Talk:Muhammad

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

Muhammad is not the Founder of Islam. Muhammad is the Last Prophet of Islam.

Nashah25 (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

And not all who call themselves Muslim agree that Muhammad is the "last" prophet either. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually if you search online you can find many sources saying that. And a *Majority* of Muslims believe that Muhammad is not the founder but the last prophet. Or we can give the Quran as a source Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And this isn't what I *personally* believe. All Muslims universally accept this Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ENGLISH word "Islam" does not have the same scope as the Arabic word it was borrowed from. In English, "Islam" starts with Muhammad by definition. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Muhammad was not the founder of Islam. The word Muslim is used for all those who followed the messenger/ prophet sent to them from Adam to now. Mikhail8881 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Right people is it that hard to just write PBUH after the last holy prophets name, or is that politically incorrect - as it would seem “the recommended to remove” is a bit harsh and seriously lacks respect. LightningDTB (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like asking outsiders to follow your religious dictates is much more disrespectful. --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also isn’t it possible to have a separate page to address the belief of Shiites - although relatively they’re not truly deemed Muslims for in the month of Muharram they commit a huge sin of self infliction - which they do to seek retribution for the crimes of their ancestors at Karbala . LightningDTB (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not our place to say who are or are not true Muslims. Obviously Shiites do not think that their practices are a sin.--Khajidha (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add (PBUH) or (SAW) towards the end of the Prophet Muhamad’s (SAW) name

Dear editor I would be extremely gratified if you would suffix our beloved Prophet’s (SAW) name with either (PBUH) or (SAW). If you would even add it in only first few instances that would be so polite of you and Allah (SWT) would bestow you with prosperity and success in this world as well as in the hereafter.

Thank you Your’s sincerely HareemHajra456 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Declined. This is a frequent request. See point #5 in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ (linked prominently at the top of this page, which you should have read before posting your request) to understand why. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not our duty(farz) to suffix "peace be upon him" Mohammed Anto (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong date

Prophet Mohammed born on 11 April 571AD Mohammed Anto (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mohammed Anto: Per what source? —C.Fred (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

I need to correct one of the errors on this page University Gee in Claude (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

@University Gee in Claude: You need to tell us what the error is, so an editor with sufficient experience can make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The error is the Prophet Muhammad is not a politician University Gee in Claude (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There are sufficient sources to support the statement that Muhammad was a political leader. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

Please remove pictures that depict Prophet Muhammad PBUH receiving revelation from Angel Jabriel as it is misleading, inaccurate, and offensive to Muslims.

Thank you 196.133.0.66 (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I'm pretty sure this request runs afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED, but consensus about inclusion or exclusion of specific images can be reached at this talk page for other reasons as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

However, note where it says above "Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, MUST be..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you people, the Muhammad cartoons are NOT GOING TO BE REMOVED. They are perfectly acceptable as per Wikipedia's policy. And we don't care if its offensive for you or your stupid religion. Stop asking the same thing every month! --99.245.168.121 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

​Dude. Chill.
Alivardi (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

​ There should be a warning, Muslims come to this article to learn about a religious topic and are greeted with what is offensive for them with no warning. I wasn’t expecting there to be any pictures when I saw them, the least we could do is to add a warning. @Alivardi: It’s best to ignore those types of people. (Talking about the IP) Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 09:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a warning, WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE. There is also Q3 in the FAQ above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

​ The warning is on the articles talk page and not in the article, new users also wouldn’t know about WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 11:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure someone will point it out to them, just as it’s been pointed out to you. Kleuske (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Like many other things, you learn about WP by using it, by asking. It has probably been argued that there is a personal responsibility to educate oneself about stuff one is using. Hopefully in this day and age, many people for whom this is important were told by a parent or a teacher, and so weren't surprised or avoided it. More at WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would you expect Wikipedia to follow the norms of your regligion? --Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Prophet mujammad(s.a)

Prophet muhammad (s. a) not founderof islam SHAJAHAN ADIKADALAYI (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it may be time for a new FAQ point. Muhammad did, effectively, found Islam, at least for the purposes of an encyclopedic account. It's the same way that Joseph Smith is the founder of the LDS movement. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And how about if we expand the faq as default? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that it will help, but I'm all for it. --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

One can hope that several of the people who arrive here (even now) with frequent questions sees the faq/previous comments, thinks "Oh, I see" and then do something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit notice

