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 75.179.144.10 (talk) at 23:59, 24 May 2010 (→‎"Muhammad is" vs. "Muhammad was": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

Good articleMuhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Last years in Mecca

I don't think this is in the right place (under the Final Years sections) This happened before even migrating to Medina....should be in some other section before him migrating to Medina Seektrue (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Required in Article Regarding how to write paternity

Hi.. Please note I like to draw your attention that while writing paternity for muslim names there is an error which is as follows:

In article about Prophet Muhammad it writes Muhammad ibn Abdullah it should read Muhammad Bin Abdullah. It totally changes the whole relationship. Bin means Son Of and ibn means Father of. Like Abdullah ibn Muhammad..is correct..

I hope Iam able to convey my point. Similarly I have noticed when they write the names in arabic language same error is there. I do not know how to go to arabic letters and can explain how it effects with replacing a letter.. I know the letters but do not how to find in wikipedia.

I will be glad if some one can fix this error and others like imam abu hanifa article I am sure the same error is there.

Thanks

____

Abdullah ibn Muhammad is correct?? .. NO, ibn and bin or ben , are the same , they mean " son ", however , ben and bin are familiar, like slang... about, imam abu hanifa , means imam father of hanifa, not son of hanifa

if we say Abullah ibn Muhammad, that means, Abdullah is the son of Muhaùmmad

abu أبو = father

ibnu ابن , bin , ben بن = son

محمد ابن عبد الله = Muhammad ibn Abdellah

الإامام أبو حنيفة = imam abu hanifa

--- Correct, I concur, Ibn = ben = son Thanks

Images

There's nothing left to say. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I dont see why we can't have images of muammid. wikipedia is not censored 82.25.130.155 (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count six images of Muhammad in the article. How many do you think it needs? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DNFTT. raseaCtalk to me 11:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saint Joseph, Saint Mathhew is allowed, Swami vivekananda is allowed but not Prophet simply Muhammad

Its very strange to look at people calling themselves neutral and un biased. But the same set of Neutral?!!? people will allow honorifics to the leaders of their religion. But when it comes to islam they say be neutral.

Can some one explain me Why Prophet Muhammad is not allowed when Saint Joseph, Saint Mathhew, Swami Vivekananda etc ar permitted in wikipedia? Are the policies only for a particular religion? Wasifwasif (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's actually a good point.—Chowbok ☠ 14:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the correction is to use Joseph, Matthew, and Vivekananda.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with OP and Kww. Better disambiguators for Joseph and Matthew would be Joseph (New Testament) and Matthew (New Testament) or something similar. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare it to the article Jesus: there are lots of Muhammads and lots of Jesuses, but we all know who we mean when we say 'Muhammad' or 'Jesus'. (Just to be clear, I am not comparing Jesus and Muhammad here; they are just contrasting examples of how the most well known figures do not generally take any additional title in their article name.)
As for 'Saint', it should just be used where needed for disambiguation (and where it is the name by which that person is commonly known). So, for example, Saint Thomas Aquinas is just Thomas Aquinas (altho' he is often, and unnecessarily, referred to as Saint in many articles).
So, I took this page name as a compliment to Muhammad: he is the Muhammad.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I glean from this is not that this article is in the wrong because those articles do not meet the standard established by consensus, rather the opposite; those articles should be changed. Peter Deer (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, and I don't understand why the Saint Matthew article was recently renamed that from Matthew the Evangelist (as per the other three evangelists). The motion to move Swami Vivekananda to simple Vivekananda ended without consensus and so has stayed with the (obviously?) incorrect article title. Saint Joseph is a little harder as there is no other common name for him, so far as I know; that is probably the case for a handful of other saints too (for example, Saint George, for whom the tag 'New Testament' dab wouldn't work either). Most saints though do not have 'saint' in their article name (see all the Saint Catherines and all but one of the Saint Josephs for example).
So, yes, this article is correctly named, but at least some of the examples listed by the OP are, as they complain, incorrectly named (in my humble opinion etc.).
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that the title names of Saint Joseph, Saint Mathhew and Swami vivekananda has to do with policy of using common names in Wikipedia rather than the honorific thing. For that matter, personally i would not oppose a motion to rename this to Prophet Mohd. Arjuncodename024 18:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But as the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) guideline says:

Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comes back to the all-or-nothing problem though. Even individuals who have different titles, titles not acknowledged by all groups who hold them significant, or multiple titles (for instance, whether or not Jesus would be called "Prophet Jesus", "Rabbi Jesus", or "Jesus Christ") which is similarly contentious to the use of 'saint' regarding the apostles of Jesus, because not all groups who have a relevant interest in the subject refer to them by that title, and it is not a title they referred to themselves as in any official capacity like a king or a prime minister or a pope. (However, I am aware Muhammad referred to Himself as a Prophet, and is recognized by all institutions of Islam and the Baha'i faith as a Prophet, so that does add that additional wrinkle to the naming issue.) Peter Deer (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doesn't add a wrinkle because we don't use titles in page names regardless of how widely used they are. There is far more agreement that Obama has the title "president" than that Muhammad has the title "prophet", but neither of their pages use the title because that's not how our naming convention works. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draw Muhammad Day

It is supposedly 'Draw Muhammad Day' today and I notice that this article is illustrated with five drawings of Muhammad - all ancient paintings from religious manuscripts. Doesn't this suggest that the current violent controversy and ban on such images is entirely unhistorical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Depictions of Muhammad. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allaha or khuda is not what is muhhamad

Muhhamad is only a prophet god is allaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.126.39 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum, please do not post unless it is in regards to improving the article. Your statement makes no sense Smitty1337 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mohammed (PBUH) IS the last prophet as it is written so in the Holy Quran. Therefore, those who don't believe what is written in the HQ, aren't really Muslims. So it's not "Most Muslims", should be "All muslims".

Source: (From the HQ) Al-Ahzab, verse #40 // سورة الأحزاب, آية 40

Ottin Z (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)O.Z. 22/5/2010[reply]

That's an excellent example of the No true Scotsman fallacy.
Nevertheless, the phrase "most Muslims" in the article should be qualified or sourced, because the statement means that some Muslims don't regard Muhammad as the last prophet. I agree this does look strange. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a No true scotsman fallacy. the action in this scenario (belief in Muhammad as prophet) is a requirement for the Subject (being muslim). Take for instance "Most aethiests believe there is no god" makes no sense as a person would by definition of the word aethist, immediatly cease to be one, if they believed in any god. Smitty1337 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying whether a denomination is part of a given religion is very tricky and full of POV. Nevertheless, I think we would have a fairly wide consensus that someone who did not view Muhammad as a profit is, by definition, not Muslim, even if they share all other aspects of the religion. Just like how we could say that a Unitarian is not a Christian even if they follow all of Jesus' moral teachings. So, I think we can probably drop the qualifier "most". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Muhammad is" vs. "Muhammad was"

First of all, I am no expert on Islam or Muhammad, but the opening line seems strange to me. It currently reads "Muhammad is the founder..." Deceased historical people generally were something, and are not considered to currently be something (i.e. "Muhammad is"). So it seems to me that all sentences should be "Muhammad was the founder..." I understand there are exceptions for someone like Jesus, who is considered to be both a semi-historical figure and also often believed to be an eternal conceptual entity. But Muhammad isn't considered by Muslims to be "eternal", is he? They don't think that he still exists though (besides in Heaven or whatever), right? Even though he was a prophet, that's different than being eternal. I mean, Joseph Smith is a prophet, but his article doesn't say "Joseph Smith is the founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint Movement." That would seem a little strange. So, with your approval, I think it sound be changed so that every sentence refers to Muhammad in the past tense.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=364020421"