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 Kolyu7771 (talk | contribs) at 05:51, 8 November 2020 (→‎Muhammad's death). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article Error: The code letter muh-im for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Good articleMuhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 2, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
May 14, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 19, 2012.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, June 8, 2006, and June 8, 2018.
Current status: Good article

Add (Peace Be Upon Him) or (P.B.U.H.) after Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)'s name where this blessed and Holy name is mentioned in this article.

Add (Peace Be Upon Him) or (P.B.U.H.) after Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)'s name where this blessed and Holy name is mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghulamm-e-Mustafa (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, question 5 for the explanation. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short 'NO' Wow, very polite.

That is ridiculous. What sort of absurd guideline that is to not to give due honor and respect to the beloved Prophet of billions of people around the world. We are not talking about some ordinary human being or some state's landlord. Ghulamm-e-Mustafa (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the guideline of English Wikipedia, where you have chosen to write. More at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We discuss the usage of PBUH in the introduction of the Muhammad in Islam article. It is mentioned in this article, albeit only in an image caption. The Manual of Style says that consistently we don't add honorifics to names, whether it be PBUH, Dev Ji, or Mr. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's mentioned under Muhammad#Sufism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We are not talking about some ordinary human being" From any perspective outside of Islam, that is exactly what we are talking about. --Khajidha (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, just no, Wikipedia can't treat anyone over anyone, with all respect to Muslims, you will never have an unbiased article if people think they should follow how they want to write an article. I am a leftist, I don't agree with people being simply offensive or people doing things to make people mad, but we can not run a Encyclopedia on peoples religious views. Vallee01 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are hilarious. These geniuses actually think Wikipedia is an moslem text, that will bend to their beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.2.155 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting a warning at top of article?

Hello! I read many of the talk page questions and most of them seem to be offended by the pictures and other details. A notice is put up in the talk page but most people dont visit the talk page until necessary. I think there can be a notice saying something like "Content and images on this article may be offensive to some people" or a better phrased notice. Say your opinions. MRC2RULES (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP has many many articles that "may be offensive to some people", see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and WP:NODISCLAIMERS. It's like the rest of the internet in that way. You can find more opinions on this in sections 3 and 4 at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images (see also the closers comment). Consensus can change, but that one hasn't yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "warning" is the simple fact that this is an encyclopedia, not an Islamic religious tract. --Khajidha (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, there is already a content disclaimer applying to the entire encyclopedia. We don't put disclaimers on individual articles. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines inevitably lead to content that some people are going feel offended about; that is their personal choice and not in Wikipedia's control. Anyone who wants to avoid being offended by images can configure their account or their browser not to show them, as stated clearly in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

Peace be upon him needed 64.222.180.90 (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, please see WP:PBUH Salvio 13:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Venerated In

Similar to other pages Muhammad should have a| "venerated_in =" line. Doremon764 (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, do you have examples? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're requesting that a "Venerated in" data field be added into the infobox, like you'd find in Template:Infobox saint. Not sure whether the infobox for this article supports that data field though.
Alivardi (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, like Ahmadiyya and Bahai. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could add a chart similar to the ones in John the Baptist, Daniel (biblical figure), and Noah. Venerated could count Druze, Bahai, and other religions who see Muhammad as a prophet. Doremon764 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chart on Muhammad in Islam has a Venerated section. Doremon764 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems to be a parameter in infoboxes for saints. Articles like this one, Jesus, Buddha and Rama doesn't have it. I'm neutral on inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Founder" and PBUH

Regarding the controversy over the Prophet being described as the "founder" of Islam: I'm not Muslim myself, but it seem to me that the word "founder" does not fully represent the complexity of his cultural role to many people, and a different phrase with a similar meaning may be more neutral and accommodating. I suggest "...was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and a foundational figure in Islam. According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to preach..."

It may also be worthwhile to include an infobox in the header that the Prophet's name is usually rendered "Muhammad (pbuh)", "Muhammad (SAW)" or similar by Muslims. Chinkeeyong (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been debated full tilt for more than a decade here. PBUH is simply a religious reference and doesn't deserve a space in an encylopedia devoted to knowledge and secular information seeking values. PBUH is neither secular nor something that lends itself towards seeking more knowledge. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:1844:4E48:F572:8B5D (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that we add PBUH to every instance of his name, as that would be misrepresentative. I'm just pointing out that that we should add a more visible note about a common way that his name is styled. Surely it is more encyclopedic to include information about the way that Muhammad's name is commonly represented by a significant subset of English speakers. Chinkeeyong (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. Would adding a note to the intro (and infobox) make this more user friendly? Consider the introductory sentence and infobox fragment after adding a note (references to sources removed for clarity):
Islamic prophet
Muhammad[n 1]
مُحَمَّد
Muhammad[n 1][n 2] (Arabic: مُحَمَّد, pronounced [muħammad];[n 3] c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam.

