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
Haney G. (talk | contribs)
11 edits
Haney G. (talk | contribs)
11 edits
Line 275: Line 275:


If so, then the sentence is biased.
If so, then the sentence is biased.

"he '''is''' the founder" = decisive statement displaying no hesitation.
"he '''is''' the founder" = decisive statement displaying no hesitation.

"regarded by Muslims" = maybe they are right or maybe they are wrong.
"regarded by Muslims" = maybe they are right or maybe they are wrong.


Revision as of 17:20, 21 August 2009

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Misleading "Founder of religion"

I think it best we don't take sides in this issue. Instead of saying he is the founder of the religion, which muslims undoubtedly reject, we could simply take that part out and state objectively that he is regarded by muslims as messenger and prophet of God. Claiming he is the founder doesn't fall under neutral point of view. Let's not forget that there are also many non-muslims who don't believe he is the founder. ~ Madesinasia (talk), 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Stating that Muhammad was the founder of Islam is a simple exercise in logic -- where is it written there was a religion called "Islam" prior to Muhammad's ministry? Who are these non-Muslims who don't believe he founded Islam? If you're talking about what Abraham and Melchizedek practiced, that wasn't Islam. Frotz (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A simple exercise in logic would have lead to a more neutral statement, one w/o bias. As for your citation of Abraham and Melchizedek, you didn't bother to state from which perspective, I assume you know there are over a billion people who think otherwise. More importantly, it's irrelevant. The entire purpose of this article was to educate people on Muhammad. Using sources. Your logic isn't a source.Madesinasia (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these non-Muslims who don't believe Muhammad founded Islam? Frotz (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article both views are present in the same sentence, both majority and minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.126.188 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • That's not actually true, because the "founder" misnomer is stated as a fact, with no reference to support it. It should at least say that some non-muslims think of him as the founder, but not as a general rule. The bias is evident when contrasting it to the "Prophet" title, which is claimed by muslims, naturally. Frotz asked if there are nonmuslims who believe this, and yes there were. Like Ghandi, who was a Hindu. The quote is:
It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. , Young India (23 September 1924) Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.29, "My Jail experiences", p.133. Speakoutfreely (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral islamic point of view !

I appreciate the way Wikipedia is supporting free discussion and its neutral points of view as you always say.

BUT , when we come to religion , I think we should better listen to those who have faith in this religion rather than ignoring them.

I don't want to say repeated words about forbidden images nor about the criticism of our prophet Mohamed (PBUH).

But you know this is real , Our religion , ISLAM , forbids any pictures , images or even imaginary paintings of prophets , angels & of course GOD .

Prophets are distinguished people , they are unlike anybody else . We should show the utmost respect when we talk about them.

Wikipedia is now almost the only reliable source to get info , so why don't you tell everybody that religion is a RED LINE and prophets are far from being ordinary people and far from being criticized , only if ............

YOU ARE GIVING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

thanks for reading my note , DR. A.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amino158 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Your religious restrictions simply do not jibe with Wikipedia policy; editing here is a privilege granted, not a right demanded. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know but as I said religion must be sorted in another category , what do you think TARC ? --Amino158 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote User:Resolute from here (which is where this conversation should have been posted in the first place as it plainly says so at the top to do), out of respect for Muslims who do not wish to see the images we offer a means of hiding images on your browser, as described in the FAQ at the very top of this page. Ultimately, it comes down to individual right to choose, and it is up to you to honor your beliefs. It is not up to us to honor them for you. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Amin, I am a Muslim and the Islam I know tells me that open thought (relativity and all that) comes first while absolute thinking has little room. I know also about the whole debate concerning depictions in Islam; it revolves around the idea that some people who may have absolute thinking may start worshiping images. But that is not the case for people who don't hold morally absolutist stances (the opposite of morally relativist). If the depiction is informative, educative and people staring at it won't start kissing it, holding it tight or pray in front of it then there is no reason whatsoever to censor it. It is not about the depictions, it is about our closed minds. Wikipedia is about openness and enlightenment. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A baby can be named "Muhammed", thus having private icons is common in Islam, according to the philosophies purported here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 12:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A neutral islamic point of view !"

