Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fixer1928 (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 14 August 2021 (Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2021: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2021 (2)

The Line which has misinformation about Muslims having difference of opinion about end of Prophethood if FALSE. Please make an edit ASAP. The reference is clear throughout the Muslims and anybody who denies this isn’t considered a Muslim. Reflexa9 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Those guys aren't Muslims. We are the only true Muslims." No true scotsman etc. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

==Family tree==


Kilab ibn MurrahFatimah bint Sa'd
Zuhrah ibn Kilab
(progenitor of Banu Zuhrah)
maternal great-great-grandfather
Qusai ibn Kilab
paternal great-great-great-grandfather
Hubba bint Hulail
paternal great-great-great-grandmother
`Abd Manaf ibn Zuhrah
maternal great-grandfather
`Abd Manaf ibn Qusai
paternal great-great-grandfather
Atikah bint Murrah
paternal great-great-grandmother
Wahb ibn `Abd Manaf
maternal grandfather
Hashim ibn 'Abd Manaf
(progenitor of Banu Hashim)
paternal great-grandfather
Salma bint `Amr
paternal great-grandmother
Fatimah bint `Amr
paternal grandmother
`Abdul-Muttalib
paternal grandfather
Halah bint Wuhayb
paternal step-grandmother
Aminah
mother
`Abdullah
father
Az-Zubayr
paternal uncle
Harith
paternal half-uncle
Hamza
paternal half-uncle
Thuwaybah
first nurse
Halimah
second nurse
Abu Talib
paternal uncle
`Abbas
paternal half-uncle
Abu Lahab
paternal half-uncle
6 other sons
and 6 daughters
MuhammadKhadija
first wife
`Abd Allah ibn `Abbas
paternal cousin
Fatimah
daughter
Ali
paternal cousin and son-in-law
family tree, descendants
Qasim
son
`Abd-Allah
son
Zainab
daughter
Ruqayyah
daughter
Uthman
second cousin and son-in-law
family tree
Umm Kulthum
daughter
Zayd
adopted son
Ali ibn Zainab
grandson
Umamah bint Zainab
granddaughter
`Abd-Allah ibn Uthman
grandson
Rayhana bint Zayd
wife
Usama ibn Zayd
adoptive grandson
Muhsin ibn Ali
grandson
Hasan ibn Ali
grandson
Husayn ibn Ali
grandson
family tree
Umm Kulthum bint Ali
granddaughter
Zaynab bint Ali
granddaughter
Safiyya
tenth wife
Abu Bakr
father-in-law
family tree
Sawda
third wife
Umar
father-in-law
family tree
Umm Salama
sixth wife
Juwayriya
eighth wife
Maymuna
eleventh wife
Aisha
third wife
Family tree
{{{Zaynab bint Khuzaymah}}}Hafsa
fourth wife
Zaynab
seventh wife
Umm Habiba
ninth wife
Maria al-Qibtiyya
twelfth wife
Ibrahim
son
  • * indicates that the marriage order is disputed
  • Note that direct lineage is marked in bold.

What’s the point of this ¿?

 Not done because it is not clear what you want done. Add that monstrosity to this article? This is a biography of Muhammad, not an article about every relative of his. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

Greetings, as per according to a book called: "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" written by Michael H. Hart, Muhammad is considered to be the most influential person in history. Namely, You can read more about it on the link below this request. As per this request, I would like to ask You to add this piece of information to the section Legacy, specifically its subsection "Modern historians"

Regards,

Adin

https://www.gainpeace.com/about-muhammad/most-influential-person-in-history-by-michael-h-hart Dzida888 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done Why do you think the personal opinion of a racist astrophysicist is WP:DUE for this article? And why would a person who isn't a historian be added to historians? Jeppiz (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full stops before or after quotation marks or both

In the 'Islamic tradition' section a quotation has the full stop both before and after the quotation mark. I thought I knew this rule but am beginning to doubt myself can someone fix it if needed. The internet has been a little contradictory hence my ask for help. From text: In Islamic belief, Muhammad is regarded as the last prophet sent by God.[254][255][256][257][258] Quran 10:37 states that "...it (the Quran) is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book—wherein there is no doubt—from The Lord of the Worlds.".

Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read somewhere that there was a WP:ENGVAR aspect to this as well. SMcCandlish, any wisdom? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:QUOTEMARKS, especially MOS:LQ. There is not an ENGVAR aspect to it, and doing both, e.g. writing "Foo bar baz.". is an error. If the quoted material is a full sentence and ended with the dot, include the terminal punctuation inside the quotation marks ("Foo bar baz."); put it outside otherwise ("Foo bar baz".). As that last sentence shows, however, material inside parentheses that ends with a dot – most often an abbreviation but in this case sample code – does not obviate a sentence-ending dot after the parenthetical if it ends the sentence. Finally, don't trust "the Internet" (i.e. millions of random strangers who have nothing authoritative to say about how to write on Wikipedia) on this or any other style question, or even trust other style guides like The Chicago Manual of Style or New Hart's Rules. You'll get different answers from every style source you consult. We have our own style manual for good reasons, most importantly inter-article consistency and reduction of editorial conflict over style trivia (which is inevitable if one is bible-thumping their copy of CMoS and another quoting NHR, or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The original ends with a period. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does mean "founder" means?

Discussion closed because topic has diverged into WP:NOTAFORUM violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In what sense is the word "founder" used on this page? J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in the sense that there was no organised religion called Islam, with all its rituals and dogma before Mohammed's writings detailed it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you say "this word senses that Islam and Quran Karim is fabricated by Muhammad and the thing that other prophets lectured was not the same thing as he lectured"; astaghfurillah. Anyway, did I get your word correct? If that's what the word founder mean, sorry pal, you guys have to revert your claim on being neutral. J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry pal, there was no Islam before Mohammed, there was Islam after Mohammed, He founded the religion. IdreamofJeanie (talk)
This is your subjective belief, and not mine. You got an unrefutable argument shows us that there was no Islam before him and/or people didn't falsificated the God's word that we can't even know they done that? You say there was no Islam before Muhammed, but no. It can't be said that Muhammad fabricated the Islam just because we couldn't find a physical proof, cuz you also not have one that proves otherwise. Neither you nor I don't know what happened, just have beliefs. What if God revelated the message, why are you not believing this and believe Muhammed is false prophet? Is there a situation between these two subjective beliefs that enables one of them to be stronger in terms of neutrality? J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J, put simply, if you want to claim something existed, you need to prove it existed, whether it is Islam or Russell's teapot. Yes, non-existance is the accepted, default, common-sense position. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who said non-existence is the default and common-sense belief? Ignorants, maybe, but I dont think they did. Who could managed to prove this? Nobody. You can prove that there is no elephant in a drawer without opening it, because you have a brain. If the universe had not been created, you could bring proof of it, because you have a brain. For an evidence to be true, it does not need to be objective, reason is sufficient, even if an objective proof of the existence of something has not been discovered, it does not change the fact that the other person does not show an objective proof. Or because you can't see inside the drawer or because the claimant has to prove his claim, can't you prove that there is no elephant in the drawer? You can prove, because elephant doesn't fit to drawer. But you can't prove universe is uncreated, because this logic doesn't fit to human brain. J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Science offers a perfectly sound, logical, progressive explanation without recourse to magic. Oh and yes, science works with brains too. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad founded Islam, simply put he came before Islam and after left Islam in his wake. This in effect causes him to be the founder. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:5577:4E5E:BE79:EF6D (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if what previous prophets taught was the same as what Muhammad taught, that doesn't mean it was Islam. It means that Islam incorporated those previous teachings into a new whole. What existed before included Christianity, Judaism, and the predecessors, descendants, and variants of those. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

Hi! Can you add this description to beginning of the Appearance section?


In one of the earliest sources, Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, there are numerous verbal descriptions of Muhammad. One description sourced to Ali ibn Abi Talib is as follows:

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, is neither too short nor too tall. His hair are neither curly nor straight, but a mixture of the two. He is a man of black hair and large skull. His complexion has a tinge of redness. His shoulder bones are broad and his palms and feet are fleshy. He has long al-masrubah which means hair growing from neck to navel. He is of long eye-lashes, close eyebrows, smooth and shining fore-head and long space between two shoulders. When he walks he walks inclining as if coming down from a height. [...] I never saw a man like him before him or after him.[1] Fixer1928 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Ibn Sa'd – Kitabh al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, as translated by S. Moinul and H.K. Ghazanfar, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, n.d.