Hello all, as we can see, this talk page is still used by people proposing to remove the images of Muhammad. I suggest adding the "Important notice" box as a edit notice of this talk page, so we remind people that don't read the banners at the page before clicking "new section". --MrClog (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Remove the words “and he was founder of islam” islam existed since adam so Islam is not a new religion which was founded by muhammad(pbuh) Junaid1068 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. From an external perspective, Muhammad started a new movement. --Khajidha (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Khadijah I don’t know if you are a muslim or not but the religion muhammad pbuh started(as you think) was since the time of memorial. Even the first human being that is Adam was a follower of Islam....so spreading a misconception that Prophet Muhammad Pbuh is the founder of Islam is wrong because it makes people think that Islam is religion which was founded 1400 hundred years ago. Hope you do your research properly and then make statements......Thankyou Junaid1068 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals in historical facts, not mythology. --Khajidha (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that Islam existed before Prophet Muhammad pbuh because Prophet Moses was also a muslim and Prophet Jesus was also a muslim. Junaid1068 (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire Jewish and Christian religions would disagree with that. You are citing Islamic belief NOT objective facts. Your request has been answered and this encyclopedia WILL NOT be forced into compliance with your religious doctrine. --Khajidha (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would we give weigh to Christian or Jewish religions over other religions? I mean, that Jesus was even a real person is not "objective facts" or that Moses was Jewish is also not "objective facts" and in fact archeological findings contradict most of what the Bible is saying. And not just the Bible but also the historicity of the biography of prophet Muhammad is nothing more or less a tradition. A more accurate and neutral description would have been "a Muslim prophet" and "founded Islam" should in my opinion be removed as it is based on traditions by both Muslims, Christians and Jews etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mythological assertions generally hold much less weight than factual or scientific proof. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:A1D8:3E79:27E3:A581 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that other religions disagree is certainly not a an indication of anything. The existence of Jesus is accepted by most historians – certainly not his divinity. As I understand it, according to Islam, Mohammad was the principle Muslim prophet (and Jesus the penultimate prophet ). I think that may allow the use of the phrase accepted founder of Islam, as Christ may be considered the accepted founder of Christianity – although I can see arguments against both, and they are both theoretically based on Abraham. Personally, I’d like to see the words “accepted founders” added to both. In any case, I would reject the concept that any religion started with Adam. Even a pope said Genesis was apocryphal. Although, with correct sources, it could be stated that this is claimed. O3000 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, Jesus is a semi-legendary figure. There is no proof that he existed but there is no reason to doubt what classical sources said about him. My point is that it's not an objective fact and that the religion of any of those prophets is based on the traditions of religions. We should not give weigh to one religion over the other.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly we should never give any weight to any religion. The existence of Jesus as a person has been discussed heavily in the articles about him. Consensus is that he existed. That doesn't mean his depiction in the Bible or Quran is accurate. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You are rejecting this request as per your thinking and if you want talk about facts then even you would know that Islam “By scientifically FACTS” has been said to 80% out of 100% to be true 100% the remaining 20% is ambiguous (neither right nor wrong) and out of that 20% not even 0.00001% has been proved wrong. So “SCEINTIFICALLY” islam is right. As you were saying that Jesus was a Christian. Let me tell you this Sister even Jesus was a muslim Because as per your “Wikipedia Definition”a Muslim mean submitting your will to god https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#cite_note-28 And the person who submits its will to god is a muslim read and “CROSS VERIFY” all what I’m saying

“I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” ‭‭John‬ ‭5:30‬ ‭ASV‬‬ Here it says Jesus Saying “I seek not my will but the will of who has sent me” As I mentioned above the definition of a muslim as per your “WIKIPEDIA”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#cite_note-28

And Muslim believed in one god same what Jesus believed in if you check bible

“Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one:” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭12:29‬ ‭ASV‬‬

And as per your other Saying that jesus is god in bible check this he is been said to be a “MAN” .

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:22‬ ‭ASV‬‬

Nowhere in the bible Jesus says by “Himself” that He is God or Worship him

What People believe is the saying of the church not the Bible.

