Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

"In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, editors of Islam-related articles generally remove Islamic honorifics from articles except from quoted material. Accuracy is also of extreme importance."

Neutrality

WP is NOT secular, its NEUTRAL, dont forget that!

--Striver 03:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia goes with scholarly consensus, which is generally of a secular perspective. Babajobu 03:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia goes with scholarly consensus"? Says who? "is generally of a secular perspective"? Say who again? --Striver 03:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If NPOV is not defined by scholarly consensus in matters of an academic nature, then how would we define it? Regardless, I'm just making an observation about how I've seen Wikipedia operate. Babajobu 03:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You can have NO pov, and still report. To claim that you need a pov to be able to report is non-sense, and even more non-sense to claim that it needs to be the "scholarly consensus" pov. --Striver 13:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, whether you can report with no POV is an epistemological question we will not settle here. But I think it's true, and lets say it is. What happens, then, when people report differently on the same event? One person thinks HIV was engineered by reptilian humanoids to weaken humanity and prepare it for enslavement, another thinks it is a retrovirus that passed from simians to humans early in the 20th century. How do we decide which view to give greater space in the article on HIV? If one person thinks the earth is flat and another thinks it's round, which view do we emphasize in articles on geography? And why? My feeling is that on both of these issues and many others we emphasize that view which a consensus of academic scholars has accepted as correct. Is that nonsense? Babajobu 16:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

When you are talking about the roundness of the earth or the origins of HIV, you are talking about things that are somewhat provable to the satisfaction of the majority of the inhabitants of earth. However, it was your atempt to claim that most sholars are secular, or that ther is some kind of consensus regarding that issue, and it is that statement that i claim is non-sense.

Anyhow, you could argue that it is the number of people beliving on statement to be true that gets the majority of attention, not the scholarly consensus. For example, if WP was in the middle ages, and they just concluded that the earth is round, but the majority of people havent been reached by the news, a article about that would probably start by stating:

Traditionaly, the earth is thought to be flat, but most of the existing sholars are changing their view to belive the earth is round, based on viewing existing evidence in a new light. However, most people still belive it to be flat. --Striver 17:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that "most scholars are secular". I have no idea about, or interest in, the religious beliefs of most academics. I said that scholary consensus itself is usually secular. For example, there is a solid consensus that the Earth is round and that HIV passed from simians to humans. There cannot be a scholarly consensus, though, say, that it is a crime against God to bow down before an idol, or that Jesus was the son of God, or that Muhammad was his final prophet, because academia itself is of an essentially secular nature. We can catalogue religious opinions, decipher the internal logic of religious belief systems, but we cannot speak to their truth claims. And this is true even though any given academic may be a believer him/herself. Babajobu 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reference to Muslims who have been killed as martyred — appropriate action is to change to "killed", or occasionally "murdered". For the description of a suicide bomber as having been "martyred". In those cases "killed himself and (however many) others" seems most appropriate.

First realize that the usage of martyred in Wikipedia is overwhelmingly in reference to Christians. (There's even a Category:Christian martyrs which contains around 170 articles, including those in its subcategories.) Next, go to Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid and justify the removal of "martyred" as a description for people—and explain, while you're at it, why it's only inappropriate in reference to Muslims. (I agree that use of the term in reference to suicide bombers is too contentious to be appropriate and will be removing any I see, but that's a separate issue.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't you at least put back the part that refers to suicide bombers? Babajobu 04:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Move

Klonimus's edit summary Mirv you arent even a member, why are you so involved? made me realize that manuals of style for different subsets of editors on the same topic is a really, really bad idea. Sure, it seems fine when only one group has it, but if others took a cue and wrote up their own style manuals, we would end up with endless sterile edit wars should the Salafists decide that use of honorifics is mandatory, or the Shiites that the name of Yazid should always be followed by "(laanat on him)" or whatever. One style manual for Islam-related articles, developed with input from all interested editors, is what we need. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This should be the link for the neutral article for the needed standards. --Juan Muslim 13:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, laanat on him! (relax, having fun *smile*) --Striver 01:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

:) it wasn't purely hypothetical (though it was a joke); I've seen one or two examples of inexperienced editors doing almost exactly that. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad

• The Prophet or The Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad" — appropriate action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad"; in first references to Muhammad in an article in which confusion with other Muhammads is plausible, render Muhammad, or possibly "the Islamic prophet Muhammad".

Disagree. Just using "prophet" as a descriptor does not imply that the individual is speaking truth, just that he/she is "prophesying". Unless you're going to remove "prophet" from Wikipedia entirely, leave uncapped usages in Islamic articles. Zora 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree, because there are millions of Muhammads. --Juan Muslim 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

disagree, as per above. --Striver 01:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the policy as stated; acceptance of Muhammad as a prophet (unqualified: implicitly, a truthful prophet) is a point-of-view, and one that, as a Christian, I cannot share. Now, *I* could live with an article calling Muhammad a false prophet, but I rather think we all agree that that would fail NPOV — thus, the argument cuts both ways! The context in which he is accepted as a prophet must be given in order to call him such (see, for instance, Ezekiel, who is called "a prophet in the Hebrew Bible"). For the record, I would oppose any attempt to permit references to Jesus Christ as "the Lord" in Wikipedia articles. See Names and titles of Jesus for a good example of how this should be handled. Wooster 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I presume you'll soon express opposition to Moses being considered a prophet in his article. Also, the use of the word "saint" in "Saint Thomas, etc. Bernard Lewis uses the phrase "Prophet Muhammad", as does secular programs like those on PBS. I see nothing POV in saying "The prophet Muhammad". His Excellency... 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose that every article that has mention of Muhammad be allowed and even encouraged to mention his prophethood by qualification, i.e Islamic prophet X, Muslim prophet X. This is important for the first mention of him in any article as important contextual information in reference to him. I forsee the argument that oh everyone one knows who he is, that's bung and an assumption. I have no objection to dissuading honorifics but I think it is being carried too far by some editors to expunge the a very relevant word in relation to him even when it is used not as a honorific but as a contextual and informative descriptor. Take a peep at [:Portal:Saints] and notice the usage of Saint and Pope across the page on various articles. I beleive it is POV pushing to remove the word Prophet from before Muhammad when being designated a prophet doesn't imply a fact merely a claim to divine guidance. Anyrate I will limit my press for appropriate contextual mention being allowable.--Tigeroo 14:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG/Manual of Style

SIIEG has developed a set of rules they seek to implement across all Islam-related articles. Should we create our own Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Manual of Style? Or how should we respond? I really don't see many problems with what they have formulated. I do think that you should write Prophet Muhammad rather than just Muhammad, because there are millions of Muhammads. --Juan Muslim 09:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I have looked the manual over and User:Mirv did a good job of making it neutral. I agree with Prophet Muhammad on all Islam-related articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Prophet Muhammad. No caps. Zora 09:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We would ignite fewer revert wars with formulations like this, I think:

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.

Or:

The prophet Muhammad.

SIIEG is unlikely to advocate usage of the word "prophet," I suppose, any time soon, but context will occasionally demand it for the reasons JuanMuslim mentions. Other than that, if their guidelines are neutral, why not? BrandonYusufToropov 10:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I like both of Zoras good sugestions :) --Striver 01:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam

There are some standardization issues that are discussed in the Islam WikiProject. Such as when should the Islam template be placed on an Islam related article? Much of what is found on the Islam WikiProject article should be incorporated into the Manual of Style. --Juan Muslim 07:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Muslim Beliefs

Can we have a talk about it? I want it on the articles it links to. --Striver 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Citing the Qur'an

Is there a standard forma on Wikipedia for citing a part of the Qur'an? Should you use the sura name or just the number? I asked this on the Qur'an article talk page once, adequate reason for it to be included in this style manual. MeltBanana 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Just the number, I think, linked appropriately (e.g. 10:13; the articles are all under the names but redirects exist for the numbers); it conveys the same information in the least amount of space, which is ideal for references. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I propose this format:

• Sura 4.35 ^{translated by Shakir}

And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware

I agree with this latter suggestion, as it's better to also state which translation is being used. MP (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Strategy

The definition of Islam must, first and foremost, come from the faith itself. List of Islamic terms in Arabic must be expanded to include every such term that is presently used in any article. Then, edits to the other articles can use the most specific and correct term with less translation problems.

