Template talk:Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I might be wrong, but isn't the inclusion of The Farewell Sermon a bit to detailed, considering the rest of the template? Further, remeber that Shi'a also attach importance to Ghardie Khumm, are we going to include that as well? You see were im going... --Striver 06:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Last sermon is important for many reasons
1) Accepted by Both Shia & Sunni, unlike ghadir khum.
2) Summerises the teaching of his whole life , & all prophets unlike ghadir khum.
So its much more important than other things in his life.F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


This template is getting quite beefed up :) --Striver 00:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews, Christians, slaves, animals[edit]

Striver, I'm going to guess this to have been unintentional, but don't you think there something vaguely offensive about a subsection which includes these four titles?[1]Proabivouac 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove Muhammad's attitudes towards animals?? Pls. explain.Bless sins 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You even removed his status as a reformer. Why? Bless sins 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't removes slaves, but retitled it simply "Slaves," since it doesn't appear to be about only attitudes. For animals, it didn't look there was much there (although the same can be said for some of the others such as "Interaction with Christianity). "Reformer" I removed because the article is called Reforms under Islam, so should be on the Islam template (though having not really read it, perhaps it's simply mistitled?) You may restore them if you like (update: I just did.) We might discuss the encyclopedicity of "attitudes" articles, and their place on this template further, but for now, I wanted to remove Striver's unfortunate juxtaposition, as if Jews, Christians, slaves and animals constitute a natural category. I find it depressing that no one seemed concerned by this.
Bless sins, what did you think of this section? And what do you think of my comments below?Proabivouac 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I still think this is better. But let's get some more opinions on this. After that we can choose which to keep.Bless sins 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Islamic view" vs. "Non-Islamic view"[edit]

Also, the division between "Islamic" and "non-Islamic" views seems rather artificial. It is possible for Muslims to criticize Muhammad, or to question some aspects of his historicity (as do Qur’an alone Muslims, and from a certain perspective do all schools where hadith are concerned), just as it is possible for non-Muslims to write poetry about Muhammad. Not all Muslims celebrate Mawlid, while not all non-Muslims criticize Muhammad, or doubt his historicity. This division is presumptious, artificial and unwarranted.Proabivouac 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its possible for Muslims to criticize and remain a Muslim. By definition a Muslim is someone who follows Muhammad.Bless sins (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image[edit]

What is the basis of the image we use for the top of the template? I like the previous one better.Bless sins (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian perspective[edit]

I just noticed that on the template there is a wikilink for Christian perspective, but when you click on it you are brought to an article on only the medieval perspective. Perhaps the link title should be changed, or else the article be expanded to include a complete historical picture of the Christian view of Muhammad? Kristamaranatha (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; if you are going to include a link to the Christian perspective of Muhammed, you should at least link to a complete historical view, not just Medieval. Hazillow (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image change[edit]

Why was the image changed from 120px? It was not discussed here, and this template is used in many pages. I am going to change it back. Unflavoured (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Too Narrow[edit]

The template is too narrow. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Taqiyuddin, 14 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} I noticed that the picture on the top of the muhammad sidebar is of mario bombing the WTC to the ground. i find it offensive because mario did no such thing. Taqiyuddin (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the picture I saw, but the picture was broken. I just reverted the last edit, as I can't tell what was wrong with the formatting that made the picture disappear. Anyone with more knowledge of the template that can get the picture right is welcome to re-fix. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Durood?[edit]

This page really seems specific to Islam as it is practised popularly in India and Pakistan, rather than the Muslim world at large. Even the word is in Urdu, and the majority of the Muslim world won't know what that is. The article itself has numerous issues, as it consists almost entirely of primary source references and seems to constitute original research on the part of the editors who contributed. Additionally, the two links on this template seem to just redirect to the main article. I suggest removing it from this template entirely, as the subject matter is only relevant to Muslims in one part of the world and the article itself is terribly written. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm see the search result here i think we can support the primary sources with secondary sources instead of removing the head or we can change the title head to "Complimentary phrase" or "Salutation". If some one else also favors in removing it entirely we can eliminate the head also.Thanks --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with you, the template has multiple issues, it has controversial content and it is being copied all over islamic pages. Lets see what's wrong with it:

about 100 names are attributed to Muhammad, never heard about them.
ethnicity, tribe and clan are mentioned in details, aren't necessary.
Miracles! really! and there is a funny note below the miracles.
there is a section about Muhammad's view about jews, christians and slaves, all grouped together.
The template asserts that Muhammad had 7 children.

besides, if other editors would like to fix the problems they will face difficulty, their edits might be reverted. Kiatdd (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If secondary source material then that would fix that article, yes. As for the name change to English, then I am absolutely, 100% with you; too many Islamic terms are confusing for those unfamiliar with them, and the point of an encyclopedia is to make things clear to unfamiliar readers. Perhaps, then, we should take this part of the discussion to the relevant article. As for the other issues regarding what has been listen, then each item may require discussion on their own - I'm sure there's a lot of work to be done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Template size[edit]

This template has become so gigantic that it cannot be usefully transcluded in most articles. Is there a smaller version that is still usable? --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize the template has only been given its current "oversize" in November [2] I am sorry but this reeks of hagiography. Is there some contest in which the most important prophet should get the largest Wikipedia template? I recommend either losing the giant calligraphy and turning it back into something that can be used for navigation, or else just restoring the version before the November edits. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok so I got rid of the 140% font-size at least. I also removed this gem,

Note : All the Attributed Miracles are by the leave and will and power of Allah, who is supreme over Muhammad as He is over all other mortals.

There seems to be some kind of severe misunderstanding as to the scope of Wikipedia on the part of Ibrahim ebi. Ibrahim, please read the Wikipedia article, then proceed to WP:5P, WP:COI and WP:ENC.


The template is still rather too large to use on the side of articles which themselves use illustratoins. I would suggest turning this into a footer navbox. --dab (𒁳) 14:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing out the problems with the template i have used {{Collapsible option}} now hope this works to reduce the size. Do have a look if this one is fine. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted editors to see the difference between two editions of this template: before and after. The internal links have not changed, however, about 16 kilobyte of contraversial content is added which belong to the article space not the template space. And if you multiply this by the number of pages that this template has been inserted you will realize the magnitude of POV. I suggest deleting this content and reducing the size. Kiatdd (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)