And BEFORE Stating any facts please check your OWN facts and refresh them Junaid1068 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Any changes to the article must be based on independent reliable sources, not editors' interpretation of holy books or other primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The etymology of "Muslim" is submission, the meaning of "Muslim" (in English) is follower of the teachings of Muhammad. Anyone before Muhammad cannot be a Muslim, by how the word is used in English. This keeps tripping up Muslims, as they insist on reading the English word and understanding it with the Arabic definitions. --Khajidha (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So on which basis you made the article that Muhammad (pbuh) is the founder of Islam.. What proof you have? Junaid1068 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad promulgated the Quran. THAT is the beginning of Islam. Before that you had Christianity, Judaism, proto-Yahvism, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And i don’t think you read the article from my answer that I gave Muslim is an “ARABIC WORD” and its meaning in English is submitter Check this Article from Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#cite_note-28 Junaid1068 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That is what the Arabic word means, it is not what the English word means. --Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You saying this proves that its an arabic word check this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#cite_note-28 Its written Muslim is an Arabic word Junaid1068 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the actual source (https://www.etymonline.com/word/Muslim), this is made clear. Etymonline gives the definition of the English word "Muslim" as ""one who professes Islam," 1610s, from Arabic muslim "one who submits" (to the faith), from root of aslama "he resigned." Related to Islam. From 1777 as an adjective." And defines the English word "Islam'" as ""religious system revealed by Muhammad," 1816, from Arabic islam, literally "submission" (to the will of God), from root of aslama "he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted," causative conjunction of salima "he was safe," and related to salam "peace."". As I said before, the ENGLISH words Muslim and Islam are tied to Muhammad by definition. --Khajidha (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So that means the article which is written on Wikipedia is wrong so we should see the Original source,...is that what you want to say? Junaid1068 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that English texts must be understood using English definitions, not Arabic ones. When one language borrows a word from another, the meaning can change. It can become more restricted. Or more expansive. Or even come to mean something else entirely. --Khajidha (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The definition could be wrong also as the person who defined it didn’t had the actual knowledge of the meaning of the text/word because he/she heard of it somewhereelse same as this the person who wrote the definition of Muslim in english didn’t had the actual knowledge of the meaning of the word. Junaid1068 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You can check other dictionaries if you wish. All the English language dictionaries I have checked agree with what I have written here. You seem to have some trouble separating the derivation of a word from its current meaning. --Khajidha (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Like you said you can’t believe in the holy books. So now how can u ask me to believe in the dictionaries, maybe the people who wrote that dictionary didn’t knew the meaning of the word because even they wrote the meaning of the Muslim just by what they heard from others Junaid1068 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's real simple. The Quran is written in Arabic. The dictionaries are written in English. If you wish to know what an English word means, the Quran is totally irrelevant and the dictionaries are what's important. I am not disputing what the Quran and the Islamic faith mean when using the term Muslim, I am simply pointing out that that is not the meaning that the word has in English. WHY the meaning is different does not matter. It simply is different. And if a Muslim wishes to be understood by English speakers, he will need to use the word as it is used in English.--Khajidha (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree if the English wants to know the Muslims he is gonna have to use the word in English, but a word can’t make you understand the whole scenario in what “context” it was written, is more important Junaid1068 (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If we are not supposed to rely on English dictionaries for the meaning of English words what are we supposed to rely on? Paul August ☎ 10:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