Then, the various factions and groups, starting with Sunni, Shia, Khawarij and Sufi branches, and all the Islamic parties and militant Islamic groups and historical tarika need to be catalogued. Interpretations of jihad and khalifa and the role of ijtihad might need to be clarified for each specific group. Such categorical terms as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism need to be set only *after* groups are defined.

Islam as a political movement, related History of Islam, biographical material of major figures, Islamic philosophy, etc., can then be updated to refer to the more exact concepts.

The Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts#Islam list also can usefully be used as a source of topics for new articles related to Islam. Note that some of the Arabic terms requested may simply be different transliterations of an existing article; in which case, please create a redirect.

NPOV policy

In line with Wikipedia NPOV policy each religious denomination should have its POV (point of view) represented as they see it, without the article speaking ex cathedra.

Wikipedia articles attempt to treat issues in light of their historical development. We do not merely describe the way that Judaism's beliefs and practices exist now. We certainly do describe these, but we also describe their historical origins as known from the best evidence.

Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts, in this case including the Quran and the Hadith literature. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources

Wikipedia articles describe changing social, religious and political conditions, and how Islam's beliefs and practices may have developed over time.

Many traditional Muslims will strenuously object to a critical historical treatments, claiming that this discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is from an ahistorical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) This point of view can also be mentioned; there is no necessary contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say that Group A says one thing for somesuch reasons, while group B says another thing for other reasons.

The meaning of the term "fundamentalism"

See the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is used in articles on religion, but only in one its technical senses, and not as a pejorative phrase.

Entry Naming

• There is a straw poll on the naming of the Mecca/Makkah article at talk:Mecca. 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

Formatting

There's probably no example that can really serve as the template for every other one of these articles. It's more of a perspective than format question.

Stubs

There is now an Islam stub (see Template:Islam-stub) that can be used for very short Islam-related articles. There is also the corresponding Category:Islam stubs for the Islam stub.

==Hierarchy definition== Religion/Islam/etc.

Misinterpretations

Can we start ( If its not against any Wiki policy )an article on different misinterpretated aspects of Islam & Sira & always taken out of Context verses from Quran ( Like Sura Tauba ). I have been to different forums & found out that people always ask the very same questions that have been spread in the west by Islamophobes . Wiki would be a good place to explain those questions Farhansher 20:35 19-4-2005

Defining

• Arabic Wikipedia should be relied on for definitions and new articles written on all of the above.

Quran ref

I propose this format:

• Sura 4.35 ^{translated by Shakir}

And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware

--Striver 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hadith ref

I propose that we try to link all hadith links in this format:

"random text" ^{Sahih Muslim 3.299}.

"random text" ^{Sahih Muslim 3.299, 3.343}.

"random text" ^{Sahih Muslim 3.299, Sahih Bukhari 3.343}.

Motives: One can easly the what the ref is, it gives a internal link to the article explaining the relevance of the source, it gives a separate external source to the hadith and since its smaller than the other text, it will be easly recognized and ignored for those un-intrested. Comments? --Striver 02:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it makes the page look too busy, even with the superscripting. Why not just use the standard Wikipedia footnotes? Turnstep 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

While reading the claim, it is of imense importance to see from where the source is, even more so than usual. If you are reading about the Gulf War, it might be enough to see that it has a source to any mainstream media, but in this case any source wont do. If you belong to one denomination, you wont accept sources from some other denomination, and also, the sources in you own denomination differ in credibility, Sahih Bukhari is much more credible that Abu Dawud in Sunni eyes. If you look around, you will see that in most Muslim sites they give the complete referens on the spot, not in some footnote. The whole narratin stand or falls with the credibility of the source, and therefore needs to be judged on the spot. I would guess that most Muslims agree with what i said... :) --Striver 03:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You are missing one of the other points of this project: to make the page accessible and comprehesible to people who know little to nothing about Islam. A page full of competing texts is not the way to accomplish this. For example this page (Mut'ah_of_Hajj) would be totally incomprehensible to non-Muslims: the quotes appear apropos of nothing, and no hint is given as to the meaning and significance of the superscripted text. Turnstep 03:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You do raise a valid objection!

I myself belived that they could quickly educate themself on the matter by investigating the links, however that might not the best aproach... What about adding a text explaining the matter in the beggning of the article, something like:

Sources are given in this format: ^{Sahih Muslim n.nnn}.

Would that work? --Striver 03:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly better! :) I'll contribute more when I have some time. Turnstep 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A pleasure cooperating with you :) --Striver 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Family tree

Since the family trees of every person is so well documented and relevant to ahadith, i propose that we try to fill in the family tree of everyone, using the Family tree of Ali ibn Abu Talib as strandard.

It starts with grandfather/mother, then father/mother, brother/sister and the self. Then wives. Children are indented under the mother, since the father can have several wives. Each new wive/family also gets a extra line-feed.

--Striver 02:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sahaba

I propose that we add the {{Category:Sahaba}} at the top of every Sahaba, or at least at the top of every non-prominent sahaba. the template displays this text:

This category contains articles about the sahaba of Muhammad.

Then also add [[Category:Sahaba]] under it so as to list them here --Striver 16:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Do it. --Juan Muslim 08:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't look correct; I've had a recent dispute/discussion (which almost turned nasty) with another user about this (I wanted a correct version and he didn't want anything like that at all) and in the end I created the template {{sahaba}}. It was agreed that placing this at the end of every article about a sahaba would be the best compromise. The category, of course, should be at the end. MP (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Scholars

I propose that all scholars get a "Academic line" section before the "See also", but after the "legacy" section.

It will contain something like this;

Academic line

Teachers:

• ????
• ????

Students:

• ????

It will repeat the information in the article, but will be of great help for those that want to see the line of teachers and whom he taught without wanting to go through his biography. It will also encourage people to add those facts, if they are missing.

It will also let one to follow the line uppwards or downwards the line of students, for those intrested in doing so.

If no student and/or teacher exist, or if it is assumed that the list is incomplete, i propose to add sometheing like:

Teachers:

• ????

Students:

• (none known)

My first implementation of this standard is here: Ibn_Kathir. --Striver 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, look at this! I could advocate using that on the more prominent scholars! --Striver 06:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

fatwas

I propose that if the scholar have made a fatwa that is mentioned in some other article, then link to it in the "See also" section like this:

--See also--

Fatwas:

• Triple talaq
• Nikah Misyar
• Salah

i have implemented it here: Abu Hanifa.

--Striver 01:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

gren wrote in my Talk page the following:

These see alsos don't seem to be really directly related... under the pretext of relating to his fatwas, I somewhat understand... but, that doesn't merit a see also really because it has no specificity, it's like linking Einstein's see also with physics, jus too vague to be of any worth. So, could you not do it please? gren グレン 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

well, the alternative whould be to repeat allt the fatwas on his talk page... Or maybe having a article named "Articles on Wikipedia including Fatwas from X ibn Z", a alternative i dont favor...

