Talk:Muhammad

Archives:

• Talk:Muhammad/archive 1 : 1 What do you mean shai POV? 2 WTF!?! 3 Problems? 3.1 Biggest deficiencies 3.2 Wiki to begin obeying the Shariat? 3.3 article is not neutral 3.4 General thoughts about the article 3.5 The incongruities section 3.6 Razzia section 3.7 aims or claims 3.8 Muhammad 3.9 Caliphate Expansion 3.10 Religious neutrality 3.11 NPOV warnings 3.12 death 3.13 A more scholarly article? 3.14 Major revision 3.15 References 3.16 Broke up pro and con section, moved it to other parts of article 3.17 Question 3.18 OneGuy and his reverts 3.19 Fight on another page, please 3.20 Aisha's marriage and consumation 3.21 Aisha 3.22 Boys over 12 3.23 Ibn Hisam Puberty Quote 3.24 Anonymous deleter 3.25 Edit war in Muhammad as warrior 3.26 Created Muhammad as warrior page 3.27 The criticism sections 3.28 Rearranged per Mustafaa's suggestions 3.29 Islam before Muhammad 3.30 Timeline 3.31 Your restraint is appreciated, IFaqeer 3.32 Someone unclear on the concept put these here 3.33 Latest revisions 3.34 These latest additions about Ali are seriously biased 3.35 Death of Muhammad 3.36 Describing first revelation
• Talk:Muhammad/archive 2: 1 Companions 2 Founding Islam 3 Someone revised history! 4 Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohammad 5 Boasting 6 Pedophile 7 Muhammad's death: Malaria 8 Battle of Badr 9 Did Mohamed attempt suicide? 10 Onward! 11 Reverting Urchid's edit 12 re:changes to this article 13 Couple things: tomb inside the mosque in Medina... 14 Proposed insertion in intro 14.1 "Claimed" 15 Amended Introduction 16 Suggested intro 17 Recent vandalism 18 announcing NPOV proposal, new policy 19 Banu Qurayza 20 Urchid's latest edits 21 Brandon's recent edit 22 POV sticker added 23 Why the POV tag 24 His name 25 Miracles 26 Michael H. Hart 27 Muhammad and his slaves section 28 Evidence for being first written constitution? 29 Order of the companions 30 Prophetic career -- prophecy 31 Striver on a rampage 32 Birth 33 List of praise names 34 Current edit conflict 35 Recent Images and Formatting Problems 36 CENSORSHIP 37 Islam series 38 Zora's Revert 39 Conflicting versions 39.1 Original Version 39.2 New Version 39.3 Discussion 40 Use of the term "pagan" 41 Copyright 42 Isn't anyone else defending this article? 43 Muhammad as influental 44 Zora's recent edits 45 Pictures and WP:Civility 46 A suggestion re picture 47 WP underattack by followers of Sina's Cult of phobia 48 Anon Sunni changing Death of Muhammad section 49 Judaism and Christianity not earlier versions (strictly speaking) 50 Birthdays 51 Battle of Uhud 52 Muhammad in Medina 53 Considering 54 Re-added OmniNerd article reference 55 Omninerd linkspamming 56 Value of OmniNerd content and quality of reference 57 One of most influential people in history 58 Recent edits by anon and Anonymous Editor 59 Aisha link 60 AE Edits 61 Okay what about something like this? 62 "Final prophet of Islam" 63 Drastic reduction of first para 64 Muslim sources report 65 Aren't there any Movies about Muhammad? 66 Iconoclasts at work? 66.1 General 66.2 POV discussion
• Talk:Muhammad/archive 3:

---

I missed some serious distortions of the summary

Somewhere in all the vandalism and revert wars, pious hands were editing the summary. I just now noticed that it had become extremely POV -- and incoherent in places, probably as a result of multiple, overlapping edits. I revised the summary. It may not be the consensus version that stayed stable for so long, but I can't find the point at which the POV edits started. Zora 07:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Link formating

Hi Reddi (JDR). Nice effort on the external links, however I think for clarity the links should be kept in non bibliographic style. Also most of the links are not specific articles, but rather websites, so article citation style is not necessary. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The information (author, publisher, etc., ...) adds clarity to what the link is .... JDR 21:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however that is not the link style. That is newspaper linking style or other specific article citations. See Jesus article for examples. Such extra info only obscures the links themselves. Informative links do not need publisher, author, etc. However, if this was for "further reading" resources or article reference then that can be used. . Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please continue discussion if you have any concerns. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The Jesus article need to be raised to a higher standard ... the deficient in one article does not mean that other should suffer too. The exact formating could be changed ... but the content should stay. The info add clarity and helps the reader ... it also comments about the site and the ISBN (if applicable). AND external links/articles are damn well a hodgepod of 'other references' and 'further reading' ... otherwise why are they there? Sincerely, JDR 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

But nowhere in the guidelines does it state that external links should follow this format. All other articles in wikipedia do not follow this format. The info added beside each link is so much that is obscures the meaning. External links are meant as a quick reference, not bibliographic essay citation like for a newspaper article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't state that the external links should follow this format ... but as a defualt 'other references' and 'further reading', it should provide the info to add clarity of the link and help wikipedia attain a higher standard. The link isn't obscured ... the link itself is on the title .... and the bibliographic citation help the reader on who wrote the article (an article in the general sense). JDR 21:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

But the further reading and other references already have that format. External links should not have such a format for any article. Just the link and, in some cases, a brief description. Of course most of the external links on wiki articles are to entire websites and not specific articles. If need be, the external link can be accessed for publisher, date and author information. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1st there is no further reading ... the external articles provide this function .... 2nd ... the reference definitely mus have this format ....

also ... the external article links should have such a format for all article, primarily to raise the standard of Wikipeida.

