Talk:Muhammad

How can you even be considering this, after the SOPA block...

... After SOPA really this looks insanely hypocritical...

An enyclopaedia should be about facts and an objective view of the materials available, not hiding things away depending on whose pressure/lobbyist group is larger...

'WP:NOTCENSORED - "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."

You either are, or you aren't... If you're going to hide this stuff then it's going to be other "blasphemous" material next...

Why not go the whole way and just start letting people opt out from links and articles that could offend them, per Websense let people live in an maginary world of their own creation: Filter bubbles in internet search engines, BBC News Online --Mss. Selina Kyle (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that by protesting SOPA, wikimedia has now become muslim?.....I'm confused, and also this isn't a forum. Is this leading towards a sugestion about content? Smitty1337 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Mss. Selina Kyle seems to be unaware of the FAQ linked prominently at the top of this page, which describes how one can avoid seeing certain content. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe what Selina was saying is that if the Wikipedia is so greatly concerned about the censorship from external legislative bodies if SOPA became law, that it is hypocritical to turn to censorship itself just because certain religious groups do not like material that they find objectionable on the Wikipedia. Her argument is in favor of retaining the depictions and critical of the project for even considering removal on grounds of offense. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Tarc, that's exactly how I read it too. Doc Tropics 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense than my interpretation. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2012

ths page 'prophet muhammed' should be removed!!!! XX-CrimsonVIper-Xx (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia is not censored, please see the FAQ at the top of the page--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Non-Arabic sources subsection - if not the article introduction - of the Sources for Muhammad's life section should mention that there are no contemporary sources at all mentionning him, and that the article is entirely based on religious texts. Leridan (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request "Founder of Islam" - 6 February 2012

The validity of the term “founded” for the description of Muhammad. Having seen this previously discussed in other pages, this reads offensive to some and is academically inaccurate as it is not believed that he founded Islam no more than Jesus founded Christianity or Abraham Judaism. Understanding Wiki is neutral, the following should be carefully considered. "Founded" is a term used by those that do not believe in him as a prophet. Ergo, as to say "prophet" would equally introduce religious overtones for those with schisms in this regard. The most inoffensive and neutral way, cites the source e.g. book, or persons. Removed from theological debate, the correct term would be "according to the Quran" or "according to the Quran and Muslims" Likewise the other Abrahamic Prophets are described as such on their respective pages:

Noah: according to the Hebrew Bible...

Moses : according to the Hebrew Bible and Qur'an, a religious leader, lawgiver and prophet,

David: was the second king of the United Kingdom of Israel according to the Hebrew Bible and, according to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke

Solomon: according to the Book of Kings and the Book of Chronicles,[1] a King of Israel and according to the Talmud one of the 48 prophets

Jesus: central figure of Christianity and regarded as an important prophet of God in Islam

request for "was the founder of the religion of Islam." to "according to the Quran, Muslims, etc. to be Prophet and Messenger of God"

The note at the end of the article concerning the belief of him not being a founder by most Muslims is unnecessary in light of what is discussed here

--Rashadibn (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The "according to the X" lines are because the Historicity is disputed, not because the article is preaching from those sources. The difference here being that Muhammad was a well documented real person, and from a secular perspective Islam was his idea, he created the denomination as a branch off from the Abrahamic faiths. It did not exist prior to his ministry.Smitty1337 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