I personaly belive its of great benefit to see what fatwas X have been contributed to wikipedia... If the "fatwas" section in under the "see also" section are not esteticaly appealing, then i would gladly hear some alternative. If the idea of linking to the fatwas are not supported, then please motivate that. I could see linking Einstein to physics if there was some some quoting from him done there :) Best regards! --Striver 03:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Specificity of Fatwa would be useful, however what Muslims scholar hasn't ruled in some sense about salah? Those things you list are concepts that concern many Muslims scholars. Where is direct fatwa from Hanifa about Misyar anyways? It is incredibly vague. My alternative is writing about what they have done, if Scholar XX said you should pray on your head then you write about that, you don't put Salah in a fatwa see also. I also saw this. Just because it is listed in the Muslim guild standard means nothing. It is not a wikipedia rule and it has no weight. Please do not refer Zora to this as if it's established. gren グレン 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I addresed the Zora issue here. Regarding the other issue: I see your point and agree. I withdraw my proposal, and instead make this:

I propose that if the scholar have made a fatwa that is mentioned in some other article, add a link to that article in a article named Articles containing fatwas by X, and then include a link to it in the "see also" section of the scholars article.

i have implemented it here: Ibn Taymiya. --Striver 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Islamist terrorism" moving to "Islamic terrorism"

There is a proposal to move the article now entitled Islamist terrorism to "Islamic terrorism". I have argued that terrorism cannot be described as "Islamic" and that if the article is moved it should go to something like "Terrorism committed by Islamic extremists". If anyone is interested, there is a vote section on the article's Talk page. --Lee Hunter 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Translating arabic terms into english

An editor has recently taken it upon himself to begin a campaign to remove references to many arabic-titled articles (mostly connected with islamic subjects) from en.wikipedia, claiming they are "POV forks". In the course of this effort, he has recently added a "Translation" section to these guidelines instructing editors to that effect. It would seem that the result of adopting his additional guidelines will be that articles such as Allah and Isa will tend to be bypassed by wikipedia readers and editors alike, providing justification for their eventual deletion or merging (as subsidiary material, based on his contention that the abrahamic religions should be referred to in chronological order of their "founding", regardless of any claims that Islam predates Muhammad for example), as per Jibril (merged into Gabriel after a two-day "merge discussion period" during which no discussion took place; see Talk:Jibril) into articles with principally jewish or christian content. Other editors might like to comment on this development. — JEREMY 10:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

They will not have "principally jewish or christian content" for long if Muslim editors are directed to the shared pages. That is one of the points here. See my recent edit to Gabriel - isn't it rather astonishing that no mention had been made in the introduction that Gabriel is said to have transmitted the Qur'an to Muhammad? This is easily the most important role he's ever been said to play - foretelling Jesus' birth running a distant second - and yet it wasn't mentioned, because Muslim editors were corralled into a special Muslims-only article with obscure (to English speakers) Arabic terms.

As for chronological order, this is a matter of historical fact, not POV. Islam considers itself as the culmination of tradition, Judaism as the founders of tradition, and I'm going to guess that most Christians simply don't care. I certainly don't - it's an encyclopedia, not scripture. We should, however, take care that shared introductions take all major traditions into account. Islam must not be segregated, either at the bottom of articles, or in a series of seperate, Arabic-titled pages.

I invite you and all others who read this message to become active in the Gabriel article, and similar articles related to our shared Abrahamic religion, and curb Judaic and Christian POV that's been allowed to stand due to a dearth of Muslim editors.Timothy Usher 10:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What's you seem to be inviting is a Clash of Civilisations on wikipedia. There's no way christian fundamentalists are ever going to put up with masses of qu'ranic quotes and hadith in Moses, for example, and you well know it. (The article's already long; imagine the references/notes hell your idea would introduce.) Are you trying to Immanentize the Eschaton or something? — JEREMY 11:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"What's you seem to be inviting is a Clash of Civilisations on wikipedia." - from a certain perspective, that's right. Clashes of this nature ought occur on a daily basis. It is ever the purpose of POV forks to avoid this by corralling like-minded editors into seperate articles, to avoid having to deal with differences. Makes sense, *but* that's not wikipedia. Here we deal with and strive to learn from and overcome these debates.

If you are afraid of them, think how afraid they are of you. And if portions of Islam-related articles can't survive general scrutiny, they should not survive, and similarly with Jewish, Christian and any other articles. The solution is to integrate, not segregate. If it means a sudden flood of debate, it's only because it's been artificially avoided for so long through such segregation. Which now reinforces itself - as you openly confess, you fear the mere *appearance* of non-Muslim editors (okay, you said Christian fundamentalists) on Islam-related pages...I might fear them, too, but redirecting traffic to different articles according to POV is not the WP solution.Timothy Usher 11:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic view of <prophet>

Please see this, and specificaly this [1]. I would like to see this been put here. Any comments, or can i do that? --Striver 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No objections? --Striver 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The following two sections were moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Manual of Style:

Guildline: Sources * UNDER CONSTRUCTION - FEEL FREE TO JOIN *

• We should not reference to Qur'an directly in wikipedia since Qur'an is a primary source. There are many verses and Hadiths that are all used together by Islamic scholars. We can however quote "Scholar X in his commentary on verse X". Please note that the Scholar X should be a renowned Muslim scholar.

Of course we should be able to cite verses from the Qur'an -- not to say what they mean (that's interpretation) but just to specify what is under discussion. If there's any discussion of what the verses mean, then we cite scholars.

Per above, we should use the Qur'an when talking about verses, but use someone's interpretation (or preferably several interpretations) when talking about what a verse means. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• We should not write "Some Muslims argue X" and then reference it to some Muslim website. Wikipedia can only quote renowned Muslim scholars.

Depends on the website. I'd say that some large, well-established websites are fairly representative of mainstream Sunni thought. If we're discussing Salafism, it's crucial to refer to websites, as that IS one of the ways that Salafism is propagated.

Could you please name the websites for editor's use.

We have to be cautious with websites, but one way we might evaluate a website as a source would be to see if Major newspapers are citing it as a source. If it is cited by the BBC, the Washington Post, and Der Speigel, it is probably a useful resource. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Radicalist websites often make the news, but this fact does not qualify them as good sources for Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 14:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• For western academic works on the biography of the prophet, one can refer to the works of scholars such as Montgomery Watt or Wilferd Madelung or William Muir etc. Among them Montgomery Watt seems to be more sympathetic towards Islam. It is better to avoid using writers such as Karen Armstrong who are not in a very high scholarly status. If you would like to quote Karen Armstrong, you may want to get access to the original references of her works and get access to the original sources.

See the list of scholars at Historiography of early Islam. I'd say that one good source would be Berkey's book, The Formation of Islam, which is an introductory text, points readers to more detailed works, and is quite recent. DGL introduced me to Hugh Kennedy and his The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, which is also a good survey.

Another method, that many may be already familiar with, is to look in the bibliography of an authorative book by an emminent scholar. See who Montgomery Watt mentions, and then see if those he mentions have written anything recently, and then do the same with those books until you find one about the specific subject you are interested in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this proposal; in general, a good list of scholarly biogrpahies of Muhammad (sic, not "prophet") should be in the references section of the respective article. Pecher ^Talk 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes Professors have their syllabus online, and you can see what they are having their class read. If you are near a University, you can look in the course catalogue, and then go to the bookstore and see what the texts are. The other thing one might do is call or email a professor and ask him to recommend a book. I have not done this myself for years, but in the past I found even emminent scholars very approachable if you had a genuine interest in their field. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• You can have free (but limited) online access to many of their books at books.google.com or amazon.com. You can also search for a word (like dhimmi) in books.google.com and find good books.