As to the "external link can be accessed" thing, that is not necessarily true .... as the links may disappear ... and the only way to refind it is to have the bibliographic info ... this has happened to me before (and it would have been easier to refind the swords link in this article if so ...) JDR 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reddi, the ref is already in this format, but referencing the external links with author, date, publisher, editor, etc. will not help raise standards, simply because it makes the links hard to read and hard to see. A basic list format is the standard for external links. It would be greatly appreciated if this article was also kept at that standard. I think a proposed change like this to all wikipedia articles' external links should be discussed with the wider wiki community rather than just on this article. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Out of all the pages I have edited ... this is the 1st time someone has complained that this "will not help raise standards".

The external links are essential as a "futher reading" (the majority of the articles are biographies). If yo uwant to propose that all wikipedia articles' external links shouldhave this foirmat ... do it ... but this article should use this fromat in the external articles ... or the headers should change to a "futher reading" as that is what the links are .... JDR 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., I changed the header to "==Further reading and external articles==")

Lol. :) Well even if it's a first, these are there as external links, not further reading simply because they are online pages. Also please don't start with this page to make a point about this being done to external links, start at the village pump or propose your ideas to the greater wiki community. To the regular editors, this will seem very odd and, I'm afraid, not standard raising. The header change doesn't help either because the links are primarily that which are websites, not books. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1st ... This is not the "start" of this nor is this "making a point".... I have been around for some time doing this ...

2nd ... links are websites of books and essays. This is a standard way to link to them ...

Sincerely, JDR 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How about you add the ones that are specifically of books to further reading and change back all the ones that link to encyclopedia's, etc. ? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A long bibliography about each link is not helpful to the user and will not attract readers who will think it is nothing but a long list of references, much like one's used in an essay. Reddi, how about you wait till others have expressed some opinion also on this topic? Until then, I think that pending consensus, these edits should be reverted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

AOL -- that is, I agree with Anonymous Editor. I find the changes from the standard link format extremely distracting. This does not make Wikipedia easier to use. Reddi, you're going to have to convince everyone else, preferably at the Village Pump, that your proposed changes (which would affect ALL of Wikipedia) are necessary. I don't think you're going to succeed. In the meantime, please stop reverting this article. Zora 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely there should be some mention of the Satanic verses here? --Zeeshanhasan 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

User: Questor2

I would like to insert this image of the Prophet Mohammed. I have read the previous discussion of this issue. I appreciate that civility to a cultural taboo is the basis upon which the decision to remove depictions of the Prophet Mohammed has been taken, but I disagree with it.

If you are to remove material which offends the sensibilities of some adherents to a particular belief system, then you will denude Wikipedia of its content.

At the risk of being rhetorical, what's next? The deletion of the entry on theory of evolution?

I have told you, insert something like {{linkimage|Mohammed_picture.JPG|A European Depiction of Muhammad}} near the end of the article. If the other editors still don't like it, then leave the article alone.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is actually a problem with the whole picture thing, the fact being that a picture of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) does not exist. I would also like to add in that other articles have had material removed from them for being offensive, i.e. Uwe Boll. What makes Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) any different.

the image

The reason why this image won't be on this article is not that we do not allow images of Muhammad by some principle. We do, in fact, have one already, the Persian Miraj one. The point is that it is completely irrelevant, being a European print of a cliched "Easterner", without any connection to any tradition linking it to Muhammad, to the contrary, it is a production hostile to Islam. If at all, it may be admissible on Criticism of Islam. After all, we don't begin George Bush's article with an image of some effigy of him being carried by angry protesters. dab (ᛏ) 00:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes we shouldn't insert something that is offensive to begin with. This user seems to be the same one that was here before trying to insert this picture. We have seen it before and this time that picture is just modified by graphics program. The only reason to add it is to offend Muslims. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we have some pretty picture though (even if its something with letters)? It helps an article get Featured Article status. --Victim of signature fascism Join SIIEG and teach them NPOV 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that this article should have an image. The concensus reached on the article about Bahá'u'lláh was that the image should be at the bottom of the page where believers could avoid it and that the summary at the begining would state that the image was at the bottom with the dual purpose of "warming" those who do not want to see the image and informing people who are curious as to why the image does not appear in the top right. Again, all of this has been discussed in depth at that article, but the basic point is that wikipedia is not censored and that images of historical figures should be included in encycolpedias. If you consider the previous image offensive, feel free to suggest a different one. Masterdebater 22:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how easy it is to find an accurate picture of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) not only because there was no photography in the seventh century but also because he spent the majority of his time in the company of pious Muslims who would not draw a picture of him for fear of shirk. And no, I'm not going to go search for one. The Bahá'u'lláh precendent seems to warrant in this article, but in either article, the picture provides no new information. That would especially be true in this article where even the most accurate drawing couldn't live up to the value of an actual photograph. If, as -Ril- (15-Dec-05) suggested, we put a "pretty picture", we could put the Arabic caligraphy in a more prominent location. joturner 23:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I respect your concerns but wikipedia does not follow Sharia law. Almost universally articles about people contain images even if that person predates photography. Indeed, images are often less than "accurate" but informative and encyclopedic. For example, the image you dbachmann kept removing, although it was painted by a European hardly constitutes an effigy. I have no problem with noting in the caption the ethnicity/nationality of the author of an image. However, I believe that you will have to compromise and add an image composed by a non-muslim (or at least a relatively secular one) because images of Muhammad tend to be produced only by them. I disagree that the "only reason" to add am image to is to offend Muslims. We could place it at the bottom of the article as was done with Bahá'u'lláh. Masterdebater 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe we have.--Tznkai 06:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You believe we have what? No one has responded to the obvious image deficit of this article!

