From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Worship of Mohammed?[edit]

Might I point out that a Muslim source isn't necessarily a reliable source for the etymology of an English word? The OED, which is a reliable source on English, offers not a hint of this. I have besides never read anywhere that Europeans ever attributed the worship of Mohammed to Muslims. I think we really need a Eurpoean source representing this belief and relating it to the origin of the word -- which itself only dates to the 18th century according to the OED, far too late IMO for a European to make this kind of mistake. A Crusader might have, but not an Enlightenment-era Orientalist. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm cutting the claim that Westerners once believed that Muslims worshiped Mohammed. An Islamic source for this that flat-out misunderstands this term is clearly not reliable. I must insist on a Western source. If it was once a widespread belief, one should not be difficult to locate. But I don't think it was. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it's easily sourced and has been placed there. The entire equating with the 'isms however is a newer development and more along the lines of OR. It needs to be sourced as well.--Tigeroo 14:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the citations that have been placed do not support the claim at issue, that "Mohammedan" arose because Christians believed Muslims worshiped Mohammed as a god. Oddly, none of the statements that are supported by the cites are controversial.
Three sources are cited. The first (although citing a far wider range of pages than strictly necessary) indeed shows that some Christians thought that Islam is mainly a Christian heresy. (Some Christians still think this.) The second shows that, yes, some very confused Westerners (Crusader-era, per my statement above) thought that Muslims worshiped a god named Termagent or some such. The third supports a peripheral claim that's beside the point of my comment above.
Yes, the rest of it needs to be sourced, but really, the beginning of the article is as good as unsourced too. (Even the 16th-century term is too late for this kind of error to be expected.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It does not mean the term was exclusively used to depict a worship of Muhammad. Maybe it needs two parts, one which assoicates him and term with the intial concept of worship, and the other that ties him intrinsically with the more common form once greater knowledge of Islam was gained to one of that which represented him as a false prophet or as a term to followers of a deviant sect. I agree both concepts are true of the term. The fact is both concepts did indeed exist, and where the idea of "Termagent" came from would also be quite interesting.--Tigeroo 13:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that absolutely nothing has been shown to show that the false belief that Muslims worship Mohammed (which has not itself been demonstrated either) was the origin of this word. The claim that this is not true at least has the indirect support of the OED.
Even if the premise is true, "Termagent" is only tangentially related here and deserves its own article, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, lets call it work in progress for now. There is no direct sourced claim for the concept of the worship of Muhammad being the source of the term, so I have removed it for now. Replaced it with some history of other terms that is has replaced and are connected to the concept. I agree by the time of the enlightenment the confusion would not have existed anymore, but there is direct evidence of the existence of the false belief of the worship of Muhammad did exist, to which Termagent is an ancillary. It does have it's own article where it is developed further. Let's see what else can be done to improve or define the article.--Tigeroo 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Muslim claim that "Mohammedan" is based on the understanding of Muslims worshipping Mohammed is itself a misunderstanding. We can establish the existence of the misunderstanding, but it nevertheless remains a misunderstanding. This is part of the deplorable over-sensitivity acquired by the Muslim world during the 20th century, out of a sheer minority complex wrt the west. It is time Islam found back its confidence and stopped pulling hysterical acts over non-issues such as this one. --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


It was not uncommon for Islam to be referred to as the "Faith of Muhammad", and so it wasn't completly unheard of to refer to Islam by the name of its founder. Ahassan05 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ahassan05

Actually, It is referred to Din-i-Ibrahim. At least from the Islamic Point of View. The Faith/Path/Way of Life/Religion of Ibrahim (AKA Abraham, referring to Prophet Abraham who is revered as the founder of Monotheism). Muslims believed that the Din-i-ibrahim was lost when people try to change and corrupt his teachings and the teachings from the prophets before him. Then Muhammad brought them back warning the arabs not to change it. Since then, who ever has tried to change them greatly, their versions would be rejected by the muslim community/empire (Time pending, The ottoman empire was the last muslim empire. It fell during a World War.). Peace Be upon Them--Obaidz96 (talk contribs count) 14:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also referred to as Din-i-Ibrahim and countless other names have been given it I am sure, but I just wanted to point out that at least in the Ottoman literature or census documents it is not at all uncommon to see Din-e-Muhammadiyyeh used to mean Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talkcontribs) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Worship of Mohammed[edit]

