Talk:Muhammad

Frequently asked questions, please read before posting

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for answers to these frequently-asked questions (you need to tap "Read as wiki page" to see the relevant text):

1. Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
2. Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
3. How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
4. Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
5. Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
6. Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
7. Why does it look like the article is biased towards secular or "Western" references?
8. Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
9. Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
10. Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?

This section is for mobile-device users who do not see the normal talk page header. This section should not have any comments, so that it stays on this talk page and does not get archived.

Recent neutrality concerns

For long years, I've been a constant reader of Wikipedia articles, and I have great interest in some specific articles that I continuously read due to how much I learn from them and refresh my memory through the information provided therein. One of these articles is that of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

As I always expect from a secular encyclopedia like yourselves when it comes to a religious figure to not relate his life from the perspective of either an admirer nor a critic, but rather will show the facts in a neutral manner regardless of personal beliefs which might result different interpretations based on how the reader may approach such tales.

Until few days ago, this aforementioned article was exactly as I'm describing, and had been so for years with very few and limited changes that might have occurred over those years that doesn't really ruin the methodology which this article had been written accordingly!

I have been shocked when I opened it recently to find about 90% of it being changed, information are provided in a very biased manner that is clearly intending to criticize the person of Muhammad and to not merely relate his life to the public readers, and at many times, the references provided in this newly edited article are written by a well-known critics of Islam, while labelling most Muslim beliefs as ''propaganda'' or ''criterion of embarrassment'', while praising any activity against Islam and defending it it throughout the article as its clear in every incident there's a conflict in the life of Muhammad.

I recommend that the original article which had been there for years to replace this newly edited one to preserve the honesty and neutral intent of this website, especially when it comes to a figure that left a great impact in this world and captivated the hearts of billions of human beings throughout history. Jopharocen (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, Jopharocen, it's certainly the case that User:Kaalakaa has made a significant number of changes to the article since 12 June; in fact, the vast majority, but not all, of the changes in in that time in this diff are atributable to that user. There are a lot of changes to consider. Can you give examples of what you are complaining about? DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Certainly,

I'll need to write down another article to refute many of the claims made by that user, as its clear that most changes were made by certain individual or group of individuals solely to defame Muhammad and not to merely relate facts regardless of personal interpretations.

Lets start with the Satanic verses recorded in the newly-edited article, it was already there long before the changes while affirming that Muslim scholars reject it due to being weakly transmitted, after the new edition, its related as if the rejection a later belief among Muslims due to "criterion of embarrassment". Lets quote it:

This satanic verses incident was reported en masse and recorded by virtually every compiler of a major biography of Muhammad in the first two centuries of Islam, which according to them corresponds to Quran 22:52. But since the rise of the hadith movement and systematic theology with its new doctrines, including the isma, which claimed that Muhammad was infallible and thus could not be fooled by Satan, the historical memory of the early community has been reevaluated. And as of the 20th century AD, Muslim scholars unanimously rejected this incident.

This part, although funny, cannot even be described as criticism, its nothing but defamation as it contains an obvious false information for no reason other than defaming the person of Muhammad.

The part which says that the Satanic verses "recorded by virtually every compiler of a major biography of Muhammad in the first two centuries of Islam" is untrue as Ibn Hisham, who is the main source for the Prophet's biography didn't include it due to how bogus is it. Also Quran 22:52 was revealed - by consensus of Muslim scholars - in Medina, and the alleged incident of Satanic verses took place in Mecca. Its ridiculous to believe that Muslims continued for years to believe in pagan idols as intercessors, even after migrating to Medina! Why would Quraysh continue to persecute them anyway?

Also in this part it shows the concept of ismah, that is infallibility, as if its a later belief developed among Muslims which led to the rejection of the Satanic verses tale, not due to how weakly transmitted is it! The concept of ismah and infallibility was always there from the 1st century of Islam as it corresponds to Quran 5:67. The funniest part is when it claims the story is rejected unanimously by 20th century! How futile this claim is to believe that for 14 centuries Muslims believed that their prophet having sought intercession from idols!

In short, the Satanic verses was never recounted in any canonical book of hadith, and was only recounted by historians who never made genuinity a condition in their methodology. Tabari for example made it clear that he is not responsible for anything he relates as he relates it the way he heard it without verification of the authenticity.

Lets use another example how clearly the editor intended to belittle the Prophet, and not to merely relate facts, take a look at this when it spoke of Isra and Mi'raj miracle believed by all Muslims worldwide:

There is considered no substantial basis for the Mi'raj in the Quran, as the Quran does not address it directly and emphasizes that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran.

This claim is only made by non-Muslim critics of Islam, especially Christian missionaries, as both Sunni and Shia Muslims believe that Muhammad performed many miracles! The uniqueness of the Quran is in being the only living miracle witnessed by everyone at every time, but not as the only miracle, so the editor is using his own personal interpretation of the Quran, because he is unaware that the Quran itself mentioned several miracles by Muhammad in in verses like 8:9, 30:1-4, 53:14-1, and others. I'll not mention another ridiculous claim by the editor regarding al-Masjid al-Aqsa not being in Jerusalem.

I can mention tons of false information in this article after being edited, but I'll end my reply with this, which shows the use of language to be purely intending to defame, not to relate a fact by any means, lets take a look how the author related the marriage of the Prophet from Safiyyah:

Muhammad claimed Safiyya bint Huyayy, a beautiful 17-year-old girl, from among the captives. Following the battle, her husband, Kinana ibn al-Rabi, was put through torture by Muhammad's decree for declining to reveal his tribe’s hidden wealth, and subsequently beheaded. Her father and brother had been executed during the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Overwhelmed by her beauty, Muhammad had sex with her the very night, contradicting his own mandate that his followers should wait for the captives' next menstrual cycle to begin before having intercourse.

I'll not mention that the torture of Kinanah cannot be authenticated, but the use of word Muhammad had sex with her the very night, as if he did that by force, not mentioning that he married her after he offered 2 choices for her: either to remain Jewess and manumit her and return to her people, or to embrace Islam and become his wife. She chose the latter, as related by Ibn Sa'd and many other early authors! Of course all of this is ignored so that the reader get the impression of that she was forced into this. Also the lie that he consummated the marriage with her without waiting the next menstrual cycle is refuted by a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari 2235 Book 34, Hadith 181, as the tradition said:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her.

I can continue to refute all of those claims, but it will take a very long time as they're so many, and those are just few examples. Analogically, the rest are edited in the same biased manner as it became more like an article on WikiIslam and not Wikipedia. I urge anyone who is responsible to go back to the archive of this article to see how fairly written it used to be and to go back to how it was.

Thanks a lot. Jopharocen (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

“Virtually" means "almost" or "nearly", not "all". Ibn Ishaq included this incident in his biography of Muhammad (p. 165-167), while his student Ibn Hisham did not, because:

God willing I shall begin this book ... (of) the prophet's biography and omitting some of the things which I.I. (Ibn Ishaq) has recorded in this book ... things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people …
— "Ibn Hisham’s Notes" in Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press (1998), ISBN: 0196360331, p. 691

Furthermore, please refer to WP:NOR and WP:NOTCENSORED – Kaalakaa (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the way its written, its not just about this part. Ibn Hisham did modify it and removed parts that cannot be authenticated and that the people are rejecting at his time. Actually Ibn Ishaq's own biography is lost and we only know it through Ibn Hisham and Tabari.

I'll not repeat the rest of what I said regarding this part specifically, as I already mentioned that the Satanic verses tale was already there long before the changes and had no problem with it as mentioned that despite it being mentioned in some earliest sources its rejected due to how weakly transmitted is it, and not due to being a later belief among Muslims due to "criterion of embarrassment" as the editor later added. There's a huge difference between the word of a historian and the word of a scholar whose methodology to relate what is genuine only.

My question also is that why an unprofessional is allowed to edit this whole article and make such significant changes while the rest of the readers cannot do that? Why can't we edit it and provide tons of references for every word? Jopharocen (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, that's the full part of what Ibn Hisham said in his notes on Ibn Ishaq, using the same source without cherry-picking:

God willing I shall begin this book with Isma'il son of Ibrahim and mention those of his offspring who were the ancestors of God's apostle one by one with what is known about them, taking no account of Isma'il's other children, omitting some of the things which I.I. has recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the apostle and about which the Quran says nothing and which are not relevant to anything in this book or an explanation of it or evidence for it; poems which he quotes that no authority on poetry whom I have met knows of; things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as al-Bakka'i told me he could not accept as trustworthy - all these things I have omitted. But God willing I shall give a full account of everything else so far as it is known and trustworthy tradition is available.

And also to bear in mind that both Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq are great historians, but they were not experts in analyzing the authenticity of reports they relate, as they will need to return to scholars specialists in this for that matter, such as how Ibn Hisham did in some tales reported by Ibn Ishaq. Therefore when mentioning something rejected by Muslims from the very moment narrations got started to be authenticated, this must be taken into consideration and to not be regarded as a later invention by Muslims due to embarrassment. Jopharocen (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your original research doesn’t matter here on Wikipedia. Post it on a blog or debate forum instead. This is not the place for it. Kaalakaa (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Its clear and obvious that you have nothing to reply by, since that's all what you have to say.

One of the rules in this "secular" encyclopedia is to relate facts in a neutral manner and not as a criticism let alone defamation. Your edition is nothing but biased information where you included your own personal interpretations. 196.132.36.47 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Then present your case as you see fit. This could do with some more input. --SinoDevonian (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you mean.

Its obvious that this article is no longer neutral (as per Wikipedia's guidelines) and clearly defaming the figure its talking about since June 12, as an unprofessional user suddenly decided to change almost all of it to suit his whims.

Its not an editable article due to how important the main character of it, and therefore only professional editor must be selected for it.

I'm willing to provide more evidence how clearly this article is subjective even beyond the parts I mentioned, whom the editor couldn't address any of them and simply told me to go somewhere else, why he doesn't go to WikiIslam instead since he failed to be neutral and professional and preferred his personal thoughts over the guidelines?

Please all I'm seeking is to be fair and neutral as those are the guidelines of this website for any article. Review the article, take a look at how it used to be for years since 2006 and how suddenly it was completely changed since June 12. I believe such comparison is enough. Jopharocen (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

So no response or action taken against this obvious defamation? Based on what the editors are selected for the protected articles that are non-editable? Jopharocen (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Ibn Ishaq included this incident in his biography of Muhammad (p. 165-167), while his student Ibn Hisham did not, ...

Since the original work written by Ibn ʾIsḥāq is entirely lost, how were you able to determine that Ibn ʾIsḥāq did write it while Ibn Hishām did not? يوسف قناوة (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jopharocen: There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. It may take a while for people to respond.

As far as I can tell from reading this discussion, your objections are grounded in original research (your interpretations of primary sources), and that isn't permitted in articles. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. That is one of the policies (non-negotiable foundational rules) that govern content here. Content must be based on what reliable secondary sources say about a topic.

While I feel that some of Kaalakaa's changes were unnecessary, they are at least cited to reliable sources. If Kaalakaa cited any unreliable sources, it would be helpful to point them out for discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? Can you show me where exactly I used my own interpretations of primary sources? You're merely using my own argument against Kaalaaka, who was clearly using his own interpretation of primary sources which is the focus of my criticism if you but read the discussion as you said.

I'll not keep repeating myself again, I already showed how there are false claims and misuse of words, none of you responded to them nor he could, as you can see he merely responded to a line and ignored the rest and ignored even my response to it, as clearly there's no response as the intention was just defamation, even Hitler's article is not written that way.

So if you think that such an attitude isn't permitted then that's why this article must be re-edited or return to how it used to be for years, not to counter-attack me with my very same argument against the editor. At least I proved how biased and subjective is it with no response in return, can you or Kaalaaka do the same to me and prove that I'm using my own personal interpretation instead of facts?

I know that there are no deadline on Wikipedia, but there's clearly guideline, and part of it is that any article must be neutral as its a secular encyclopedia with no political or religious orientation as per NPOV.

Muhammad's article after edition since June 12 is no different from an article written on WikiIslam where obvious defamation is clearly intended as aforementioned with several examples you can go back to them, especially with the misuse of words. Concerning non-reliable sources, you can take a look at this, sometimes there are no sources even:

Nowadays, Isra' is believed by Muslims to be the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem, while Mi'raj is from Jerusalem to the heavens.

There's not even a reference or source to such a false information regarding that this belief is related to nowadays Muslims, no source provided, as its a personal interpretation by the editor. And this:

there is disagreement among Islamic traditions as to the identity of the "furthest place of prayer.

No source or reference provided for this claim either as there's no disagreement among Islamic tradition regarding that the further place of prayer is in Jerusalem, but the editor merely put his own views in such writings to simply say almost all Muslim beliefs are propaganda, or criterion of embarrassment as clearly those two terms were used in other parts of the article. Is this really a neutral article?