we have a bleeding image of Muhammad. Why does everybody ignore that? We have lots of them, painted by Muslims: Image:Muhammad_on_Mount_Hira.jpg Image:Muhammad_at_the_Kaba_to_remove_a_dragon.jpg Image:Muhammad_advancing_on_Mecca.jpg Image:Muhammad_at_Kaba.jpg Image:Miraj.jpg Image:Prophet_on_rug_large.jpg. I support the addition of any of these, or cropped details of these. Any of these should be sufficient for FA requirements. If people insist on adding Image:Mahomet.jpg instead, I claim their only objective is to annoy Muslims. If Muslim editors object even to the Persian images being in the intro (the Miraj one has been further down in the article for ages, and nobody objected, so stop all this Sharia talk already) -- I argue the burden is on them to produce some nice calligraphy instead that can grace the intro. dab (ᛏ) 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann, thanks for tracking down those images of Muhammad. However, I think that to be NPOV would mean including both images of Muhammad created by both Muslims and non-Muslims. Depictions of Muhammad from other parts of the world are notable. The fact that some extremely observant Muslims detest those images makes them even more notable. I would have no problem with noting in the image caption that the image was created by a non-muslim, etc. Calligraphy is hardly a substitute as far as the intro image goes. Masterdebater 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Overloading intro para with detail

Right now, we've got two levels of detail in the life of Muhammad: the summary, which is everything that even extreme skeptics would admit to be true, as well as a good overview, and the bio according to sira, which is much much more detailed. Now we're loading detail into yet a THIRD place, the opening paras. If Muhammad's parents' names are given later, we don't need to give them in the intro. The confused reader who just wants to know who Muhammad is doesn't CARE what his parents were named, or what his name means. That's stuff for later. We just need to establish why he's notable (religious and political figure, check), and where and when he lived (Arabia, 6th and 7th centuries CE, check).

This is not the stuff of religous controversy, this is just a matter of clarity and style.

I have noticed, over the years I worked on this article, that some people don't read very far before staring to edit. They read the summary and say to themselves, "Hey, that's not all!" and start adding stuff to the summary as fast as they can. They haven't even read the later, more detailed, sections. I don't think we should allow stray details in the first paras, or some editors are going to say, "Hey, they've got his parents' names, but they don't have his CLAN. I'd better add his clan!" And the cruft will start piling up.

Let's just be sure that parent's names and meaning of his name ARE in the later sections. I agree that this could be useful info. Zora 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, it's not that important. You could only have replaced it somewhere. I reverted because of that fact that you didn't care if that info is relevant to readers or not. From my side, it was not because of the intro. Please do whatever you see ok except throwing it to the bin. Still, the info about the meaning of the name is relevant to the intro, I believe. The name of the parents can be put wherever you want. Cheers -- Svest 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Edits by anons

I reverted a bunch of edits by anons. They were either edits that munged the prose (I think these might have been editors who spoke English as a second language) or moved the article in more overtly pious direction, or added a level of detail that makes it difficult for readers. I don't think I removed anything crucial.

However, I did make one change. I had thought that "sahih" meant reliable. D'oh. I'm reading a history of Shi'a Islam that says "sahih" just means "the works of". So Sahih Bukhari is "The works of Bukhari". I'm trusting this is true and changed one sentence that used "sahih" mistakenly. If the book I'm reading was wrong, please let me know. Dang, I really should learn Arabic. Zora 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You were right the first time. According to The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, SaHiiH (adjective, under the root SaHHa) means: "healthy, well, sound, healthful; complete, integral, perfect; whole, entire, undivided; right, correct, proper; true, veritable, actual, real; authentic, genuine, truthful, reliable, credible, believable; valid, legally valid, legal, lawful, rightful..." For more information on why this term is used, read this page and/or this page. Kitabparast 06:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's children

According to Ar-Raheeq Al-Maktoom, arguably the most complete biography of Muhammad in the English language, cites that Muhammad had three sons. In addition to Qasim, as this article states, he also had children named Abdullah (who was known as Taiyib) and Tahir. Both of these were mothered by Khadija, making the total seven (and not five like the article states). Beyond this references, I have always been taught that their were three sons. However, my knowledge should not be considered with any weight.

Thanks! I'm sure someone will look at it soon. I should, but ... stuff to do. Zora 04:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"Non-Muslims generally consider him the founder of Islam."

Are there any non-Muslims who don't consider him the founder of Islam? For that matter, are there any Muslims who don't consider him the founder of Islam? The sentence makes it seem like it's debatable whether or not he founded Islam. I would think a much better opener would be Muhammad ... was the founder of Islam, and is believed by Muslims to be God's final prophet sent to guide mankind with the message of Islam. Binabik80 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't been here for all the anguished discussions re the use of the term "founder". Most Muslims believe that Muhammad was only the LAST prophet of Islam, and that he was preceded by prophets like Moses and Jesus, whose teachings have been distorted by followers. Hence saying that Muslims regard Muhammad as a founder is false. Zora 01:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what the statement is saying, but I also understand your problem with it. What the statement is trying to say is that Muhammad (peace be upon him), contrary to what many non-Muslims (and even Muslims) believe, was not the first Muslim. The term founder can potentially lead to confusion. By defintion, a founder is "one who establishes something or formulates the basis for something" (The American Heritage Dictionaries). I think we can all agree that without Muhammad (pbuh), Islam would not exist in its current form. Whether that would qualify him as the founder of Islam is debatable. Therefore, I'm going to avoid that debate by changing the opening paragraph so it says "first Muslim" instead of "founder of Islam". I especially don't believe we should say "founder of Islam" and "final Prophet" in the same sentence because the latter implies that there were others before him while the former implies there weren't. joturner 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Joturner, the Muslim article says that prophets before Muhammad were considered Muslims, because they submitted to God. You're contradicting that. Seems like we need some cites to confirm the matter -- or to confirm that Muslims don't agree. Zora 01:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam (Muslims) consider Adam to be the first prophet and the first Muslim. There's no need to change that Jot. Cheers -- Svest 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Yeah I think intro is fine as is. No need for change since this shows both views. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you both completely. Look at the change I made to the opening sentence. To me, the sentence was stating a common misconception, not a fact. If it's stating a common misconception, then to add that non-Muslims generally consider him the first Muslim would be an appropriate statement. It's false, but it states a common misconception.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of that sentence is to state a conception of non-Muslims that is true, it should not be presented in a manner that implies that non-Muslims are wrong. It should simply be stated that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the founder of Islam. joturner 01:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the change is correct. It presents both views explicitly better now. Cheers -- Svest 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Ok, I understand but I disagree about the addition since I think that "founder" already implies that he is the first Muslim for the non-Muslim view, so saying the "first Muslim" might seem confusing to a reader because it makes the wonder now what Muslims believe about first Muslims. So I think it isn't really needed since founder already seems to say it. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Well now it does remove the confusion of "first Muslim", but it takes away from the main subject of the article. I really think that the intro was fine since founder means that he was the first Muslim. But good try Joturner. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't change it back, but I believe there may still be some confusion among some readers. I will leave other editors to fix that. joturner 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just glancing over, you guys are confusing something here. Muslim means one who submits (to God) as I recall. It is also the name for believers in the relgion of Islam. The religion of islam, as a forumlated belief, is not a question of ultimate religious truth, but of social scientific determination. In that sense, Muhammed is indeed the founder of Islam--Tznkai 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalizing prophet

