Talk:Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

The FAQ below addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.
Censorship warning Wikipedia is not censored
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.
This is a controversial historical topic that may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Muhammad:

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Recently the references were cleaned up. Some errors may have crept in. Please check if the statements are supported by the sources. Feel free to remove any information or pictures that you feel may be inappropriate, biased or have a detrimental impact on the authenticity of this article.
  • Cleanup: reduce the number of inline and block quotes by summarizing them efficiently.
  • Expand: " nah and Islamic law" section
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography     (Rated GA-Class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Core This article is listed on this project's core biographies page.
WikiProject Islam      (Rated GA-Class)
Islam
Islam portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Arab world (Rated GA-Class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab World on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-Class, Top-importance)
Middle Ages portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Military history WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated GA-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, and June 8, 2006.
Good article Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.



Archives

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

  • Image archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

  • Mediation Archives
  1. Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild
  2. Statements
  3. Clarity discussion/Refining positions
  4. Ars' final archive
  5. The rest of the mediation by Ars
  6. Archive 6
  7. Archive 7
  8. Archive 8
This is not a forum for general discussion of Muhammad. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
You may wish to post your thoughts at the Reference desk, the Village pump, or the Help desk.

Contents

[edit] Page protected

I have indefinitely (not infinitely) fully-protected this page. Please discuss the issue and reach consensus, don't just keep reverting. Thanks, J.delanoygabsadds 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but it isn't clear to me what is being disputed here. Can someone clarify?
The article relies too heavily upon reference 14, a link to an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam, with no page numbers, no indication of what is quoted or who thinks what. All those references need to be removed and replaced with something tighter.
My own interest was in what the primary sources for Mohammed's life are. This article isn't really very good at that. But... I can't change it! Roger Pearse (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reform

What is stated under the header of Reform is subjective and does not belong into a biography. Furthermore, the content insults common sense and is indecent. Islam codified and sanctioned slavery. How this institutionalization was a betterment in the case of slavery is not understandable. Also, it is argued that the situation of the poor was advanced. Again, subjective. Furthermore, Mohammad himself enslaved countless people. How is this conduct reconcilable with the distorted picture of someone who rejects hierarchy? This section should be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 2009-06-26

Perhaps you should read the article more carefully. There is no "Reform" header. There is one called "Reforms" and that happens to be a summary of another article, Early reforms under Islam. If you have a problem with that article, take it up on the talk page there. The paragraph as is, is well supported by the cited sources, and adequately summarizes the larger article.
If you have verifiable, reliable, and neutral sources that support your claims, then kindly present alternative text, with proper sourcing. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The section does seem rather unbalanced to me also, although not quite as bad as that. Indeed there might be several views on whether Mohammed's policies were beneficial or not. I don't think it is a defence to say that it is a summary of another article, tho; if the material is POV, then the section should be reduced radically in size and little more than the link left. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rumour about Muhammad's horse

There is a rumor on the net that the horse that Muhammad rode to heaven had the name of 'Barack'. Is this true? 71.86.156.73 (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a dumb conservative meme. The horse's name is al-Buraq, not Barack. Homonyms, and perhaps a common root somewhere, but to say "Obama was named after Muhammad's horse" is a bit silly. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Different roots. "Barack" means like blessed, "Buraq" means lightning. --Afghana [talk] 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"Barack" root → ك - ر - ب (Ba - Ra - Kāf)
"Bur'raq" root → ق - ر - ب (Ba - Ra - Qāf)
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvitalk! 07:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama isn't the only person in the world named "Barack". Barack is an Arabic given name, meaning "blessed". While "blessed" obviously has religious connotations, what you consider "blessed" will depend entirely on where you are coming from and isn't inherent in the term. The Semitic root is found in the religious context of Judaism just as much as in Sufism. Bārak, or more properly Mubārak, is simply the Arabic equivalent of Benedict. --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have looked into this and must correct myself to the effect that Bārak isn't itself a proper Arabic given name. It is apparently some sort of Kenyan deterioration of the proper Arabic Mubārak "Benedict". --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'Apparently' non-scientific anti-Muslim POV rhetoric

"... however is contrarily regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet ..."

'however is contrarily' should be removed. The page about Moses declares him as prophet. It should be the same here as everything important about prophethood of Moses (plus more) can be verifiably attributed to Mohammad, too (miracles, etc.). Why discrimination? Is it a Christian/Jewish Wikipedia? Or is it anti-Muslim?