But like your “WIKIPEDIA” says that Muslim is an ARABIC WORD so it should be seen as it is,Actual meaning in Arabic Junaid1068 (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It no longer says that. As I explained to you earlier, that phrasing was an incorrect representation of what the source said. As for context, you have just made my point for me. In an English language context a word has its English language meaning. --Khajidha (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the word means. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. O3000 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Even you proved my point by saying the representation of the source was wrong same way the source from which you took about muhammad is represented wrong Junaid1068 (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You are making no sense. A misquotation (like what was in the Wikipedia article) is a mistake. Words having different meanings in different languages is not a mistake. It is just their being different languages. Just because a word originates from one language does not mean it stays that language forever. Or do you think you are speaking Greek when you say telephone? --Khajidha (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You just proved what I have been trying to make you understand that calling a word in other language With the same pronunciation and spelling doesn’t change the word’s meaning. Like you said telephone is a greek word and has the same meaning which it means in english compared to as in greek so why are you changing the meaning of the word Muslim. Junaid1068 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about a word. It is a bio about a person, and we use historical sources about that person. If you want to talk about the Islamic religion, we have an article about Islam. Go there. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood the point. My point was that "telephone" is NOT a Greek word. It is an English word derived from Greek roots. It was then borrowed by Greek (and other languages). When it was borrowed back to Greek, it kept the same meaning as in English. But this is not always the case with borrowings. Let me try a different example. "Sombrero" is an English word that means a particular kind of hat. "Sombrero" is also a Spanish word that means "hat" in general. Neither is "wrong", but if an English speaker asks for a sombrero he would be very confused if given a fedora. In Arabic (or, at least, Arabic as spoken by Muslims. Arab Christians would disagree.) "Islam" and "Muslim" refer to the entire monotheistic tradition. When it was borrowed into English (and other European languages) this idea was not carried over, as Europeans did not see "Islam" and "Christianity" as parts of some greater thing. They were separate (often opposed) things.--Khajidha (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I know we are talking about a man(Mohammad pbuh) but the topic I was telling you about was that he was not the founder of Islam. Islam existed before Muhammad so to prove it I have to prove that even Muslims existed before him like Jesus(pbuh). So to prove that Muslims existed before Muhammad I have to talk you through what actually Muslim word means and that even Bible in it says the same for Jesus(pbuh). And as you gave the example of “Somberor” in spanish it means a general hat and in english it means a specific hat, but in the end it means in both of them the same that is hat. Like that “siso” means in english the same as in the hindi, it a play thing that is in park for children Junaid1068 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And to you "Islam" apparently means all monotheistic religion back to the beginning of time, while to the English speaking world it means the religious teachings of Muhammad, following the Quran, the pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting during Ramadan, etc. Things that couldn't be done until after Muhammad. --Khajidha (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all pilgrimage of mecca was done even before muhammad its there since Abraham check it here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hajj

And before Quran was given to Muhammad pbuh as he didn’t had the first revelation before he was 40 ,muslims were supposed to believe in Injeel(Gospel) which was given to Isa(Jesus) pbuh.

The english speaker that you talk about weren’t present at the time Before muhammad pbuh and after muhammad pbuh so whatever the english speakers “saying” are they are just theories without any proof.

Junaid1068 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually it says this is a claim by Islamic writers. It goes on to say that the present day hajj was founded by Muhammad and refers to the pre-Islamic pilgrimage of the pagan Arabs. O3000 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, what English speakers are saying is how the term is used in English. You still seem to be unable to understand that different languages are different. The idea that pre-Muhammad prophets were "Muslim" only makes sense within an Islamic context. English had no use for such a meaning and limited the meaning to post-Muhammad. --Khajidha (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm using your cite. In any case, this is not going anywhere. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Like you said it says as per “the islamic writers believe”, same like this the least you can do is mention as per Non-islamic tradition Or as per the Historians it is believed that Muhammad is the founder of Islam or you can write it as per the Islamic tradition it is believed that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam but with the sentence even mention this(as per Historians or Non-Islamic) just don’t directly write that he is the founder of Islam because it gives wrong information to other. Junaid1068 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is just using the English language. IN ENGLISH, Islam is specifically defined as starting with Muhammad. If you insist on reading it using non-English definitions, that is simply your problem. There is nothing wrong with the sentence as written. --Khajidha (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The least you can do is include “according to English language definition of Islam Muhammad is the founder of Islam” this is the least you can do to give the right information to other.

“The belief was a foolish one built on lies and misinformation.” —Jason Medina Junaid1068 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That implies that the Muslim view is the default. Given that the majority of people are not-Muslim, it makes more sense to do the inverse: to state that he was the founder of Islam, but that Muslims view him as being the last in a series of prophets, which is what the article currently says.
Alivardi (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that saying that a word in an English text is being used with its English language definition is beyond the point of being a "well, duh" situation. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the majority non muslims will search about him and they will get the wrong information about it. In your inversion your first statement is wrong and the second statement is right that muhammad was the Last prophet in the series.

Lastly Its you who knows that its the English definition but not everyone knows that everyone is gonna think its the Islamic definition. Even dis is also like a “well,duh” Situation.

And providing people with wrong information is on you as you are the editor of the article Junaid1068 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Junaid1068, digressions aside, Wikipedia policy is very clear about this. The edit you’re suggesting would violate WP:RNPOV, a foundational aspect of Wikipedia. What you’re proposing is that we include a theological view specific to Muslims as unvarnished truth, and that’s simply not going to happen. We reflect what mainstream scholarly sources say. And that some Muslims might get “wrong information” is immaterial. We do report what the majority theological view amongst Muslims is. So, it’s very much already there. But we can’t say it’s the truth, because it’s contradicted by archaeological and textual evidence. It’s not our job to practice Muslim apologetics, or discourage what you see as heretical opinions. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"everyone is gonna think its the Islamic definition. ". Why would anyone think that? Really. Why would anyone think that that one word in an article written in the English language would be using a definition other than the English language definition? And why would they assume that the definition used was thst used within Islam? Especially since the article goes on to state that Muslims disagree with this definition. That would take a monumental level of language incompetence. --Khajidha (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

When a person reads about something he already presumes that Its the definition of that thing not that its the English definition about it.