If you can afford $15 a month for access to an online library, Questia has a spotty selection of Islam-related books. They don't have everything one would want, but they have enough to justify the money, IMHO. You can search the library without joining.

In the US, if you have a library card at the local public library (usually free to city residents) you can often get a card at the library of a nearby public university or community college. This may get you access to their online databases like Lexis/Nexis, Jstor, and the Oxford English Dictionary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that websites such as "Answering-Christianity.com" are not reliable sources, because they are neither written by famous scholars nor peer reviewed works. Articles at islamic-awareness.org are fortunately more tend to have references (This is a sign of scholarly work :) ). So, if you found something there, try to look up for its source and then look up the original source. If you are lucky, you'll get a good sourced piece of information.

• We can safely use Islamonline.net for articles written by Yusuf al-Qaradawi himself as he is a renowned scholar. For other articles, those articles or quotes that are signed by scholars that their degree of famous-ness could be established, could be used.

No, al-Qaradawi may be a famous Muslim scholar, but he is no academic. Thus, he may be a contemporary authority on matters of Islamic jurisprudence, but even then, he may be cited only for his own opinions of Islamic legal matters, and not for anything else. Pecher ^Talk 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Another useful source is John Esposito who has written many introductory texts on Islam and the Islamic world and is sympathetic towards Islam. For example, he has addressed issues like the rise of militant Islam, the veiling of women, and democracy. Esposito emphatically argues against what he calls the "pan-Islamic myth". He thinks that "too often coverage of Islam and the Muslism world assumes the existence of a monolithic Islam in which all Muslims are the same." To him, such a view is naive and unjustifiably obscures important divisions and differences in the Muslims world.

It's against the spirit of NPOV to endorse one single scholar in preference to everybody else. Pecher ^Talk 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Michael Sells and Muqtedar Khan can also be useful.

Fred Donner is great. Carl Ernst is useful. So is Moojan Momen. Reza Aslan's book is popularized, but he has a useful bibliography.

Wow, Reza Aslan is persian :D But is he famous enough in the community?

He's not a respected academic YET but he's very well known in the media. If you google him I think you'll find many interviews, TV appearances (including the Colbert Report!), etc. He's young, he's cute, he's photogenic. Plus he writes extremely well. Zora 10:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

All persians are cute :P --Aminz 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Articles on Islam severly lack proper references. For example, on Muhammad article (date 8/5/2006) we read

  "Muslims believe him to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed. According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. 570 in Mecca and died June 8 632 in Medina, both in the Hejaz region of present day Saudi Arabia."

  Both of these sentences are factually correct but they need to be referenced to a renowned Muslim commentator. They could not be stated without being referenced even though they may be obviously correct.

I think that's taking it too far. You don't have to reference stuff that is OBVIOUS and found in every introductory text. That's one of the tics that makes dissertations-turned-into-books so hard to read; the nervous authors give cites for everything. It's like slogging through mud. If I say that the sun will probably rise tomorrow, I don't need a cite. If I want to give the probability that it will rise (might it go supernova?) then I should give a cite for whoever calculated the probability. Zora 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I am taking it hard; but if they are OBVIOUS, then they could be easily referenced. I think it is good in the sense that people at least will pause a bit before adding something to wikipedia. --Aminz 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be referenced. Sure, go ahead and reference them, but it's superfluous. Perhaps the date of birth and date of death are worth referencing though. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Zora. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But don't you think doing that will 1. Make people to practice doing research instead of writing things out of their knowledge? This would improve the quality of works on Islam related articles. 2. Generally will reduce imperfect covering of a subject 3. Makes vandalisms and sneaked false information more easily detectable. All in all, I think doing so will be a good habit. --Aminz 04:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Happy editing! And pray for the writers of this guideline :P

Some recommendations for secondary sources

I actually found some online Sunni resources.

Tafsir:

• Tafhim al-Qur'an - written by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. [2]
• Tadabbur-i-Qur’an - written by Amin Ahsan Islahi. [3] (translation in progress)

Writings of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi accessible through:

• www.renaissance.com.pk - in English
• www.studying-islam.org - in English
• www.al-mawrid.org - in Urdu, Arabic, and English
• www.ghamidi.org - in Urdu

Websites being run by Al-Mawrid, Institute of Islamic research:

• www.understanding-islam.org - in English

SaadSaleem 05:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Saadsaleem, thanks very much! It will be useful for us. Just a question: Who are the famous schoalrs writing at Al-Mawrid? I mean, when we quote something from it, we should say "Scholar X says T", but we can not say "Institute X says T". And of course, if some article there is written by a student or a non-famous scholar, we can not quote it in wikipedia. If you know, would please let us know the name of famous scholars writing there? Thanks --Aminz 05:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Main author on www.understanding-islam.com is Moiz Amjad and main author on www.renaissance.com.pk is Shehzad Saleem, both of them are Associate Fellows in Al-Mawrid and are working closely with Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. --SaadSaleem 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style in Referencing Muhammad

• I view that it is NPOV to call him "the prophet", read the arguements in here. --Striver 11:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can call him "Prophet Muhammad" (as academic scholars do) but I think we can use "the prophet" only when it is clear from the contexts that we are talking about Muhammad. --Aminz 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aminz. People sometimes use "Prophet Muhammad" instead of "Muhammad" in order to separate other people with the same name. So I believe, that if someone is known by some title, why somebody should object. --SaadSaleem 04:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We should say Islamic prophet Muhammad, with prophet intentionally uncapitalized. Regardless of what some academics do, we have to acknowledge that Muhammad is not a prophet for everyone. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, can you please have a look at here. "Famous" Academic scholars say "Prophet Muhammad". --Aminz 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Aminz, I've read many non-Muslim scholars refer to him as "Prophet Muhammad." BhaiSaab ^talk 04:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still sticking with Islamic prophet, if anything at all. There really is never a need to specify which Muhammad we're talking about. When refering to a Muhammad without a last name, it is usually assumed to be the Islamic prophet Muhammad (as it should be); introducing "prophet" should only be used as a means for clarification. But saying "Prophet Muhammad" just is not neutral enough; it's an honorific used by Muslims to praise Muhammad instead of an established fact. Really; what makes him a prophet? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, man, I am sorry but you seem not paying attention to other people's comments here. He is "Prophet Muhammad" Because:

1. As concerns the use of the concept prophet, I think we needn't be more Catholic than the Pope. The American Heritage Dictionary (Dell ed. 2001) gives the following definition, which should be acceptable even for atheists: "PROPHET: a person who speaks by or as if by divine inspiration" Editorius commented

2. Bernard Lewis (e.g. Lewis (1984) "Jews of Islam" p.12 quote: "the main enemy against which the prophet fought and...") & William Muir & Carl Ernst (Ernst (2004) p.14 "Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World" quote:"...the two biggest christian criticism of prophet muhammad...")&D A Spellberg&William Montgomery Watt&John Esposito ("Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam" p.27 quote:"The importance of jihad is rooted in the Qur'an's command to struggle in the path of God and in the example of Prophet Muhammad...") do sometimes refer to him by the epithet "prophet". These are famous Academic scholars. I commented

