Talk:Muhammad

Update Request - Important Information Left out and Incorrect

I strongly suggest the editors of this article to please do deeper research into muhammed. There seems to be a lot of important information left out of this, in order to make the prophet appear prosecuted.

Please refer to the Quran - also to this website:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

In the Article referring to muhammed, this is stated under the "Opposition Section"

According to Ibn Saad, opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that condemned idol worship and the polytheism practiced by the Meccan forefathers.[76][80] However, the Quranic exegesis maintains that it began as Muhammad started public preaching.[81] As his followers increased, Muhammad became a threat to the local tribes and rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Ka'aba, the focal point of Meccan religious life that Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad's denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba.[79] Powerful merchants attempted to convince Muhammad to abandon his preaching; he was offered admission to the inner circle of merchants, as well as an advantageous marriage. He refused both of these offers.[79]

'What is written in the article portrays muhammed as being persecuted. The following was taken from www.thereligionofpeace.com and you can at the below link information on the website such as:

"TROP is not associated with any organization. The site does not promote any religion, but it is not hostile to religion. We generally support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, women, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/site/about-site.aspx 

According to Muslim historians, the Meccans were actually quite tolerant of Muhammad preaching his new religion. Mecca was an open society where different religions were respected. Polytheists, Jews and Christians lived and worshipped side-by-side, especially during the holy months, when pagan pilgrims would travel long distances from beyond the city to perform their rituals at the Kaaba.

Muhammad brought on the resentment of the local people not by preaching Islam, but by breaking with Meccan tradition and cursing other religions:

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167), "[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by “condemning” the local religion, causing the Meccans great anxiety:

[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183)."We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)

Not only was this an insult to the people and their traditions, but it also threatened the local economy, which depended on the annual pilgrimage. Still, they were so eager to live at peace, that they offered Muhammad money if he would stop stirring up trouble:

They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they had sent for him in order that they could talk together. No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188) Further proof that the Meccans did not have a problem with Islam existing side-by-side with their own religion is found in the episode known as the Satanic Verses. According to Muslim historians, Muhammad briefly agreed to their demand to cease disparaging the local gods and recognize the rights of others to their religion:

When [the Meccans] heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him… When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command. Those mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods. In the whole mosque there was no believer or kāfir who did not prostrate. (al-Tabari, the Tarikh Vol. 1)

The Meccans were clearly relieved that the unprecedented tension over religious beliefs was broken. They rejoiced by praying alongside the Muslims at the Kaaba. They accepted the Muslims once Muhammad accepted them.

Unfortunately the period of peace and brotherhood was short-lived. Muhammad soon reneged on his words after his own people began to question the contradiction between his previous claims and his new-found tolerance for other faiths. This incident, particularly his about-face, had the effect of ratcheting up the tension and hostility all the more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curarenatura (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&action=edit&section=5

TROP can hardly be considered an unbiased source with a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy. Their own "about" page clearly shows their stated purpose is to "explain the threat that Islam truly poses to human dignity and freedom, as well as the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist teachings." The website does a decent job linking to other reliable sources, though, but for as a source of history I wouldn't consider it reliable; we should instead defer to other sources cited by TROP and examine them on a case by case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yea that website is known to be a Zionist disinformation website that can be easily debunked as non-sense by anyone with a degree in Islamic history, a modern term for that website would be "fake news" Not to mention that website does not cite to any valid sources and when it claims to cite to valid sources, the sources do not back up what it claims. Pretty much anyone trying to copy and paste that Islamophobic drivel onto Wikipedia is just some conspiracy theory historical revisionist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force#Criticism 67.80.214.161 (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That website is an unreliable, biased source, but so are you. It is surprising how you aren't part of their website. I guess you are just trying to look sly by opposing them, just for this one matter, when you actually deeply believe in their website as a whole. When Muhammad said those verses, Shaitan had slipped it upon his tongue, as the books record it. Also, notice how it was the only event like that. That mistake only occurred once. You aren't any different. Muhammad didn't just reject their beliefs and many, many, gods, but also their traditions, such as burying their daughters alive because they were considered a shame to the family, and their trivial tribal wars over negligible matters such as someones's camel drinking from another's well or eating from another's garden, along many others. They were so deep rooted in these matters, they couldn't see what was right or wrong, so anyone opposing them, they saw them as enemies in their delusional minds without even thinking. AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

material reverted from inclusion - the material: Name in full

please see: User:Ymblanter Talk > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ymblanter#content_reverted.2C_article:_Muhammad

the proceeding material:

Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim, <----- (was born about the year 570)

I can't see any reason to not include this material, User:Ymblanter has suggested: If there are objections to your edits there is always material to discuss....You may ask yourself first why in this article, which is very high profile and exists almost since the very beginning, nobody before you added this material to the lede. 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

1a16 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@H7asan, Aaboelela, Reddi, Mustafaa, Brutannica, AAA765, Zora, Anonymous editor, Proabivouac, Opiner, Itaqallah, ALM scientist, and Arrow740:

References

Well, for one thing, it isn't appropriate to cite WP:TERTIARY sources, such as other encyclopedias, for the purpose of supporting claims like that. Britannica got that information from somewhere else, and that's where we should look.

I don't have an opinion either way on whether to include the full name in the lead sentence, or display it in the infobox as it is already. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The lead box shows > Born Muḥammad ibn `Abdullāh

Britannica shows > Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim

1a16 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The Britannica version is corroborated at

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?381048-Translation-of-Muhammad-s-full-name

published Springer Publishing

Publisher Springer, 2016 p.655 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f9f7CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA655&lpg > [1]

http://muslimmuseum.org.uk/the-birth-the-revelation-the-hijra/ > http://muslimmuseum.org.uk/about/ (no wikilinks to individuals or organisations)

published NYU Press

p. xiv https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qA0hDQAAQBAJ&pg NYU Press, 8 Nov 2016 edited by Tahera Qutbuddin Associate Professor of Arabic Literature at the University of Chicago > [2]

Wikipedia France

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahomet

Wikipedia Italy

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maometto

Wikipedia Germany

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed

1a16 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Corroboration in forums and other Wikipedias are meaningless. But there are other good sources up there. That's fine.

Now the real question is, what do Wikipedia policies or guidelines say about this?

Is there a guideline that supports using Muhammad's full name in the lead sentence of the article? We do it in other articles after all, such as Bill Clinton. However, this being the English Wikipedia, putting Bill Clinton's full name in the lead doesn't add any unnecessary confusing detail. In the case of Muhammad, however, adding a long, complex, foreign-language (Arabic) name in the lead needlessly complicates it.

We have a guideline MOS:INTRO that explains

It is even more important [in the introduction] than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid ... over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

One could argue that a long Arabic name in the lead sentence of an English Wikipedia article is over-specific for the lead.

In the same guideline WP:LEADSENTENCE also says

While a commonly recognisable form of name will be used as the title of biographical articles, fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead. For instance, in the article Paul McCartney, the text of the lead begins: "Sir James Paul McCartney ...".

So according to the guideline, the full name may be used, but there is no requirement that it must be used.

The full name already appears elsewhere in the article. It may be more appropriate in the Arabic Wikipedia to start the first sentence with the full name. Whether doing that is also appropriate in the English Wikipedia is a topic that needs some consensus. Whlie I find myself leaning slightly toward having the lead sentence refer just to "Muhammad" instead of the full name, I don't have strong views about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The full name is given in a named footnote and elsewhere in the article. I don't think opening the main body of text with it would improve the article. The lead is already fairly long, and it would further make readers wade through a full line of text (more on mobile devices) to get to the main verb. Eperoton (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017

Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

Syedrizzwaan (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Appearance inaccurate

The first part written in the appearance section looks inaccurate when you compare the description given in Sahih Al-Bukhari, widely known among muslim scholars as the most authentic book of hadith. The current description is written by Al-Tirmidhi, a notable scholar who wrote one of the most famous books of hadith, among the list of the kittabu-sittah, the six most well known books of hadith. That book he made though had many weak, false hadiths, and also many authentic hadiths, but Sahih Al Bukhari is known to be fully authentic due to the rigorous process the author betook to verify them. Al-Tirmidhi also got the description through narrations attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, and many of these prove doubtful as the Shia's could have mixed false ones with them too. Bukhari says that he had neither curly hair nor lank hair, but the description in Al-Tirmidhi says he had curly hair. On these conflicting descriptions, the authenticity of Bukhari is hugely more reliable. Please edit it according to the more authentic texts. --AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

