Talk:Muhammad

Template:DS Courtesy Notice

Birth year

The article says "Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca"... The birth year of his is actually 571. Could someone please correct it? Thanks in advance. - 85.102.102.237 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bulletin of SOAS article, one of the cited sources, actually says "about" 570. I did a quick Google Books search on this and both 570 and 571 come up. One book says that there is a variety of years proposed between 567 and 573 but that 571 is the "most common". It should probably at minimum change to "about" 570. Any expert knowledge out there? For the moment I'll insert "about" which then at least ties in with the currently cited source. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an appropriate place to use the word "circa" as in "Born circa 570". It helps maintain the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia without sounding weaselly. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The opening of the "Childhood and early life" says "Muhammad was born in the month of Rabi' al-awwal in 570." I was about to add about/circa to the year but then it looks rather strange being so specific about the month. It's unsourced. DeCausa (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The date of birth, date of death and age at death are mutually inconsistent. I doubt that this makes any difference to the main content of the article but it gives a handle to those who routinely rubbish Wikipedia's accuracy. NetherWyndham (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like the birth date of Christ, claims of a specific day, month or year of Muhammad's birth are based on (much later) traditional sources. There is more on this in Muhammad in Mecca and a cautionary note addressing this problem inserted in the Talk page nearly three years ago. AstroLynx (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should read something like "Muhammad was born in about 570, and, by Muslim tradition, in the month of Rabi' al-awwal" with a citation. I'll look for one. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Even more in line with traditional sources would be "Muhammad was born in about 570, and, by Muslim tradition, in the month of Rabi' al-awwal on a Monday". AstroLynx (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How about saying "...born circa 570..."? -- Frotz(talk) 10:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten to post that I'd already made the changes to the lead and the "Childhood and early life" section. In the latter, regarding the month, rather than refer to "Muslim tradition" (which is a little weasily) I've said that his birthday is 'usually' celebrated by Muslims in that month, (with source) which, I think, is a more tangible way of putting it. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One book I checked cited a work by a 19th-century Egyptian astronomer Mahmud Pasha. A summary of his findings can be found in this book, p.465. Also, if 571 is more common then we should use that instead of 570. Full citation follows: Sherrard Beaumont Burnaby (1901). Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan calendars : with rules and tables and explanatory notes on the Julian and Gregorian calendars. G. Bell. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference I gave said 571 was more common but I saw another one saying 570 was preferred. I'm not sure that a 1901 analysis is really reliable compared to all the modern works. I think the issue is not only translation from the lunar year but when the Year of the Elephant actually happened - I don't think 571 or 570 are the only choices. I think there is, looking cumulatively at all the sources, pretty clearly mixed views and "about/circa" is the most we should say. I think the bottom line is "no one knows". DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, we should prefer sources that give more details about how such a number was derived. A modern source that just mentions a number "in passing" does not seem useful. For an example of how a modern biography deals with this question, see note no. 1 on this page (and page 55). Modern sources still refer to old sources, like that of Mahmud Pasha, which rely on Eclipse information and the positions of stars known to the pre-Islamic Arabs. Thus we should either use "c. 570-571", followed by citations supporting both, or we should write a more elaborate account similar to the one found in the note. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A more modern study by Muhammad Hamidullah in the February 1969 issue of The Islamic Review & Arab Affairs, pp. 6-12 argues for Monday 17 June 569 as the date of Muhammad's birth. AstroLynx (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Wiqqi55's last sentence: does much really turn on this? It does seem rather "undue" to go into much detail. We could add to "about/circa" 570 a statement that there is scholarly debate/uncertainty about the exact year. But other than than that I don't think there is much benefit in a detailed analysis in this general article - that would be better for either Mawlid or Year of the Elephant both of which are wikilinked in the article. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Circa 570 would (in my opinion) be the best solution. Just wanted to point out that there are also proponents for 569 as birth year (in addition to 570 and 571). This topic should perhaps in the future deserve a seperate page. AstroLynx (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with this too (now that I know of 569 being common too). But we should still fix the birth date as given in the infobox. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do recommend you all buy the most recent work on the topic "Chronology of Prophetic Events". It deals with all the evidence, answers all questions and shows that the issue is not really that complicated at all.62.255.75.224 (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at it. It very much takes a religious Islamic perspective. The issue isn't just about translating hadith etc into the Gregorian calendar. Some Western scholarship questions if even 570/571 is right and whether the traditional view is in fact decades out, principally through looking at other historical evidence for the Year of the Elephant. DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Other Criticism