That's an example of a non-sourced information, and concerning non-reliable sources is when you base your writings on books written by well-known critics of Islam like Tom Holland or Nabeel Qureshi, who are not even scholars, or David Bukay. Unless your definition of reliable sources is any book written by anyone! And surely that's not how a respectable research is written, which mean that not even any book written by western academics can be considered reliable if not examined with other books connected to the earliest era. Previous article was written in the normal neutral way, but not this one.

Again, just do the comparison between the old one and the newly-edited one to see the difference, and how the editor solely intended to defame as the old article didn't suit his wishes. Jopharocen (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets use a 4th example apart from the 3 examples I aforementioned in my longest reply in this thread.

When narrating the assassination of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, a Nadirite clansman whose tribe pledged allegiance to Muhammad upon his arrival, who after the victory of the Muslims at the battle of Badr - according to the article - went to the Quraysh enemies and aroused them to retaliate, which is an obvious act of treason as it came from someone who is politically an ally, the editor mentioned it as an act of murder for a personal matter, rather than a punishment for treason:

Having dealt with the Qaynuqa, Muhammad moved on to another personal matter. His staunch critic, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, a wealthy half-Jewish man from Banu Nadir, had just come back from Mecca after producing poetry that mourned the death of the Quraysh at Badr and aroused them to retaliate. Muhammad asked his followers, "Who is ready to murder Ka'b, who has hurt God and His apostle?" Ibn Maslama offered his services, explaining that the task would require deception. Muhammad did not contest this. He then gathered accomplices, including Ka'b's foster brother, Abu Naila. They pretended to complain about their post-conversion hardships, persuading Ka'b to lend them food. On the night of their meeting with Ka'b, they murdered him when he was caught off-guard.

Thank goodness, a Muslim source is one of the few to be mentioned here, but when going back to it, we cannot find the word murder anywhere, as Muhammad's quote was mistranslated as it was taken directly from David Bukay's Islam and the Infidels: The Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah in chapter List of Muhammad’s Orders to Murder People., a clear biased source which maintain to depict Muhammad as an anti-Semitic, another problem must be dealt with in the newly-edited article, as, although the conflict of Muhammad with some Jewish tribes or individuals has been always in the article, but to make it seems like it was due to anti-Semitic motivation is only made after the new edition.

If Wikipedia suddenly decided to maintain a specific point of view on the prophet of Islam due to being anti-Islamic, I'll be fine, as I'm fine with WikiIslam as its their objective. But you can't describe Wikipedia as neutral and present this as a guideline and at the same time present a subjective and biased view on the prophet of Islam! You have to be fair and avoid personal orientation when relating facts to public readers if your guideline dictate that you must present a neutral point of view. Jopharocen (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is from Sahih Bukhari no. 4037

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?"

or should we include this as well? Sahih Muslim 1767a

Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

NPOV here does not mean that the article has to be ‘neutral’, but rather means neutrally reflecting what the sources say. For example, if someone commits rape, we include that fact without sugarcoating it. Not covering it up or having to look for positive stories about him to offset the negative fact. Kaalakaa (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As an editor of such a protected article you need to be more professional than that!

In nowhere I denied the incident to quote a hadith for me! My objection was clear that it was regarding putting your personal interpretation for the incident as you described it as a murder for a personal matter, which is solely your interpretation, contradicted by what you yourself said as that Ka'b - who is politically an ally to the Islamic state - provoked the enemy who were just defeated by the Muslims and aroused them to retaliate, which is an obvious act of treason punished by death.

Thank you anyway for quoting the hadith to prove that you have lied in mistranslating the word kill to murder in the hadith mentioned in the article.

So you didn't respond to my objection but rather quoted a hadith to prove the incident which I never denied - a strawman fallacy - simply because you have nothing to say as you did in your previous futile reply, and I expect you to do the same in every time.

In nowhere I demanded you to cover anything up, I merely demanded you to remove your subjective motivation and to relate the facts as they are without fabricating them through your personal interpretation and mistranslation, which you just proved it against yourself by quoting this hadith.

The latter hadith you mentioned is unrelated to this discussion anyway. Jopharocen (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who is responsible shall really take a look at this to see the motivation of the editor who changed almost all the article since June 12 and explain to me the criteria in this website for the editor who is allowed to edit a protected article related to a man who is followed by 25% of humanity, and to justify why the rest of us cannot do the same? Why this article is protected anyway if any passerby can be allowed to change and put his whims in it? Jopharocen (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ka'b - who is politically an ally to the Islamic state

Once again, we don’t give a damn about your theories. And we’re under no obligation to satisfy you.

you have lied in mistranslating the word kill to murder

And a similar case with “virtually” before. If you look for synonyms of kill, you’ll find murder among them. But whatever, I'll change this one to "kill", not that big of a deal.

a man who is followed by 25% of humanity

We don’t care. Adam, Eve, even Noah’s flood story are considered myths here. Kaalakaa (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ka'b being a political ally to the Islamic state is not my own theory, its part of the covenant made between Muhammad and the Jews - which included Bani Nadir - in the constitution of Medina:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

Why shall we give a damn to your ignorance of history, and later to your own personal interpretation regarding that it was a personal matter when you yourself contradicted that as I aforementioned when you said he aroused the Meccans to wage war against the Muslims?

Murder is the same as killing? Are you really a researcher or know anything about definition of word? So when a man is killed by the government because of treason or because of murder will this action be called murder as well? A simple search in any dictionary will laugh at you. Take a look at this: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kill

Any murder is a killing, but not any killing is a murder, a killing taken place in war combat is not a murder. What a wonderful linguist you are, and got the credibility to edit a non-editable article? Lol

As for Adam & Eve, Noah's flood, or Exodus being considered myths from a secular perspective is not an issue, as its not an issue to consider Isra' and Mi'raj as myths. But the issue is to lie about Muslim beliefs regarding them and claim that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran, which is your own personal interpretation of the Quran and Islamic tradition which clearly no one give a damn to it, let alone to say that there's a disagreement regarding Jerusalem being an essential part of the journey.

As usual, you never address any of my points and address something else in return which you later regret having addressed it. If you became brave to admit that the use of the word murder is wrong, why don't you become brave as well regarding the other topics you refused to discuss? How about having sex with Safiyyah without saying that it was a marriage? Don't you see how clearly dishonest you are? Jopharocen (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa @Anachronist @Trans-Neptunian object

Is this person "Kaalakaa" with his attitude toward a criticism really represent Wikipedia? I'm sure if anyone can look with a fair eyes at his words will see how dishonest he is, especially that when he failed, he started to be subjective toward me as he does in his edition of the article, without addressing my point, as we don't give a damn to you is not a professional way of talking, as the discussion was turned to be against me and not to my point, let alone being credible to edit such an article.

I still ask the same question, if such person is allowed to change almost the entire article with such poor knowledge and misuse of words all over, why the rest of us cannot do the same, what are the criteria which allowed him to do that? Jopharocen (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should we bother refuting each of your original research? Like I already told you multiple times, if you want to debate about your understandings of the hadith, sira, and so on, this is not the place for it. Go to FaithFreedom or other similar websites instead, as this is not a forum. Also, the three major Jewish tribes, including the Banu Nadir, are not included in that so-called constitution of medina, and some scholars argue that it was merely a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad. Kaalakaa (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I never included my understanding of anything, I merely showed facts regardless of interpretation, something which you never did in your research.

I'm not here to debate, but to show how facts got fabricated and distorted on a website that is supposed to be neutral, and to not include personal interpretation of the editor, as you failed to defend them or prove them, and all you have to say is "go away". I never even requested to speak to you.

As for Bani Nadir whether included in the constitution or not, I think if you have a clue about the article you have edited, you would have known that Muhammad became the head of state in Medina after the Hijrah, which included all of that tribes that were living there. And when, as mentioned in the article, Bani Nadir attempted to assassinate him, he sent them the letter: By your purposing to slay me, ye have broken the pact I made with you. (Lings p. 203) Which mean there was a pact already established, but due to your poor knowledge, you were unaware of that. And after the assassination of Ka'b, in the words of Lings, according to al-Waqidi - Muhammad invited them - that is Bani Nadir - to make a special treaty with him in addition to the covenant, and this they did. (Lings p. 171)

So do you think seeing an obvious misinterpretation, mistranslation, and intended defamation, anyone must pass by that silently and greet you for it and has no right to clarify that and the response to be "go away"?

You must take the responsibility for every letter you write, and if you don't have the courage to do that, then you shouldn't have written it from the beginning. Jopharocen (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand what unilateral means? In which part of the constitution of Medina lists Banu Nadir? And being in a pact with another tribe in a city doesn’t automatically make someone a head of the city or a state. Kaalakaa (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand what unilateral means, but this is merely the opinion of Bernard Lewis, which is not based on a comprehensive reading, and this must be taken into consideration.

The constitution referred to the Jews in general in Medina, and later specified specific matters for certain clans. And I have already provided references to that there was a formal pact between Muhammad and the Bani Nadir, but you have ignored it as usual.

As for how Muhammad became the head of state in Medina, according to the article you've been editing:

In 620, his uncle al-Abbas, who had not yet converted to Islam, introduced him to political elite of the Banu Khazraj and Banu Aws in Medina and coordinated a meeting at Aqaba. The two clans had been in conflict against one another for years, with each trying to court the support of the Jewish tribes in the area. In order to readjust their political relationship, they sought a political leader from outside, and considered Muhammad, with his authority based on religious claims, would be in a better position to act as an impartial arbiter than any resident of Medina.

How in 7th century Arabia a political leader will be elected if not through the pledge of the chiefs of the leading tribes of the town? And that's exactly what happened! Not sure if you'll go to fabricate this part after this discussion. I can provide you those information from early sources as well, or secondary sources other than the ones provided in the article, whatever you like. Jopharocen (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So no response until now nor any action taken, despite the editor failing to respond nor being able to explain his point and is allowed to change the entire article right now as nothing of the original article is left anymore.

The editor who is clearly unqualified as proven in this discussion of being unaware of many facts related to the topic he was allowed to change it, and after personally attacking me and telling me we don't give a damn to you - using the word we all the time, as of speaking in Wikipedia's name - and running away from discussing his un-neutral and biased content, and the result after those many days which had passed is just silence, with more biased changes taking place in the article.

I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit and change a protected article that is non-editable, without explaining what are the standards for the editors, as clearly there are no standards. Jopharocen (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire discussion can be summed up like this: the article was not "changed to be attacking the person of Muhammad", it follows WP:NPOV and WP:RS, neutrally reporting what RS tell us. If RS tells us someone established world peace, then it's included; and if RS tells us someone did things considered great crimes, then it's included. You keep trying to include WP:OR, which is disallowed by fundamental rules, and you're making your extremely lengthy arguments in a clear case of WP:BLUDGEON which is very unhelpful to your cause. Wikipedia is not a forum or a place to wage holy wars or a place to express fanaticism. JM2023 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no holy wars or fanaticism in my criticism to the new edition, its merely an accusation for my person to avoid addressing my points. Please show where is holy war, or fanaticism in my discussion? Can you? Or you're just memorizing those terms to start using in such times?

The new edition is made by one editor and changed the entire article made by tons of editors before him (most of them were non-Muslims and relying on secondary sources written by non-Muslims as well) and relying solely on 2 or 3 sources which I can see them repeated in almost every paragraph. I provided my sources as well, which refuted many of what was newly-written in the article as well as many of what he failed to respond to and proved to have no answers except being motivated by defaming the main figure of the article, which is obvious to the blind, especially through his responses in this thread.

A figure like Muhammad, there are tons of views on him by historians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and not all sources agree on the view provided by the user Kaalakaa, who simply replied by we don't give a damn to your interpretation. A violation of avoiding personal attacks, which none took an action against it either.

Until this moment, no one addressed my points, all I read in return is its not a forum, what's the need for Muhammad:talk to exist if that's the way you shut up any criticism you refuse to respond to?

Also, based on what you say, it means this article before Kaalakaa was not following Wikipedia's guidelines since 2004 (maybe?) until June 12, 2023. Is Kaalakaa the new Wikipedia's hero who came to reform all Islam-related articles since 2004 to suit his views? Jopharocen (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope one day to see a response to my points instead of throwing lame accusations on me, I'm not sure if this is the new policy here or what. For I'm about to feel like I'm the main figure of this article as everytime the discussion is turned on me away from what I say lol.

But as I can see, despite I'm being the first one to note this, there are tons of others arguing about the same issue now. Good, at least from now on, no one will take this article seriously anymore, as the obvious defamation had been smelled by many readers.