Secondly it is mentioned “He is viewed as the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though some modern denominations diverge from this belief.” Like here you have mentioned that “modern denominations diverge from this belief” but for muhammad is the founder of the islam you don’t want to mention that muslims disagree with this statement is hypocrisy You at the least mention that it is believed by archaeologists that Muhammad is the founder of the Islam but Muslims disagree with this statement. Junaid1068 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"When a person reads about something he already presumes that Its the definition of that thing not that its the English definition about it." This is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "the definition of that thing" independent of the language used. And the disagreement of Muslims is already mentioned in the article.--Khajidha (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere it is mentioned in the article of the disagreement of muslims and Even it is somewhere where I haven’t been able to find it, it should be mentioned next to the line where it says that “Muhammad is the founder of islam” but Muslims disagree with it. Junaid1068 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You do not speak for all brands of Islam and are not a reliable source. (None of us are.) This is not going to happen. At this point, you are bludgeoning. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. O3000 (talk)

Maybe I don’t speak for all brands but all the brands are gonna support this point which I’m trying to make you understand and yes even i believe at this point, even you are just Bludgeoning. Junaid1068 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And we are trying to make you understand that your entire problem is your REFUSAL or INABILITY to understand English. Accept that you are suffering under a misunderstanding of the language and stop. Your continued argument makes it seem more and more that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You may also want to read WP:IDHT. --Khajidha (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Madam I don’t understand that including this statement that “Muslim don’t agree with Muhammad being the founder of Islam” would be harmful in anyway but in fact it will help to clear the misconception of people. Junaid1068 (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

1) It already says that "According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to preach and confirm the monotheistic teaching preceded by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.[2][3][4][5] He is viewed as the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though some modern denominations diverge from this belief", thus it is redundant. 2) Your guess as to my sex is mistaken. --Khajidha (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Time to end discussion

This discussion has been going on for ten days now, and it is clear to any outsider it is not going anywhere. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums, they only serve to engage constructively on how to improve the article. In that spirit, starting this discussion was perfectly ok, but the discussion has run its course. It is perfectly clear we will not make the proposed change; there is no consensus for it, and it is contrary to policy. Jeppiz (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have tried making u understand(with proves and logic) but you have been acting on your accords, my job was to convey the message and that i have done but if you want keep it as per your convenience the sin for that is on you. Junaid1068 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:PA O3000 (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What sin? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Muhammad is written as the founder of Islam. However he is not. Muslims include Adam and Eve etc. Everyone who followed the prophet/messenger sent to them is a Muslim in Islam. Muhammad was the one who gave it the name Islam. I request that you change this. Mikhail8881 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a biography of a person. There are no historical records of Adam and Eve. The article on Islam is about a religion and can talk to religious beliefs. It mentions Adam. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I think you have hit on the key point there. There is a historical record that exists outside of scripture and religious text for Muhammad and for Joseph Smith about starting the movements relating to their prophecies and attracting followers; there is not such a similar record for Jesus, Moses, or Adam. Accordingly, from the secular, historic perspective, it's fair to call Muhammad and Smith the founders of Islam and Mormonism, respectively. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I also think that picture shouldn't belong here as it is already present on other articles however the article deserves a separate section on criticism of Muhammad which is an extensive topic on its own and deserves a place in the article. Before my changes it wasn't even properly discussed in the legacy at all. Balolay (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I also think that picture shouldn't belong here as it is already present on other articles however the article deserves a separate section on criticism of Muhammad which is an extensive topic on its own.Balolay (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