All this article is doing is quoting a passage, not making any judgment about the reliability of the description. Do you have a substitute quotation? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be doing WP:OR into authenticity of primary sources, with or without sectarian arguments. The section is based on academic citations, and that's how it should be. Eperoton (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@AbdullahwaMuhsin- There are better things to study than this Mo's hairstyle i.e. Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, Banu Mustaliq, and (oh yea) Aisha and female slaves. Swingoswingo (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

We have two conflicting sources, and we must take the source that has the strongest authenticity. This is pre-existing scholarly work, not anything new. I haven't followed up on this for a few weeks by the way, I was a bit busy. Also, I noticed how after I wrote the main body above the exact quotation attributed to Ali ibn Talib which I challenged changed. Look at the edit history. It did not have what it has now, "did not have lank or crisp hair", and surprisingly, it says crisp, instead of curly which it is suppose to be as I quoted,, nn purpose, so it doesn't contradict the statement further on saying "He had thick, curly hair". In the beginning of the quote, it says "was not fat", but in later in the same quote in says " was proportionate, stout," which goes against the beginning statement. The author changed it after I talked about it, and I used evidence from Sahih Bukhari, not from Muhammad ibn Isa at-Tirmidhi's book Shama'il al-Mustafa, yet he wrote what I said that was given in Sahih Bukhari. I strongly challenge the historical accuracy of this source because not does it go against the established books of islamic tradition, the hadith, but also itself. It's just very odd. I say we instead replace the descriptions given from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most authentic books of Islamic recordings of the prophet, the first one being in Book 61, Hadith 57 of Sahih Bukhari, which says "Narrated Anas: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was neither very tall nor short, neither absolutely white nor deep brown. His hair was neither curly nor lank. Allah sent him (as an Apostle) when he was forty years old. Afterwards he resided in Mecca for ten years and in Medina for ten more years. When Allah took him unto Him, there was scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard." and "Narrated Al-Bara: The Prophet (ﷺ) was of moderate height having broad shoulders (long) hair reaching his ear-lobes. Once I saw him in a red cloak and I had never seen a more handsome than him."" (Bukhari Book 61, Hadith 60) --AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Restored material cited with academic sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this is an academic source itself is doubtful. The statement contradicts itself. The author changed the "academic source" after I pointed out it's fault. These academic sources are drawn from primary sources. The primary sources themselves are corrupted, if the author wrote what he actually read. I have clearly explained my position. I kindly request the review of a more prominent administrator. AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Schimmel's book is an academic source. We're using the translation it gives and our quote hasn't changed since early March, though different translations of these descriptions are likely to diverge because of the rather difficult Arabic vocabulary they use. Now, it actually looks like Schimmel concatenates two different narratives from al-Tirmidhi (by Ali and his son Hasan). I think we can correct that based on the primary source. However, we can't just use a different primary source based on our judgement of its authenticity. That would violate WP:PRIMARY, and modern historians often have very different assessments on authenticity of Islamic sources from the traditional Islamic assessments. Eperoton (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That clears up some of that. Early March was actually when I wrote this part of the article and when the quote changed. Modern historians may often have very different assessments, but they relie on Islamic assessments, and at the end, the Islamic scholars know their work, which was based on honesty, reputation, and other tight guidelines. Any Islamic scholar would agree that Sahih Bukhari is more authentic than the book of Tirmidhi Schimmel has took from. Since this is a grey area for some part and you have clarified on the matter through pointing out two narratives, I will put those two recordings from Sahih Bukhari and leave yours in place. Thank you for cooperating on this matter.

In terms of authenticity assessments, the differences are due to methodology. Traditional Islamic scholars have relied on isnad criticism and consciously avoided judging authenticity on the basis of matn. Modern historians tend to be skeptical about the chains of transmission and use standard methods of historical criticism instead. As a result, modern historians tend to give more credence to earlier sources than the later canonical hadith compilations.

