Talk:Muhammad

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.)

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)

The editors are deliberately not agreeing to the edit. I raised this point about most muslims first but was threatened with a block. Considering Muhammad as the last prophet is one of the tenets of Islam. Of the less than 1% Ahmadiya community, the Lahori sect believes in it as well. Writing most muslims deliberately gives the impression that a sizeable proportion may not adhere to this belief. I suggest it should be edited to almost all muslims.--Maajed (talk) 16:40, 16 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)

honorific -Difference between Prophet Muhammed and Politicans (ie Thatcher)?

Why should Margaret Thatcher honorific have here honorific (Right Honourable) but not the prophet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.14.251 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Which honorific do you think should be appended? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Or prefixed? And I don't see any article referring to Margaret Thatcher as "the Right Honorable Margaret Thatcher". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The top of her infobox. All the same, I'm unconvinced that Mohammed actually has an honorific. His name is sometimes proceeded by his "job title" and sometimes followed by a blessing, but are these "honorifics"? Formerip (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. We had a discussion some time ago about the plethora of honorifics in the Muhammad infobox and settled on its current form, simply putting "Prophet of Islam" at the top. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I was about the SAW (Peace be upon him (Islam)), you can at least acknowledge and link it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.142.88 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is acknowledged and linked in the forth paragraph of the article. I think most editors believe we should talk about it but not adopt it, because Wikipedia is not a Muslim (or a Christian, or a Jew etc). Formerip (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Right Honorable" is a title for Margaret Thatcher, not just an honorific, and that title comes from her profession, like "Doctor" would. The fact that it happens to be in her infobox doesn't mean it belongs there, and doesn't imply anything about any other infobox. Muhammad had no title associated with his profession, no title during his lifetime except possibly "prophet". SAW and PBUH are not titles, they are honorifics, and we don't use honorifics.

See also:

• Our guideline on this, WP:PBUH.
• Extensive archived discussion on honorifics in the Muhammad infobox: Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Titles in infobox
• Even more extensive archived discussion on honorifics in infoboxes in general, not just Muhammad: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Titles in Infoboxes

All of those things led to the infobox we have today. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why on the fourth paragraph? Its very important with muslims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.142.88 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is part of the leading section which shows it is important to the religious group, but overall with the impact to history I wouldn't exactly put it above the religious importance, his effects on society or anything else already in the lead. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

LaMartine

The reader feedback for this article included a post pointing out that the LaMartine quote was not in the indicated source. For reference, the book is here. Turns out it was in the first volume, rather than the second. Note that this is the French version. I am not sure where the English translation comes from; it seems too good to have been done by a contributor (this could probably do with looking into, so Wikipedia credits the translator). JN466 18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)