3. Encyclopedia Britanica and websters-online-dictionary do so Striver commented.

NOW what do you have to offer except making comments like "Really; what makes him a prophet?" --Aminz 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I did read your comments and the comments of others, but I don't have to agree with you (or those scholars). Many people, including academics I'm sure, refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ, but we don't on Wikipedia. If I were to become a scholar, I could refer to Gautama Buddha in all my texts as "the Great and Wonderful Buddha", but that doesn't make it okay for Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't diverge from neutrality just because others do. Additionally, do you all not see how wrong it is for a group of Muslims to be deciding the manual of style for refering to Muhammad? I'm going to file a request for comment to get a broader audience. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, you have not still offered any support for your idea. You might want to provide a source for the claim that renowned academic scholars, refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ.--Aminz 10:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is, people call Budha as Budha, but tell me how many famous people have the name Budha or how many famous people have the name Jesus. But the fact of the matter is, a large number of Muslim population has Muhammad in their name. What would you do in this situation. Some people are known by their titles and Muhammad is one of them. For example, Prime Minister of Israel is refered as prime minister of Israel in Pakistan even Pakistan's government doesn't recognize Israel as a state. So I believe, calling someone by title, even if you don't agree with the title, is not absurd. SaadSaleem 10:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert is the prime minister of Israel; that is a fact and thus it is only natural for him to be referred to as such, regardless of whether specific governments deny Israel's existence. Muhammad's prophethood, on the other hand, is not a fact, but instead something only Muslims believe. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Aminz, I was saying "what makes him a prophet?" to imply that "Islam" makes Muhammad a prophet (sorry if that didn't come across as clear). And thus we should specify who/what deems Muhammad a prophet by saying "Islamic prophet Muhammad". Anyway, I think we should wait for some outside opinion as it seems quite obvious what the opinions are of the people already here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

i argue that if P = profesion and N = Name, then...

" P N is a good P. The P does <insert random text>. Then the P did something else"

...is a perfectly NPOV text, no mater if P is a merchant, a soldier, a pope, a king, a shaman or a prophet.

--Striver 13:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing! the profesion "prophet" does not imply that he is a "true" prophet, per The American Heritage Dictionary (Dell ed. 2001):

"PROPHET: a person who speaks by or as if by divine inspiration"

--Striver 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this on the community portal. My two centimes: I support tariqabjotu and the present version of the MoS in generally just using "Muhammad" without qualifiers; this appears to be the most NPOV-compatible appellation. It's usually quite clear from context what "Muhammad" we are talking about, just like we don't need to refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus the Saviour" or whatever. Cheers, Sandstein 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see the expected respect for scholars like Bernard Lewis,William Muir , Carl Ernst,D A Spellberg,William Montgomery Watt,John Esposito. --Aminz 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The articles on Christianity do not refer to Jesus as "Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". Despite the fact that hundreds of peoples names are spelled "Jesus", Jesus simply refers to the Jesus in Christianity.

I don't think it is NPOV to refer to Muhammed as Prophet Muhammed. Jake34567 01:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's very POV to refer to him as a prophet with a capital P. Prophet is more formal than prophet, but not at a profit. WikipediaSleeperCell2 02:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC) ph33r.

I agree that referring to the prophet Muhammad as "Prophet Muhammad" is probably POV, as the capitalization seems to imply divinity or holiness (as with capitalizing "God" or "Jesus Christ" or any pronoun referring to a holy religious figure[4]). What's wrong with "prophet Muhammad" or "Islamic prophet Muhammad"? Kaldari 03:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC

We could simply use "..the prophet Muhammad" on occasion where we need to make a distinction between that Muhammad and the millions of other Muhammads out there. Use it sparingly and where appropriate. Otherwise, for example in the Muhammad article where nobody is going to confuse him for someone else,, just say "Muhammad". Many scholars use the phrase "Prophet Muhammad" easily enough, and they don't get accused of assuming divinity of the man, so I don't buy the "it's POV" complaint. His Excellency... 18:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks, you need to provide references at which the renowned academic scholars state "Jesus Christ" or "Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". "PROPHET: a person who speaks by or as if by divine inspiration" according to a source. --Aminz 05:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally would use "..the prophet Muhammad" for disambiguation with other people called "Muhammad", and use "Muhammad" when there is no confusion possible. --Donar Reiskoffer 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to the Community Portal link. I think that the proposal below for "Muhammad, prophet of Islam "or similar works best. I feel that "Prophet Muhammad" is overly POV. InvictaHOG 01:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also responding to the community portal link. In my opinion, "Prophet" is POV. The most I would be satisfied with is "Islamic prophet Muhammad". I would also note that what other scholars do is irrelevent. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we decide our own policies. I believe that any scholar who says "Prophet Muhammad" is in error, so I certainly wouldn't advocate for using it on Wikipedia. --Danaman5 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"I certainly wouldn't advocate for using it on Wikipedia." you must be kidding. Please read the below section. --Aminz 04:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the many comments above, which state that "Muhammad" should be used, and in the event that there is a disambiguation issue (talking about two Muhammad's in the same paragraph), then use "prophet Muhammad" or "Islamic prophet Muhammad". Cuñado - Talk 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidences

What other Encyclopedias write:

Jewish Encyclopedia writes: "The prophet himself perceived, especially after the death of his protector Abu Talib and of his (Mohammed's) wife khadijah, that his native city was not the proper place in which to carry out his communal ideas" --Aminz 07:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia writes: "The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him." --Aminz 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britanica writes "The ethical teachings of Islam are rooted in the Qur'an, but the model of perfect ethical character, which is called Muhammadan character by Muslims, has always been that of the Prophet." --Aminz 07:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What famous Academic scholars of Islam write:

These scholars do sometimes use the epithet "Prophet":

• Bernard Lewis (e.g. Lewis (1984) "Jews of Islam" p.12 quote: "the main enemy against which the prophet fought and...")

• William Muir (e.g. Muir (1878) "Life of Mahomet" - p. 383 "By the time they arrived at MedIna, tidings had reached the Prophet of the deposition and death of the Persian Monarch.")

• Carl Ernst (Ernst (2004) p.14 "Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World" quote:"...the two biggest christian criticism of prophet muhammad...")

• Spellberg (Spellberg "Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint ABI Bakr" writes p.1 writes "Aisha,..., a woman known most succinctly in works of Islamic history as the third and favorite wife of the Prophet Muhammad "

• William Montgomery Watt (Watt "Islam and the Integration of Society: The Sociology of Religion" p.224 writes "The dates are necessary to show that it is possible for each man to have heard the tradition from his predecessor; in this case there are seven intermediaries between the Prophet and the author." This scholar, I noticed, directly applies "Prophet" to Muhammad very rarely but he does it sometimes.)

• John Esposito ("Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam" p.27 quote:"The importance of jihad is rooted in the Qur'an's command to struggle in the path of God and in the example of Prophet Muhammad...") do sometimes refer to him by the epithet "prophet".

--Aminz 07:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What some dictionaries write

The American Heritage Dictionary (Dell ed. 2001) gives the following definition, which should be acceptable even for atheists: "PROPHET: a person who speaks by or as if by divine inspiration" Editorius commented. --Aminz 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

---

What some encylopedias write:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: "In the same way that in Christianity all virtues are associated with Jesus Christ..." (this is from the sentence just before the one you quoted)
• Jewish Encyclopedia: "One of the Franciscans having found in the brazen serpent to which the Israelites owed their cure a symbol of Jesus Christ..."
• Catholic Encyclopedia: "Jesus Christ is considered subordinate to the Father and, although the epithet Divine is in a loose sense not infrequently applied to Him, He is in the estimation of many an extraordinarily endowed and powerful but still a human religious leader.", among many others

What famous academic scholars write:

• Bernard Lewis: (Jews of Islam p. 11) "Other passages in the Qur'an and elsewhere dealing with Jesus, while not accepting Christian doctrine on Christ's nature..." and (Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry Into Conflict and Prejudice p. 87) "If, for Christians, the crime of the Jews was that they killed Christ..."
• William Muir: (Life of Mohamet p. 161) "With Mahomet, Jesus Christ was a mere man, wonderfully born indeed..."
• Carl Ernst (Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World p. 75) "Should one summarize the life of Jesus Christ as the career of a Jewish carpenter..."
• William Montgomery Watt (Islam and the Integration of Society: The Sociology of Religion p. 209) "Most sections of Christendom manifest devotion to Christ as a charismatic leader."
• John Esposito (Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam p. 70) "...passion and death of Jesus Christ" and also (What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam p. 18) "In addition, somewhat like Jesus Christ, Muhammad serves as the preeminent role..."