I think the additions are ok, though the section may have become a bit too long. If other editors find them problematic, I would recommend moving the quotes from Bukhari to Muhammad in Islam, which reflects the Islamic perspective. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death

@ERDINC: The policy WP:PRIMARY prohibits us from interpreting primary sources such as hadith. To keep this addition you need to find a non-primary WP:RS which interprets the poisoning mentioned in hadith to be Muhammad's cause of death. If you find an academic source making this inference, we can mention it as a fact; if it's a source that describes a traditional belief, we'll describe it as such. Otherwise, this is a violation of WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the policy violation was not addressed, I'm reverting the addition. Eperoton (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph

With all due respect, what is with the first paragraph of this article? This is a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is supposed to represent reliable sources, which, almost be definition, are secular historical sources. We are currently engaged in hedging that suggests that the historical perspective is treated the same way by Wikipedia as the doctrinal perspective. Well, it's not. The paragraph should say "Muhammad was a historical figure who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic doctrine, he is the prophet of God" or something to that effect. And before somebody takes off and decides I'm an Islamophobe: I've spent a long while dealing with similar stuff on Hinduism, the religious POV of choice in some of the articles I have dealt with. Vanamonde (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It didn´t use to read like that. Here´s an example from january: [3]. Calling someone a "prophet" in WP:s voice like that is problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It most certainly is problematic. May I take it that you support a rewording, possibly similar to what I have suggested here? Vanamonde (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Could we not just revert to the January version? Or do you find that problematic? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You may. I think the january version is pretty ok, better than the current. Is there some recent lead-rfc that could help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The version in January is slightly better, because it says "central figure of Islam" rather than "prophet"; but it still is trying to hedge, by saying "known among non-Muslims", thereby creating a false balance problem again. Wikipedia's voice should say what the scholars say, period. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I was ok with the phrasing "central figure of Islam" for quite a while, and have even personally reverted some attempts to change it, given how prone to dispute the definition has been in the past. However, that has changed when another editor pointed out that it only appears in a couple of marginal sources, while "prophet of Islam" is used by Encyclopedia of Islam, which is the most authoritative academic encyclopedia of Islamic studies. It's also used by the Oxford encyclopedia cited there. I'm not personally enamored on either definition, but changing it back based on our subjective assessment of false balance would not be a WP:NPOV treatment of the currently available sources. I'm pretty sure there's no single definition that will satisfy everyone, and I'm open to other policy-based rationales for arriving at a "least bad" version. Eperoton (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that if we say he is a "prophet of Islam" that we are violating the NPOV policies, as we are not making the claim but Islam and it is well supported that (most of) Islam considers him a prophet. It is worth noting that other religions such as the Bahá'í Faith identify with him as a prophet too, and so it would be a blatant lie to say he is only a prophet in Islam. However he is not a central figure in that faith, but is in Islam. The encyclopedias that you mention likely suffer from a systemic bias of looking at Muhammad from a single departmental perspective instead of holistically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

At that time, I also reviewed all entries on Muhammad at oxfordreference.com, though unfortunately I didn't save the definitions and my subscription is currently being renewed. "Prophet of Islam" also appears in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. "Founder of Islam" is found in several other encyclopedias. Several encyclopedias use other wording or don't attempt to start with a definition at all. None used "central figure", as far as I can recall. I do have a concern about the current use of these sources, namely that it's not entirely clear whether they're saying "Muhammad is the prophet of Islam" or "this article is about the Muhammad, prophet of Islam, and not another Muhammad'. Eperoton (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In the past, disputes about this passage devolved into editors arguing about the truth and trying to construct their own definitions rather than examining and arguing about RSs as WP:NPOV demands. I don't think those discussions were policy-compliant and I didn't participate in them. If that happens here, I'll step aside again. I do want to point out that the cited Jan 3 version of the opening paragraph was a syntactic monstrosity. Eperoton (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In the past, there have been many discussions about the word "founder", but those have died down now that the word isn't being used in Wikipedia's voice. I have no problem with the current lead sentences, myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the current version is false balance. There are no reliable sources I know of which deny that he is the founder of Islam. There are plenty which state that Muslims believe him to be the prophet of god, which is something we should say: but we cannot equate doctrine with reliable sources, nor imply that reliable sources are un-Islamic. Eperoton is right, the "central figure" phrase is probably a problem, so how about the following (ignoring the last two sentences for the sake of simplicity). This is a straightforward statement, from the same sources. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Anachronist, and Emir of Wikipedia: Would any of you be opposed to this formulation? Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad (Template:Lang-ar; pronounced [muħammad]; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was a religious, political, and social reformer who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic belief he was a prophet, or God's Messenger (rasūl Allāh), sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