Good for you all, keep it as it is, but no one will take you seriously anymore. Jopharocen (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, after reading the latter threads, I can see that many users who were in my thread like @DeCausa and @Anachronist are planning to revert the article to what it used to be till June, which mean I'm not merely waging a holy war as you're claiming. Jopharocen (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa @Anachronist

After reading the latter discussions after me, I can see that many requested for clarifying what is un-neutral and what must be edited. I've mentioned many points here and discussed them in details (they are not the only ones of course, otherwise it will be an entire article written in this thread, but I can provide more if anyone would request that), both of you can kindly reread my replies again, as I showed how personal interpretation was provided by user @Kaalakaa as well as mistranslation and misuse of words, and others, many of which he refused to respond to, and replied by we don't give a damn.

As I have written many times in this thread, such an attitude shows clearly the motivation of the new editor that he merely intended to defame, and not to relate facts as they are. As anybody know that there are tons and tons of views on Muhammad, and we cannot simply rely on one view in an article that is supposed to provide a neutral view. Jopharocen (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT, be concise and keep your text in one reply instead of four. We are busy and don't have a lot of time to read walls of text. Enough of the policy/guideline violations listed previously. Muhammad's article is going to present RS from NPOV whether individual commentators like it or not. No-one has any time or need to answer your long-winded essays point-by-point, just read the FAQ at the top of the page and follow policy and guidelines. If you would like to improve the article, use RS to present consensus and mainstream secular scholarship from NPOV. JM2023 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You're not obliged to respond to me if you're so busy, especially if you're not willing to address my points and came to attack me and throw lame accusations you can't prove to avoid discussing the matter.

Almost every reader is now agreeing with me, and many users are planning to change it, I already provided references to what I said, and no need to repeat myself again to you as I have other things to do in life as well, you're not the only busy person in the world.

Keep up the good work, and don't bother replying to me if you have nothing to say. Jopharocen (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Inflammatory and false responses are unwelcome. JM2023 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As usual, throwing accusations on me that most likely you're the one doing.

Its a waste of time indeed to turn the discussion defending myself or doing a counter-attack on someone instead of addressing the points of my criticism, as I'm not in a court.

As I said, you don't need to respond to me as long as you'll not address my points. Likewise, I'm not going to respond if the response has nothing to do with this discussion. Jopharocen (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for the forum-style arguments with editors you keep engaging in. Stick to discussing improvements to the article without using your original research and instead using reliable sources from a neutral (secular) POV, and read the FAQ at the top of the page before making the same arguments that have been made and dismissed literally thousands of times. This is not an Islamic wiki. JM2023 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I did that already, and that's what I requested @Kaalakaa to do as he violated the guidelines, you can't prove that I did any of what are you claiming.

No need to repeat myself over and over, and no need to keep turning my very same arguments against the user against me, as no original research is included, rather, @Kaalakaa is the one who puts his personal interpretation to the article, and sometimes without providing sources as I've explained previously with details. I provided references, I did that with sources that were always acceptable in this article.

But obviously, you never read what I've written and merely came here to throw lame accusations to avoid discussing my points.

Again, this is the last time I'm going to respond to an accusation with no proof. At least whenever I criticize I provide what prove my word, not just throwing accusations. And if you have no interest to discuss my points or my criticism, you don't need to reply to me. Jopharocen (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that you're not coming at this from NPOV, intentionally or not. There are no unfounded accusations, there are plain observations. Kaalakaa violated no guidelines, that's an unfounded accusation. You using OR and POV comes off plainly from your many, many walls of text. Your "points" were discussed to death by previous editors before I summarized the situation. I have no need or reason to discuss them with anyone again. No amount of discussion is going to change that. Just follow the guidelines and read the FAQ when editing and discussing. This is going nowhere. If youre going to stop responding, just stop, no need to announce it over and over again. JM2023 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023

Unfounded accusation is when you throw lame accusations against me as you just did, without showing where exactly I waged a holy war or used my original research, which you love to repeat as a way to shut me up.

At least when I accused @Kaalakaa of violating the guidelines, I showed the reason for that, nothing was discussed to death, and @Kaalakaa's responses showed how ignorant he was of the very article he was editing.

As for why I've written walls of texts, that was based on the request made by users who told me to explain where is my objection, and I offered some, and its expected to be a long reply since I'm criticizing a whole article that was recently edited as a whole and changed in its entirety, and I had no objection to the article before June, as it was neutrally written as expected.

As for your saying Kaalaaka violated no guidelines, that's merely your opinion because you like the new article. Many here disagree, including users like yourselves.

So again, if you are unable to discuss my points or defend the new article with proofs that it was not biased as I proved in many parts of it, then you don't need to reply or bother talking with me, you once told me that you're very busy. Jopharocen (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend anything. I'm here trying to discourage you from breaking important guidelines that help the encyclopedia function properly. Other people also having objections has no bearing on wikipedia's stance on the new article's verifiability or neutrality insofar as there is no consensus. I understand a secular article about muhammad is going to be contentious but if people could control themselves this would go a lot more smoothly. JM2023 (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There is now quite an extraordinary amount of material single-sourced to Russ Rodgers, an obscure hobbyist of a historian whose work has been practically ignored by mainstream scholarship. Many of the claims made by Rodgers are themselves extraordinary in nature and fall within the remit of WP:ECREE and really demand the support of multiple reliable sources. (I have tagged these.) Other material attributed to Rodgers may also be undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So after all your false accusations against Russ Rodgers in the below section are refuted, you come here and repeat the same thing? Kaalakaa (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I get the feeling that with a page as clearly contentious and important to certain special interest groups as Muhammad, circular and repetitive and never-ending arguments are endemic to its talk page. JM2023 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Kaalakaa, There's some quite legitimate concerns raised by several editors about sources you are relying on. Some of your responses have been overly aggressive. The question Iskandar323 has raised deserves a proper answer. What I have noticed is that the common theme of the questions raised revolves around WP:DUE rather than whether sources are WP:RS, but you seem to deflect the discussion to a question of whether they are RS. Can you please discuss Iskandar's point, with less snark, on whether you have over-relied on a writer that is peripheral to the scholarship on the subject. I for one am interested in the answer. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear @DeCausa, I don't know how you see it, but Iskandar's comment above that baselessly accused the author of being "an obscure hobbyist of a historian" clearly targets the reliability of the source to me. Regarding dueness, the source is a joint publication from 11 universities in Florida. How is that undue? Kaalakaa (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not how WP:DUE is assessed, as I think you well know despite your apparent newness to Wikipedia. This is the work of one person - who is behind Florida University Press is utterly irrelevant. The question of DUE is how reflective it is of scholarship on Muhammad generally. You've never addressed Iskandar's central point on Rodgers, and have just fallen back on "it's Florida University Press so everything's fine". Whether something is reliable or not in any particular circumstance and whether it should be used if it is reliable is not a binary question. There are layers of reliability - for example, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - and then there is a question of whether the views expressed in a reliable source is maverick or mainstream. You've refused to engage on these issues. I'm weighing in my mind whether this is disingenuity or a simply a misunderstanding of policy. Fundamentally, Russ Rodgers, besides his book on Muhammad, has written, inter alia, books on photos of Patton, the Allied advance over the Rhine in 1945, and American Christian Evangelicalism. This is not an expert on Muhammad and it's just not good enough to say it was published by a reputable publisher, nothing more to say. You owe Iskandar proper responses not just snark. There is a very clear question mark over the WP:DUEness of using Rodgers which you have failed to engage with. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the work of one person - who is behind Florida University Press is utterly irrelevant.

I think it's relevant, the book was peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. Thus the book is representing the views of them.

You've never addressed Iskandar's central point on Rodgers,

Um, I don't know if you've read it thoroughly or not, but I think I've addressed it multiple times below in suspect source.

There are layers of reliability - for example, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

Well, the book is clearly about Muhammad, not just addresses him in the passing.

This is not an expert on Muhammad

That's WP:OR. If that's really the case, I don't think the University Press of Florida would have published that book written by him. How many other books by the same publisher cover the topic of Muhammad's generalship?Kaalakaa (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa I've read through that talk page multiple times and I still can't see how you deem Rodgers opinions as being authoritative from an objective and neutral standpoint. His book is mainly about the battles the Prophet fought. Although it doesn't just address the other aspects of Muhammad's life in passing, it clearly isn't its main point.

Rodgers is only said to be an expert on early islamic warfare, not on early islamic history in general. Unless you can prove why, you cannot consider him an authority on anything else Islam related. Your only consistent point has been that it was published by an university press, but when that's the only thing that speaks for it, it just doesn't hold up. Admiral90 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa If you still disagree, it's probably better to start an RfC. What do you want to ask? Kaalakaa (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing specific to have an RFC on. You are currently refusing to engage in any discussion regarding WP:WEIGHT, either because you fail to understand the issues involved, or because you are simply dodging them. That is the current situation. Given that you have substantially edited a (formerly) GA-status article into a state that multiple editors now think is unworthy of that status, you do in fact owe an explanation that demonstrates you understand Wikipedia sourcing policy and took it into account in a competent manner as you made your major changes. Otherwise, we've simply had an editor with possible WP:CIR issues downgrade a GA-class article. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you please quit falsely saying I'm refusing to engage in a discussion about WP:WEIGHT? That's akin to a personal attack. We've extensively discussed this below in suspect source, where the main basis of your argument that questions the "dueness" of the book from the University Press of Florida was a link from Bloomsbury. Based on it, you claimed the author "falls well short of subject-matter expert" [1]. However, when I informed you that the content of the link you provided says otherwise about the author [2]:

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

You dismissed it and then tried to divert attention to the author's expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [3]. After I told you that early Islamic warfare refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [4], you said "the link is worthless" and you "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [5]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, you avoided the questions and came here, repeating your false accusations against him. If you believe you're right, you won't have any issue starting an RfC about this matter. Regarding your comment

Given that you have substantially edited a (formerly) GA-status article into a state that multiple editors now think is unworthy of that status

That's MOS:WEASEL, and a misrepresentation of what other editors said, which can be considered a violation of WP:TPNO.

I quote from @Anachronist, what he actually said is [5]:

It may still be a good article, but it isn't the same article that was previously assessed as "good".

Furthermore, it is also displayed at the top of this talk page that

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.

And

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter.

Kaalakaa (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Rodgers has around 37 citations, of which most are not related to any sort of military analysis (clearly his main area of expertise), but rather fringe opinions about Muhammad's life. Admiral90 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Modest military expertise alone does not make a source a vital one on the politics and motives of actors in the 7th century. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Admiral90: Do those works that cite Rodgers say or at least suggest that his theories or opinions are fringe? Kaalakaa (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Can you please cease influencing people with your unfounded accusations against an author of a reliable source (which have been repeatedly debunked as evident in my comment above [1])? Or we might have to bring this to WP:ANI. Kaalakaa (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Nobody is influencing anybody here. I have observed the discussions between you and other users and it's obvious that you cannot actually defend your views. Admiral90 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa I see you're again trying to ignore a point by attempting to frame it as original research. Rodgers work has been ignored by mainstream scholarship almost entirely, I could only find two citations. One of them is oddly enough a work written by a Muslim author from a religious POV, and the other is a more academic work I couldn't access. Hard to find professional opinions on works academics don't care about. Admiral90 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Kaalaaka, nothing's been "debunked". Numerous editors, from different perspectives, have now expressed concern with your approach. You need to properly address those concerns and certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to ... certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue

So I can't even add other sources to support the material cited to Rodgers that have been given dubious and undue tags? Kaalakaa (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is you should stop editing the article completely. We now have 6 or 7 editors expressing significant concerns about your edits - from various perspectives. I don't see any in support, although I could have missed them because there are so many threads now open about your edits. There's clearly a problem here and it needs resolution before making further changes to the article. This is a collaborative project and I think you seem to be ignoring that to advance your own particular POV. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• For reference, Kaalakaa has raised my second from last post above ("Kaalaaka, nothing's been "debunked"...") at WP:ANI, as well as the conduct of several other contributors to various threads on this talk page. The ANI thread can be found here. DeCausa (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Coming from an outside perspective, there should not be that much discussion about a single source. Rather than going back and forth, we should produce as much evidence as possible about the source and then make a judgement.

  Rodgers wrote a book. Other sources have voiced opinions about Rogers. If there are no opinions, then the academic is not recognized by the community and should not be included.

  @Kaalakaa Please show references by other RS to Rodgers. Other users, feel free to to so as well.

  If academic discuss Rodgers in a tone that suggests they consider him part of the academic mainstream, then it is worth including. If most other scholars question Rodgers accuracy or narrative, then exclude it. If there aren't discussions of Rodgers, then exclude it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Denvercoder9: The book is relatively new, released in 2012, I couldn't find many similar books discussing Muhammad's life in terms of his generalship released from that year until now, and we also have WP:AGEMATTERS which likes recent publications. Rodgers is the command historian of the U.S. army, so he surely has more significant resources and knowledge about warfare (such as its tactics and psychology) than most of general historians. Moreover, his job involves the security of a country with arguably the most powerful military in the world, providing their commanders with a historical perspective based on his research. This book of his is a joint publication by 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. So at least the book is recognized by academics from those 11 universities. Several other sources that have offered their opinions on the book, including:

  • Kecia Ali, in her The Lives of Muhammad, Harvard University Press publication, page 270: "A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad."
  • David Cook, the author of Understanding Jihad, Univ of California Press, says here about the book: "An excellent analysis of Muhammad as a general, placing his battles within the context of military history, and a good introduction to the life of the founder of Islam."
  • Policy advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, U.S. Army, Maj. Christopher Johnson says that the book: "Provides an essential understanding to those wanting to know the history that shapes modern insurgencies."
  • This publication by the University Press of America written by Christian P. Potholm, says: "Russ Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad... An extremely valuable look at the rise of Islam through the generalship of Muhammad. A stunning story, well told."