2 proposed changes

Balolay implemented 2 changes to Muhammad. First, s/he changed the criticism section from a level 2 heading to a level 3 heading. Second, s/he added a picture from the book Inferno depicting Muhammad being tortured in Hell. I reverted these changes, saying "criticism is part of the legacy; current image has no [encyclopedic value], the work in which Mohammed is criticised and depicted is not discussed." Balolay reverted me today a few days after my original revert. I suggest we follow WP:BRD and thus reverted him/her today. Please voice your opinion on the changes by Balolay. --MrClog (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious that a depiction from Dante's Inferno adds nothing and is inappropriate. Would we include derogatory caricatures of Jews in the Judaism article? There is a main article on criticism. So IMO, makes sense that the section here remain brief and third level. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe this picture already exists in Depictions of Muhammad and Criticism of Muhammad, if I remember correctly. There’s absolutely no encyclopedic value in adding it to the top-level biography. That Muhammad appears in Renaissance and Pre-Modern miniatures is hardly surprising, or note-worthy. Several philosophers also appear in Dante’s vision of the Inferno, and have accompanying woodcuts, and it wouldn’t make much sense to include those in their biographies either. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

Zoheb.afridi22 (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MrClog (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Replace 609–632 CE as religious leader with 609–present CE as religious leader as he is still the leader of Islam even if he died 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done There is no academic consensus for that. Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Start of preaching: 610 or 613?

The second paragraph of the leading section states:

Born approximately 570 CE (Year of the Elephant) in the Arabian city of Mecca, Muhammad was orphaned at the age of six. . . . When he was 40, Muhammad reported being visited by Gabriel in the cave, and receiving his first revelation from God. Three years later, in 610, Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, . . .

Shouldn't it be "Three years later, in 613, . . ."? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, can you please look at this? I'm hesitant to make a change to such a high-profile article myself. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Given 1) the use of "approximately" in stating Muhammad's birth date, 2) the fact that his age is probably meant to be reckoned in the shorter lunar calendar, and 3) "three years later" rarely means exactly three years, I don't think this is necessarily wrong. It could stand being rewritten to accommodate the ambiguity, though.--Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation in first line kindly correct

Prophet Muhammad was not the founder of Islam. According to Islamic beliefs, he was the last Prophet of Islam . And the founder of Islam was Adam. You can also check the Adam in Islam article.

According to Quran, Islam is believed to be started from the first human and nabi, Adam in Islam .

Kindly correct the information. TheChunky (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

According to actual history, Islam began with Muhammad. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

180.214.232.87 (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you responding to an empty request? Why dont you just remove it?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Saudi Arabian not arab 198.140.189.114 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Further, Saudi Arabia did not exist until 1,000 years, give or take, after the time of Muhammad. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Founder, revisited

Mohammed peace be up on him is not the founder of Islam, infact He is the final prophet of islam religion and Islam is there on earth since the man sets his foot in earth. As per Islamic teachings Adam peace be up on him was the first human being on earth and first prophet of Islam as well. Please correct the statement on this page as Mohamed peace be up on him is the founder Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8f8:1d39:ea13:e5e8:8b29:1909:483c (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, the history of Islam originates with Muhammad. Thus, it is proper to refer to him as the founder of Islam. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As the above editor said, from a historical perspective Muhammad founded Islam. From your religious perspective, you may see things differently. But, facts don't lie or changed based on personal desire. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:34F2:BF61:921D:81E3 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Image removal

Would it be possible to remove any images that illustrate the Prophet Mohammed (SWS), this a mark of respect, it is part of the Muslim faith that no images of the final Prophet of God should be made by and person either Muslim or none Muslim. And I request that when the name of the Prophet Mohammed (sws), SWS is put after his name meaning "may peace be upon him" again the is a great mark of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibrasul (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither of these requests will be implemented. As these practices are "part of the Muslim faith", they are not beholden upon this encyclopedia. There is no reason for us to show respect towards Muhammad beyond what is shown to other people. --Khajidha (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Consider, however, Q3 in the FAQ above, which has guidance on how you can block these images from your own view. See also Q5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, consider, that most of these images were made by Muslims, for Muslims. And that at no point in history has it been applied across the board to non-Muslims; that’s just one legal opinion in Islamic law. Obviously, even the first statement isn’t a universally held position, as Muslims continue to create images of Muhammad, for Muslims. And it was relatively common in the early 20th century before the rise of Salafism (as evidenced by the history of the “depiction of Muhammad as a boy” photograph shows- this was extremely popular in the 1930s). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Being picky, the M. Prideaux image probably wasn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t say that every image fits those criteria, though most of them do. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I did say “all”. Oops. Corrected. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Both of these requests/demands have been answered many times, which is a solid no. Wikipedia does not implement policies purely because of a particular religious doctrine. --99.245.168.121 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:RNPOV and WP:CENSORED applies. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