hmmm my own wikilink seems to have invalidated my argument, as it links to Historicity of Muhammad, I withdraw opinion pending further consideration of this. However the latter part of my argument still stands, it was a denomination that didnt exist prior to him, but by this line of logic i suppose moses should be the founder of Judaism?....hmmm interestingSmitty1337 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually in my viewpoint the lead for muhammad is right and the others should be rewritten. Jesus (regardless of how people spin it) was the originator aka founder of christianity. Not sure on the jewish side who would be considered the first but the idea is the first person to come to the "faith" would be the founder of the religion, regardless of followers or validity of the faith. The first person to introduce an idea is always the founder regardless if it is religion, science, math or otherwise. 214.27.58.2 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also does anyone know why this statement popped up in the beginning of the page? "Please not that Muhammed ( PBUH ), was not the founder of Islam. He was the messenger." If someone wanted to say that it is fine but it shouldn't be before the disclaimer and other information, and also posts are suppose to be in ascending order not descending. 214.27.58.2 (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keeps coming up: please find a source that shows that there was a religion called Islam before Mohammed. No? Maybe that's because he founded it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the "according to" is not to preach from the document but to maintain neutrality. No one has to believe or disbelieve in any of the texts (Torah, Bible, Quran) to keep it in this context as an original reference. "Founder" essentially means created and is indeed a secular viewpoint, but hardly academic. Secular is not a synonym of neutral. Im sure the change from either of those to founder will spark an even larger issue on those pages. (Argued before does not make it beyond need of change or repudiation.) The correct thing to do is correct it. Or at least display neutrality disputed, as well as change the other definitions given on Wiki for other religious figures. IdreamofJeanie respectfully; your comment is a complete circle and only reiterates my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashadibn (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading through some of the other religious articles I stumbled across a potential compromise. What if we used central figure instead of founder? Still neutral and can be written Muhammad was the central figure in Islam. Thoughts? 214.27.58.2 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's much worse - Allah is the "central figure" of Islam. Unlike Jesus in Christianity, Muhammad is certainly not worshipped. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I redact my earlier suggestion. 214.27.58.2 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest something like, "is recognized as the 6th century (CE), 1st century (HE), proponent of the world religion known as Islam" but whatever the sources say is fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

PBUH

90.207.204.148 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC) PLEASE COULD SOMEONE EDIT THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE BY STATING THE WORDS "PEACE BE UPON HIM" (SALALLAH ALAY-HE WASALLAM) AFTER EVERY SINGLE TIME OF READING THE NAME OF THE PHOPHET MUHAMMED (PEACE BE UPON HIM), EVEN THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE..PLEASE 90.207.204.148 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No. That would violate Wikipedia's principle of neutral point of view. Please see WP:PBUH. Favonian (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. If you ask any believer of Islam, stating PBUH would naturally be the neutral point of view, and there wouldn't be any Muslims that would disagree. Please could you do further investigation to try and make my point valid and make the amendments I am requesting. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.204.148 (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, did you read the page that Favonian linked to (especially WP:Neutral point of view)? Singularity42 (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

All that is true. However, there's something strange going on when PBUH is hidden way at the end of the lead in some explanation whereas Jesus has the "Christ" in bold in the first sentence... no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Christ is a title, not a blessing like PBUH, so it's not really comparable. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I can interpret PBUH would be an endorsement of the religion which is not wikipedia's aim. The neutral point of view neither endorses nor condemns a viewpoint. Also I agree with cybercobra the title in the lead is about him being a prophet which is comparable to christ. PBUH would be closer to saying "in the name of our lord" for christian sects/denominations and including that within the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It says Muhammad, not The Prophet Muhammad Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This raises a good point. Perhaps in the first line (or some subsequent place), it should say, "He is commonly called "The Prophet Muhammad" or just "Muhammad" by Muslims." Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will see about a reword though that is also covered in the PBUH linkage area. Let me see if I can come up with something a bit better wording wise. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite draft one - If anyone has suggested changes let me know

Muhammad (c. 26 April 570 – 8 June 632;[1] also spelled Mohammad or Muhammed; Arabic: محمد‎) (full name: Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب ‎), often referred to as The Prophet Muhammad, was the founder of the religion of Islam [2][n 1] and is considered by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God. Most Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran, and believe him to be the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets.[3][n 2] Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets.[4][5][6] Tivanir2 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

this was the whole point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is getting into the honorifics realm but I don't have a problem with it. We might wish to get a few more people to weigh in but otherwise it should be fine. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, though I wouldn't mind if the underlined part had a little more, such as, "often referred to by Muslims as The Prophet Muhammad or The Prophet". Qwyrxian (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also if someone has time please check the source to make sure that it is properly cited. I would but I am in a place without a library available right now. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Q, I think non-Muslims on occasion call him those things too, so if its needed why be wordy about it? I would also strike "often" altogether as needlessly wordy, and go with just "also referred to as."Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "the" ought not to be capitalized. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

True. Also, I don't see why we need all that distracting bolding.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

Remove the image of Prophet(PBUH)

Yas.9944 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Read the FAQ prominently listed at the top of this page for an exhaustive discussion of wiki policy. Ogress _smash! 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)