The Wikipedia: Manual of Style explicity says "Deities begin with a capital letter: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to Muhammad as the Prophet." It also says "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): 'President Nixon', not 'president Nixon'." Now just as Nixon may not be viewed as the president for citizens of other countries, it is still written President Nixon. Now analagously, Muhammad may not be viewed as the prophet for other religions, yet it should be written Prophet Muhammad. Looking at the history of the Manual of Style, it seems that the line about capitalizing Prophet came in at 24 November 2004. Prior to the 24th, and as far back as May 5th of 2004, there was a policy to capitalize the 'm' in the Messiah, which, in terms of some editors POV complaint, is a similar term. Pepsidrinka 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Then we need to change the Manual of Style. I refuse to type Prophet Muhammad, as I do not recognize him as MY prophet. I'm perfectly OK with "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" or even "the prophet", as that is a neutral reference to his role in the community. We had a consensus here that we wouldn't use caps. Please don't revive the controversy. Zora 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not reviving anything as I didn't write the style guide. But until you show me where the consensus was reached and until you get a consensus to change the style guide, I am going to revert to Prophet. I don't want a revert war, as I am waiting for your response to this message. However, I am acting per the style guide as opposed to you acting on your whims. Pepsidrinka 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the style guide trumps local consensus, however, how recent is that addition to the style guide?--Tznkai 02:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If your referring to the "the Prophet", it was added Nov 24, 2004. Pepsidrinka 02:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't known about that. I always thought that it is a general stuff for all Pprophets! Zora, you say that I refuse to type Prophet Muhammad, as I do not recognize him as MY prophet. Fair enough. However, I presume Queen Elizabeth, President Putin, Comandante Castro, Emperor Hirohito, Captain Star Trek aren't ours, for all of us in this discussion! Capitalizing the letter doesn't make him my, your or our man. And I believe that wikipedia didn't invent that guideline but just followed what is done in academic circles. I am sorry that the consensus was made because there was no further explanation except it is not mine. I've all the time agreed but now I have something on paper. Most of the time I found your logic well constructed and with a good reasoning but I am afraid I don't see it re this point. Cheers -- Szvest 03:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I'm a believer that when push comes to shove, accuracy ever so slightly more important then neutrality (cue the sharks). There may be an implied POV, but Prophet in this case is used similar to Caliph. or the Prophet Joseph Smith, or the Lord Jesus Christ (not that which he is to all, but that it is what he is called. I'm inclined to gather support first however, so we avoid an edit war--Tznkai 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion re "prophet" was conducted at the policy forum of the Village Pump, months ago. Unfortunately, they don't archive the discussions. There's no way I can look it up. There are references to the dispute over the use of "prophet" at an archive of Babajobu's talk page, at [1], and also at my talk archive [2]. Please, let's change the Manual of Style -- don't insist on the caps and ignite the whole dang controversy again. There is an organized group of anti-Muslim editors who will take great offense at Prophet. Frankly, it bothers me too. I do not accept Muhammad as my prophet! You folks know that I try to be as neutral, objective, and respectful as I can, but I am not a Muslim, and I don't want to be forced to write as if I were. Zora 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I hear your reasoning. What I said above about Queen, President, Emperor, Captain, Lieutenant applies to Prophets. Same idea is explained by Tznkai. I am not asking for an exclusive treatement, at the opposite I am asking for consistency. If all academic references and writings have, through centuries, capitalized titles, in almost all societies, languages and alphabets, than why do you have to change the manual of style of Wikipedia?! Why not change our attitudes instead of blaming dead academics for letting us know about capitalizing titles is almost a rule of writing all over the world?

I think thats exclusive to the european family of language but, pretty much--Tznkai 03:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, capitalizing someone doesn't mean he/she is yours!!! From where we got this logic? Can you tell me that if you capitalize the P in pPresident Chirac, that would mean he is your President? I am totally against exclusive treatment. And I hope you hear my reasons. Cheers -- Szvest 03:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Similarly, one may not recognize Taiwan as a nation and subsequently not recognizing the President of Taiwan as a President. Nonetheless, do you suggest we not capitalize the President of Taiwan as well? Pepsidrinka 03:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anything else needs to be said. I understand that saying "the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)" is point of view, but saying the Prophet Muhammad is just giving him a title. joturner 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the style guide is really offensive—to everyone— in implying Muhammad is a diety. It's sort of appalling it's survived in this form for a month, and it really needs to be fixed. - Nunh-huh 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between political titles (which can be controversial, but have a much more limited application) and religious titles, which are used constantly. I'd have just as much problem with Lord Jesus Christ as I would with Prophet Muhammad. I don't give either of those guys those titles. Nor would I refer to the Prophet Moses, for that matter. He's a prophet, not a Prophet. Please show a little respect for MY religious feelings. Zora 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I can give you a better example. Father Matteo Ricci, S.J. Not the collection of capitals. Bishop. Elder. Rabbi. All comparable titles.--Tznkai 03:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The difference with the Queen/President/Emperor examples given above and the Prophet being discussed is that the other titles are objective statements of political fact: Queen Elizabeth is the queen of England, whether you like the monarchy or not. But calling somebody a "prophet" is an implicit, subjective approval of the claims that person made. Put another way, if I declared myself the King of England, it would be foolish to insist that people call me King Jbull; if they did, it would equal implicit recognition of my claim.