Additionally...

• Juan Cole: (Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith in the Nineteenth Century p. 43) "Locke contrasted the tendency toward theocracy in Old Testament Judaism with the new dispensation of Christ"
• Kanan Makiya: (Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition p. 199) "For better or for worse, Christ died on the cross..."

What some dictionaries write

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition gives the following definition: "A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed." (note no as if). Also in The American Hertiage Dictionary's definition for born-again: "Of, relating to, or being a person who has made a conversion or has renewed a commitment to Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior" (note use of Jesus Christ) -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job Joturner. You have now offered a proof. --Aminz 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

---

OK, so what have we established:

1. I don't think anyone objects to calling Muhammad a prophet, although the capitalization of the word is contentious.
2. Some people believe that using the capitalized title of "Prophet" implies a religious point of view.
3. Many academic sources refer to Muhammad as "Prophet Muhammad".
4. Many academic sources refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ".
5. Currently in Wikipedia, we do not use either "Jesus Christ" or "Prophet Mohammad".

Kaldari 23:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And now an issue that no one has brought up: is the capitalization of prophet gramatically correct? In the same way President Bush, Saint Peter, and Professor Johnson are capitalized, shouldn't Prophet be capitalized prior to someone's name? Note that this is already encoded in another manual of style.

If we can't leave grammar out of this, I could go with Islamic Prophet Muhammad (although that seems like quite a few capital letters consecutively). Or perhaps, Muhammad, prophet of Islam would work (as the P in prophet wouldn't need to be capitalized), but it seems quite lengthy. Prophet Muhammad could work, but then again, there is no qualification about religion, which seems problematic. Of those three, I'd have to go with the lesser of three evils (in regards to how problematic the wording would be) and go with Muhammad, prophet of Islam (unless someone has other ideas). On the other hand, if we can leave grammar out of this or if my grammar assumption was wrong, I'd stick with Islamic prophet Muhammad. So complicated... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur strongly with the view that "Muhammad, prophet of Islam" is as far as one can go without flirting with a POV problem. It is hard to see what objection anyone could have to such a treatment unless they were, in fact, motivated by a religious point of view in the first place. cosh, 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that I don't understand why we should discuss Muhammad, as a special case. Calling him Prophet Muhammand is like calling someone Saint Paul - both of which accept the religious POV. Unfortunately there's doesn't seem to be a consistent practice here - we have an articles on Saint Peter, but Paul of Tarsus (rather than Saint Paul of Tarsus).

The big problem in doing what I would like (avoiding all religious titles in article names) is that there may be a case where the common name requires the religious title - though I can't think of a case. Muhammad is reasonably clear as an article name (if I say "When was Muhammad born?" without specifying who I mean, people will generally know who I mean). Saint Peter could be renamed to an arguably less loaded but equally recognisable and more specific term such as Peter the apostle.

What scholars and other references call him are worth noting, but they are secondary to fundamental issues such as NPOV, use of common names and clarity. I believe those are the issues we should be balancing, and I believe they imply avoiding religious titles except in describing the use of such titles. --Singkong2005 ^talk 05:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I would hate to think that Islamic religious figures are somehow being treated differently from figures of other religions because of [insert reason here]. However, saint and apostle are terms that are unique to Christianity and thus it is implied when we say Saint Paul that we're talking about Christian Saint Paul or Paul, saint of Christianity. However, prophet is a term that can refer to a divine figure of almost any religion. Thus, to say Prophet Muhammad without mentioning Islam, to some, might seem like a statement of fact that he is a prophet rather than a statement of fact that he is a prophet of Islam. Regarding the name Saint Peter, per the Manual of Style, the religious title is included if and only if the figure is only recognizable by having it.

Just as a trivial matter of interest, "saint" is also used in other religions, including Buddhism and Islam... though it probably depends on the translation, and I'm not aware of other religions using it as a title. Thanks for the pointer to the MoS. -- Saint Singkong2005 ^talk 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An even more minor point is that many Christian denominations do not recognize the concept of Sainthood at all. 213.243.180.204 09:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm okay with Prophet Muhammad, particularly citing the grammar issue, but I know many people won't be and readers, especially those unfamiliar with the grammatical correctness, may see it as an endorsement of Muhammad's prophethood. We see that fear of endorsement here. However, since the use of Prophet or any other clarifier prior to the name Muhammad will seldom need to be used, perhaps we could take that chance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also coming from the CP link, and chiming in with the others who have come from there - Muhammad alone seems quite sufficient, following our general, although not entirely consistant, disdain for using titles. While it is clear that this title is widely used in academia (thanks Aminz), I remain unconvinced that we need use it in Wikipedia, although I concede that there is little reason not to use it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, 99% of the time, it's obvious what Muhammad we are talking about, not least because the name is linked when it's first mentioned. Those who want to know who Muhammad was can check the article on him. Pecher ^Talk 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that most sources (academic or otherwise) do not capitalize "prophet" when referring to lesser Christian prophets such as Jeremiah. (Try doing a Google search for "Prophet Jeremiah".) Yet, the word prophet is quite commonly capitalized when referring to Jesus. To me this reinforces the idea that capitalizing the term is an indication of religious veneration. I would favor not using religious titles consistantly throughout Wikipedia (except in the context of discussing such titles). Whether that is even practically possible, however, is debatable. I suppose the best compromise would be to discourage such titles, but not prohibit them. That would leave it up to the editors of individual articles to decide when exceptions should be made. Kaldari 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling a human being a prophet is a religious POV Skapur 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i'm late in; i just saw this on the Community Portal. For my two cents, though, i would have to agree with Jake34567, WikipediaSleeperCell2, Skapur, and Kaldari, above. Using the capital P is not NPOV. Surely it is making a judgement about Muhammad's revelations, which an encyclopædia isn't called to do. Lindsay H. 09:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

More than Just Muhammad

If not capitalizing prophet before names is okay, as it appears other people do it despite grammar rules, then I'm back to supporting Islamic prophet Muhammad when it's absolutely necessary.

Hinging off what Kaldari stated and Singkong2005 sort of implied, I believe it's about time all the religious-themed articles get the same kind of scrutiny this issue and the never-ending is the Muhammad article neutral enough? issue has. For example, the Isaiah article is written in an exceptionally matter-of-fact tone, while the Muhammad article makes the best attempt to indicate that the biography is not necessarily fact. I'm not saying the Islamic articles are written with more neutrality than those of other religions (certainly, that is not the case). However, I fear we're flirting with the idea of concentrating too hard on not venerating Muhammad, but dancing around some of the subtle venerations for other religious figures - Islamic or non-Islamic. (Notice how I so eloquently did exactly that earlier.) This is a serious problem that won't end with deciding how to neutrally refer to Muhammad. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On that note, there is currently discussion going on at the Christmas article about the use of the term "Jesus Christ". The issue was definitively debated at the Jesus article back in 2004, which resulted in the article being renamed "Jesus" from the previous title, "Jesus Christ". So at least we're not completely inconsistant. Kaldari 07:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose a that every article that has mention of Muhammad be allowed to mention his prophethood by qualification atleast the first time it occurs in the article i.e Islamic prophet X, Muslim prophet X. This is important for the first mention of him in any article as important contextual information in reference to him and usually the article only makes sense if he was regarded as a prophet. I have heard the argument that linking is enough, but don't beleive in it, user-friendliness can easily be acheived by a quick mention in many article while seamlessly presenting relevant information for context. I have no objection to dissuading POV honorifics in religion related articles even if there is required a considerable amount of clean up elsewhere. I do however think it is being carried too far by some editors to expunge the very relevant word even when mentioned in relation to him when it is used not as a honorific but even as a contextual and informative descriptor. Quite simply when it improves readability. --Tigeroo 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)--