Medieval Christians believed that Muslims worshipped a trinity consisting of "Mahom", Tervagan and Apollin. Please see the Chanson de Roland or Karlamagnus, they both make this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talkcontribs) 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no. They worship One God, Allah. Before Mohammed, however, all Arabs were pagans.
IIRC, I think it was when Mohammed came into contact with Nestorian Christians (who believe Christ's divine and human natures are separate) or shortly after anyway that he had his visions and wrote the Koran. So, IIUC, Mohammedans inherited the visions of an Arab merchant who had also learned the theology of Christian heretics. (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Chargee.

Pronunciation help[edit]

I am in contact with a professional voice actor who is trying to record a spoken version of George Washington and he wants to hear someone pronounce "Mohammedan". If anyone would be willing to call him up or even leave a voice mail with the proper pronunciation, please email me and I will send you his contact info. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ending it![edit]

Mohammedan was the term used for Islam In europe and the Americas. Until Muslims started to come in numbers to the USA, Mohammedan was corrected and the Term for the religion founded by Muhammad, is now accepted by the west and america as Islam, and its followers, Muslim. Just like the article says, Confucianist and Calvinist do not revere John Calvin and Confucious as Gods. Neither do muslims. This thinking today is very primative.--Obaidz96 (talk contribs count) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

... and nor do the people complaining that Mohammedan implies worship of Mohammed advocate instead that the religion should be called Allahism. Trying to make a "logic" out of this is pointless and more than a bit of original research. The article should simply report how the word has been used and how it has been criticized and not delve into the illogic. (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

it depends what you mean by "revere". It is undisputed that there is strong veneration for Muhammad in Islam, as evidenced by the popular outrage over depictions of Muhammad. No Muslim would object to a depiction of other Muslim rulers or conquerors, such as Suleiman the Magnificent, which shows that the veneration for Muhammad is of a religious nature. But this is irrelevant to this article, and needs to be addressed over at Veneration for Muhammad. --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Offensive![edit]

An image of Mohammad, pbuh, with sword-in-hand trampling the ten commandments and the globe? Is it possible for you to insult my religion any more? I won't remove it because i respect freedom of speech, and admit my own obvious bias, and of course Wikimedia has made it quite clear repeatedly that they frankly dont care about our beliefs... possibly fairly, it is factual not spiritual, but I have to request that someone else take a nonpartisan look at this and ask why this article a: needs a picture of the Prophet, pbuh, especially considering it seriously violates the religion to which the article refers, b: if it WAS relevant and completely necessary, this insult can not even be excused as being a fair representation c: is clearly not neutral and d: directs an incredibly offensive insult to the culture and religion of a large portion of the world, for NO reason.

To update, while i have been typing another user has removed it, but i ask that you consider all facts and don't reinstate it.

The image comes from a book from 1699. Its inclusion is not meant to offend anyone, but to provide an illustration of what the article discusses, which includes historical Western views of Islam. Any propaganda can be offensive to those close to the targets of that propaganda; however there is no prohibition here against viewing it in a historical context. The image should stay. Twalls (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course that image of Mohammed and the character it represents isn't correct at all. Is it? Hmmm??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a secret. Many images of historical figures were made long after their deaths, and people didn't know what they really looked like. E.G. Christopher Columbus. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


The actual misnomer is Islam which means more or less "faith". Usage of the misnomer "Islam" in the sense of "Mohammedanism" leads to the endless complaints at Talk:Islam that "Islam has no founder". Doh, no, "Islam" has no founder if you use the term in its Arabic meaning of faith. It does have a founder if you realize that "Islam" outside of Arabic is a misnomer for "Mohammedanism", i.e. the religious tradition founded by Muhammad. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam does not mean "faith" the Arabic word for "faith" is Iman, Islam comes from the Arabic root SLM meaning peace or tranquility. dk4 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Follower of" vs "Worshiper of"[edit]

In the context of this discussion, I think adding the letters "ian" or "an" to the end of a person's name or title refers to being a follower of that person or a follower of that person's teachings, not necessarily a worshiper of that person. In the case of Christ-ian (Christian), this would be a follower of Jesus Christ and/or his teachings. In the case of Mohammed-an, this would be a follower of Mohammad and/or his teachings. As already indicated, a Luther-an (Lutheran) would be a follower of Martin Luther and/or his teachings.