None of the religious examples involve implicit agreement with claimed divine revelation.--Jbull 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

as a scholar of religion I can tell you you're very wrong. Priests require ordination through priesthood, a soley religious concept (supposedly) from an altar call, or divine relvalation. Furthermore, prophethood is recognized just like politics, because everyone chooses to agree with it. If people, en masse decided to call you King Jbull, you would be so. People, en masse specificly historical and religious scholars call Muhammed Prophet--Tznkai 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As a scholar of religion, Tznkai, you are undoubtedly aware that priestly ordination does not carry with it a claim of direct divine revelation, as "Prophet" does. Further, while prophethood may be deconstructed by sceptical scholars to "popular acceptance of claims of divine revelation," most people take it more seriously. Finally, even if I effectively became "King Jbull" by popular acclamation, this political reality is more concrete--and far different--from claimed communication with God.--Jbull 04:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, althoug hi dsagree with it. I compare it directly with the term Father. It attains a new meaning related to its original, but not synomous. Also, if you were king by popular acclimation, that is the political reality. But thats seperate and unimportant to my main argument.--Tznkai 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Jbull, what about God? But all kings are Kings!

Zora is totally right about PBUH as she is totally wrong re the Prophet. In academics, there is no such difference as you state, for controversial stuff, if only Muhammad is the only controversial man! We got Pope(s), Bishop(s) and plenty of other religious titles. We even got the Fuhrer (who never was my man, neither yours)! Nobody feels anything neither in writing nor in reading. I assume it's a personal phobia. A Prophet is a title as Queen, Princess, General, Lord, etc... When we capitalize P in Prophet we don't do it for respect of Muhammad but because it is a guideline of writing here or wherever you go. I hope I am reasonable enough. Cheers -- Szvest 03:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

FayssalF--You are totally reasonable. If, instead of Prophet, Muhammed was called something non-loaded-with-meaning, there would be no problem. But Pope, Bishop, etc. do not imply that the men called by those titles spoke to God, as Prophet does. (I think that part of the problem may be that many people are so used to the phrase "the Prophet Muhammed" that they are unaware of how jarring it reads to others, while those jarred by its usage are unaware of its usual usage for others). If the only reason we use a capital P is because of a "guideline," I would hope that the guideline would be changed. --Jbull 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you say and that's why I said it is not for the respect or the aknowledgement of (if you want Muhammad's claims). But who is aknowledging what you say about many people are so used...unaware of its usual usage for others? Is it a standard, a doctrine, a universal guideline? No, it is just as explained to Zora, it is called a Phobia. Cheers - Szvest 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Perhaps I was unclear. I was trying to be conciliatory about mutual cultural insensitivity. If you are trying to ascribe psychological problems to those of us who would rather not call Muhammad a prophet, then reasonable discussion is no longer possible. Cheers.--Jbull 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here. Prophet may be more obvious than comparable religious titles, but it is no less ladden with meaning. Messiah is supposed to be a divine figure who has come to save us all from... well, what ever we need saving from! Il Papa is father, not in a famial sense, but a stand in for God the Father sense!--Tznkai 04:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Messiah is an excellent example. Forcing every editor to call Muhammed the Prophet Muhammed is equivalent to forcing them to call Jesus the Messiah; it is an implicit endorsement of an explicit religious claim.

Yes, "Pope" means father, but it is not the stand in for "God the Father." It is instead a terrestrial term of respect.--Jbull 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just did an unofficial survey of the stacks of Islam-related academic books next to my desk. Donner, Crone, Hinds, Rodinson, Watt, Shaban, and Wansbrough use simply Muhammad; Bell, Madelung, Berkey, and Hawting use mostly Muhammad and sometimes "the Prophet" -- but not "the Prophet Muhammad". Lings and Zacharia, both Muslims, prefer "the Prophet" to the use of Muhammad's name. Strangely enough, in my quick survey of the last two books, I didn't find any instances of "the Prophet Muhammad".

We've seven academics to four as to the use of plain "Muhammad". We've got no uses, that I saw, of "Prophet Muhammad".

I would again beg our Muslim co-editors to be sensitive to their non-Muslim co-editors, and refrain from insisting on a usage of honorifics that seems to us to express sentiments that we don't feel. Zora 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The obvious solution to me is to refer to Muhammad usually, as we normally would as Muhammad and when he is being refered to or acting in the office of the Prophet of Islam, to refer to him as the Prophet.--Tznkai 07:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, you seem very attached to the sensitivity side of the problem than the objective one. I am not gonna repeat this again as I see you are begging Muslim co-editors for some things. For what? I am talking about the capitalization of the term Prophet and I am not a partizan of having The Prophet Muhammad all along the article. I say simply that Muhammad is considered by Muslims as the last Prophet (and not prophet) - same rule applies to other Prophets as it is mentioned clearly in the manual. Alas, all Prophets in wikipedia are called prophets. Why? Sensitive stuff? Wrong reason!

It is not a question of respect but a question of manual style of editing. For your information, nobody is getting sensitive about Naming conventions (Mormonism) (including the capitalization of the honorific title of Joseph Smith) [3]). Not to mention the Dalai Lama (including Gyawa Rinpoche and Yeshe Norbu), etc... And God indeed! According to the logic above, would that be sensetive to atheists? I recon not. If something got to be changed, it should concern all articles about Prophets in Wikipedia, of all beliefs.

Some academics using the caps:

• Religion in American Society - Princeton
• University of Southern Calif (including Prophet Abraham)

I hope this suggestion will be accepted:

- State in the intro the following: Muhammad is considered a Prophet (or a prophet until wikipedia can agree about that) in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith.