None of these paintings have ever had any historical or theological value for Muslims or non-Muslims. The article on the Arabic wikipedia, which is a featured article, doesn't include any of these paintings.--Commenter7 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect, this isn't a religious Encyclopedia. Things are as they are through consensus and researched information, verified and checked again.2605:A601:A880:8C00:B0A0:1C1:6BB8:3F8D (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't seem relevant to my comment. Are you confused or what is your problem? My comment was about the images not having a historical or a theological significance. I don't see in what way your comment addresses that point. --Commenter7 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, since you brought this up in your last comment, let me correct you: things are as they are through systemic bias and cherry picking of sources. Full stop.--Commenter7 (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

From the FAQ above: "No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad.

Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history.

These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.

None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people." --Khajidha (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Muhammad was a prophet of Allah and the last messenger according to Muslims. Upon whom Quran was revealed on wich is the last book of God. The Muhammad was known to be one of the finest personalities whose honesty and simplicity was known among all the tribes. 115.42.71.130 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The first portion of that is already stated in the article. The last part ("finest personalities") is opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

It is not Muhammad, it is Mihammad PBUH Sameerazamalmadni (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done That's one of numerous variants. Not the most common. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that the "PBUH" is blatantly contrary to Wikipedia's practices.--Khajidha (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Quran was revealed through the Holy Spirit not through the Archangel Gabriel

The Quran was actually revealed through the Holy Spirit. Quran 16:102 says: "Say [O Muhammad], the Holy Spirit has brought it [the Quran] from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to the Muslims.". The pronoun "it" in this verse refers to the Quran because the word Quran is mentioned in the last verses before this verse. Notice that Quran 16 is a Meccan Surah, which means it was revealed relatively early.--Commenter7 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC) The Archangel Gabriel was a companion of Muhammad and supported him in his battles (for example, he descended with thousands of angels during the battle of Badr "see Quran 3:125" and this Hadith for example), but the Quran itself was revealed through the Holy Spirit not through Gabriel.--Commenter7 (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The story about Gabriel bringing the revelation to Muhammad is most likely false. It seems to stem from some hadiths attributed to Aisha only. Many hadiths attributed to Aisha are incorrect.--Commenter7 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The first verses of Surah al-Muddathir were the first verses revealed to Muhammad. They were revealed after Muhammad saw God on the the clear horizon sitting on His Throne. (See Quran 81:23, and this Hadith for example "although the quality of the English translation provided on that website is very poor").--Commenter7 (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:No original research. Any editor's personal understanding of the Quran, Hadith, or any other religious work (or premodern commentary thereof) is not accepted as a valid source. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Commenter7: I think you miss understood. Muhammad didn't saw God, He saw Gabriel (as per your reference of Quran 81:23) . Read it again. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 04:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

TheChunky, which English translation for Quran 81:23 did you use? May be you used something like "Saheeh International" which practiced "Tahrif" by falsely and incorrectly adding the word "Gabriel" to the text even though the original Arabic text doesn't have this word at all. Why don't you check the translation provided by Pickthal or Yusuf Ali. Both of them didn't add the word Gabriel to the text during translation. Pickthal translated the verse like this: "Surely he beheld Him on the clear horizon". Note how Pickthal capitalized the first letter of the pronoun "Him", because this pronoun refers to the "Lord of the Throne", who is mentioned in verse 20 which preceded this verse. Gabriel is not mentioned anywhere at all in this Surah.

Ian thomson, I will search for secondary sources written in English about this topic (hopefully i will find some) and will bring them here.--Commenter7 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you do, you may want to start by suggesting them at Quran. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

dishonesty in citing sources

Someone wrote this in the article:

"Muhammad has been accused of sadism and mercilessness— including the invasion of the Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina"

None of the sources cited say that. The one who put this sentance cited sources that don't support his wording. Very dishonest!

change it to:

"Muhammad has been criticized for his approval of the punishment that was inflicted on the fighters of Banu Qurayza."

There is a lot of dishonesty in representing the sources in the article, and a lot of dishonesty in selecting them.

• • • The real people with "sadism and mercilessness" are the ones who wrote and believed in the satanic verses in the Bible like "Psalm 137:9": https://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

There is a picture of prophet Pbuh while setting the black stone in kabbah . Which is prohibited in our religion and is offensive to us . Kindly take it down. 39.45.161.12 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)