As described in Wiktionary, the suffix "-ian" or "-an" means one from, belonging to, relating to, or like.

Hotdjdave (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This IS true. I am a Lutheran myself and know anyone would go to Hell for worshiping Martin Luther. The definition of the suffix, “-an” includes the meaning “denotes provenance or membership…now extended to membership in social classes, religious denominations, etc.” and refers to the definition of the variant suffix, “-ian,” which has the definition, “adhering to or following; an adherent of: Christian.” Thus, “Christian” does NOT mean worshipping Christ, but following, i.e. modeling oneself after, him. And, “Mohammedan” does NOT mean worshipping Mohammed either, but following, modeling oneself after him, also.
“Muslim,” however, means “one who submits [to God].” But Mohammedans are commanded by the Koran and other writings holy to them to treat women savagely, oppress Christians and Jews, and torture and kill all “infidels.” So, if you believe these activities are part of submission to the God you know, then you may, in good conscience, call their partakers Muslims—and if you are a Christian or Jew, you would thus dhimmify yourself by agreeing to such oppression—otherwise, no.
The idea about the term “Mohammedan” being offensive is laughable. There are three Mohammedan sporting clubs in the world calling themselves “Mohammedan Sporting Club:” one in Kolkata, India, one in Dhaka, Bangaladesh, and one in Chittagong, Bangaladesh. Surely if there were something improper about the term, Mohammedans would not use it. Therefore, I suggest and encourage everyone, of every religion, to use the term “Mohammedan,” because it is accurate and it betrays no favoritism.
Greta Hoostal (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW all three clubs you cite are colonial era clubs and Mohammadiyya is a word for followers of muhammad and a strain and concept that does exist within the wider fold of Islam and is used by muslims, just as Lutheran implies a form and concepts within the wider fold of Christianity and not a different religion.
My personal take on Mohammadan is that it is offensive because not only does it appear that non-muslims referrents are placing Muhammad in a more central and blasphemous role in the religion than God, but that it is also a word steeped in Orietanlism and Colonial era prejudice like the misinformed hate/fear inducing claims you make on what Islam is.
Muslims have a name for themselves and their religion and anyone refusing to call them by what they call themselves displays not idle insenstivity but sheer belligerence and intent to offend. Mohammedan is offensive in what it appears to imply over its direct meaning, offensive words rarely are, black man is the same as negro but one is more offensive than the other and in the US nigger is ok between blacks but not by non-blacks etc. That is however my personal OR and noted here just as a comment in response to your comments.-- (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for comnpromise[edit]

Mohammedan (also spelt Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan) is a Westernized term for Muslims, that Muslims consider both offensive and inaccurate because it suggests that Muslims are the followers of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Mohammedan" was used by Muslims[edit]

Mohammedanism was used by Muslims about Islam without its spirit, [1] Muhammadans (not Muslims) of to-day (1920) have forgotten the principle of the path of grace through one God, and have therefore become intolerant fanatics, which accounts largely for the loss of political power of most Muhammadan Governments of modern times. [2] St.Trond (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

tone or style[edit]

What tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia? Please specify. Specific concerns will help resolve the issue. Otherwise the tag should be removed.--J. D. Redding 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statement regarding usage of "Muslim" in "the times of the Quran"[edit]

I removed - "Muslim" was in the times of the Quran reserved descendants of Abraham,[1] but is since July 2005 free for all Islamic faiths listed in the Amman Message to use.[citation needed] - as this is not true, and the reference doesn't back up the claim dk4 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


I would not be infavor of a merge. I would be in favor of expanding this article... and do a WP:SUMMARY on the page of Islam of this article. Unless there is an objection, the merge notice should be remove shortly. --J. D. Redding 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Resources to expand this article[edit]

