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 64.58.13.86 (talk) at 22:13, 7 August 2011 (→‎Edit request from Ishan7018, 3 August 2011: duh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

founder of islam?

He just a human.Allah(God) sends rules.Allah sends İncil(youre calling holy bible), Tevrat(Tora), Kur'an, Zebur(Hz.Davud's book-you calling David).Allah is the greatness.Allah sends all messengers and books.Hz.Adem(you calling Adam), first human, he is a messenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.189.240 (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources all state that Muhammad was the founder of Islam. The article also notes that this is contrary to many Muslim religious beliefs. Unfortunately, "my religious belief says otherwise" is not a reliable source. Singularity42 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the following (ref 4) is the reference referring to "Muhammad" being the "founder" of Islam... the reference doesn't seem to quote such a thing. It states the term "preached", but it doesn't seem to define him as the "founder". On top of that the source isn't really on the topic of general held opinions that Muhammad is believed to be the "founder" of islam or even about the origin of islam. Surely perhaps a source referring to general held beliefs through the ages of what people assumed Muhammad as being would be more suitable than a source that doesn't seem to provide any insight to the claim? Faro0485 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's reference 2. It's a major text on the history of Islam, but it's not online. Singularity42 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should say: "He is regarded by Muslims as the final messenger of Allah for humanity, but not the founder. Muslims consider the start of Islam among humanity with Adam, the prophet considered to be the first human being. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says that Muslims don't hold the view that Muhammad is the founder. Also, this article isn't about Islam, therefore explaining a theological point seems unnecessary in this article. In the past I have proposed re-wording it to remove the word "founder" and instead say that Muhammad introduced Islam to the world, but that proposal didn't go anywhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire page is slanted propoganda

The page appears quite biased (see European/Western Views). How can this page be locked off in its current form?? It's full of opinion and stereotypes about the views of Mohammed. If it causes so much belly-aching that there has to be a special FAQ catered to Muslims, then we're all fooling ourselves thinking we live in a free country and that Wikipedia's a shared resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP123 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire page is slanted propoganda and should be edited high and low! This is NOT an informational piece ('he was happily married...'). I think there are accounts of Muhammad raping, plundering, and being killing... Where are these FACTUAL accounts??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP123 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, PLEASE, add new topics at the bottom of this page instead of all over the place. THANK YOU. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With your editing history, you should be able to edit the article. If you have reliable sources, go ahead and edit it yourself. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bah'hai?

Lol, it mentions the Bah'hai people in the top header - as if that makes any sense - that's completely out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.13.190 (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, where? I don't see it. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the very last sentence of the intro. While the info is relevant and referenced, it does read as if it were "tacked on" as an afterthought. Perhaps it would be better to move the tidbit into "Other views"/"Other religious traditions"? Doc Tropics 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still missing it. Does it use the word "Bah'hai"? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh, it did, but it isn't there anymore...I removed it. It really was just "tacked on" to the end of the intro and duplicated a single sentence from the main body of the article. While the lede should summarize the article's contents, such a minor point doesn't seem to bear repetition. If you check the article history for the last version before I edited, you'll see it. Doc Tropics 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Ishan7018, 3 August 2011

Hi, would request you to remove the painting of Mohammad (saw) where it shows the reveleation of Quran from Gibrael.

Ishan7018 (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Is there a reason or consensus to do this? Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. 64.58.13.86 (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Nafisulkiron, 3 August 2011

Please change "Abu al-Qasim Muḥammad ibn Abd Allah ....." to "Abu al-Qasim Muḥammad ibn Abdullah .....". That is Abd Allah to Abdullah. Abdullah is the proper name. Thanks in advance. Nafisulkiron (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need to change it. Abd Allah is a legitimate transliteration, albeit Abdullah is a little more common. I've just run it by Google books and Abd Allah gets nearly 200,000 hits and Abdullah gets 580,000. Personally I prefer Abd Allah as it makes the original meaning clearer (Servant of Allah). DeCausa (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and personally agree with, your preference for "Abd Allah"; it seems to be the more accurate and useful presentation. But if "Abdullah" is nearly 3 times more common, then shouldn't we use that? Possibly with "(also rendered as "Abd Allah (lit. "Servant of Allah")." after it, in order to keep the useful info? Just a thought...Doc Tropics 15:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after I clicked in save I thought saying "a little" more common was stretching it! DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter

As I mentioned above in a thread on the Images talk page, I think this article is spoilt by being overstuffed by info boxes and images. In some sections they run in parallel down both the left and right side at the same time Many of the infoboxes (particularly the time lines) add little. IMHO, it's pretty unprofessional looking. I would suggest:

  • From the Childhood and early life section: deleting the Timeline infobox. It was recently added.
  • Beginnings of the Quran: delete the two images or the "Part of a series Qu'ran" navbox, and move one of the images to the right.
  • Opposition: delete the map of the Axumite Empire (it really is not significant enough to be there anyway)
  • Hijra: delete timeline
  • Beginning of armed conflict: delete military expeditions
  • Final years: delete one of the first three images and move one. So that there is two images, one on right, one on left but not facing each other.
  • Aftermath: it's a terrible map. Looks like someone drew it with a crayon. Replace with this one.
  • Legacy: If the "Part of a series Qu'ran" navbox has been deleted (above) move here and delete Shahada gateway pic (not a good photo and a strange reprsentation of the shahada).

DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think this is a good idea and I support the effort. The timelines don't add anything that isn't covered in text, so they certainly seem expendable. While Navboxes can be handy, there is definitely an excess on this page. As for more specifics, I'm still reviewing a couple of those sections and will respond with particulars shortly. Thanks for bring this topic up DeCausa...I was planning to do so as well, prompted by other recent discussions  : ) Doc Tropics 16:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, though if they could all go side-by-side at the bottom that would be acceptable. I'd keep the military expeditions, which is very specific. It's the general Islamic ones that duplicate each other. Note that most of the links here are not mentioned in the text. The same might well apply to the Hijra one. I also think this discussion should be on the main talk page - timelines are not really "images". Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 96.52.188.132, 7 August 2011

Prophet Muhammad was not the fouder of a new religion. He was reinforcing the same message that other Prophets before him were relaying. He was just updating the previous way of life. Like Jesus came after Moses and reinforced the same basic message to his people. 96.52.188.132 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says that in the second sentence of the article.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=443576682"