This is a response to me which is unrelated to the improvement of the article. Cleaning up after the mess I created.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You said; "Anyway they (Meccans) wanted to negotiate, they tried to make peace, but it was Muhammad who never showed up with his peacefulness." Their negotiation was that he stopped preaching. That's not negotiating, that's force (What prophet, would stop preaching a message who he believes is from God? Unless he was a liar and had some material aims?). And in that Tribal lawless society, there was no rules against preaching. I think you're completely missing the point here, you said; ""it is very disingenuous of you to claim that calling somebody's forefathers "fools" or abusing them is not to be regarded as derogatory!"" So you believe that Richard Dawkins, who says people who follow religion over reason/logic are fools, should be given good grounds for persecuting and killed? It's stuff like this in which the pagans would've taken it offensively; When it is said to them: "Follow what God hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance? (2:170) Nay! they say: "We found our fathers following a certain religion, and we do guide ourselves by their footsteps." (43:22) He said: "What! Even if I brought you better guidance than that which ye found your fathers following?" They said: "For us, we deny that ye (prophets) are sent (on a mission at all)." (43:24) When it is said to them: "Come to what Allah hath revealed; come to the Messenger": They say: "Enough for us are the ways we found our fathers following." what! even though their fathers were void of knowledge and guidance? (5:104) ^That was "insulting" for them. Yet, I don't see how Muhammad could've gone about it differently, he had to try and tell them why what they're doing/following is wrong, and had to use their forefathers as an example to say; "only reason you're a pagan, is because that's what your forefathers were". EVEN Muhammad's own parents were pagans, indicating that he was simply arguing from a reasoned position, rather than to simply insult someone. If the pagans went into a debate today, they would find anything insulting. You then said; "For one, he could have kept his religion to himself;" Then what would be the point for his call to Prophethood? The reason (in Islamic theology) he was given the job of Prophethood, was so he could deliver a message (which was a warning of the hellfire) to all his people. Like in Christianity/Judaism, if you're not a person of that faith, you're bound for hell. Muhammad keeping his religion to himself would've been seen as selfish. After you said; "or could have refrained from reviling others' religion or abusing dead ancestors." Already explained the ancestors part above. As fore reviling others (I take it religion)? Then this was based on The Meccans interpreting the Prophet's call to one God as being insulting since the implications of it meant that their forefathers were wrong and polytheistic pagans. From the Islamic viewpoint, the Qur'an also illustrates how illogical their beliefs were, which they interpreted to be an insult to their intellect. When the verse "Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell" (21:98) was revealed this disappointed the Quraysh and they said: "He insulted our gods". (Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani in his Muwafaqah al-Khubr al-Khabar, Volume 2, page 173 declared this narration to be hasan.) Did he not just say what was truthful to his religious beliefs? Is that not what Christianity, Judaism and many other religions in the world say. Should we now say that Jesus instigated his persecution by insulting the Jewish Romans? The point is, it's wrong to say that Muhammad "insulted" the pagans forefathers/gods (from the western understanding of the word). It's more accurate to say that they interpreted Muhammad's preaching that monotheism is true and polytheism is false to be offensive. Note: If you want to see who insulted who first; According to Sahih Muslim, [the Prophet said:] (By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, no one from these nations -- Jewish or Christian -- hears of me then does not believe in me, but he will enter Hell.) Many Hadiths have been narrated concerning the revelation of this Ayah, some of which we will quote below: Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, recorded that Ibn `Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "When Allah revealed the Ayah, (And warn your tribe of near kindred.), the Prophet went to As-Safa', climbed up and called out, (O people!) The people gathered around him, some coming of their own accord and others sending people on their behalf to find out what was happening. The Messenger of Allah said: «íóÇ Èóäöí ÚóÈúÏöÇáúãõØøóáöÈö¡ íóÇ Èóäöí ÝöåúÑò¡ íóÇÇóÈäöí áõÄóíó¡ ÃóÑóÃóíúÊõãú áóæú ÃóÎúÈóÑúÊõßõãú Ãóäøó ÎóíúáðÇ ÈöÓóÝúÍö åóÐóÇ ÇáúÌóÈóáö ÊõÑíÏõ Ãóäú ÊõÛöíÑó Úóáóíúßõãú ÕóÏøóÞúÊõãõæäöí¿» (O Bani `Abd Al-Muttalib, O Bani Fihr, O Bani Lu'ayy! What do you think, if I told you that there was a cavalry at the foot of this mountain coming to attack you -- would you believe me) They said, "Yes. He said: (Then I warn you of a great punishment that is close at hand.)