  Other RSes that cite that book of Rodgers include:

  • Howlett, Charles F.; Peterson, Christian Philip; Buffton, Deborah D.; Hostetter, David (2023). The Oxford Handbook of Peace History. Oxford University Press. p. 735. ISBN 978-0-19-754908-7.
  • Anishchenkova, Valerie (2020-06-01). Modern Saudi Arabia. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-4408-5705-8.
  • O'Brien, Daniel (2021-11-16). Muslim Heroes on Screen. Springer Nature. p. 231. ISBN 978-3-030-74142-6.
  • Gabriel, Richard A. (2017-01-03). God's Generals: The Military Lives of Moses, the Buddha, and Muhammad. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-5107-0878-5.
  • Hayward, Joel (2023-01-02). The Warrior Prophet: Muhammad ﷺ and War. Claritas Books. p. 357.
  • Çakmak, Cenap (2017-05-18). Islam [4 volumes]: A Worldwide Encyclopedia [4 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 1733. ISBN 978-1-61069-217-5.
  • Ph.D, Jeffrey M. Shaw; Demy, Timothy J. (2017-03-27). War and Religion [3 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict [3 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 451. ISBN 978-1-61069-517-6.

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

 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. 116.58.200.170 (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Is there an online version of this Vedic text in English that can be used to verify this claim directly? ~Anachronist (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: it appears to be in the cited source (page 20). M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Yes, I know it's in that cited source. I am asking for a look at the primary source, to make sure that the author of the cited source didn't engage in some creative interpretive license in that quotation. Christian history is rife with "scholars" who take liberties interpreting prophecies to justify certain points, especially when trying to align opposing worldviews such as Christianity and science, or in this case Hinduism and Islam. We can indeed state that Ravi Shankar claims this, but it would be even better to see an actual translation rather than a cherrypicked quotation. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, googling around, it seems that this prophetic claim is more prevalent than simply being promoted by Ravi Shankar and the translation I found bears little resemblance to Shankar's quotation. There also this and this - the second of which offers some context, particularly the view that the prediction isn't about the prophet Muhammad because "there is no mention of Muhammad being a prophet. Bhavishya Purana clearly says that the land has been infested by evildoers with demonic nature whose leader is propagating them. The evildoers name is Muhammad." ~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: my bad (I misread your comment). While there are plenty of sources mentioning this claim, I couldn't find any that I would describe as reliable. According to this questionable source (similar to the ones that you cited), "Mleccha" means foreigner. Whether Ravi Shankar's claims belong in the article is another issue. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

As the book was published by Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)'s own publishing house (Art of Living) I think it comes under WP:SELFPUB. Seems to me including the guru's theory would be WP:UNDUE in this article - I can't find any WP:RS picking up on it. DeCausa (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The source you found, although original research, is a more thorough analysis than Ravi Shankar's, and does a good job debunking the assertion that there is any sort of prediction about the prophet Muhammad. While it would be factual to mention that Ravi Shankar claims this, I also agree it would be WP:UNDUE for Wikipedia to link Hinduism with Islam in this way, particularly in light of the fact that the appearance of the prophet Muhammad in history had no effect on Hinduism. Therefore I'm comfortable declining this edit request. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 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)

Can it be okay? 103.67.157.45 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure it can be used. Per the author's words "there are specific references and prophecies about the Prophet himself in the Hindu scriptures", it seems to me this is written from a religious perspective, assuming these scriptures are supposed to pre-date Muhammad. Publisher's about page [2] didn't help me, and I have no idea who KHAN, A. D. is. I do think this is an interesting POV, reminds me of Muhammad in the Bible. If it is to be mentioned in a WP-article, it would be good if we could nail down who it is who believe this text refers to the prophet Muhammad, and if there is objection to the idea. If it's a very small group, it may not be interesting enough to mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That book seems to be self-published. The publisher website is defunct, and the copyright is held by the author rather than the publisher. Also, I can find other sources that say these texts are inconclusive. Muhammad isn't explicitly named (a name that sounds similar is used) and nowhere do the texts say it refers to a prophet. Bhavishya Purana, Parv 3, khand 3, Adhyay 3 is referenced, but the translation I found does not say what these authors claim it says. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You mean the "Then he started his journey of conquest and reached near a place where a man named Mahaamada (Mohammad) dwelling in that place, who is residing there as a teacher, teaching his student." translation, right? Doesn't sound much like what Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said. But if people have read this and concluded that this is about the prophet, I'm less than astounded, it's what people do. Christ = Krishna, it's just common sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just stumbled on Kalki Avatar and Muhammad, perhaps there is potential for a Muhammad in Hinduism article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

:::::@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)

SD: "Sacred books of Hindus contain the history of universe. These books also contain foretelling of future events." It's not a source I like in this context. Assuming there are useful refs in the Ved Prakash Upadhyay WP-article, I see us potentially arriving at something like this for the Muhammad#Other_religions section:

"According to Hinduism scholar Ved Prakash Upadhyay, Muhammad is mentioned in Hindu texts that pre-dates Muhammad."

Compared to the other content in that section though, this doesn't seem WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTIONate to me. Btw, I thought I read somewhere that Muhammad was considered an Ascended master? Perhaps that was a novel, or I misremember. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Karsh

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)

I haven't looked into those criticisms. However, the book was published by Yale University Press, which I think is enough to make it very reliable. Secondly, the passage it supports, regarding the Muslims' attack on the Quraysh caravan at Nakhla during the month in which the Quraysh forbade themselves to shed blood, can also be found in other sources. I can search for and provide those additional sources later if you'd like. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So, our article, based on Karsh, presents Muhammad as effectively pretending that the raid wasn't with his approval because there had been criticism of it. Our Raid on Nakhla article presents it in the traditional Muslim view that Muhammad was angry because he hadn't actually authorised it. It would be interesting to know whether the Karsh interpretation is the generally held one in the RS - or is this an WP:UNDUE presentation of Muhammad in a negative light, specific to Karsh. I don't know the answer. What I can see is that our statement that and he postponed the allocation of the spoils until a verse was ultimately revealed, legitimizing the attack isn'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)

It seems that my edit in the article on the Raid on Nakhla was also reverted by @Chxeese, with the reason given as 'cleaned up.' Haha.

@DeCausa, in response to your question, whether the information you are referring to is due, of course it is due. This raid marked the first successful Muslim raid on the Quraysh caravan after several failures, and this information is well-supported by multiple sources, as I have just provided. Regarding the phrasing, it appears that the distribution of the booty did occur before the revelation of the verse, but Muhammad did not take his share, which was one-fifth, until the verse was revealed. As mentioned here, here, and here. Thank you, I've just modified the passage. Kaalakaa (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with the assessment that this part has been taken in a direction that does not even reflect Karsh. The other source now introduced and being quoted for this material is Nabeel Qureshi, a former Muslim turned Christian apologist, from the book Answering Jihad: A Better Way Forward from the US evangelical publisher Zondervan, so a non-academic, in an off-topic book, from a religious publisher. If this is the sort of sourcing that has been used to replace W. Montgomery Watt, well that is simply fairly inexplicable. A new polemical and not particularly neutrally titled subsection has also been introduced in "Inception of animosity against the Jews", expanded from a short paragraph previously. Overall, the signs of a tendentious direction of travel are adding up. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Iskandar323, have you even read the current revision? I have added 4 more sources. If you want, I can remove that Zondervan one, and replace it with better sources as well. I used that one simply because it states that it was Muhammad's 7th raid. Kaalakaa (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: Done removing the Zondervan book as a source. Kaalakaa (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Late update: I have also added two sources as a replacement for the previous Zondervan source. Let me know if you still want more. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem remains that the section now presented an imbalanced and one-sided set of views on the episode with little respect for the full breadth of scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Iskandar323, I just found out that this material is also supported by Watt. Haha.

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.

Kaalakaa (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

References

• Rodgers, Russ (2017). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-5459-9.
• Gabriel, Richard A. (2014-10-22). Muhammad: Islam’s First Great General. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-8250-6.
• Rodinson, Maxime (2021-03-02). Muhammad. New York Review of Books. ISBN 978-1-68137-493-2.

Regarding the part in the lede that states Muhammad united Arabia

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)

Update: I've removed it. But if anyone has any objections, feel free to raise them here. Kaalakaa (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No evidence for the age of a particular wife at consummation of marriage

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)

I haven't touched this part. But we base our articles on reliable sources. If reliable sources state that Muhammad began having sexual relations with Aisha when she was 9 years old, then write it as such. Not based merely on what we consider to be true, as it falls under original research, and Wikipedia prohibits content based on original research (see: WP:OR). Now, do the sources you have brought forward qualify as reliable as per WP:RS? In my opinion, they do not. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for your misunderstanding. The source I brought was for questioning the realiabilty itself of the sources cited in the article, not to cite in the Wikipedia. I say the cited sources are misrepresentation or mistranslation of the sources they relied on, at least for this part.

Moreover even understanding of the Arabic language would be sufficient for this.

Anyway the paragraph I edited contained three mistakes.

As for the history, it contains tradition, DNA test, archeological findings etc.

I suggest youself to suggest any other editors to invite to this debate. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No. As far as I know, we don't dismiss reliable sources based on unreliable ones. Actually, I would love to refute that argument of yours because the word "dakhala" is also employed in Quran 4:23, and numerous translators and commentators of the Quran interpret it as "consummated the marriage" or "gone in unto them," which is a euphemism for "having sexual intercourse." However, I don't think we can engage in such a debate here as per Wikipedia's policy that the talk page is not a forum. Kaalakaa (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Neutralhappy, Do you understand what original research is? Kaalakaa (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for good and kind answer.

However we would be able to discuss the realiability of the cited sources for this purpose.

It seems things are getting more clear. So is how far the translation and interpretation of the term is related to it.

The English language has a problem with wide use of "consummation" which is used to refer to "complete marriage having sex" which is not apparently seen in other languages including maybe Arabic. So in such languages the usage would "veed kooduka"  in Malayalam which means to meet and begin to stay together in a house after marriage; the similar pattern appears to be seen in the Arabic language also. Hence such usage in such other non-English languages has no  meaning of completing marriage having sex. But use of that expression to negate would likely mean that the process of having sex has not happened.

In short English translation sources could not used for this purpose and sources that relied on such English translations could not be used for this purpose. Instead Arabic original source or orginal Arabic source supported  by the secondary source thus the really secondary source is needed to be used instead.

Here the above source -- the book by M. P. Musthafal Faizy is reliable enough for this purpose because the book is authored by an Islamic scholar who is well known and a member of 40-member body of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama of EK Sunnis : https://samastha.info/326/ .  Moreover this part relating to it which is a kind of fact-ckecking with his scholarship. Moreover the book itself is for refuting or contradicting such things.

Furthermore, if you or others are still unsatisfied, a person showing "Adani"; a term which is used apparently by the Islamic scholars studied in Ma'din Saqafathi Sunniya; as part of their name also seen to be asserting that similar statement that  in a debate in Clubhouse where other people who apparently have deep knowledge in both  Islam and the Arabic language were present. Hear this Clubhouse debate in Malayalam from the 4:37:00 hour time.

All this support authenticity of the claim of the book. A famous scholar as attested by his YouTube channel : https://m.youtube.com/c/HarisMadani/videos?view=0  was also present there

whose this Clubhouse ID : https://www.clubhouse.com/@harismadani is attested by his YouTube video link given under his this YouTube video similar to other videos : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QcxK46MUNPE

This is said to show the discussion was not done by any random uneducated people or in an inappropriate way; more importantly to support the book.

Whatever is the reason the book by M. P. Musthafal Faizy is far more reliable for Islamic matters than such cited sources for several reasons because he is a learnt person from authoritative and foremost sources, especially for this purpose.