  • Herrick, G. F. (1912). Christian and Mohammedan: A plea for bridging the chasm. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.
  • Maqqarī, A. M., Ibn, -K., & In Gayangos, P. . (1840). The history of the Mohammedan dynasties in Spain: Extracted from the Nafhu-t-tíb min ghosni-l-Andalusi-r-rattíb wa táríkh Lisánu-d-Dín Ibni-l-Khattíb. London: Printed for the Oriental translation fund of Great Britain and Ireland, sold by W.H. Allen and Co.; [etc..
  • Aghnides, N. P. (1916). Mohammedan theories of finance: With an introduction to Mohammedan law and bibliography. Studies in history, economics and public law, v. 70 (whole no. 166). New York.
  • Ion, T. P. (1900). Roman law and Mohammedan jurisprudence. S.l: s.n.
  • Muir, W. (1897). The Mohammedan controversy: Biographies of Mohammed. Sprenger on tradition. The Indian liturgy. and the Psalter. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
  • Macbride, J. D. (1857). The Mohammedan religion explained: With an introductory sketch of its progress, and suggestions for its confutation. London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday
  • Lane-Poole, S. (1894). The Mohammedan dynasties: Chronological and genealogical tables with historical introductions. Westminster: A. Constable and Co.

--J. D. Redding 02:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • McClintock, J., & Strong, J. (1867). Cyclopaedia of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature. New York: Harper. (Page411+)

--J. D. Redding 02:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Corruption or Incomplete?[edit]

Does Islam preach that Judaism and Christianity are CORRUPTIONS of Islam - as most Christians consider Mormonism to be a corruption of Christianity - or merely INCOMPLETE VERSIONS of Islam - in the way Christians consider Judaism to be an incomplete form of Christianity?

According to the last paragraph, it is considered a corruption. But considering there are Christian writings dating from the 1st and second centuries - and Jewish writings and references to Jews even older - and there is no reference to anything quite like Islam before the mid 600s - that does not seem a tenable position. And it makes the last paragraph seem to have been written simply to discredit Islam.

But if it IS true that Moslems officially see Christianity and Judaism as a CORRUPTION of, and not an INCOMPLETE, Islam, I recommend better references than only that last, unverified sentence. If proof can be given that Christianity and Judaism CAME BEFORE Islam, it should replace that lastg sentence.

That, or scrap the whole last parapgraph. That's my opinion. (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by jingiby[edit]

[User:jingiby] has on multiple occasions reverted the vandalism in the final paragraph which among other things states that Muslims worship Alexander the Great. He was warned by user:jojo897 and continues to revert the vandalism. Mr.sam.oliver (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite the opposite - it appears that user:jojo897 is removing reliably sourced and relevant material, and that the article nowhere "states that Muslims worship Alexander the Great". Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
user:jojo897 has again removed well-sourced content, and put in a dubious and unsourced claim about a "mistaken belief". The origin of the term is not based on a mistaken belief, and the vast majority of uses of the term do not show such a mistaken belief. user:jojo897 has also recklessly accused others of vandalism. Roger (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing of cited information.[edit]

Please do not remove large amounts of cited information without consensus. Make incremental changes to specific sections/phrases, and discuss them. Discuss references if you believe they are not reliable. If there are not enough editors active on the talk page to gain consensus, call an RFC. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern use[edit]

The sourcing for the non-Muslim views in the section is inadequate. Page numbers are not provided for most citations. And page 224 of Spencer's book says no such thing. Can we get some page numbers and quotes?

It is also doubtful that any of these authors currently use the term Mohammedan to refer to Muslim or Mohammedanism to refer to Islam. Spencer[3][4], Ibn Warraq [5][6] et al. all use the word "Islam" and "Muslim" in their discourse. Who exactly uses the term "Mohammedan" in present day discourse?

