Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Images depicting prophet muhammad PBUH: moving to subpage per instructions
Line 219: Line 219:
::::::{{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}, I edit using smartphones but I use the desktop site. Accordingly, I do not see things like most mobile editors do. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 16:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}, I edit using smartphones but I use the desktop site. Accordingly, I do not see things like most mobile editors do. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 16:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Fair enough. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Fair enough. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2022 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=no}}
Add this to other religion section:
By some members of the [[Ahmadiya Muslim Community]], [[Muhammed|Islamic Prophet Muhammad]] is believed to be the [[Hindu]] [[Avatar]] [[Kalki]]; some of the Muslim scholars and a few of the Hindu scholars<ref name=voice>{{cite web | url=http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.97/OURD.HTM | title=OUR DIALOGUE * Kaliki Avtar | publisher=Islamic Voice | date=November 1997 | access-date=21 February 2016}}</ref><ref name="Milli" >{{Cite web|url = http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2005/01-15Feb05-Print-Edition/011502200574.htm|title = Muhammad in Hindu scriptures|access-date = 2014-11-06|work = [[Milli Gazette]]}}</ref> including also argued that Kalki is mentioned indicating Muhammad in some Hindu scriptures.<ref name="Milli"/><ref>{{cite book | title = Oxford Handbook of Global Religions | first = Mark | last = Juergensmeyer | publisher =Oxford University Press | location = Oxford | year = 2006 | page = 520 | isbn = 978-0-19-513798-9| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=lQMurMhRtfIC&q=mirza+ghulam+ahmad+and+kalki&pg=PA520
}}</ref> Ved Prakash Upaddhayya, a Hindu scolar, claimed [[Muhammad]] as Kalki in his book [[Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb]],<ref>{{cite book |last1=Sikand |first1=Yoginder |title=Muslims in India Since 1947: Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Faith Relations |date=31 July 2004 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-37825-8 |page=241 |url=https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=yf5aJi2loLcC&pg=PA241&dq=kalki+muhammad+ved+prakash&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2oOfPxPz4AhVgTWwGHeXuBYg4ChDoAXoECAYQAw#v=onepage&q=kalki%20muhammad%20ved%20prakash&f=false |access-date=16 July 2022 |language=en}}</ref> which arguement was both welcomed and criticised by both Hindu and Muslim scholars. [[Special:Contributions/116.58.202.38|116.58.202.38]] ([[User talk:116.58.202.38|talk]]) 04:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:24, 16 July 2022

Template:Vital article Error: The code letter muh-im for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Good articleMuhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 2, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
May 14, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 19, 2012.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, June 8, 2006, and June 8, 2018.
Current status: Good article

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.

Please Add " ﷺ " After the Name of Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ﷺ. This is Compulsary

Please Add " ﷺ " After the Name of Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ﷺ. This is Compulsary — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyedNaqwi (talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not on this website, see MOS:ISLAMHON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This makes about as much sense as a British traffic cop on vacation in the United States trying to issue citations for all those drivers who are driving on the wrong side of the road. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of rhetoric is not helpful, and can only ratchet up tensions in a sensitive topic area. A neutral "no, and this is why" type of msg as the first responder did is sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False information

Muhammad (s.a.w) was not founder of islam. But he was the last profet of allah Islam is a deen not a religion. The founder of islam is adam(a.s) 103.111.34.163 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So right at the top of this page and the page you were just at to type this message, it asks you to read the FAQ to see if your issue is addressed there. It is. Please read the answer to Question 6 at the top of the page. Singularity42 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islam was not founded by Muhammad (pbuh) but Muhammad was the last messenger of Allah .Allah has sent islam from start of this world for every human being

Kindly go through the Quran where Prophet muhammad (pbuh) is always shown as a messenger of islam not the founder..Islam was way behind Muhammad pbuh birth..from the time of first human being Adam alaisalam..kindly go through the Quran there are number of refrences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:B:FB95:6A78:46CC:85F2:B2A (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides reading the answer to Question 6 (which that big bold-letter box asked you to read before posting this), I literally just answered this question right above your note. Usually a good idea to read the page you are about to post on before, well, posting on it. Singularity42 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Final prophet" claim needs rewording

The lead section currently states he is: "believed to be the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though the modern Ahmadiyya movement diverges from this belief". This is not entirely accurate and the difference is actually more subtle. Virtually no branch of Islam, except perhaps the Quranists and some modernists, believes him to be final in an absolute and unqualified sense since they believe Jesus is still alive and expect his return after prophet Muhammad's death, though they do not see this as violating his finality. Conversely, Ahmadis too believe him to be the final prophet though they too do not view the coming of a subordinate prophet upholding the law of Islam as violating his finality. Both positions qualify the finality in some way and the Ahmadi position on this doesn't diverge from this belief, if it does at all, any more than that of most other Islamic groups who believe in a living Jesus. The statement as it currently stands is therefore misleading.