this is an oxymoron. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this comment is helpful and it doesn't address the question at all. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pointing out the hypocritical nature of the question is irrelevant? WookieInHeat (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's practices, I believe so. I've learned that whenever someone doesn't address points directly it turns out to be just a waste of time and resources. That said, I believe both you and Amino are new users and I must believe that he didn't mean that Islam is neutral or anything of that kind —that would not make any sense since neutrality is not an attribute for religions. I believe that he is asking about removing the pictures because he believes keeping them is not neutral. I don't agree with him but at least I got what he meant and answered his question directly (as others have done as well). So you have to forgive him of his choice of words to say the least. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So "ISLAM , forbids any pictures , images or even imaginary paintings of prophets , angels & of course GOD ." If this is true, then why is it only pictures of the prophet Muhammad that you (and many other muslims) are objecting to. Doesn't Islam also consider Jesus a prophet? There are plenty of pictures of him over on the Jesus article. Not to mention wikipedia has many articles on various angels with images of them as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Islam forbids pictures of Jesus as well. This is widely known but you'd probably have to dig lil' deeper into what muslims object to. The same applies to his mother, Mary, who is considered by Muslims to be the best woman in history (click the link for references). And finally, angels fall under the same bracket. AFAIK, one of the main reasons is to avoid (opening the doors of) idol worship, venerating images created that muslims consider neither accurate nor holy.Speakoutfreely (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please note that this discussion is duplicated on the Talk:Muhammad/images subpage. This throad should probebly be merged there. Rreagan007's question is addressed at aniconism in Islam. "Islam" doesn't forbid anything of the kind, it is fundamentalist sects within Islam, such as Wahhabism, that do. Claiming that "Islam forbids pictures of Jesus" is about as fair, or accurate, as "Christianity teaches the burning of witches". --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) ::::reply to Speakoutfreely... Some Islamic traditions (nothing in the Qur'an) forbid pictures, not all. Most of the images of Muhammad, for instance, were depicted by Muslims themselves. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree profoundly with the arguments that we should "draw a red line" at religion and that we should treat "prophets as different from other people". I respect everybody's right to believe in their own religion, but nobody, whatever religion they profess, should have the right to impose their own religious restrictions on other people.Jeppiz (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is a prophet? If the prophet is recognized by being allowed to talk directly to God, then most Christians are prophets. How do you introduce a prophet without simultaneously introducing an idol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my own question: According to hadith 21257 in Musnad there has been 124 000 prophets and Muslims got the last one. St.Trond (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz, the thing is that not every Muslim believes depiction is forbidden. It is a matter of interpretation. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to make some changes to article name "Muhammad"

hi, I am Asif Ashraf, I think that the picture on this article are no appropriate and I need to change them. I will place new pictures where they do not want to show Muhammad's(PBUH) face. Its a highly disputive matter among muslims to draw a picture or shape of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). So I fear it hurts us muslims on wikipedia too.


I agree with the written content anyhow. I will not make changes to other written content which is not related to those some images.


Please grant me permissions to edit this article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsifAshraf (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ as to why the pictures aren't going to be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Its Forbidden in Islam to draw pictures of any living being. Seeing pictures charectirizing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in a site like Wikipedia I was really astonished. I would urge you to remove the pictures immediately as this practice was/is/will never be supported by people like me who practice Islam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Surkhru (talk • contribs)

Hello, please see the notice at the top of this page and the image FAQ. As the proposed change (to remove images) isn't non-controversial, I'll have to decline this editsemiprotected request. There is an ongoing discussion about the images at #A_neutral_islamic_point_of_view_.21; you are welcome to participate in it. —SpaceFlight89 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European and Western views

Edward Gibbon in his book decline and fall of the roman empiresays that Mohammed despised the pomp of royalty. Thomas carlyle in his book on heroes and hero worship describes Mohammed as a great silent soul ,one of who cannot but be earnest . I would like to add these statements under the level2 header European and Western views in the article Your view please --Notedgrant (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou I'll try to be bold or wiki bold ;) --Notedgrant (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need full citations for both of those... and preferably from academic secondary sources that found their quotes about Muhammad relevant to discuss... but at least full citations of the books in question rather than what you put. gren グレン 04:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Gren .I've provided complete citations regarding Mohammed from those books How do I find academic secondary sources Please revert my changes if you find them inappropriate --Notedgrant (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Concepts of Islam and Muhammad(P.B.U.H.)