Besides, Spencer is a questionable source[7] and should not be used, except in his own articles. This has been agreed upon previously at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.Bless sins (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


This page is misleading because it says that European had a mistaken belief about Muslims, and that the term "Christian" is based on the worship of Christ. There is a source about what "some Europeans believed". Okay, I am sure that some Europeans were mistaken, just as I am sure that some Muslims were mistaken about how the English language works. The term "Christian" comes from belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and not from worship of Christ. Mohammedan and Christian are analogous to many other terms, such as Lutheran, Buddhist, Confucian, Calvinist, etc. They mean following the teachings, not worship. Some Muslims object to the term Mohammedan anyway, but this objection should not be extended to leave the reader entirely false impressions about what Europeans believed and how English works. I have made a couple of edits to partially correct the article, but they have been reverted. Please address the issues here. Roger (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture on Mohammedan[edit]

I have been restoring the picture on Mohammedan as it was removed without proper discussion however it does seem to be a fairly poor image that doesn't add much, certainly nothing essential, to the article so I thought I would ask what people think about it. Should it be removed or replaced with a different image?

Also, I have read the instructions on hiding the images which some people find offensive. They are rather complicated and limited in scope to specific images or all images on specific articles. Instead, would it be possible to provide simple tickbox based preferences for people who do not wish to see certain categories of images. It is a bit poor to tell readers to fiddle with their CSS as non-technical people may see this as an unhelpful fob off. If we could give them a simple tickbox that deals with their objections in an easy and effective way then I think that would help avoid disputes and edit wars. People on both sides of the argument could work together to get all the offensive images correctly categorised and we could turn something disruptive and divisive into something constructive that meets the needs of all readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Um. I think that if you don't actually think it's good or adds much to that article, you might want to [boldly] refrain from reverting its removal :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I am actually not that bothered either way. My general approach, on any article, is to revert all unexplained content removal that is not obviously removing vandalism or complete junk. If it was any other article we would probably regard having a picture as beneficial. Maybe there is a good reason to have this picture or maybe we want a better picture rather than none at all? I am genuinely unsure. I do not want to impose my view on this. I have been reverting it simply because it is long-standing content and the Talk page has a specific instruction that images should not be removed without discussion here, which is exactly what has happened, not because I personally think the picture is of great merit or importance.
If you are saying that you think the picture is best removed then that makes me less likely to restore it again but I'd still like to see what the broad consensus is so that we can stick to it in future. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
First, the Muhammad talk page is not the page to have discussion of that image for that article. This talk page is specific to a different article. So, if you want to have a discussion about the images for that article, it would be best to open a discussion on that article's talk page (you could neutrally link notice of the discussion here, if you like). Second, the general test is does an edit improve an article - removing what is in your opinion a poor image is generally fine in that sense. Finally, "if we were discussing another article" - is too hypothetical I think, you are discussing that article -- not another article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Under normal circumstances, that is exactly what I would do but if you look at the top of Talk:Mohammedan you will see boxes advising that special rules apply there and the third box does specifically say to discuss it here rather than on the article's own talk page. If that box is incorrect then I apologise but when I saw it I assumed that it was correct and was done for some reason, presumably to centralise the discussion of the images in one place. I thought it was odd but I wanted to do the right thing and so I came here, as it said to. I was not venue shopping. If it is incorrect then it would make sense to remove or change the instruction so that it doesn't mislead anybody else. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry if it confused you but the notices [at Talk:Muhammad/images] specifically say: "This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the notice that led you to the wrong page added discreationary sanction notice. This discussion can conitinue here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Speaking as someone who has vehemently defended the inclusion of Muhammad images in the Muhammad article, I must say that I find the lead image highly inappropriate for this article, for the following reasons:

  • It doesn't illustrate the subject of the article (a follower of Muhammad) but rather Muhammad himself.
  • It appears to be a depiction in the style of Western artists, not a more appropriate depiction from regional artists (some of whom were Muslim) as we have in the Muhammad article.
  • In fact, such an image would never be accepted in the Muhammad article to depict the subject.
  • Finally, the image is not properly attributed, there is no information in the file about where it came from, who created it, where it was first published, and so forth. It has no context.