References

  1. ^ a b When Muslims say or write the name of Muhammad, they usually follow it with the Arabic phrase ṣallā llahu ʿalayhi wa-sallam (may God honor him and grant him peace) or the English phrase peace be upon him. In casual writing, the abbreviations SAW (for the Arabic phrase) or PBUH (for the English phrase) are sometimes used; in printed matter, a small calligraphic rendition is commonly used (ﷺ).
  2. ^ Full name: Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāšim (Arabic: أَبُو ٱلْقَاسِم مُحَمَّد ٱبْن عَبْد ٱلله ٱبْن عَبْد ٱلْمُطَّلِب ٱبْن هَاشِم, lit: Father of Qasim Muhammad son of Abd Allah son of Abd al-Muttalib son of Hashim). He is referred to by many appellations, including Messenger of Allah, The Prophet Muhammad, Allah's Apostle, Last Prophet of Islam, and others; there are also many variant spellings of Muhammad, such as Mohamet, Mahamad, Muhamad, and many others.
  3. ^ Classical Arabic pronunciation
We could also add a comment that the Manual of Style specifies that we don't use PBUH in the text, but that may be too meta for the article. Thoughts? —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those suggestions would be appropriate for the lead section of a biography article. A sentence could be included to the prose in the Legacy / Islamic tradition section, though, without needing a footnote. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that assumes people will be reading all the way to that section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the footnotes are a good compromise -- including the extra information without making the introduction/infobox significantly clunkier. What do you think of the "the founder" to "a foundational figure" change? I noticed that the search box summary is "Founder of Islam" so that would have to be changed as well. Chinkeeyong (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chinkeeyong: with the utmost repspect, absolutely not. As other editors have noted, this has been discussed ad nauseum, for years. Phrasing it that way violates some of the foundational core policies of Wikipedia, namely WP:RNPOV.
@Emir of Wikipedia: It's up to the reader how much they want to be educated. Some people only read headlines and don't read articles. These are not really people who can be educated, no matter what we do. I think it should be assumed that anyone who comes here truly seeking knowledge will have the tenacity to stick around and find it on the page. Felice Enellen (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is that we should tacitly state what amounts to a specific religious belief in Wikivoice, which is quite simply not going to happen. It’s been repeatedly requested, in some form or another. Often framed as out of consideration for the religious sensibilities of others, which is a violation of NPOV. Muhammad is universally regarded by mainstream secular scholarship as the historical founder of the religious movement we now refer to as “Islam”. So we state that. Editors all know and acknowledge that one of the primary beliefs in that religion is that Muhammad is part of a succession of prophets teaching the same general beliefs. That this is generally the worldview held by Muslims is likewise stated throughout this article, and others, as it should be. We describe the religious belief, but per NPOV, we also state that this is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, and by extension, the consensus that there is no supporting evidence for it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks for the well-reasoned reply. Chinkeeyong (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. I was afraid I might have come off a little brusk, or less than respectful in being so blunt, but it basically boils down to that reasoning. While I’m not sure if we’ve gotten any similar requests at these articles, it would be similar for Baháʼu'lláh and the Baháʼí faith. We state definitively that he was the founder, and that it was a new religious movement of the 19th century, though they likewise believe that the Baháʼu'lláh is part of a succession of divine messengers (including Muhammad, and all the Islamic prophets), which culminated in the revelations of the Baháʼí religion. You’ll see all religious subjects being treated with a pretty evenly secular framing on the encyclopedia, in order to be “religiously neutral”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

Please add Prophet and 'Peace upon him' or (S) or saw, etc. Rayan-Zahid 358 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, question 5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. This isnt a muslim text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.2.155 (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

Add ﷺ after muhammed 62.88.128.142 (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. See MOS:PBUH. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

intro naming and transliteration

I have reviewed some parts of the debate and am familiar with how the reference is made in English, German and Arabic scholarly literature.

1. The transliteration common among Islamists, Arabists and Semitists writing in European languages should be included in addition to that of IPA. This is the most common spelling found in the specialized academic literature of these languages and the convention should not be ignored and because the article should also serve to familiarize the reader with what they might expect in further reading.