I propose that the statement: "he is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets in all branches of Islam" more accurately covers both positions. The different understandings of the term 'Seal of the Prophets' can also be outlined in a footnote, or reference to the Ahmadiyya movement omitted altogether from the lead. I would welcome other ideas. -- Sirius86 16:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is really misleading. I fully support your proposal. Mosesheron (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seal of the prophets is more accurate, yes, and linkable. Though in the sense of finality, Jesus returning on judgement day doesn't really affect this. It would also be best to avoid statements about Ahmadiyya belief in the lead since the status of this religious denomination within Islam is heavily disputed, and it is in any case not really due in the lead summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely link it, otherwise the term would be confusing to people like me who, upon first seeing it many years ago, wondered how and why Muhammad would have obtained a seal as a pet.
Oh, and I support the proposal too. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for the input. I will edit the statement accordingly and add a note. -- Sirius86 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:6A7:7D00:68F3:CBD1:5CEE:AB2 (talk) [reply]

Signature

The signature that is there is true it is false misconception 105.160.93.62 (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

..."false misconception" is logically something correct, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's both 'true' and a 'false misconception', so double confirmation! ;P Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When did the Prophet die?

As per various early sources, documented by Stephen Shoemaker, Muhammad bin Abdullah died in 634-5 AD and not 632 AD, after launching the conquest of Palestine. On the other hand, as per Shoemaker, the Islamic biographies indicating that Muhammad died in 632 AD are 8th century texts, thus less reliable. Teerthaloke102 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current ref on death-date is [1] (U.S. News & World Report), and IMO the article should have a better ref than that. Atm I have no view on the WP:RS-ness of Stephen Shoemaker. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2022

In the first paragraph it is wrongly mentioned as prophet Mohammed is the founder of islam . But according correct islamic sources from sahih bukhari and Muslim and also from quran itself , prophet Mohammed is not the founder of islam, he is final messenger of islam . Please correct it. Thank you 2409:4071:D94:2578:0:0:FAC8:D601 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see FAQ6 Cannolis (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constant questions covered in the FAQ

This talk page seems to continuously recieve the same sort of questions about things that are already covered in the FAQ. I think we need to at least consider the idea of reverting these basic questions instead of constantly answering them, as they don't add any substantial value to conversations about improving the article. Has a moratorium on these questions been considered before? --Spekkios (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes WP:DENY is appropriate, other times we shouldn't just revert good-faith (presumably new) users. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't read talk page headers. In fact, I daresay most people who post these repeated questions are drive-by editors who never return to this talk page. I have, in the past, reverted such questions from this talk page and replied on the editor's talk page (if it's a registered user and not an IP address) but I've found, typically, that the account was created solely for the purpose of repeating a FAQ question here, and years later that is still the only edit ever made by the account. So it isn't just drive-by postings, but also drive-by account creations. If we revert them all with an edit summary linking to the FAQ, then I'm confident that 90% of the time, the questioner won't even notice. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that for editors like the IP in the section above this page looks something like this:[2]. I can't blame them very much for ignoring the FAQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That tells me that we should have a "sticky" section at the top of this page that never gets archived and links to the FAQ. I believe if there is no dated signature in the section, the archiver leaves it alone. I've just added it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should leave it, but I added {{DNAU}} anyway. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, it improved the visibility. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this on mobile, I see a section title "Frequently asked questions". If I am fired with righteousness, it has nothing in that title to make me pause to bother looking at it. As can be seen from the other (equal status) section heads, these are not questions but outright assertions that the article as it stands has grave theological errors that need to be corrected! right now! So can anyone think of a more 'attention grabbing' section head that will actually intercept such misunderstandings? "READ THIS FIRST" is maybe too much? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are fired with righteousness, or just a bit banner blind or whatever, you wont bother to look at it on non-mobile either. Still, making it more visible can't hurt. I'll try bolding the title. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Cullen328, if you have any input on the above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I edit using smartphones but I use the desktop site. Accordingly, I do not see things like most mobile editors do. Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

Add this to other religion section: By some members of the Ahmadiya Muslim Community, Islamic Prophet Muhammad is believed to be the Hindu Avatar Kalki; some of the Muslim scholars and a few of the Hindu scholars[1][2] including also argued that Kalki is mentioned indicating Muhammad in some Hindu scriptures.[2][3] Ved Prakash Upaddhayya, a Hindu scolar, claimed Muhammad as Kalki in his book Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb,[4] which arguement was both welcomed and criticised by both Hindu and Muslim scholars. 116.58.202.38 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "OUR DIALOGUE * Kaliki Avtar". Islamic Voice. November 1997. Retrieved 21 February 2016.
  2. ^ a b "Muhammad in Hindu scriptures". Milli Gazette. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
  3. ^ Juergensmeyer, Mark (2006). Oxford Handbook of Global Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 520. ISBN 978-0-19-513798-9.
  4. ^ Sikand, Yoginder (31 July 2004). Muslims in India Since 1947: Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Faith Relations. Routledge. p. 241. ISBN 978-1-134-37825-8. Retrieved 16 July 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=1098505471"