- Refrain from using The Prophet Muhammad within the article. Cheers -- Szvest 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Zora's unofficial survey of books at hand prompted me to do an unofficial survey of my own. I searched law review journals, not because I hold them as any authority, but rather just to get another view on this from the world of academia.

• 8 Yale H.R. & Dev. L.J. 67 - PM and tP
• 44 J. Cath. Leg. Stud. 143 - PM and tP
• 38 Cornell Int'l L.J. 413 - pM and tP
• 53 Drake L. Rev. 851 - pm
• 3 Seattle J. Soc. Just. 627 - PM and tP
• 18 Transnat'l Law. 417 - pM
• 5 Tribal L.J. 3 - PM
• 27 Whittier L. Rev. 3 - PM and tP
• 30 Yale J. Int'l L. 375 - PM and tP

I wrote them using the law citations and these are only instances where "Prophet Muhammad" (disregarding case) were found in law reviews as per LexisNexis within the past six months. Incidently, the Seattle Journal for Social Justice used "the Prophet Muhammad" but in reference to Elijah, used "the prophet Elijah." Similarly, the Whittier Law Review refers to Moses as "the prophet." Nonetheless, in reference to Muhammad, all the applicable reviews (six of them) referred to him as "the Prophet" and 6 of the 9 used "the Prophet Muhammad". Pepsidrinka 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think then the Prophet Muhammad's use is to be depressed, and the use of the Prophet or Muhammad is considered good? Objections?--Tznkai 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I raised this issue at the Village Pump (policy) and got some interesting responses [4]. One contributor said that the standard re the use of honorifics is evolving and under consideration. Another said that he found "Prophet" POV and that "prophet" was preferable. Another said that while the current guidelines might allow "Prophet", they do not mandate it. Zora 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we altleast use the above as working internal policy? Objections?--Tznkai 07:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

NO! I OBJECT! and I think there are a great many other people who would object, if they knew about this dialogue. I simply won't call Muhammad the Prophet, and I'm not the only one who would find that repugnant. Nor would I call Jesus "Christ". Or Joseph Smith a "Prophet". Don't ask me to make reverent gestures if I don't feel reverence. Zora 07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection received. Now, You tell us that there are a great many other people who would object and I think about the ones who would not! You tell us that YOU won't call him P than I say you are free of course! Also you tell us that you won't call Jesus "Christ" or JS a P and I tell you that Wikipedia call them that way and the majority of humans around the world have no objections or such feelings! One thing, Zora, if you want the caps off from this article than I want to see you asking about the same in all articles related to divinity! Starting from '''G'''od. Cheers -- Szvest 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

+1 Jwissick^(t)(c) 07:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a delectate way to put this: Your books say the title "Prophet" is used to refering to "Muhammed" within the office/title/position of islamic prophethood.

I think you've overlooked the part where the MAJORITY of the academic works didn't use "the Prophet". Some do; more didn't. Zora 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I count 7/6 on your list, and a host of discussion and some law books that change that a bit.--Tznkai 08:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough. The works by Lings and Zacharia are devotional and not academic works. They don't count in a discussion of academic usage. Zora 08:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

USC and Princeton certainly do. My own college is less snazy, but we do it there.--Tznkai 08:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Several editors have said the same. If you have an intense problem with it based on personal moral qualms, simply don't do it. No one is forcing you to type. Type as you would, but don't object ot the changes as they are made.--Tznkai 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I've always thought that you are so objective until discussing this issue. I don't know what would make you feel bothered if it is capitalized or even if you'd call someone a Prophet. Don't we call Tenzin G. the Dalai Lama? It is a title!!! Could you please click on this Jesus Christ? Doesn't that hurt you?! It doesn't hurt me as it is a title, be it divine or not! I challenge your logic and ask you to call God, god! I presented my suggestions above but you turned your back away, not even a comment and come back to tell us about the same; being hurt as he is not my prophet. Is God your god? People went and did some surveys and presented some interesting data for us but you still talk about feelings! Cheers -- Szvest 08:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Buddhists don't believe in "God", so you can remove all the caps you want. The Gautama Buddha article is rife with caps and piety and I don't approve of that either, even though I'm a Buddhist. I'll rewrite it when I have time. Or you can. Zora 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Asking me to remove things that I have had no objection ever with?!! I simply call this a False dichotomy while I am applying Reductio ad absurdum. Again, Zora, they say "do your homework first before asking others to do their homework and/or yours". Buddhists don't believe in "God" as Christians don't believe "Dalai Lama" doesn't make your case valid. It has nothing to do with caps!!! John Lennon sang: God is a concept (sic?!). Cheers -- Szvest 11:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Addendum - A simple homework for you Zora (not for me as it doesn't bother me). It takes only two clicks; remove the redirect of Jesus Christ to Jesus. I don't advice you to do that because it's foolish! Cheers -- Szvest 11:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Wiki redirects are to help users find articles, using common related terms. The actual article on Jesus does not refer to him as "Jesus Christ," just as Jesus. If we force editors to refer to Muhammed as the Prophet Muhammed, I suggest we also force editors to refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ, a very common title of long-standing use--Jbull 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is quickly bordering on incivility. Lets start of please?

Suggestions

Issue at hand: What should be the article standard for the capitlization of Prophet?: 1. Per current style guide reccomendation (capitilized) EX: "As the Prophet, Muhammed led the muslims into Medina"

Support: Several academic publications which use the title, Universal application and accuracy concerns

2. Without capitalization EX as the last prophet of the Islamic faith...

Support: Several academic publications omit the title, WP:NPOV concerns

Thats my breif summary, and I tried to be sympathetic to both sides of the argument. There is a wealth of support in academic disiplines and we need to agree on what standard we find best.--Tznkai 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is appropriate to note the common usage of "The Prophet Muhammed," but that exclusive use in an objective article is not appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that, at the beginning of the article, it be noted that Muslims refer to Muhammed as "The Prophet Muhammed." Then, for the rest of the article, he be referred to as Muhammed.--Jbull 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with that being there are times when we need to prefer to the office of Prophethood. (yes, I know its technically not an office in a governmental sense, but its the best anology I can muster). I agree however that the Prophet Muhammed doesn't sound very neutral or professional--Tznkai 18:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jbull. Wasn't it the same and exact suggestion I made yesterday above which nobody cared to comment about it?