References

WP:FALSEBALANCE is about balancing mainstream scholarly views and fringe scholarly views, so it's not relevant here. The relevant part of the policy is WP:RNPOV. It doesn't explicitly state that academic views should have primacy over religious views, though I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the body of WP policies. I think by placing the secular interpretation first, we follow that general idea. In a different article, stating the secular view in WP's voice would have been ok (though I can't resist noting that you're following a tradition in these discussions by changing phrasing without changing sourcing, so that your refs don't really support your text). In this case, practical experience shows that doing so would likely revive the endless disputes which plagued this page before. This page just happens to attract stronger reactions than most. For example, you're objecting to the definition here, and not, say, the definitions at Moses ("a prophet in Abrahamic religions"), Aaron ("a Prophet of God"), or Isiah ("Jewish prophet"). Likewise, others will come along to present strong objections if "founder" in WP voice goes back online. Eperoton (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Eperoton, I have dealt with a vast number of objections to content on Wikipedia based on religion, and I know the form that they take. Their persistence/frequent occurrence does not make them legitimate. If the price of encyclopedic language is more disputes, then so be it. The version I proposed above is based on the sources therein, because it is a basic enough statement that all reliable sources are going to support it. The other prophets are utterly irrelevant. If changes need to be made there, they should be made there. If you really want a counter-example, I'd suggest you take a look at Jesus, which avoids these problematic formulations, and is a featured article. Do you have specific issues with the wording I am proposing? Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If I had come across either the current or your proposed version without looking into the sources, I would not have objected to either. They can both be reliably sourced. Having done some systematic source review, I believe that the current version should get somewhat stronger weight due to the sources involved (the two encyclopedias currently cited may not seem "encyclopedic" to you, but they happen to be arguably the two most authoritative ones on the subject). Because of this, I don't think your proposal is an improvement, and your objection strikes me as ideological rather than policy-based. That would translate into a "weak oppose". Additionally, I believe that your version has little chance of gaining long-term consensus, and I'm concerned that what will come in its place will be even less of an improvement. This strengthens my objection somewhat, but not enough to stand in the way if I see consensus clearly swinging your way. At this point, I'm not sure how to interpret the recent silence of the other participants in this thread. Eperoton (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, here's another phrasing the currently cited sources would support: Muhammad was a religious, political and social reformer who gave rise to the Islamic civilization. From a modern historical perspective, he was the founder of Islam. etc Eperoton (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As per Vanamonde's suggestion The paragraph should say "Muhammad was a historical figure who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic doctrine, he is the prophet of God" or something to that effect., I have reverted the article to a stable version. It now says that according to non muslims he is the founder, but muslims do not believe that and consider him to be a "holy Prophet". There seems to be edit warring going on as well, the history is a mess. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Show of hands

@Vanamonde93, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Emir of Wikipedia, and FreeatlastChitchat: You've all articulated your views in this discussion, so I just would like to get a quick show of hands to verify where everyone stands. Please note below whether you support or oppose the following versions of the opening (I'll take the liberty to add the other alternative I proposed above). Everyone else is also welcome to participate, of course, though if you're just coming to this discussion, it would help to also add detailed commentary to the threaded discussion above.