In Islam Muhammad(P.B.U.H) is regarded as the last messenger of Allah(God). he is not the founder of religion nor did he wrote HOLY QUR'AN by himself. There are Some Islamic Concept that i would like to share here. Allah is the personal name of God other being his characteristic(Safati) Name Muhammad(P.B.U.H) is the Last messenger of Allah Jesus(P.B.U.H) is one of the mightiest messenger of Allah Adam(P.B.U.H), NOAH(P.B.U.H), JOSEPH(P.B.U.H), MOSES(P.B.U.H) AND many other are regarded as messenger of Allah and they were sent to there people only but Muhammad(P.B.U.H) was sent for entire humanity. Holy Quran is the word of Allah and it was reveal on Muhammad(P.B.U.H). There are other books like Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Al-Muslim which contain Hadith i.e the word of Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H). Some of the biggest discoveries that modern science made just 50 or 100 years ago are mentioned in Holy Quran. e.g Read in the name of Allah who has created you from Alak(Leach like substance): Holy Quran todays modern science shows that human are like a leach like substance in the womb of his mother at his initial stage. there are other such revelation but it is to be consider that Holy Qur'an is not the Book of science though it contains various facts but it is mainly for the purpose of teaching how to live this life in order to gain Jannat(Heaven) in the afterlife. it is a advice to all the non-muslim to search for Holy Quran, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim in English or whatever is there native language and read it. i can challenge that there is not a single in Holy Quran that is against the Humanity. there might be some confusion in understanding the verses but for that purpose the reader can refer to Tafseer Ibn e Kaseer. its like and explanation of chapters from Holy Quran.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.2.142 (talk • contribs)

"founder" , and images

Muslims believe Islam is not a theory "founded" by a human being (Prophet Muhammad PBUH). Islam is a religion or a message from Allah (God) delivered to people by one of His many messengers (Prophet Muhammad PBUH). Prophet Muhammad PBUH did not write the Qur'an either; it is Allah's own words.

When it comes to religion, I believe Wikipedia should listen to the religion followers, then reflect the image as it is.

By insisting on not to remove the word "founder" Wikipedia loses its advantage of being neutral, and it takes the side of those who believe that Islam is a man-made theory.

As to the pictures, Islam prohibits portraying God, prophets, or angels out of respect to them. That is why all of the icons that picture Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are considered imaginative figures portrayed hundreds of years after his death.


The question now is why does Wikipedia insist on using such imaginary material to back up such an article in the presence of several real photos of the Prophet's tomb, sword, and footprints? Such pictures would be very interesting, reliable, and noncontroversial.

It is not about censorship, it is about showing what is true. If an icon is set into a museum, it means it is old but not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 06:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Muhammad is described as the founder is because of the requirements that Wikipedia be neutral. You say that "Wikipedia should listen to the religion followers" when it comes to the question of how to describe Muhammad. That does not satisfy WP:NPOV. Your statement that pictures of Muhammad are bad because they're "imaginary" is absurd. People have been smart enough for a very long time to understand that you cannot squeeze a picture of an orange and expect to get orange juice. A picture of a thing is not the same as the thing in question. Read the article on The Treachery of Images and ponder that painting for a while. Anyone confronted with a child's drawing understands that a picture of a thing need not look like a photograph. Frotz (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images are included are historically significant depictions; they provide cultural insight and on the side, they are contextually relevant pieces of art, too. Wikipedia has actually already compromised on this issue in a way that many editors disagreed with; the images were moved down towards the middle of the article so they would not show up immediately when opening the article. Now, as for those pictures you mention, they might already have been considered and rejected due to possible copyright issues or such, I don't know. You should check with the other editors to see what they think.
The argument that these images are somehow fake or misleading, showing something that is an inaccurate depiction of something showcases a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Someone correct me if this doesn't apply to images, but, to quote WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." 07:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understood there are people who believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the founder of Islam which is a man-made theory (according to their POV). On the other hand Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a messenger delivering a message from Allah that is: Islam. Now for Wikipedia to be neutral, it has to combine both points of views.

There are two possibilities: Either my assumption is right, or wrong.

If my assumption is right, then the sentence "Muhammad is the founder of the religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God..." is oxymoronic.

According to Merriam Webster "to found" means: "to take the first steps in building". This implies Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) invented Islam. After a few words, and in the same sentence Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is described as a "messenger of God". This means Islam is a religion from Allah.

The other possibility is my assumption is wrong and the sentence is not oxymoronic.

If so, then the sentence is biased.

"he is the founder" = decisive statement displaying no hesitation.

"regarded by Muslims" = maybe they are right or maybe they are wrong.

Suggestions: If Wikipedia has its reasons not to remove the word "founder", at least you can state who believes in what. For example, "Muhammad, who is regarded by non-Muslims as the founder of Islam is also regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God..."

I believe the above sentence is a subjective one with no biases, and it also does not contradict with itself.

Thank you for reading my lengthy point of view. Keep up the good effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC) --Haney G. (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=309279326"