Maajed's comment

User: Maajed:: Hello! Why can't I edit the introduction?? No edit button comes up there though I can see edit buttons throughout the article after that. In the introduction it has been wrongly written that Muhammad is considered the last prophet by most muslims. It quotes Ahmadiyas as the exception. Please be aware that the Ahmadi sect does not fall under the purview of Islam, as such, this sentence should be either deleted or written as: He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maajed (talk • contribs) 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That you don't consider them to be Muslim is irrelevant: they describe themselves as Muslim, and they subscribe to the beliefs that are typically used to identify Muslims.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

--Maajed (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Hi there! While trying to make a minor edit by deleting the word "most" to the sentence from: " He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by most Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind.[3][n 1] to "He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind.[3][n 1]" --I encountered a lot of resistance and while three users undid this edit one of them came up with a warning that my account will be suspended for indulging in an "edit war". Please bear in mind that two parties start a "war" as such sending warning messages to me is unfair. Let's discuss this edit: By adding the Ahmadiya sect to this statement 2 things arise: 1) Are Ahmadi's muslims? Take this excerpt from Wikipedia: The Muslim World League held its annual conference at Mecca, Saudi Arabia from 14th to 18th of Rabiul Awwal 1394 H (April 1974) in which 140 delegations of Muslim countries and organisations from all over the world participated. At the conference, the League issued the following declaration: Qadianism or Ahmadiyyat: It is a subversive movement against Islam and the Muslim world, which falsely and deceitfully claims to be an Islamic sect; who under the guise of Islam and for the sake of mundane interests contrives and plans to damage the very foundations of Islam". 2) What does "most" mean in the statement? This brings us to the question: Where does the Ahmadi sect stand statistically? I propose that the word "most" along with the reference to the Ahmadiyya community be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maajed (talk • contribs)

It's very difficult to talk to you when you keep placing your comments in completely irrelevant sections. This is the second time I've moved one. Yes, you are edit-warring. You keep making the same change over and over despite the fact that multiple editors have undone them. If you continue down that path, you will find your account blocked. In answer to your questions:

1. The Ahamadi are certainly Muslims. That most other Muslims don't accept them only means that they are a small minority. This is similar to the situation that Mormons find themselves in: many Christians don't accept Mormons as being Christian, despite the fact that any objective outside observer can see that they are simply a small denomination of Christianity with some unusual beliefs.
2. "Most" means "more than half, but not all".—Kww(talk) 13:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Death and tomb section

There are a few things I am looking at in this section, the first:

followers destroyed nearly every tomb dome in Medina in order to prevent their veneration,[194] and the one of Muhammad is said to have narrowly escaped.[195] Similar events took place in 1925 when the Saudi militias retook—and this time managed to keep—the city.[196][197][198] In the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, burial is to take place in unmarked graves.[195] Although frowned upon by the Saudis, many pilgrims continue to practice a ziyarat—a ritual visit—to the tomb.[199][200]

The bolded sentence seems out of place to me, like these paragraphs should be restructured. I also think the 'narrowly escaped' should be changed because it makes it sound like his body was moved even though it is still burried there. Last, would it make more sense in the final sentence to say 'many pilgrims practice a ritual visit called a ziyarat to the tomb' with a link from the word ziyarat? It is unnecessarily long. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

it should be (all Muslims) because believing he is the last prophet is one of the pillars of Islam "and by most Muslims as the last prophet sent by God" 2.90.159.133 (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The note says not all Muslims believe that, so "most" is the correct word and not "all" RudolfRed (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. "Most" is anything over 50%. AFAIK, it's only the Ahmadiyya (Nation of Islam?!) that don't accept this, and even the some Ahmadiyya (the Lahori Ahmadiyya) do accept it. The note says "for example" the Ahmadiyya, implying that there are others. Given that the Ahmadiyya are a tiny proportion of Muslims globally and if they are the only ones that don't accept this, does "most" (even if technically correct) and "for example" give a misleading impression? Should "most" be "almost all" and the note be specifically about the Ahmadiyya? DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Would something like "traditional Muslim belief is..." be preferable to "most Muslims believe..."? Resolute 13:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

"Muhammad is generally considered to be the founder of Islam, although this is a view not shared by Muslims".

Who doesn't share it? Ahmadiyat(are less than 1%). So, why is is the minority views being taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.1.156 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslims believe that God founded Islam and that Adam was the first prophet, as the next part of the sentence plainly states. Riagu (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyat likely don't share the view that Muhammad founded Islam, either. What sets them apart is that they don't view Muhammad as the final prophet, that's all. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)