It's much more correct to call him "the founder of Islam", as his article does. That Muhammad was a prophet is POV; that Muhammad founded Islam is, however, a NPOV description of a fact that he founded the religion of Islam in the universally accepted sense of this English word. Pecher ^Talk 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That Muhammad was a prophet Islam, is hardly POV but a fact which is sometimes useful to mention in some articles, and thats what this about. As for founder, I agree but if others disagree it can easily reworked into the paragraph to create the same link via other formulations such as the Muslim beleif in him being the seal of the prophets which would again give even more information to the reader. Plus this is a discussion going on elsewhere page and I am not sure what it has to do with this discussion except to be another example of trivial, easily reconciled issues by alternative formulations.--Tigeroo 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a very important discussion that was going on for quite a long time, and the conclusion was that describing Muhammad as a founder of Islam is best brief NPOV description avaliable. Pecher ^Talk 21:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I only agree w/ Pecher that it is a very important discussion. -- Szvest 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

The whole "Being a prophet is POV" arguement is easly voided by examining what the wrod prophet means. And we have already concluded that being a "prophet" does not mean that one is a true prophet, the christian encyclopedia made that perfectly clear. Being a prophet is no more pov than being a saint or shaman or even a doctor. Mid-eval doctors actually killed their patients with their bad treatments.

We do not need "islamic prophet" for NPOV, only for dissambiguatiy. "the prophet" is just as NPOV as "The shaman". So unless Peacher can prove that being a prophet necesarily mean being a "true prophet", lets not pay more attention to that arguement. --Striver 10:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is not NPOV to state that someone is a prophet. I believe that if the term "prophet" must be used, it should be preceded by the word "Islamic", because Muhammad is not a Jewish prophet, a Christian prophet, a Buddhism prophet, a Hindi prophet, and so on. However, I believe the most NPOV term to use is "founder of Islam", because many people who read the article will not be aware that the term prophet can also mean false prophet; usually if someone is a false prophet they are called a false prophet directly, not just a prophet. For example, Jewish and Christian people do not call Moses a "true prophet", he is called a prophet. Prophet has come to mean only true prophet in our vernacular, and Wikipedia must abide. Srose (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Names

Ok, i hate it when people mutilate articles names like this: ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib. I want it like this Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib. I do not care how the "underlying Arabic" is writen, i want clear-cut English, without damn dots and stuff all over the place. Who agrees?

• Support --Striver 23:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  So quick to the straw poll, eh? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Aminz 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Smooth Henry 03:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree Cuñado - Talk 09:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. as Cunado. Poppypetty 21:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree Arabic Pilot 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It also goes along with the searching problem there is. If all the diacritics aren't typed in, you can't find the article ... really annoying. Lincher 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The proper pronunciation can be written in the article. Most of the time users are searching for items, and it's a pain, rather than having redirects, deal with the correct spelling in the opening of the article.--Tigeroo 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This already exists at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). I'm going to remove the {{proposed}} template since the page has been around for several months and no changes have been made for two months. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are no "dots and stuff". Using markers for the hamza and ayin is common in any scholarly publication. Ignoring them makes it look sloppy. According to the MOS it should be `Abdu'llah ibn `Abdu'l-Muttalib, but those markings look a little funny so I replaced them with turned commas. I just brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic). Besides that, Striver, you are using a completely wrong form of transliteration with the dashes in the wrong places. Another proper way of writing it would be `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. But either way it should have markers for the ayin. Cuñado - Talk 09:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And why is that? Why do we need to know about the ayn? How does it benefit me to know about them? --Striver 00:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The first two things that come to my mind: pronunciation, and disambiguation. The ayin is pronounced differently. If you use a standard of transliteration then someone can not only pronounce the word correctly, but can obtain the original Arabic if necessary. Scholarly references that know what they're doing do not omit it.[5][6] A good question is, why do you oppose it so much? It looks sloppy to use ten different standards of spelling Arabic names. In this case, you seem to have made up your own standard, using Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib. Cuñado - Talk 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a scholar in this issue, and i can only talk for myself: I do not care about "obtain the original Arabic if necessary". Not the least. And i hate to see all the... stuff! I dont even know what they are called, only that they do not occur in normal English text. I view "Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib" as supperior since it clearly shows to the english eye what the name is and what the surname is. X ibn Y. --Striver 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

btw, "'Ali" and "Ali" is pronunce exactly the same, its just a bothering to see the damn thingy before the name. --Striver 19:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver, you say that you are not a scholar in this area, so that gives you little experience and room to talk. I actually understand Arabic, and yes, 'Ali and Ali are different, due to the time-lapse from the previous word. In essence, Arabic stores a lot more information about the pronunciation of a word in it's normal lettering, as Cuñado said, having to do with hamza and sukoon (sorry Cuñado, but ayn is translated as "A"). Reguardless of it being easy for the English reader, it's closer to the real pronunciation, and more suited to a site like Wikipedia. Doesn't that count? (This is just my take on the situation.) Arabic Pilot 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In my view: No. I dont care. And yes, i did say i am not a scholar in this field to make clear were i stand and how much credesense should be given to my opinion. But i hold one anyhow, and it is: I dont care about how the Arabic is. Have some Arabic correct tranliteration in some sectino of the article, but dont spread it all over the place. --Striver 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well now, remember what Wikipedia was created for. It is an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, dictionaries, any kind of reference material like that...none of them are built to be easy to use, they're built to be definitive, and correct. The fact that it is more correct with the quotation marks was the original reason why they were put there. Plus, with this many articles with Arabic names, is it really worth it to go back and change all of them? Surely it isn't so difficult to read the names with the markings. Also, do you have any defense for the "Ali and 'Ali are pronounced exactly the same" statement you made as yet? Please don't tell us how Arabic is pronounced unless you yourself have studied how to pronounce it.Arabic Pilot 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to change anything, i brought it up because some users are starting to do what i opposed. The correct tranliteration can be given once in the article lead, introduction or etymology section. I have never met a English speaker that sees Ali, pronounces it, then sees 'Ali and thinks AHA! It hase this stuff thingy, better to pronounce it differently!. The english eye can not see the difference between 'Umar and Umar, its the same thing, just the one with the ' being more... strange. --Striver 10:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree - this is an encyclopedia and accurate transliteration (with the implied pronunciatiun) should be indicated for words and names that are not common in English. The following question is mainly directed at Arabic Pilot: I'm not sure if Muhammad should get the same treatment - thoughts ? MP (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. What good is it if you cannot find it in a search. I say place the correction and pronunciation in the article opening line. --Tigeroo 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Go for the easiest guys. -- Szvest 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support BhaiSaab ^talk 22:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia must be comprehensible to laymen; therefore, we must avoid phonetical transliteration outside articles related to linguistics. Pecher ^Talk 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ayin

It seems like nobody here actually realizes that there is a difference in pronunciation between `A and A. The ayin is a gutteral A. Example: Abu does not have an ayin, so `Abu is not correct. `Ali does have an ayin, so it is pronounced with a gutteral A. If you pronounce it Ali, it is not correct. If you listen to native Arabic speakers you will hear the difference when they say `Ali. And please note that the mark for the ayin is (should be) different from the Hamza. All the forms of Arabic transliteration distinguish between the two. There are three options for each...