1. Muhammad is the prophet of Islam.[3][4] From a secular historical perspective he was a religious, political, and social reformer who founded the religion of Islam.[4][5] From an Islamic perspective, etc [current version]
2. Muhammad was a religious, political, and social reformer who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic belief he was a prophet, or God's Messenger etc [Vanamonde93's proposal]
3. Muhammad was a religious, political and social reformer who gave rise to the Islamic civilization. From a modern historical perspective, he was the founder of Islam. [my alternative proposal]

Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1, 3; oppose 2 Eperoton (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2, oppose 1, as above. Proposal 3 is interesting, but does not go far enough (does not address the "prophet" issue), and I'm not a fan of the phrase "gave rise to the Islamic civilization" which is a definite overstatement. Vanamonde (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support 3, oppose 1. I dislike how 1 places the importance on him being a prophet, ignoring the role that members of other religions identify with him being , rather than an undisputed central figure of Islam. I think 2 is better than one, but I again am not sure about the "prophet" issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• None of those. I favor the last stable version of 5 March 2017, before Wiqi55 changed "central figure" to "prophet". Even that change of only one word is more acceptable than the proposals above, because the assertion "is the prophet of Islam" isn't singled out into its own sentence, both the religous and secular views are given equal weight in the same sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I should have included the original in the list of options as well. I think it will be easier if we do a separate show of hands, which I'll start below. Eperoton (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Show of hands on "central figure"

@Vanamonde93, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Emir of Wikipedia, and FreeatlastChitchat: Here's another show of hands prompted by Anachronist's response above. Do you support restoring the long-standing version of the definition: "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims." Eperoton (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: not false, but the use of "central figure" in RSs in marginal and I can't even imagine seeing the phrasing of the second half in a RS. My opposition would weaken a bit if "and widely" were replaced with a comma. Eperoton (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Use next version - Wiqi55's replacement of "central figure" with "prophet" is acceptable to me. It avoids the use of "central figure" which isn't found in RS, and also avoids undue emphasis on a religious POV by presenting the viewpoints in the same sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Anachronist. So here is my copy paste . Wiqi55's replacement of "central figure" with "prophet" is acceptable to me.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Simplify hatnote?

How would it be if the hatnote just read For other uses, see Muhammed (disambiguation) ? Siuenti (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How would it be if the hatnote just read For other people named Muhammad, see Muhammad (name). For other uses, see Muhammad (disambiguation)

I.e. remove the "Muhammed redirects here" which doesn't seem to need to be said. Siuenti (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Siuenti (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "Muhammed redirects here". And it hasn't been changed recently either. I don't see anything wrong with what it says now, that is "This article is about the Islamic prophet. For other people named Muhammad, see Muhammad (name). For other uses, see Muhammad (disambiguation)." It says all that needs to be said. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, on autopilot. You wouldn't want to remove "This article is about the Islamic prophet" I presume? Can you explain who is benefiting and how? Siuenti (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's hard to put into words but you still don't like the idea, don't worry about it. I'm still trying to figure out the right answer. Siuenti (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus and Abraham both have lengthy hatnotes, while the one on Napoleon (for comparison) is shorter. --Acjelen (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I might have a go at simplifying some of them. Siuenti (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits by User:ERDINC

The user is edit-warring in the article, presenting sources written in the 7th century and contradicting every mainstream literature as "reliable secondary sources". They revert me and call me "vandal", I am involved, and I have no time now to bring them to WP:3RR. Will try to do this in the morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"We" already had a discussion about this at Talk:Muhammad#Cause_of_death. I just left them a 3RR warning. Eperoton (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note This user has now been blocked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

@FreeatlastChitchat: Please explain this undiscussed revert which seems to have wiped out many uncontentious changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The revert is to the version of 21:57, 25 December 2016‎ and the reverted changes didn't result from any "edit warring" that I'm aware of. It sounds like the editor was away for a few months and thinks the last version of the page they remember is the current consensus. It's not. Intervening changes were reviewed by active watchers of the page and got consensus status in the interim. Eperoton (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I missed their comment above. "This history is a mess" - well, yes, the same as any other actively edited article. Wanting to change one paragraph does not mean you wipe out months of other changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above isn't even about changing an entire paragraph, but rather replacing the two opening sentences. Eperoton (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:NeilN and Eperoton. Yes I restored a version that is quite old, but when I cam online there actually was an edit war sort of thing going on. So I just went ahead and reverted to a version which I knew was stable. Of course my revert is open to revision as I have made no attempt to reinstate that version. My only effort was to prevent an edit war. I can see that the holy warrior has been blocked now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)