I hope this suggestion will be accepted:

- State in the intro the following: Muhammad is considered a Prophet (or a prophet until wikipedia can agree about that) in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith.

- Refrain from using The Prophet Muhammad within the article. Cheers -- Szvest 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I couldn't understand your response to Jesus Christ. I was wondering if it could look different that The Prophet Muhammad. Aren't there Muslim readers who would look for that? Cheers -- Szvest 18:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I just created a hard redirect there, FYI. Anyway lets focus on the point. Whats both Neutral and Accurate?--Tznkai 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

FayssalF--Gosh, I didn't see your suggestion above before making my own. I guess great minds think alike.

Tznkai--I see nothing in the article on Muhammed that would require any title at all, and no reference to an "office of Prophethood." Am I missing something? Otherwise, FayssalF's disclaimer looks good to me, with Muhammed referred to as "Muhammed" in the body of the article.--Jbull 19:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll get a few examples of where I think it would be pertinent (bolded)

• "Muhammad (570-632 CE) listen ▶(?) Arabic: محمد (also transliterated Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhammed, and sometimes Mahomet (Latin Mahometus), following the Latin or Turkish), is believed by Muslims to be God's final prophet sent to guide mankind with the message of Islam. Non-Muslims generally consider him to be the founder of Islam."

--"Prophet" is explained as a pious usage. This is fine.--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Appears as Prophet of Islam: Mecca"

--Could be rewritten as "Takes message to Mecca."--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some time in 620, the prophet Muhammad told his followers that he had experienced the Isra and Miraj, a miraculous journey said to have been accomplished in one night. In the first part of the journey, the Isra, he is said to have travelled from Mecca to Jerusalem. In the second part, the Miraj, Muhammad is said to have toured Heaven and Hell, and spoken with earlier prophets [this is an example of good lowercase usage], such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

--I would remove "prophet" before Muhammed. It is not needed. I would also remove "earlier prophets" from before Abraham, Moses and Jesus. If needed, it could be rewritten as "such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, who Muhammed said were earlier prophets of Islam."--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Muhammad had hoped that they would recognize him as a prophet the final Prophet, but they did not do so

--I don't see the need to capitalize.--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• "To the Muslims, the victory in Badr appeared as a divine authentication of Muhammad's prophethood, and he and all the Muslims rejoiced greatly. Following this victory, after clashes, and the breaking of a treaty that risked the security of the city state, the victors expelled a local Jewish clan, the Banu Qainuqa. Virtually all the remaining Medinans converted, and Muhammad became ruler of the city." (not totally sure on this one, but this is Prophet as leader of islam, not just random prophet number 264)

--I would change "prophethood" to "message."--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if my markup was clear, but I think yo ucan get what I'm driving at.--Tznkai 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we are all colored in this debate by our prior beliefs. I personally don't care about 'Prophet' or 'prophet' in personal terms only which is better encyclopedically. However, I'm not sure why we would need to use "the Prophet" very often when Muhammad seems to be a widely accepted norm. (I would hope no one is offended by Muhammad meaning "highly praised") I would like to see how Maxime Rodinson styled Muhammad (being a Marxist). I think we will find examples for all sides. Pious writers using the Prophet out of faith. Academics using the Prophet out of apathy (or respect for religious figure). Academics using the prophet out of concern for aggrandizing the subject (or respect for adherents of other religions). I understand Zora's point but I'm not sure how well it scales. "Jesus christ"? Would that be the proper way to do it? There are so many titles that are capitalized and so widely known that way that I'm not sure we could agree to remove them or that they would. It's a sticky situation when you look across the board of religious articles on wikipedia. The "Greek god" v. "Christian God" debate seems pretty biased but it's a standard that I don't think can really be changed. I ask for ambivalence in this discussion and not trying to push your view as 'right' since both sides obviously have somewhat legitimate claims. gren グレン 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good comments! Let us be reasonable:

1-The intro should clarify the point: Muhammad is considered a prophet in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith. This is the same scenario as in Jesus.

2- No such The Prophet Muhammad or prophet within the article in the same way there's no such Lord, Son of God or God inside the article of Jesus

3- Keep Muhammad as a redirect of The Prophet Muhammad in the same way Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus.

Personally, I believe the above as non offending, realistic and neutral. Cheers -- Szvest 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

My only concern is that of academic accuracy, as I pointed out above, and as I recall, Muhammad was, in his own time refered to as the Prophet, or the Final Prophet or what have you, and held in higher esteem and the leader of that religion.--Tznkai 19:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Tzk. You can still say Muhammad is considered a final prophet in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith.. It's still NPOV as only Muslims believe in that he was the final prophet. Szvest 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me slightly. Its impossible to go through the entire article and replace every incident of "prophet" with "Muhammad", and there are times when he is not a prophet of God but the Prophet (of Islam).