In the 4:23 Qur'anic verse while it appears that it would have been possible to say "stay/meet together" (which appears to be translated as relation), it seems that other evidence compelled to interpret that way while the Qur'anic verse 3:37 in a different way. Hence these appear to be the interpretion while the primary meaning has no meaning of having sex. So it appears to be a matter of interpretation. Hence is the different translations/interpretation for the Qur'anic 4:23 verse.  See it here : https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/st64.htm

Also : https://qurano.com/en/4-an-nisa/verse-23/

Here in the English literal we "..... your custody from your women (wives) whom you entered with them (F), are forbidden on you, so if you were not entered with them (F), so no offense/sin on you...." :

https://qurano.com/en/4-an-nisa/verse-23/

Here "entering with someone" could mean entering into same place/room/building similar to seen in Qur'an 3:37, both of which has no primarily any meaning of having sex. If there was the Qur'an 3:37 the similar expression in Qur'an 3:37 would mean having sex which is not the case at all.

All this are said to check the realiability of the cited sources.

M. P. Musthafal Faizy has categorically said there is no evidence to show "what happened at that night". Hence the basic  or primary or first meaning has to be relied on.

Moreover misrepresentation of any of the source of chain of sources by the latter source has to be rejected for the simple logic that if A says a person's colour is black, B can quote only as such, B cannot  quote it as "A says a person's colour is black with white spots". What the latter source is only allowed to conclude which is otherwise called analysis, possible prediction, categorisation, labelling, giving legitimacy, showing different narratives, giving strength to a view over the other etc. with due evidence.

[[Wikipedia:REPUTABLE]] All reliable sources would not be reliable for all purposes.

"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement."

Moreover the certainty that the finding will not change is near zero.

All these are said to check the realiability of the cited sources, particularly for this purpose.

I know what original research is. I have considered that part too. To solve that problem if you think it is necessary to cite this M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book, I would be happy to cite this book with page number and quotations. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the part of the article you want to rewrite per your 2022 book:

According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old. She was therefore a virgin at marriage. 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 that correct? Note (in the article) that this text is very well cited, and the Aisha article goes into more detail. For the interested, there's also discussions about Aisha's age at Talk:Aisha.

So, what are you suggesting instead of the current writing, per WP:DUE etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

NeutralHappy, M. P. Musthafal Faizy is religious leader in Kerala - and from what I can see is affiliated to one of several Sunni factions in dispute in that Indian state. Clearly he's an advocate of a particular religious point of view. He also has no prominence outside of Kerala. Given the large number of citations supporting the existing text, even if he was a reliable source which may be unlikely it would certainly be WP:UNDUE to insert his views into the article. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

1) The following is written to examine the realiability of the sources.

2) also to convince and thereby lessen the need for stronger evidence

3) to examine the due weightage

More proof for the reliability of book : the book has not been disputed by others, particularly this part of the book. There is no chance to dispute this part of M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book. Sajeer Bukhari ( who belongs to the AP Sunnis of Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed, the Grand Mufti of India) was present in the book releasing programme as seen in the above video. Moreover this book has been presented to Sheik Aboobacker Ahmed, the Grand Mufti of India by the author himself as seen in M. P. Musthafal Faizy's Facebook post. All this shows the book is not disputed. There is no expectation for any dispute.

Moreover there is no dispute about this part of the book. There could not be any because the ultimate reliance will solely on the original sources.

Furthermore this claim is not known to be part of dispute among any groups.

From secular perspective also the ultimate reliance will be solely on the original sources which have been mistranslated for this purpose. Opposite could be true.

Hence it is not imposing one's only point of view over others.

In addition, note that there is no "Kerala Islam" to say there is no prominence of him outside Kerala. In Kerala nearly all Sunnis follow the Shafi'i madhab and the Ash'ari creed is seen to be adhered to.

However that is not problem at all because Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed, the Grand Mufti of India, has been recognised as the Grand Mufti of India by people belonging to Sunni Barelvis who follow Hanafi madhab.

Madhyam.com says Barelvis appointed Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed as the Grand Mufti of India  : https://english.madhyamam.com/kerala/2019/feb/25/barelvi-leadership-declares-kantapuram-grand-mufti

So unchallenged nature towards this part of book by Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed's group and others shows this part is not a disputed part.

His acceptance could imply acceptance by nearly all Sunnis around the world since he is a world renowned scholar.

Similarly statement by M. P. Musthafal Faizy implies the acceptance by all Sunnis.

M. P. Musthafal Faizy also has authored "Interpretation of Qur'an  : Comprehensive -- 12 parts" as stated in this book's front part.

The M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book has 399 pages as 399 is written in the front page of last sheet.

M. P. Musthafal Faizy is both an Islamic scholar and a writer. He has authored several books as listed in the front part of M. P. Musthafal Faizy's this book.

His Facebook page's top portion also contains "writer".

Apparently M. P. Musthafal Faizy has considered, for this conclusion, all known historical records and hadith for this to the extent that the conclusion could not be contradicted.

So it is unchallenged and undisputed part of the book.

Sajeer Bukhari's Facebook post about this book : https://www.facebook.com/100001009680787/posts/pfbid02xzfVpUBdrZqyF1mHwk42M1DWixe3ZXekmGpv4EZMDoq7yu1w79nyjwZfq1tMvRh3l/?app=fbl

Sajeer Bukhari was seen in the video of the book releasing programme.

Sajeer Bukhari belongs to the group of AP Sunnis : https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=nscGQjIeQHFlIF-Q&v=mEU_dRCl0Hk&feature=youtu.be .

Here is the Musthafal Faizy's Facebook post presenting the book to Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed : https://www.facebook.com/100063716739663/posts/pfbid02Q1Y8xV7y9VTMSCfVaQTT3Fyk2ZqR5zsCPnaag5XNphn9a3NZJXTGubejKY7BYyMil/?app=fbl .

Also Haris Madani belonging to the AP Sunnis says there is no ideological difference between AP and EK Sunnis : https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/sunni-factions-bury-their-differences/article38419837.ece/amp/

Considering all this majority and mainstream Muslims would have no problem accepting this view which they are implied to have been holding based on the original sources in the Arabic language. All including non-Muslims, including any scholars, are expected to accept it since it is easily verifiable.

Wikipedia:SOURCEDEF

"When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

As for the book cited the book satisfies two of these three conditions. It is a book soley for such purpose, secondly by an expert in the field, thirdly it was released it was in the author's presence as seen in the video. So it is clear the author apparently agrees that the publisher has published the author's views and words authentically and has not fabricated the material.

Whenever there is dispute over the translation of a text, the original source is needed to be used to know which translation is correct sice coul not be any other solution.

Hence clearly Wikipedia:WEIGHT weightage would be towards the M. P. Musthafal Faizy's view.

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[c] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

"[c] The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered."

Wikipedia:REPUTABLE considering this secondary sources cited especially the English sources that contain "consummate" which is incorrect here for this purpose are pseudo secondary sources since they are misrepresentation/misunderstanding/mistranslation of the text they relied on. Hence they are not reliable sources at all for this purpose.

Furthermore I say the cited sources against this view are FALSE secondary sources because the primary sources do not contain cited content while also it being BASELESS reaserch, not even original research, and thus they are UNRELIABLE sources while apparently it also being in the language -- English -- with a different use of the expression or word is WIDE. Considering these things I question use of these sources for this purpose.

The prominence in the reliable sources including original text of the source language -- Arabic -- is "stayed together" or "met together" or here "began one's life together with another one".

Now we need quotes from the M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book which is one of the important things. :

"പലായനത്തോടെ ഇവരെല്ലാം മദീനത്തെത്തി അബുബകറി(റ)ന്റെ വീട് മദീനയിൽ 'സഹ്' എന്നിടത്തായിരുന്നു. മദീന പള്ളി യിൽ നിന്നു ഏതാനും കിലോമീറ്റർ അകലം. അവിടെ ആഇശ ഃ യുടെ ഒമ്പതാം വയസ്സിലാണ് വധുവരന്മാരായി രണ്ടുപേരും ഒന്നു ചേരുന്നത്. പിന്നീട് പള്ളിയുടെ അടുത്തായി താമസം.

ഇപ്പറഞ്ഞ ഒത്തുചേരലാണ് ചിലർ മധുവിധു ആഘോഷമായ ശാരീരിക ബന്ധമായി സാക്ഷാൽ സംയോഗമായി എഴുതിവച്ചത്. ആ രാത്രി അവർ എന്ത് ചെയ്തു? എത്രമാത്രം, എവിടെവരെ എന്ന തിനു ആർക്കും ഒരു തെളിവുമില്ല. ഇവർ ഒത്തുചേർന്നതിനു ദഗല ബിഹാ തുടങ്ങിയ പ്രയോഗങ്ങളാണ് ഹദീസിലും ചരിത്രത്തിലും കാണുന്നത്. ഒത്തുകൂടി, രാത്രി കൂടെ താമസിച്ചു, തന്റെ അരമന യിലേക്ക് നബി കയറിച്ചെന്നു സാമ്പത്തിക എന്നൊക്കെയേ ഇതിനു ഭാഷാപരമായ അർത്ഥമുള്ളൂ. "ദഗല കാണുമ്പോഴേക്ക് 'ജിമാഅ്' (സംയോഗം) നടന്നേ എന്നു വിളിച്ചുകൂവി രസിക്കുന്ന ചിലരുണ്ട്.

മർയ(റ)മിന്റെ ഉമ്മയായ ഹന്നത്തി(റ)നെ പോറ്റിവളർത്തിയത് സകരിയ്യാ(അ)യാണ്. ഹന്നത്തിന്റെ പിതാവ് ഇംറാൻ മരിച്ചതാണ് കാരണം, സകരിയ്യാ ഹന്നത്തിന്റെ മുറിയിൽ ഇടക്കിടെ കയറിച്ചെല്ലാറുണ്ട്. ഇതേപ്പറ്റി ഖുർആൻ (ആലുഇംറാൻ 37) ഇങ്ങനെ പറഞ്ഞു. “അങ്ങനെ സകരിയ്യാ അവളുടെ മേൽ കടന്നപ്പോൾ..." ഇവിടെയും "ദഗല'യാണ് പ്രയോഗിച്ചത്. എന്തോ അറിയില്ല നാം അറിയുന്ന വ്യാഖ്യാതാക്കളാരും ഇവിടെ 'സംയോഗം' നടന്നെന്നു പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. തൽക്കാലം രസിക്കേണ്ടെന്നു വിചാരിച്ചിരിക്കും. ചുരുക്കത്തിൽ 'ദഗല ബിഹാ', 'ദഗല അലൈഹാ' എന്നൊക്കെയുള്ള പ്രയോഗ ത്തിനു സംയോഗം ചെയ്തു എന്നത് ഒന്നാം അർത്ഥമല്ല. എന്താണ് സംഭവിച്ചതെന്നറിഞ്ഞ ശേഷമേ ഏതർത്ഥവും ഉറപ്പിക്കാവൂ.". (Vedam Yukthi Vadam : page 354, M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, publication date : 2 July 2022)

English translation : "With feeling, all of them reached Madina. Abubakar (RA)'s house was in the place - Sah; which is some kilometres away from the Madina mosque. It is at the age of 9 of Aisha that they both met as the bride and bride groom. Later their staying became near the mosque.

It is this said meeting that is written by some as the actual intercourse which is the celebration of honeymoon of physical relation. What they did at that night? No one has evidence for how much, to what extent. The expression including 'dakala biha' are seen to be used to refer to their meeting together in hadith and history. It linguistically has only the meaning such as "met together", "stayed together at night" , Nabi (Islamic prophet Muhammad) entered one's "ARAMANA"-- [which could mean a palace]. There are some who enjoyably speak out of having happened جماع (intercourse) immediately on seeing dakala.

It is Zakariyya (AS) who brought up Hannath (RA), the mother of Mariyam (RA). This is because Imran, the father of Hannath (RA had died. Zakariyya often entered the room of Hannath (Alu Imram 37) . About this Qur'an says this way : "Thus when Zakariyya entered on Mariyam....." . Here also dakhala is used. Any reason; we do not about. None of interpretors we know has said intercourse has happened. For the time being they would have decided not to have the enjoyment. In short meaning for expressions such "dakhala biha" "dakhala alaiha" "had intercourse" is not the first meaning. It is possible to ascertain any meaning only after knowing what happened."

(Vedam Yukthi Vadam : page 354, M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, publication date : 2 July 2022)

Whatever may be the reason the change I going to make is simple and just the same as I did here which I think would not need to cite this book of M. P. Musthafal Faizy, which also would not be a disputed change and apparently a consensus version which would likely be viewed as just removing a meaning of a statement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1172135387

Moreover I am not suggesting to remove those inappropriate citations.