Last time I checked, Muhammad is considered a prophet only within Islam and Bahá'í. None of the other religions consider him a prophet unless you give Crowley's teachings any merit. Frotz (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the original creater of this sub-section, but the argument does bring up an important point: If the article is about Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), the most respectable figure in the religion of Islam (and not recognized so well by any other major religion), wouldn't it only be appropriate to re-arrange the first paragraph so as to a) First mention that Muslims regard him (pbuh) as a Messenger and Prophet of Allah (s.w.t), and then follow it up with the fact that b) Non-Muslims however think of him (pbuh) as the founder of Islam.(?) The fact that the arrangement is otherwise, does give rise to a concern with regards to the neutrality of the article. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The more important fact is that he founded a religion, not that the religion he founded considers him a prophet. Your suggestion puts the cart before the horse and has a non-neutral point of view, which is why it will not be implemented. Frotz (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
See, that is exactly what I was talking about. Non-Muslims quite like yourself consider him (pbuh) as the founder of Islam, although Islam -by means of the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadith- tells us what the truth is and how erroneous the Non-Muslim verdict is. Yes, I'm a Muslim, and that's what I believe in; hope you see the point I've raised in my previous post now. 59.160.74.254 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how presenting the Muslim point of view at the expense of neutrality fulfils WP:POV. Frotz (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(Been busy so couldn't reply sooner.) Well, it does not fulfill WP:POV since it basically is NOT a POViewpoint but a fact that Islam believes in. Do you think you've got strong points to support your view of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) as a 'founder'? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I meant to refer to WP:NPOV. Nowhere but Islamic dogma is it stated that Muhammad was a reformer of some already-existing religion. Furthermore, there is no historical, traditional, or legendary record for the existance of Islam prior to Muhammad's ministry. That is, unless you count Judaism and Christanity as "Islam" prior to such reform, which I've heard from nobody except Muslim thinkers. We cannot present Islamic dogma as a neutral point-of-view. Frotz (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
A non-Muslim attempt to explain the Koran as originating in Christian litterature is described here. St.Trond (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Where does that article contradict what I said? Frotz (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"is contrarily" is terrible, I agree. But see my comment below on the whole first paragraph, which is horrible to read. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] the 'Wives and Children ' section

One word in this section can give a terrible and false impression on the Prophet (peace be upon him) . That word is 'concubine'- such an act outside marriage is outlawed in islam; so to clear this issue and to get a more truthful and rounded look please go onto this link :)  :

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1147955887938&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

Because like i was you are probably a little confused :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.177.211 (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opening words

May I offer some suggestions? The header currently begins in this awful, awful way:

"Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh (Arabic: محمّد; Transliteration: Muḥammad;[2] pronounced [mʊħɑmmæd̪] ( listen); also spelled Mohammed or Muhammed)[3][4][5] (ca. 570 Mecca[مَكَةَ ]/[ مَكَهْ ] – June 8, 632 Medina),[6] is the founder of the religion of Islam [ إِسْلامْ ] however is contrarily regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), the last and the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40. Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets.[7][8][9] He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action.[10]"

This is terribly bad writing. It contains a whole load of stuff that does NOT belong in the first paragraph of any article on any subject (whether true or not), because it is too detailed (it even, gawd help us, contains a koran reference! Good as a reference, terrible here). It should read something like this:

"Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh (Arabic: محمّد; Transliteration: Muḥammad; pronounced [mʊħɑmmæd̪] ( listen); also spelled Mohammed or Muhammed) (ca. 570 Mecca[مَكَةَ ]/[ مَكَهْ ] – June 8, 632 Medina), was the founding figure of Islam. He dictated the Koran. Moslems consider him the most important prophet."

Note that all the references are removed. It's inappropriate to have three references on one word in the first sentence! -- Too much detail for the summary.

I saw that some people object to him being described as the founder of Islam. But to most of the world, he was. Imagine you never heard of him, or of Islam? What do you say, that means "brought Islam into the world"?

We also need to avoid all that theological stuff, which ought to be in the body of the article. Why not have a section on this subject, headed "Islamic beliefs about Mohammed and his mission" or something like that, and go for it in there where it would be appropriate? Roger Pearse (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else happens, the phrase "however, contrarily" was an oxymoron and caused the sentence to contradict itself so I removed it. I'm willing to consider almost any alternative except that version, which was simply an affront to the English language. Doc Tropics 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Using statements like " was the founding figure of Islam. He dictated the Koran. Moslems consider him the most important prophet.", would gi9ve an impression of the article having being edited by someone with absolutely no knowledge of Islam or Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and with negligible knowledge of the semantics of the English language (simple 5-6 letter words like 'Muslim', and 'Qur'an' aren't spelled right, forget grammar and creating complex sentences!)— another 'affront' to the language. Maintaining the level of IQ that has been suggested for the article to be kept at, my choice would be to atleast write that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) "is considered to be the founding figure of Islam by Non Muslims, while Islam suggests that he was only 'the last in a series of prophets' and that Islam itself has been in existence on earth ever since the first human was created. He dictated the Qur'an to his companions over a period of 23 years (from 610 CE to his death in 632 CE), claiming it to have been revealed to him by an Angel named Jibreel (Gabriel) who was sent to him with the task of revelation by Allah (God in Islam). Muslims thus consider Muhammed as the last and final messenger of Allah, and are commanded by the Qur'an to follow Islam as taught by Allah in the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammed through personally set examples during his lifetime" <make sure you use the references from the existing paragraph> A simpler alternative, would be to replace 'however contrarily' with either 'however' or 'contrarily', which depicts the exact opinions of both parties (Muslims as well as non-Muslims), while maintaining neutrality of the article. Leaving out the Muslim POV in an article about the most revered figure in Islam, can only serve to lop-side the article. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad"
Personal tools