I see what you mean now. IMHO, keep it simple! Usually, the reader starts reading from the intro. If the intro is explicit enough there no need to complicate things. The only exception would be the quotes from the Qur'an. Cheers --  ^{Wiki me up™}

Religion is never simple ^_^. In all seriousness, I think reducing the incidents of prophet so it refers to the Title/Office of Prophet, the idea of prophetic revelation, and never as a replacement for "Muhammad" will eliminate all the problems.--Tznkai 20:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes but this is what we are saying. Say it once and the reader will understand everything according to the context. The intro is the key and then leave the reader alone by himself. I don't see any other point. Cheers -- Szvest 20:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Er. I guess we'll just try it and see then, as I'm not sure if and where we disagree anymore ^_^; I'd like to hear Zora's response first though as he's the one who brought on the objection

;) I don't see where we disagree as well. Well, I think the 3 most points are very clear to you, Jbull (as per below) and me. We'll be waiting for Zora's opinion and of course yourself if you can summarize your point. Cheers --  ^{Wiki me up™}

In breif? There are times when Prophet should still be used when refering to the office itself. (Speaking as the Prophet of Islam) but in general we should refer to Muhammad as Muhammad, and not the Prophet. (Muhammad, speaking as the Prophet as opposed to Muhammad, speaking as Muhammad, or Muhammad, speaking as the prophet" Other than that I agree.--Tznkai 20:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all three suggestions.--Jbull 19:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I just don't see any reason to change what we've been doing for months, which is using prophet without caps. I've been writing articles using "Muhammad", "the prophet", "the prophet Muhammad", "the Islamic prophet", "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" -- have I missed any variations? -- which seems to me to be a useful range of alternatives, allowing for a varied prose style. The cap would be added purely as a sign of respect, which I don't feel, and don't want to be obligated to pretend. So far as I can tell, the only argument for the cap is that it is supposed to indicate Muhammad's official position in the Muslim community. But it's a strange official position that exists for only twenty years and is never held by anyone else. He didn't hold an "official", bureaucratic, routinized position, like a pope; he was a charismatic total leader -- general, prophet, judge, etc. Giving prophet the cap doesn't indicate an official position, it indicates that Muhammad is supreme among prophets, an Islamic belief that I do not accept. If people want to call him "the prophet", I have no objections. I do object to "the Prophet". Zora 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

...My resposne to the "I feel" is the same as I previously mentioned. Write how you want, and we'll clean up after you. We've given you plenty of reasons, and I assume you've understood them and considered them. The position is a position like any other. It has a charter (a holy text), and popular acclaim, and is called such by plenty of scholars on religion accross the world. Its certainly accurate, its plenty rare, and the prophet Muhammed is uneeded compared to "Muhammed" or "Muhammed, as the Prophet" or what have you at the moment. I'm really rather perplex to how obstinant you are on this point and I'm looking for grounds to comrpomise here.--Tznkai 21:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You know very well (pretending not) that We don't ask for the usage of all what you stated above! I am sorry Zora but your basis is based upon personal experiences and not about consistency in Wikipedia. The 3 suggestions are legit and do not look at personal experiences. We should treat all articles alike! I protest more than you do because it is not fair! The difference between your reasons and Jbull are clear! Jbull understood the paradigm while you have been sticking to your point of he is not yours! If you have any objections, please use them on the basis of these suggestions:

1-The intro should clarify the point: Muhammad is considered a prophet in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith. This is the same scenario as in Jesus.

2- No such The Prophet Muhammad or prophet within the article in the same way there's no such Lord, Son of God or God inside the article of Jesus

3- Keep Muhammad as a redirect of The Prophet Muhammad in the same way Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus.

Again, Giving prophet the cap doesn't indicate an official position, it indicates that Muhammad is supreme among prophets, an Islamic belief that I do not accept. is wrong and my first suggestion explains that your idea is wrong! Cheers -- Szvest 07:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)^{Wiki me up™}

FayssalF--In the absence of disagreement, would you like to make the changes to the article consistent with your 3 sensible suggestions?--Jbull 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please check if I missed something. Cheers -- Szvest 14:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Organization of links

I reverted Mistress Kyle's re-org of the links. Something can be secular without being critical, so changing the title is not OK. Nor is it necessarily BAD to come last. Some people consider that as "having the last word" and being a favored position. Zora 20:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Stability pact

Hello guys, fellows, sis, fellas, ikhwa, bros, etc... As of January, 2006, i got to note that the article is getting more and more stable. This is due to all contributors' participation especially in the talk page. Thanks all! However, i'd ask every contributor to discuss any further major edit to discuss their issues here before any other thing. It's a call for everybody, including myself. Cheers -- Szvest 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Clarification RE: the Governing Structure of Mecca

I'm seeing some unclarities regarding the governing structure of Mecca by the time Muhammad came around. I am seeing sentences that variously refer to "leaders" and "rulers" of Mecca. One sentence even refers to Ibn Sufyan as a "general."

As I understand it, Mecca was governed by a loose confederation of clan leaders, with no discernable governing structure, so these descriptions do not seem accurate. Saltyseaweed 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Titles of veneration

I think the way Muhammad's prophethood is dealt with in this article, comes very close to a neutral point of view. I'd like to compliment the various contributors for that.

Lately, I have been making some effort myself to make articles concerning religions and religious figures comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. For example, I've changed "Holy Bible" to "Bible", "Holy Qur'an" to "Qur'an", and "Lord Krishna" to "Krishna". I have received some criticism for that, I was at one point accused of engaging in a "crusade" against the word "holy". At this moment, I have a hard time editing Hinduism/Vedas-related articles, because my removals of the term "Lord" are not appreciated. But that was to be expected, I'm not complaining ... ;-)

I believe it's necessary to formulate some general guidelines for addressing religious figures, books, etc., but have only found Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, I wouldn't know where to place my appeal for such a set of guidelines, but since a (in my opinion) reasonable, and workable solution appears to have been achieved on this talk page, I place it here. Please feel free to move it to an appropriate page, and let me know where you left it. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We have been skirmishing over this for years. Benne, I'm a Buddhist, and the article on the Buddha embarrasses me. I can't criticize Muslims for insisting that we all venerate Muhammad if the Buddha article reeks of piety. Can you start on a cleanup? I may not be the best person for this, because I'm USED to pious Buddhist language. Zora 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Muhammad was a merchant, then a prophet"

It comes very close to NPOV, I just said, but we're never done finetuning, I guess. I don't want to be too nit-picky, but the sentence "For most of the sixty-three years of his life, Muhammad was a merchant, then a prophet." could (and should, in my opinion) still be improved. Would "(...) acted as a prophet." be appropriate? Or would "(...) worked as a prophet." be better, perhaps? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 06:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)