After all this is a matter of having the understanding of the Arabic language to understand the primary meaning of such expressions which would apparently be possible even if the realiability of the M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book is not established or used to make the change. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

this looks like a bad case of WP:BLUDGEON. We go by WP:RS, not WP:OR. JM2023 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutralhappy, I got pinged by you and then I see this with its edit summary which doesn't really make any sense and I don't understand. In any case, I skimmed over your post which is too long (see WP:WALLOFTEXT). You say things which don't really carry any weight in Wikipedia. For example, whether this book "has been presented" to the Grand Mufti of India is of no interest to us. You haven't said anything that means that Wikipedia editors should take any notice of what this person has written. Before you post anymore can you pleae read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:DUE. Otherwise you are just wasting your and our time. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "good article" status

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)

Agreed. timely idea. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There are still some parts in this article that come from the version before my edits that I think are problematic. However, I have no issue with reassessment as long as the article presents the subject accurately without leaving out important details that some people might think could have a bad impact on the subject's image, which leads to overall disinformation. In accordance with WP:OM and WP:NOTCENSORED. Kaalakaa (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, since the language has deteriorated through editorialization and the page populated with numerous undiscussed sources, the page is a very different creature from whatever it was before. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is so obvious, may I know why it was not reassessed until now? As indeed its misleading to show this article as a good one, when it was given that status for a completely different article that was suddenly changed in entirety by one single editor. Jopharocen (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspect sources

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)

I do remember adding Rodinson myself once following this discussion[3]. I'm not sure books on the subject from the 60s are necessarily dated in this context, I expect significant areas of knowledge/scholarship hasn't changed much (while others have, of course), but then I again I have certainly not read them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with Rodinson is not just that it is dated, but that Rodinson was a prolific scholar with little focused expertise on the subject in question here. His only tenured position (as far as his page currently goes) was in classical Ethiopian; he was most specialized as a linguist. Again, he is a perfectly valid source for a certain perspective (sociological) on the subject, but he was not exactly the stuff of a rounded historical biography expert. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that his book was a fairly celebrated one, but I don't have any sources on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

[4][5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Celebrated, popular and novel for the time it might have been, but the better parts of any analysis from the 1960s should surely have, by now, found their way into more recent works. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad is still born in Mecca in newer books though, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't referring specifically to the lead, though on that note the lead does not need to be referenced for uncontroversial statements of fact, per WP:LEADCITE. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the lead, per the linked discussion I added "born in Mecca" to the body in 2019,[6] cited to Rodinson. Hmm, the article was GA then too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The page was last affirmed as GA in 2012, and I doubt it will remain so for long. What's you point? My point was that you could cite no one (or practically anyone) for a fact as mundane as that in the lead, i.e. it is irrelevant there if it is Rodinson or not. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

My point is that a source like Rodinson may be an acceptable source for a lot of basic stuff, and there is no reason to purge him from such things. And again, I wasn't talking about the lead. Before I added it, the body didn't mention that Muhammad was born in Mecca. Old story, but an amusing oversight in a GA article. GA:s can absolutely become non-GA over time, no question about that. And of course, even GA:s are not perfect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, the book by Russ Rodgers was published by the University Press of Florida, so it's definitely very reliable. Your opinion about him doesn't matter. As for Rodinson and Glubb, they'd already been cited here multiple times before I even started editing this article. It's strange that you only have a problem with them since I began pulling out apparently embarrassing details about the subject. You're okay with Watt's books written in the 1950s, but you call Rodinson's first released in the 1960s and Glubb's in the 1970s as dated? And again, your opinion doesn't impact the reliability of these sources. Maybe take this to the WP:RS noticeboard. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: Please stop personalizing your posts. I do not care about you or your edits, and I am completely unaware of what sources you may or may not have added to the page; it is irrelevant to me. It is not my opinion that Russ Rodgers is a mere adjunct lecturer, not a tenured academic with any relevant specialism; these are facts. Being published by a university press is not an automatic rubber stamp that validates any of the material contained in such as work. The expertise of the author remains deeply valid. That is why I am discussing it here. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: I'll add that one of the reasons university presses exist is to publish books by authors who need those publications to be considered for tenure. Certain fields require books, not just academic journals, for this. Just because some obscure lecturer publishes a book with a university press doesn't automatically make it a reliable or notable source, and doesn't mean the monograph got an adequate level of peer review either. The author matters more than the publication house or publication date, and the citations that author received probably matter the most. Something written in the 1950s may still be relevant today (as an analogy, see any of Albert Einstein's papers), and if Watt is a better established source, then that's what we should use, unless some other notable source (not some random book that happens to be published by a university press) has provided more up to date analysis. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, The reliability of an author is not determined by us (this is the same as original research) but by the academic community, which includes reliable publishers, such as University presses. That's one of the reasons why we don't accept self-published books, or books published by vanity presses. Unless the author has a track record as a subject matter expert in a certain field, then his self-published book may be acceptable as a source for articles on that field. Kaalakaa (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: The reliability of an author isn't determined by a university press either. A university press accepting a manuscript isn't the same as peer review. A university press accepts manuscripts that it deems may have may have academic interest, but it is basically one step up from a vanity press or self-publishing. The number of citations an author gets in other scholarly literature is more indicative of reliability. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist I'm sorry, but just like I don't agree with your comments in this topic (which, in my opinion, appear to endorse content based solely on personal observations in a museum), I also can't agree with those two particular comments of yours.

Here, The University Press of Florida states:

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.

Is there any evidence that Russ Rodgers' book received an exception and did not undergo an adequate peer review process from them? If there isn't, we can't hint that his book is lacking in that regard, because that's the same as original research.

Regarding Rodinson and Glubb, in this revision that received the status of a good article, they are cited multiple times. I kind of find it strange that only after the apparently embarrassing stuff about the subject is extracted from their books are they then questioned. If I were to do the same with those Watt's books that were released in the 1950s, I wonder if he would also be questioned. Kaalakaa (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: This constant allusion to the motives of other editors is not very healthy and is rather indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Wikipedia is a collegiate community; please treat it as such. Peer review is also not so black and white; there are different qualities of peer review. There are plenty of scholarly journals, for instance, that claim peer review, but whose process is held in little regard. It is not useful to oversimplify. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, the next step is to look up the peer reviewers themselves and see if they are also subject-matter experts. If they are not, the peer review process is likely more of a rubber stamp than a marker of academic esteem. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: It is interesting that you bring up a non-sequitur unrelated conversation rather than address the actual argument here, which you ignored, to wit: citations to an author's work matters. A publishing house's claims of peer review, while helpful, aren't as relevant. You are putting far too much weight on the publishing house and less on the actual work that was published. Universities have faculty who engage in fringe theories and crackpottery, and they get published by university presses, for example Ward Churchill being published by Harvard University Press (he lost is job for academic unprofessionalism). Claiming that the value of a source depends on who published it, well, that claim doesn't hold water. Look at the author, look at the work and the citations it gets. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

As an illustration of this, Rodger's book has all of 11 citations; Watt's Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman has 876 citations, i.e. a different order of impact. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

To give everyone here their due, Rodinson has 348 citations, while Glubb rather damningly appears to be not even on the radar of scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, Watt's book has received more citations, given that it was published in the 1950s, compared to Russ Rodgers' more recent book from the 2010s, published by the University Press of Florida. I'm sure this same pattern exists in scientific literatures, even though newer research may have updated or corrected older information.

Correcting your point again, 'Life and Times of Mohammed' by Glubb has actually received at least 130 citations. It even earned a review that I believe is quite favorable from Watt himself. Publications that cite Glubb's book include Kecia Ali's book, published by Harvard University Press; Lesley Hazleton's book, released by Penguin; and Richard A. Gabriel's book by the University of Oklahoma Press, where the title is abbreviated as 'Life and Times.'

As for Rodinson's book, there are different spellings, some of which are Mahomet (citations received: 117, 2), Mohammed (62, 2, 9, 2, 2, 2), and Muhammad (348, 10, 12, 9, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2). This is due to the book's original language being French, which was later translated into different languages. Kaalakaa (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That's the idea, yes. Glad you're on board. I take it from the above that Rodger's work remains just as obscure as initially surmised. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@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. 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)

@Kaalakaa: Please stop sloganeering and explaining sources to some unknown audience. It always helps to read what people are saying before responding. I haven't claimed that the sources above are not reliable. I have highlighted that there are various areas for improvement, with several dated, non-expert sources currently in circulation on the page. You are, however, incorrect above. It is well within the remit of editors to form local consensuses on the usability of sources, though that is, again, not the topic here (yet). Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

A) That's his publisher praising him, which ... of course it would. That's how your promote your published works; B) The text is probably written by Rodgers himself and submitted to the publisher to post (obviously); [and C) the subject here is Muhammad, not insurgency movements or 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)

@Iskandar323: A) you were the one who brought that link, remember? B) That book of his was not published by Bloomsbury, and again you're practicing WP:OR here. C) Why did you only cite his expertise in insurgency movements and left out the early Islamic warfare part? 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)

I didn't link to Bloomsbury so that you could treat it as scripture, and yes, Rodgers has published with Bloomsbury, so they are his publisher (and publicist). But look, this is getting silly. If you have no interest in seriously discussing sources then be my guest and don't, but I'm not interested in this increasingly sad and shallow mimicry of an actual discussion. Rodgers is no expert by any of the usual metrics and is barely cited. But if you simply don't care, and all you value is the rubber stamp of something being published, that's your prerogative. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Remember, this "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.

I repeat. This book by Russ Rosgers is neither some self-published work nor a work that published by vanity press. 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. Thus makes the book 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.

Regarding your statement that "Rodgers ... is barely cited." This looks like a case of WP:IDNHT. Like I already told you multiple times, we have a guideline named WP:AGEMATTERS, which means that Wikipedia prefers more recent works. Naturally, more recent works receive far fewer citations than much older works. Therefore, your argument that Rodgers' more recent book is obscure because it has far fewer citations than Watt's book published in the 1950s is completely inconsistent with that guideline. Kaalakaa (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It is absolutely if Rodger's bio was written by himself or not: it's posting by Bloomsbury is meaningless, since a publisher's website is not a credible source. You are focusing on everything but anything of value. These excuses for the lack of citation are meanwhile ridiculous. The book has been in print for more than a decade, and there are only half a dozen English-language citations. And realistically, if a book has any currency at all, it is more likely to be cited sooner rather than later - interest doesn't magically develop decades later. Rodgers is much more pop history author than serious historian. He is not obviously mentioned on any university websites as a adjunct or visiting anything. I think your staunch defense of this source has far more to do with the fact that you have littered the page with extraordinary statements supported by Rodgers as a standalone source than anything else. Given the weakness of Rodgers, WP:ECREE may well apply to many. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You were the one who brought that link to support your previous claim; now that it's been used against your claim you dismissed it. @Iskandar323. Do you have any proof that that text was written by Russ Rodgers? If you don't, then it's merely a WP:OR. Do you know what a vanity press is? Can you tell whether Bloomsbury is a vanity press or not? Can you inform me of the differences between vanity presses and university presses? Kaalakaa (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

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. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Haha, and now you're claiming that it suggests he possesses little to no academic background. Where exactly does it mention that?

Bloomsbury and University Press of Florida aren't just any publishers or vanity presses where anyone can pay to get their book published. WP:RS clearly says that books published by well-regarded academic presses are regarded as reliable.

* 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.

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)

I mean that there is no evidence that he is a historian rated by any other historians or academia in general in any real sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Nah, you clearly said:

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.

Now, where exactly does that Bloomsbury link that you previously provided mention that?

And how many times do I need to post this?

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.

Kaalakaa (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Posting that has been worthless every time you have posted it. Yes, it's a university press. That makes it reliable in the broadest sense, and, at bare minimum, reliable for attributing opinions to Rodgers. That doesn't make Rodgers a necessarily good source on this subject, especially if his lone opinions are not supported by other sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding my question above regarding the Bloomsbury link you provided? Haha. And regarding this opinion of yours.

That doesn't make Rodgers a necessarily good source on this subject

Which part of our content guidelines supports that? The book is clearly about Muhammad; it is a joint publication from 11 universities in Florida and has been peer-reviewed and assessed by academics from each of those universities, and our WP:RS states:

• 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.

Kaalakaa (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum:

I just found out that that Rodgers' book is cited by Kecia Ali in her book "The Lives of Muhammad" (2014), published by Harvard University Press. One of which is for her statement:

"We learn that her wealth gave him the leisure for retreat and reflection." (p. 114)

Kecia also praises and recommends that Rodgers' book, saying:

"A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad" (p. 270).