	turned comma	​ acute accent/apostrophe	half ring
Ayin ﻉ	‘	`	ʿ
Hamza ﺀ	’	'	ʾ

It's a distinction that every professional publisher uses, including Britanica and the news media. Personally, I don't have a preference among the three options, but to use nothing is incorrect. I arbitrarily chose the turned comma form to use because I think it looks the best. If we can agree on something I'll update the Arabic MOS. Cuñado - Talk 17:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Singling out the ayin is wrong, as there are lots of other phonetical nuances in Arabic that cannot be properly transliterated using the standard Roman alphabet. In order to transliterate Arabic correctly, we must use the full-fledged phonetical transliteration, but it will make articles too difficult to read to most people. Pecher ^Talk 19:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Allah" and "God"

Can we make decisions regarding how we can standardize the use of the words of "Allah" and "God" in articles. I've seen so many edits changing words to the other or putting something like "Allah (God)" and "God (Allah)." Personally, I don't really care either way, but it would be nice if we could choose one standard. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been consistently using God, and changing Allah to God. Cuñado - Talk 04:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. I suppose it could be argued that God be used because everyone will know what that means and the God article mentions Allah anyway. The problem is made worse because the etymology of the word God is unclear. I prefer to use Allah, as it is unambiguous and carries Islamic connotations of a creator (which is what is needed in Islam articles) rather than just God. The two are definitely not synonymous (God can mean Allah, but it can mean many other things too, but Allah is a unique term and doesn't refer to any of the 'gods' of other religions) and this must be made clear. In conclusion: I propose to use Allah. MP (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

God, definitly. The last thing the enlish reader needs is Isa instead of Jesus and Allah instead of God. --Striver 19:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but Allah is technically more correct. One of the things is that they are they same person, but details vary from the religions. God refers to the father of Christianity, of Jesus, one part of the Trinity. Allah, however, is not a father, but a hermaphodite (I hope I spelled that right :)), having no gender. Allah is not the father of anyone, but humanity itself. And while we're at it, please don't refer to the Devil under Islam as "the Devil", "lucifer", "Satan", or anything else. It's Iblis, they are actually two different people, Iblis is a jinn, the Devil is a fallen angel (if I remember my Mythology 101 correct). Arabic Pilot 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"God refers to the father of Christianity" is false, see God. -- Striver 01:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Woops, you got me there, my mistake. Sorry (stone the noob!)Arabic Pilot 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Arabic Pilot. A hermaphrodite is a creature that has both male and female sex organs, so describing Allah as a hermaphrodite (af!) is wrong. However, you were correct to say that Allah has no gender. Thanks. :) MP (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So far I think we have more support for "God." BhaiSaab ^talk 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also support "God." --Aminz 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been consistently changing Allah to God except in the article Allah. I am wondering if you guys know David Khairallah? -- Szvest 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This debate was briefly discussed on the Halal Talk Page. Look it over if you wish. It is a confirmed fact that "Allah" is not idential to "God". The article on Allah very adequately states "...Allah is associated with Islam, and is used to refer specifically to the Islamic concept of God." On the other hand and according to the article on God, "Concepts of God can vary widely, despite the use of the same term for them all, and these conceptual differences are the fundamental distinctions between various religious definitions."

When an editor uses the word "God", he is interpreting/concluding that the source he is citing refers to the universal concept of God. When an editor uses the word "Allah", he is interpreting/concluding that the source he is citing refers specifically to the Islamic concept of God. Either way, I think there is a NPOV issue, because very understandably, most (all?) sources don't have a footnote at the bottom indicating which meaning they intended.

When directly quoting sources, I think the original wording should be maintained. When direct quotes aren't being used, but the choice of whether "Allah" or "God" must be made, I hold the opinion that generally, MOST sources refer to the Islamic concept of God and thus, "Allah" should be used to prevent ambiguity.

I have no proof for this assumption. Like I said before, using "Allah" is interpreting the source in one way and inserting a POV, and the same goes with using "God". I believe using Allah is correct more often than using God. All in good faith(pun unintended).Starwarp2k2 06:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Starwarp2k2, I do agree that we can not change Allah to God in the Qur'anic or Hadith quotes. Just in the wikipedia text. Also the academic sources on Islam do use the word "God". The conception of God among Christians and Jews is different but those article use the same word. I think the context of the article makes the meaning clear though. Also, "Allah" is not an Islamic word actually. It is just an Arabic word for God. Arabic Bibles use that word to refer to God. So, some have argued that in the English Encyclopedia, we should not use it. --Aminz 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that reading "God" in the context of an Islam related article imples the Islamic definition of God, more commonly referred to as Allah. But I still support using the word Allah to prevent any chance of ambiguity. If God is used, there is a chance that the general definition of God may be assumed by the reader, while if Allah is used, any chance of ambiguity is eliminated.

Point noted that in the strictest definition of the word, Allah is the Arabic equivalent of God. "Allah is the Arabic term for "God" in Abrahamic religions, and is the main term for the deity in Islam" reads the article on Allah. Yet, I don't think that the English Encyclopedia argument is valid because although strictly speaking, Allah = Arabic for God, the more common usage is the second one, in reference to the diety of Islam. Thanks for your input!Starwarp2k2 06:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Starwarp2k2, Thanks for your input as well. How is it to use the word "Allah" when there is a chance of ambiguity but use "God" otherwise? --Aminz 07:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It solves the problem of ambiguity, but the catch is that an article can contain both "God" and "Allah" in different places, and the problem of non-uniformity we were trying to solve is no longer really solved. And if the policy states "Generally you should use God, but where there can be ambiguity, use Allah ", that gets us no where, right? If that policy is adopted, editors now have to sit down and determine whether each reference to God/Allah is ambigous or not, making life unnecessarily difficult.Starwarp2k2 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to use Allah, it might, might be usefull for disambig, but it even more so adds to the inaccurate missconseption that Muslims belive in their own God, not the God of Israel and Abraham. I also strongly object to the quote thing, if true, then lets be consitent and change every Jesus quote around to "Alah" (sic), the word for God in Jesus native tongue. --Striver 10:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dissagreeing on the color of a car does not make it two different cars. --Striver 10:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll address the quote issue first. I believe it is wikipedia policy not to alter a direct quote from an external source. So when quoting, the original wording must be maintained, regadless of whether they use "Allah" or "God". Maybe I interpreted your point incorrectly?

Also, I don't beleieve it is the job of every page mentioning Allah to pre-emptively account for the misunderstanding some people may have. That is a clarification that should be, and is made, on the Allah page.

If I talk about the "Toyota" or "Toyota Camry", I can be referring to two different cars, but can also be referring to the same car. Would you not prefer that I use "Toyota Camry" to prevent you from think about the Toyota Sienna, one of which is a sedan and the other a minivan?Starwarp2k2 18:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding quotes: If we are quoting a translations, the the nothing must be altered, but if we are quoting another language, and the translation we are using happens to not translate "Allah", then we are free to do so, since we are not bound by any particual tranlation. Please remeber that "Allah" is not a Islam-only word, it is a arabic word. Arabic Jews, Christians and Atheist use "Allah". Pre-Islamic arabia used "Allah". It is simply wrong to equate it with the Islamic consept of God, no matter what people in the west think. --Striver 19:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rearranging

Guys, this talk page is geting crowded, can i re-arrange it into proper sub-pages, so we can have more order? --Striver 10:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that.Starwarp2k2 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just dump it all in an archive page. Cuñado - Talk 17:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)