2. The teknonym and (the first 3/4 names in the) patronym should be included within the body of the text of the introduction directly following or preceding the common short name (see English article on Omar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar for example). This is because inclusion of the nasab and the kunyah is the naming practice of the relevant epoch and region, the technical/scientific reference in the most relevant literature and Arab (and later Islamic) conventions and for purposes of disambiguation. (See also the article in German for an example, it translates as Mo/uhamme/ad with the full name... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed)

3. Lastly, despite the fact that simply putting the most common first name in the world as "Muhammad" does serve to imply the article refers to the Muhammad, and contra English and German academic conventions I believe "Prophet Muhammad" should be the phrasing. Contrary to the previous debate, the term prophet is not technically honorific in and of itself (any more than Oracle of Delphi); it was not always so used nor is/was its absence in and of itself offensive. Furthermore, it is the most common reference worldwide and it serves to distinguish and define. Cotrary to popular belief, I believe this and the addition of the patronymic and teknonymic are, if anything, more rationally humanizing than piously aggrandizing: the term prophet is technical in nature in much Islamic/Muslim literature and the rest conforms with naming practices in the contemporary local culture.

This may seem to pile on yet another voice to a contentious and fruitless debate in which all possible opinions and arguments have already been put forth twice. This is especially true given that there is already a solid convention of naming the subject thus in the relevant lanuages. Nonetheless, given the globalized state of affairs, the fact that the subject is crossculturally identifiable, the technical soundness of better defining/distinguishing the subject and the fact that conventions may be altered for any number of reasons including elegance and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.147.253 (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't add honorifics to such things, any more than you'd like to see the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:PBUH 22:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A880:8C00:D96A:516F:D88A:59B4 (talk)

Add a Picture of Muhammad

I think it would be a good idea to add a Charlie Hebdo image of "Muhammad" to the Article. What do other people think?68.206.249.124 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we add that? How would it be good? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That it's a bad idea. See however Depictions of Muhammad. It has the 2001 South Park one as well, which nobody cared about at the time. Those were the days. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If only we could turn back the clock. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What possible encyclopedic value could it have? How does a caricature help the reader understand Muhammad? So no, we won't add it here (and probably a bad faith suggestion). Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the above. Why? O3000 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put caricatures on a page dedicated to Jesus? This is a page that relies on sources and is not nonsense Uryon988 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

Hello

May you please get rid of the cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This is very disrespectful towards our religion. So may you please change them to images that do not contain him.

Thank you! Akthegreat1234 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely. If you're interested in why, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mohamed not "muhammad"

Europeans like to do that. His real name is Mohamed, but they want to add a letter "a" instead of "e", so we can get the word "mad". The same thing is that they twist the word "Quran" to Koran, and "Mosque" which is actually Masjid, to add the term "mosquit". Even in the French language, Muhammad, they write it as "Mahomet", and they refer to a satanic black idol with a goat's head "baphomet" . It is abhorrent racism against a messenger who is not white skin. Uryon988 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think his real name was Arabic: أَبُو ٱلْقَاسِم مُحَمَّد ٱبْن عَبْد ٱلله ٱبْن عَبْد ٱلْمُطَّلِب ٱبْن هَاشِم. But different languages have different spellings. The OED lists a bunch of spellings. You will need to gain consensus for a change; and claiming this spelling is based on racism without reliable sources will not gain such. (And your argument that Europeans want to use an "a" so that "mad" is included isn't convincing as "mad" is not a word in any European language that I know of.) O3000 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but "mad" certainly is a word in at least one European language. Or is English somehow not a European language anymore? --Khajidha (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Danes don't like to be without it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. The word "Muhammad" has many pronunciations and I do not need a source to prove anything, but the fact that Europeans in medieval times used to distort the name of prophet to be more "demonic" such as "Magomed", "Mahound" and "Mahomet". Hyi9900 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The same could be said for any peoples mate, the simplicity of the thing is that calling out racism due to name mispronunciations on an encyclopedia meant to be neutral is rather asinine. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:A543:EA4D:69ED:1520 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they just had a hard time pronouncing a name in a different language? No, you're right, it's MUCH more likely that they deliberately mangled the name just to piss off Muslims. (that's sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear)--Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyi9900: I would point out here that this talk page is for discussing changes to the article only. Are there any changes being proposed here? Paul August ☎ 15:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's death

The article cites Medinan fever aggravated by stress as a possible cause of death, but it doesn't mention another cause of death, which is death by poisoning.

In some hadiths it is said that Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewish woman, and died because of it. Obviously I am not saying that this is 100% the cause of death, but I feel like that it should be mentioned, since Islamic scripture says that.

The hadiths that mention this are:

Sunan Abu Dawud 4512

Sunan Abu Dawud 4513

Sahih Al-Bukhari 4428

Kolyu7771 (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Kolyu7771[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=987617311"