Furthermore, that book of Rodgers is also cited by this publication from the US Army School for Advanced Military Studies Fort Leavenworth United States, and by this Springer publication. Not to mention that Rodgers' book has been peer reviewed and assessed by 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. So clearly, the book is by no means fringe or undue. Kaalakaa (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, so only the book's input on military matters is really rated by anyone, which is in line with it being a military-focused source. It is the input on non-military matters, where the author has no expertise or background, that is the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I was about to make the same comment: how is approval from military academics relevant to how this sourced is being used in this article? But just to be clear: 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 is 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)

This is going nowhere. Yeah let's just start an RfC. What do you want to ask? If the book by Russ Rodgers is WP:DUE or not? Or should we bring this to arbitration instead? Kaalakaa (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not how it works. Weight does not apply to the source in general; it applies to the usage in any given context, be it a single statement or even just a phrase. More process is not what is needed here at this time; it is more consideration and discussion of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, then why did you put the "dubious" and "undue" tags to all the information cited to this Rodgers' book? Why do you keep attacking his reliability with various accusations that are mostly proven false [1]? Why don't we just ask RfC, are all material sourced from this Russ Rodgers book on the article Muhammad WP:UNDUE if no other sources are added to support it? Kaalakaa (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Removal of sources

@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)

@Kaalakaa: You don't seem to get the point. Unreferenced means not used on the page. The sources section is for sources used on the page, not random collected works that could be used on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think of that as "un-used", unreferenced to me refers to article-text. Fwiw, Template:Refideas exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: Please see MOS:REFERENCES for further details. If you would like to include a list of General References separate to the page's sources then you may do so if you think any of the removed sources were referenced even though not attributed, but again, please be aware that such a list is still intended for sources that have, on some level, been referenced in the creation of the page, not just as a list of potential sources that just refer to the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Then why did you remove this part along with its eight sources?

Sexual intercourse with female captives or self-owned slaves was allowed in Islam, and no consent was required from the women.

You also changed the short description from 'Founder and main prophet of Islam' to 'Founding prophet of Islam.' Just so you know, I didn't modify this part. It was already written that way in the version before I started editing this article. And I've never come across any sources that refer to Muhammad as the 'Founding prophet of Islam.' Kaalakaa (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Those were separate edits, with separate edit summaries. I made the short description shorter and more concise. The edit is about content, nothing more, so I'm not sure what "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)

Safiyyah bint Huyayy

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)

GA Reassessment

Muhammad

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: While instability is not in itself a reason to delist, poor quality sourcing is; the discussions on the talk page constitute, in my view, consensus that the sourcing has been degraded. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It has recently been brought to light that this page and its sourcing have been altered fairly wholesale since the page was last reviewed and kept as GA, and that there is little reason to believe the level of former quality has been maintained; on the contrary, recent informal assessments by editors have uncovered significant issues in terms of prior content and source removal, as well as in terms of the quality of new sourcing and the resulting balance of the page and its contents. The sum conclusion of the current state of affairs has already been assessed by several editors as no longer meeting GA standard. For details, see the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Removal of "good article" status, as well as the broader discussion entitled Talk:Muhammad#Recent neutrality concerns, and other subsequent talk page discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria It is not stable due to edit warring on the page....: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Moxy- 04:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Even excluding the wholesale rewriting the article has undergone recently, 2012 is a long time ago, and the article quality standards back then were arguably lower. I do not see a reason to maintain GA status given the current edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

False balance in the part concerning Aisha's age

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, with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old. She was therefore a virgin at marriage. 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.

The issue is the latter part that I italicized. There are 4 sources provided, two of which:

• Ali, Muhammad (1997). Muhammad the Prophet. Ahamadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-913321-07-2. Archived from the original on 1 January 2016.
• Ayatollah Qazvini. "Ayesha married the Prophet when she was young? (In Persian and Arabic)". Archived from the original on 26 September 2010.

Both of them clearly don't satisfy WP:RS.
While this one:

• A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2014). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy. Oneworld Publications. pp. 146–47. ISBN 978-1-78074-420-9.

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:

• Barlas, Asma (2012). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press. p. 126.

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 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)

I'm sorry, so after neglecting all of the other active discussions on due weight and balance you're now asserting these points here? If you've got time to burn on more minor points, how about you address the elephant in the room that is your own pushing of marginal sources across the whole page? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: I agree with removing the questionable sources. However, this part should summarize Aisha#Age at marriage and consummation, which does include a short discussion of the dispute about Aisha's age and how it came about.

Additionally, the conclusion "therefore she was a virgin" seems like a non-sequitur and is irrelevant to this biography of Muhammad. The fact that a 9-year-old would be a virgin isn't a controversial claim that needs a source, and doesn't need to be stated at all.

It might be worth replacing the sentence about recalculated age with one saying that her accepted age wasn't in dispute until recent times in response to criticism. But again, this is a biography about Muhammad. It's enough just to state Aisha's age and be done with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Aisha's age shouldn't even be in dispute, it's even in the FAQ people are supposed to read. Certainly such fringe and unreliable claims should be removed from the article. JM2023 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the correct answer here. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:55, 6 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)

Notes

References

Recent revert that cites WP:BURDEN

Hi again, @Anachronist. Regarding your recent revert that cites WP:BURDEN, [7], the policy states that

• The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

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:

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)

@Kaalakaa: I am not arguing that the statement was unsourced. I am saying that for a biography, we don't need to put undue emphasis on analysis of statements of faith. Whether Muhammad was shown one miracle or multiple miracles is a point of theology, not history, and is therefore unnecessary to include here. Such a theological distinction belongs more in an article like Muhammad in Islam. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa if that's the case and that's the argument you trust to be the neutral view from this book, then this whole article Muhammad has no meaning to be there, since almost all of it - whether before June or after - is based on post-Quranic sources. When you say:

I think there has been consensus among secular scholars that the historical Muhammad had no miracles, a notion supported by the Quran.

I can say that I also think that there's a consensus among secular scholars that no historical figure performed any miracle as they'll be considered myths from the secular perspective, which I'm fine with that as long as you don't alter the fact that its been always a fundamental belief before the secular analysis. You can deny that Jesus ever performed miracles or deny his entire existence in the 1st century, but you'll not say that this rejection is the fundamental belief among Christians as per the Gospels, as clearly it isn't.

As for the Quran CLEARLY mentioning miracles during Muhammad's time, I've already discussed that in the Recent neutrality concerns, and you've ignored to respond.

Its true that the word Mi'raj was not used in the Quran, but the event of the Ascension itself has been described in the Quran where it describes his meeting with his Lord at Sidrat al-Muntaha, even described that as the greatest miracle. The Quran has no notion that Muhammad is without a miracle when it clearly mentions the angels being behind the Muslim victory at Badr

As for the Isra' itself, which is the Night Journey to Jerusalem, since the very word Isra is mentioned in the Quran it was not possible to deny it as Mi'raj. Therefore what you did to struggle to deny the miracle, you doubted that it was to Jerusalem, and even claimed that Jerusalem is merely a belief among Nowadays Muslims and that there's disagreement among where the destination was, which you showed no references to this nor any source. I'm still wishing to see when did Muslims ever disagree on that the destination of the Night Journey was Jerusalem at any point in history!

However, Muslims living a few centuries after his death began attributing miracles to him.

There's no evidence that at any point in history the Muslims didn't believe that their prophet performed miracles, we can only see this denial in latter centuries, but never among the earliest, as the earliest surviving biography compiled by Ibn Ishaq mentioned tons of miracles performed by him, which I think you're aware of. Even the miracles compiled in canonical books of hadith are cited with chain of transmissions that goes back to the companion who narrated to have witnessed them. So the only possible way to assure this information is to have traveled to the 7th century to ask whether they believed Muhammad performed miracles or not, as the earliest sources says that he did. Jopharocen (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I fail to understand what you're trying to say here. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Rollback proposal

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)

• Support as proposer 23.150.152.38 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like this IP is a VPN Server. [1]. - Kaalakaa (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa: Please report this at WP:OPP, not here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Anachronist: Thank you, the IP has been blocked by @Firefly. - Kaalakaa (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Relevant diff (involving over 500 edits) is: here. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I think a that's to big of a mouthful, yes feathers has been ruffled but the content need a further debate. No blanket rollback. IP says: Works better yes. 213.237.84.215 (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support I strongly support the restoration of the 19:29, 8 June 2023 version which was more useful and easy to navigate. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I support the restoration of any other appropriate version. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I also support this given how the quality of sourcing has been degraded in the interim in such a sufficiently systemic way that restoring the page from its present point would otherwise simply involve 500 edits in the other direction. I am not fond of the idea of extreme rollbacks, but in this instance it feels warranted. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support - too many changes have been made by a single editor that have lacked the quality expected for a page as important as this one. Admiral90 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC) — Admiral90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Opppose because, aside from my opposition to restoring that unnecessary "battle record" that was added by a sockpuppet, overall the edits are a net improvement, albeit with problems introduced. In all those edits since Kaalakaa began editing this article, several excellent edits were made (I daresay most of them) and good sources added, with some minor exceptions. I think it's a better idea for us to embark on a project to review one days' worth of Kaalakaa's edits at a time, and ask Kaalakaa to voluntarily self-ban from this article (but not the talk page) until this task is done. One can do this easily in a single diff using the "compare selected revisions" feature. For example, Kaalakaa began editing on 12 June. Here is the single diff showing the result of all edits for 12 June. The text changes look OK to me, although I cannot judge the sourcing changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The edits are a mix of good and bad, so I can't get behind abandoning everything. Also questionable that this RfC was started by an IP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose -(Summoned by bot) AFAI can see, most of the edits are broadly constructive and the IP proposer hasn't made a case for such a drastic revert - nor detailed specifically what is wrong with text or sourcing for the present version. The proposed cure here is too drastic and we need specifics as to flaws in either content or sources. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is quite a muddle. There are some issues pointed out in the above (multiple) threads. The problem is there's clearly non-policy POV-based complaints there intermingled with some legitimate concerns around use of particular sources and WP:DUE. The corpus of edits are similarly difficult to untangle. Clearly many (most?) are fine. But what's more difficult to ascertain is whether there are some subtle and not-so-subtle shifts in the article driven by choice of source etc. There's a general lack of understanding on this because so much has changed in such a short time. I really don't know what the answer is. I agree a general roll-back is excessive. On the other hand I'm not sure Anachronist's proposed day-by-day review is feasible either. Probably not a helpful comment from me! :) DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support, a bit more tact and community feedback is needed on articles like this IMO.:Ortizesp (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The version of the article before my edits was plagued by numerous issues, such as WP:SYNTH [1]; WP:OR [2] [3]; source misrepresentation [4] [5], [6], cherry-picking by leaving out important information that seemed to adversely affect the subject's image from sources (which is contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED), etc. In my edits, I tried to correct these things, incorporated the previously omitted essential information (which if not included would cause disinformation), and added some more significant details based on the already existing sources and other more recent ones as per WP:AGEMATTERS. It took me almost 3 months to do this, so it wasn't short. And no one was disputing my edits until a new user, @Jopharocen, based on his understanding of primary sources, raised an issue with my edits, accusing me of putting my own interpretation of the primary sources into the article, which is proven wrong here. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated by Cuñado, Pincrete, and Kaalakaa. And my own rationale: people raising "neutrality issues" does not necessarily indicate a problem with the article; Muhammad's article will be contentious no matter what it looks like, due to the special interest in it from various groups. And even if it did have a problem, getting rid of all edits over a wide period, whether "good" or "bad", is not the right course of action. JM2023 (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a large rollback. It takes more work to look at edits one by one, but that work was put in one by one by an editor trying to improve the article. If editors are concerned, review the edits and fix them. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Article on Muhammad is clearly biased against him. I am not a Muslim, and for the most part I am an admirer of Wikipedia. But this article is an embarrasment to Wikipedia.

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)

Muhammad, Jesus, and Buddha are all different people with different actions and morals, of course the articles are going to be different. Muhammad's life and doings are reported neutrally from reliable sources. If you have a problem with the article, it's a problem you actually have with the sources, so you'll have to take it up with them. JM2023 (talk) 04:36, 12 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2023

The prophet favourite wife according to sunni tradition was Khadija SN2004 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Russ Rogers statements

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)

I think if Russ Rodgers is the only one saying something, and no one else is quoting Russ Rodgers (extremely probably given his low to non-existent impact factor), then it is definitely undue to be presenting his views - least of all his "inferences", for which we can in fact read "unevidenced claims outside of general scholarship". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The Russ Rodgers' book in question is:

• Rodgers, Russ (2017). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-5459-9.

Actually, if we read our WP:RS:

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.

