the Prophet’s most active wife.
The only reliable source that supports the statement (of our article) is the following one:
On the other hand, 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. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
However, the author has released a revised edition [15] of the book in which that statement no longer exists, seemingly having been retracted. And according to Kecia Ali in "The Lives of Muhammad" (2014) published by Harvard University Press, p.173:
In the late twentieth century, in a renewed climate of criticism of Islam, divergent tendencies emerge in Muslim and non-Muslim sources. Muslim scholars engage in apologetics to justify Aisha’s marriage. The dominant strategy is to contextualize it as historically appropriate to its time and place and to play up, as with the multiple marriages, the politi cal motivations behind it. A less common strategy recalculates Aisha’s age at marriage based on other indicators in the sources.
Which means this statement in our article:
Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.
is clearly a WP:FRINGE. Thus its inclusion is WP:UNDUE and creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Kaalakaa ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Kaalakaa ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
About 19 days have passed. It appears there are 4-0 in favor of removal of the text, so I deleted it in accordance. If anyone disagrees and has reliable sources to back it up, feel free to raise it here. Kaalakaa ( talk) 21:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Watt-encyc-online
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Evidence that the Prophet waited for Aisha to reach physical maturity before consummation comes from al-Ṭabarī, who says she was too young for intercourse at the time of the marriage contract;
On the other hand, 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. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
Ibn Kathir: Vol 2: pg 94:95
Aisha (ra) was earlier engaged to Jubayr ibn Mut'im ibn Adi. Later, when Prophet ﷺ proposal came, Abu Bakr went to discuss with his friend Mut'im. His wife's Umm al-Sabi replied: If Abu Bakr doesn't come back to his previous religion, then engagement is off.
Above incident proves
- Aisha-Jubayr engagement happened before Abu Bakr accepted Islam 610 CE.
- Further, Aisha-Prophet's marriage = 624 CE.
- Also, Imam ad-Dhahabi: Marriage occured in 4th year after Hijra 626 CE. (Tarikh al Islam wa al-Wafiat al-Mashahir wa al-Alam, Vol III, p 288) ed by Dr. Umar ‘Abd al-Salam Tadmuri Beirut 1st print.
Hence, Aisha age should be ‘more than’ 14-16 years. So, Bukhari/Nasai hadees on 6 years of marriage is #fake.
Please update. I am unable to as page is protected. 43.252.251.78 ( talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please correct to Prophet Muhammad was the last messenger of Islam. He was an Arab..... Mustafarahman01 ( talk) 18:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Tollens (
talk)
19:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)It made sense to have a sub–talk page just for images discussion back when it seemed like we were getting arguments about the Muhammad images several times a day, but now it happens so seldom I don't see why we need it anymore. The regular talk page should be able to field all discussions now. Anyone object to discontinuing it? The archives will still be accessible. — Chowbok ☠ 14:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this sentence/passage : "In December 629, after eight years of intermittent fighting with Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The conquest went largely uncontested and Muhammad seized the city with little bloodshed"
There is almost no context at all on this event, and makes it seem like a conquest without reason, it is highly advised that the reason is mentioned, so, Please Change the above passage in itallics to: "...fighting with Meccan tribes, a peace treaty was broken and Muhammad gathered an army...", as mentioned in this article " /info/en/?search=Conquest_of_Mecca".
Context is important, and adding a link to the treaty ( /info/en/?search=Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah) is preferable as well. This is a major event, and mentioning the 8 years of fighting makes it only fair to let the reader know about a treaty that existed, and a brief on what caused the event to occur after 8 years. Thank you. Yahya AGX ( talk) 21:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Iskandar323, in your latest edit to the article [31], you wrote the edit summary as:
"retitling - "Opposition" was the stable section title, and "Quraysh" is incorrect, as various Meccan tribes were in opposition"
Are there reliable sources that support this, that there were Meccan non-Quraysh tribes that were also in opposition to him? Kaalakaa ( talk) 06:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
"Meccan opposition escalated from derision and verbal attacks to active persecution. The core of the opposition came from the Umayyad clan of the Quraysh tribe."(my bolding there - the emphasis being on the Quraysh being the core, not presumptively the totality of the opposition) ... so this example and other similar sources make this pretty clear. In contrast, I don't see sources suggesting that the opposition was exclusive to the Quraysh. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
the Umayyad clan of the Quraysh tribe", so it's still the Quraysh tribe.
Hi Team,
Please add (s.a.w.) next to Muhammad name.
Must be Muhammad (s.a.w)
Thanks,
A.S
Averaciousspeaker (
talk)
19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Compare the Muhammad Wikipedia entry to those on Christ and the Buddha. The latter have a sympathetic tone. Whoever wrote this has no understanding of Muhammad's teaching, and they are trying, at every point, to deconstruct. 76.212.86.226 ( talk) 17:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I assume that's due to Jesus and Buddha generally adhering to a strict moral code of peace and love while Muhammad's known history and that of Islam is based on military conquest & death, therefore the tone will follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
[mʊ'ħɑ:mæd] GreatLeader1945 ( talk) 21:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In sub-section 3.1.8 Hijrah, Muhammad's action is described rather subjectively as "prudence." Seeking consensus to replace "Muhammad acted with prudence and sent an agent" with "Muhammad sent an agent" in order to retain the purported fact while removing the judgement call as to whether that action was prudent or not, hopefully better adhering to WP:NPOV by prefering nonjudgmental language. ShoneBrooks ( talk) 02:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
If the sources have "judgmental" subjective opinion and we don't reflect that then that is a violation of NPOV.No, not really. How we reflect that matters. A source using biased or loaded language isn't a license for us to do the same, using non-neutral language in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Doing so violates NPOV. Inclusion of non-neutral terminology would need attribution in the prose to whoever uses that terminology, and simply citing a source isn't enough. If it seems awkward to attribute the biased terminology, then we remove it and just report the facts. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone else find the timeline template too long and distracting? I just changed it to collapse by default, but it doesn't seem to work on mobile. I checked other historical figures like Jesus and Alexander and none of them have this template. What is the best approach to do here? Move it, delete it or else? — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)