That Rodgers' book can be classified as very reliable, as it is a publication from the University Press of Florida and has undergone peer-review and assessment by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida, [8]. Our WP:RSUW states that:

The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion

Therefore, the information in this book is also strongly WP:DUE. The book wasn't questioned until @Iskandar323 claimed, based on this link he brought forth, that Rodgers "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

When I informed him about this, he dismissed it, and he then tried to divert attention to Rodgers' expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [9]. After I told him that the "early Islamic warfare" refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [10], he said "the link is worthless" and he "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [11]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, he avoided the questions and went to another section, repeating the similar accusations [12]. His typical arguments are that Rodgers is just a person with modest military expertise [13] who has a hobby in history [14]. He appears to be unaware that there exist historian positions within the U.S. Army [15](even a specific directorate dedicated for them [16]), and Rodgers is their command historian [17], whose research results are, among other things, used to furnish the commander and staff with historical perspectives during the planning and implementation of operations [18]. 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)

Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT and stop repeating the same tired and refuted arguments over and over again in different threads. This spamming of the talk page with identikit responses is becoming disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Those blurbs about authors are typically written by the authors themselves. It doesn't contradict the assertion that Rodgers isn't a significant source that deserves any weight. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is important for clarifying to others about your false accusations against a reliable source. Whether they want to read it or not is their business. I provide the diffs and evidence that your accusation against Rodgers based on this link, that he 'falls well short of subject-matter expert,' [19] is a false accusation [20]. The same goes for your accusations that Rodgers is just a person with modest military expertise [21] who has a hobby in history [22] and "has little to no academic background" [23]. Because the fact is,

there exist historian positions within the U.S. Army [24] (even a specific directorate dedicated for them [25]), and Rodgers is their command historian [26], whose research results are, among other things, used to furnish the commander and staff with historical perspectives during the planning and implementation of operations. [27]

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)

This isn't a discussion about the source. That discussion has already been had above. As I said, stop bludgeoning other discussions with the same material. It's unhelpful. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue in this section is about Russ Rodgers' statements, and he is one of the sources. What are you even talking about? You were the one who started casting doubts on his credibility, marking all material sourced from him with 'undue' and 'dubious' tags [28] based on your many accusations against him, which, as I have explained above, are proven to be false. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you have not proven that Rodgers deserves any due weight here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Can you clarify what you mean by 'here'? Are you referring only to the two statements above or to the entire article, like how Iskandar labelled all material sourced from Rodgers as 'undue' and 'dubious' based on his allegations against him, which turned out to be incorrect? Kaalakaa (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"Here" refers to the article, as well as this talk page. The incorrectness of the allegations has not been established. I have responded to some of your arguments already that I found wanting, and I am not interested in rehashing them. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Sorry, but I think that I have explained just above how those accusations are incorrect by providing diffs, links, and direct quotations. If you don't inform me specifically where my explanations are wrong, how can I respond? BTW, have your read the book? 🙂 Kaalakaa (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that there appears to be consensus against including the passages, can someone whip up some draft proposals to replace them? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Inception of animosity against the Jews" section

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)

The title is egregiously POV - it's a massively leading title that basically attempts present a take on the story ahead of a reader reading the content, and is one of the more in-your-face examples of the page having been rewritten in an editorialized manner. It also steps outside of the general chronology of the parent section (which would naturally begin at the "Following the Battle of Badr..." paragraph) to instead provide a somewhat argumentative intro paragraph on general relations between the Muslims and Jews that assists in setting up the POV then conveyed by the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: What's the solution here, is it to remove the content, or to remove the subheading and move the content elsewhere in the article? We already have an article for Muhammad's views on Jews to cover this content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Sorry, I can't agree with the deletion of the content, but if it's about changing the title, I'm open to that. The content in this section is important for understanding the causes of the subsequent events. Wikipedia is written in sections, with each section containing only a few paragraphs. To make it easier to categorize, I created the section about the origins of the hostility towards the Jews, separate from the previous section which is about the start of the armed conflict with the Quraysh. This is more or less similar to the World War II article, where even though at the end of the section on the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) already discusses the event in 1939, the next section on the Japanese invasion of China (1937) goes back to discussing events from 1937. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely rename it and delete the out-of-context first para? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That first paragraph is essential for informing readers about Muhammad's motives for his subsequent actions toward the Jews. Unless you want to violate WP:NOTCENSORED, go ahead and delete it. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I changed the section heading to "Tensions with followers of Judaism". ~Anachronist (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

And I changed it to "Conflicts with Jewish tribes". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Conflict with the Jewish tribes in Mecca" as that is the specific Jewish tribes and not the religious affiliation that was in conflict.

IP says: Works better yes. 62.243.86.69 (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That's better too. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but, for your information, there were no Jews living in Mecca at that time. They resided in settlements outside Mecca, such as Medina, Khaybar, Fadak, and others. That's why when the Quraysh people wanted to inquire with the Jews to verify the prophethood of Muhammad, they sent two individuals, Nadr and Uqba, to Medina. Kaalakaa (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

No objection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2023

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)

If there is no reliable source cited in your changed lede, or already in the article elsewhere, for "Muhammad ibn Abdullah", then this change is very unlikely to be executed. JM2023 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

But no source is needed for this; his full name being "Muhammad ibn Abdullah" is a known fact, plus "Ali ibn Abi Talib" in the Ali article is unsourced yet accepted, as well as "Umar ibn Khattab", etc. ―Emperor ÖSMAN IXXVMD (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

muhammad's "full name" is not a known fact, and just because other articles don't source a full name doesn't mean they're not supposed to. we don't have to cite the sky being blue because everyone knows the sky is blue, but most people don't know muhammad's full name. for example I didn't know his full name. JM2023 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim is in the article, first paragraph under Life, with a source. In reality, I don't think there's any standard answer on how far back in the genealogy to go with the Nasab. I suspect somewhere there's a WP:CONSENSUS view that "Muhammad" uniquely satisfies the MOS:FIRST requirement for this article - it's not going to be confused with any other Muhammad. Plus there's the footnote. (Btw, EmperorÖsman, Appellation = Name.) DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

so if it's already in the article and sourced then it can be placed in the lede unsourced, but it's up to whoever answers the request on whether to do that or not; I don't have the power to edit ECP articles, so it won't be me JM2023 (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work like that. Before using using the edit request functionality, a consensus must first be obtained for the edit. That's not been done in this case - I've switched the request to 'answered' because of that. DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

clearly that doesn't occur very often, I didn't even know about it. Maybe it is supposed to be like that, but I've never seen it done like that. I assumed it works the same way as any other edit, which is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle JM2023 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources if there were Meccan non-Quraysh tribes that were in opposition to Muhammad.

@Iskandar323, in your latest edit to the article [29], 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)

Obviously the Quraysh were the dominant, ruling tribe, but there were plenty of different tribes in Mecca, which was by no means tribally monolithic. There are plenty of sources that discuss these events simply in term of the "Meccans". Esposito, for example: "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.

What I'm asking is if there are sources that say that there were other Meccan non-Quraysh tribes that were also in opposition to Muhammad at that time, since afaik many sources use Meccans and Quraysh interchangeably. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If the sources use Meccans (general) and Quraysh (specific) interchangeably, that means the information is ambiguous, and only the general term can suitably cover all the bases. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: you are correct, source speaks only about the Umayyad clan as the core of the Quraysh tribe - at least in this specific source and quote.. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why's there no IPA transcription of his name and an audio recording of the pronunciation of his name?

Title. MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:MOSISLAM regarding the NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet"

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)

Aisha incorrect Age of Marriage

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)

Please read WP:OR. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This is false. Rasulullah ﷺ married Aishah رضي الله عنها at 9 years old. As multiple hadiths prove. Dylanmadeanedit (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

Please correct to Prophet Muhammad was the last messenger of Islam. He was an Arab..... Mustafarahman01 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Tollens (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Time to mothball the images sub-page?

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)

I think we should keep it. Image related discussions do come up and they get moved to that sub page.

However, clearly drive-by complaints should be reverted on sight. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca".

Context is important, and adding a link to the treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please see WP:CIRCULAR. Melmann 23:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hijrah : Subjectivity, "acted with prudence."

Resolved

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)

Go ahead. There are many edits from Kaalaka that need to be examined and reverted or corrected if needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Shonebrooks: Hi, I don't mind the word itself being removed. I merely tried to adhere to the source, which uses the wording "after his failure at Ta’if, he proceeded with care and circumspection." I simply reworded the phrase "care and circumspection" to "prudence" to avoid copyvio and since, according to dictionary.com, they have about the same meaning. Btw, Shonebrooks, thanks for your efforts in copyediting. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Shonebrooks, "Preferring non-judgmental language" isn't the same as NPOV. WP:NPOV requires neutrality in the representation of sources. If the sources have "judgmental" subjective opinion and we don't reflect that then that is a violation of NPOV. However, in this case I agree it should be reworded, but because it's unclear what is meant. I don't have access to the source - why was it "prudent"? I suggest it needs to be expanded to explain why - if the source does. Indeed, I find a lot of the wording in that paragraph quite opaque - it doesn't really explain the sequence of events very clearly, in my opinion. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry if it seemed I was suggesting they are the same. I was merely pulling point #4 from the WP:NPOV page's Explanation section, "Prefer nonjudgmental language." My POV is that describing an act as either prudent or imprudent would be equally more judgmental than if I avoid either qualification and just describe the action with a more neutral/factual tone. Hope that helps assuage any lingering concerns.

To @Kaalakaa's point, since that POV was included in the source, perhaps it should be retained as neutral reporting of the source's non-neutral POV.

Together, your input draws two related questions to the forefront of my thinking.

1. Which would better adhere to WP's spirit of neutrality, retaining judgmental language (favorable or unfavorable) in the source, or removing it to leave purported facts described without such subjective qualification? This is more of a WP guidelines question, I think.

2. If WP:NPOV is better served by retaining the subjectivity found in such a source, in this specific case, does anyone know of similarly reliable secondary sources that describe Muhammad's action here more critically? If so, then NPOV should perhaps be sought by balancing the one with the other. At the moment, I don't know of such a source. ShoneBrooks (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy to be of constructive service. I have enjoyed reviewing the article more than I anticipated. ShoneBrooks (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: 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)

@Anachronist: no that's not what I was saying. I was referring to sources (plural), not an individual source. If sources are "judgmental" about Hitler, we reflect that per WP:DUE. What you are talking about is an individual source having an idiosyncratic opinion. The point I was countering is that "judgmental" language is inherently anti-NPOV. It isn't and avoiding opionated language when called for by the sources and DUE is a violation of NPOV (per Hitler). DeCausa (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Shonebrooks: Glad to hear that. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the thought that went into these comments. Thank you. Thinking carefully about @Kaalakaa's description of the source text, I can now see how the word "prudent" could be read in a neutral voice when its secondary usage is applied; "careful in providing for the future." So leaving it unchanged seems reasonable to me now more so than upon first review. However, changing the phrase to "Thinking strategically, Muhammad sent an agent" probably captures the idea of the source's intent (Muhammad was not just making half-hazard decisions here, but was thinking about how best to meet his objective/s), with less potential to confuse that statement with a more judgmental assessment as to whether his action was "prudent" (wise) or "imprudent" (unwise), and thus avoiding the need to determine if other sources with different assessments might need to be added to balance such a view. Any major objections that change being applied? ShoneBrooks (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Shonebrooks: Hm... so I just checked the books in my library and noticed that Rodinson and some others also cover this fact, but they don't seem to give such a commentary. Though if it still needs to be included, which I don't mind, but "with prudence" is not okay, how about changing it to "with caution"? Anyway, from my reading session, I also found some important information that I think is worth including, and so I've done some rewriting of the article. I also moved the first paragraph of the Medinan Years section into the beginning of the Hijra section, so that there would be no need to repeat who Banu Aws and Khazraj were and the background conditions in Medina at that time, etc. If anyone objects, feel free to raise it here. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Yes, "Cautiously" or "With caution" were a couple options I was entertaining alongside "strategically" or "In a calculated move." I can live with a "prudence" variation, as you see fit. ShoneBrooks (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Prudence had demanded that I leave her behind, so I was alone. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Required change

Hi Team,

Please add (s.a.w.) next to Muhammad name.

Must be Muhammad (s.a.w)

Reference : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_honorifics#:~:text=%E1%B9%A3all%C4%81%20%2Dll%C4%81hu%20%CA%BFalayh%C4%AB%20wa%2Dsallam,is%20used%20by%20all%20Muslims.

Thanks, A.S Averaciousspeaker (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't do that. Please see MOS:SAWW. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not possible? Averaciousspeaker (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Because of MOS:SAWW. We don't use those sort of honorifics because it is contrary to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. DeCausa (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of Mohammed

Why isn't there any attempt to at least put a portrait of what Mohammed might have looked like? I know it's a hard topic for Muslims because they are forbidden to draw any imagery of the prophet or God but this is a neutral article right? RickyBlair668 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you had in mind but the article currently has 8 pictures of Muhammad. Did you miss them? DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If you mean as a WP:LEADIMAGE, there has absolutely been attempts. A few short comments on that at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#Question_2:_What_image_should_appear_in_the_infobox?. Most depictors seem to have guessed that Muhammad had a beard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. And all the portraits available today not depicts how he exactly look like. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 17:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the calligraphic representation should remain in the infobox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Arabic IPA transcription

[mʊ'ħɑ:mæd] GreatLeader1945 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No objection from this editor. ShoneBrooks (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Timeline template being too long and distracting

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)

It appears collapsed to me (I'm on laptop), and I think it should be collapsed. I wouldn't mind if the infobox could be made shorter as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it works on desktop. Thanks. 😀 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It shows as collapsed by default for me both on mobile and desktop. ShoneBrooks (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, really? Your phone browser is set to desktop view, perhaps? Or maybe it depends on the brand? In my case, let alone collapsing, even the "hide" option is missing. 😅 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)