For those reasons, I would advocate removal of the lead image. It could be replaced by one of the many images we have of Hajj Pilgrimage, such as this or this. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

These objections are a little strange. The article on Lutheranism has an illustration of Luther as well as Lutherans. Is there some rule that an illustration of Mohammad must be by a Moslem? I don't know about the attribution, but obviously it is a fictional illustration. Who makes these rules about what images are acceptable, and which are not? Roger (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
What? Your comment is more than a little strange, it's decidedly irrelevant. Lutheransim has nothing to do with this article, which article is about a largely dis-used word. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this and I think I may have an idea that could satisfy everybody: As this is an article about an obsolete term then maybe it would be possible to show the cover of an old book that uses the word "Mohammedan" in its title or subtitle. That would be literally illustrating the subject of the article, which is the word itself. Copyright should not be an issue if we find something old enough. If the book remains in print under a revised title then that would be perfect as we could note that to demonstrate the depreciation of the word, which is a key point the article has to convey. I have not found anything that fits this brief perfectly but I have found these two:

Also, I found some examples of the term still in use:

Maybe this is worth a mention? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think DeCausa's proposal below (merge to Islam or some other article and change this to a redirect), has merit, and would also solve the problem because redirects don't have images. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I think DanielRigal's proposal has merit. While I'm an extreme proponent in favour of images of Mohammed in relevant articles (in fact, I think that the Persian Wikipedia has more than us is a bit sad, and betrays some self censorship), obviously, it's not really warranted here whatsoever. I looked around for a book that had it on the title, and wasn't able to find one that was fair use. However, as per my comment in the section below, we can certainly show this:
Treaty of Tripoli as communicated to Congress 1797.png
The Treaty of Tripoli. The word is in the bottom body of the text, under article 11, written as "Mohametan".

As well as at least one quality picture where the title of the photograph directly includes the word Mohammedan. An extensive list of such images from the Commons can be found here: (Mohammedan), and with alternate spellings (Mohamedan), here:

Now we just need to figure out which one we all prefer. We can of course keep searching for more relevant images. But I invite comments on these two proposals. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I am going to put the 1883 map at the top of the article as it is a bit more interesting than a scan of monochrome text. I am not saying that this is definitely the image we want but it is better than nothing for now. If anybody prefers something different then just say. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


I'm surprised no one appears to have raised this before. The content of this article seems more appropriate to be a re-direct to Islam with a footnote about the word Mohammedan on that page. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was that I agree, but after reading the article, I believe that the extensive background and sourcing provided makes the subject far more than a dictionary entry. I don't see how the existing encyclopedic information could be merged adequately into the Islam article. It seems fine as a stand-alone topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Not if you take out the hefty padding. Most of the Etymology section is not directly relevant, and neither is the discussion of the Arabic term Muhammadiyya. I would say that only the first 2 sentences in Etymology and the sections on Muslim objections and Obsolescence are in fact on topic. I'm sure it could be succinctly reduced to around 4 or 5 lines and loose nothing. DeCausa (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
While I'm not completely discounting the proposal, and keeping an open mind to the possibility, I think we'd probably be better off not merging. This is a significant concept, and the term does have quite a bit of historical relevance. Therefore, I think we'd probably be better advised to expand the article, with reliably sourced content. While I'm sure it exists, I'm just a bit unsure about how much reliable secondary sourcing we'll be able to put in here regarding the term dying off, specifically. This is a term that's mostly fallen out of disuse with a "whimper" rather than a "bang". However, the term is still used, to some extent, by people in religious traditions who have a historical usage of it in their literature, mostly in the context of apologetics disputing Islam. I'm sure there are reliable sources talking about this. What could also be included are usages by historical personages or polities. For example, the Treaty of Tripoli, in which the government of the United States uses the term, is an extremely important historical document (relevant to the separation of church and state). I think this is one of those cases where we simply need to expand and polish the article, rather than merging. I could easily see this one day getting good article status. What does everyone else think? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed that Muslim#Lexicography has a discussion of the word Mohammedan. It covers the main point of this article and I think with about two or three extra sentences would cover everything on topic from this article. I therefore propose that this article becomes a re-direct to Muslim since Mahommedan is merely an obsolete synonym for Muslim - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose redirect. While I'd usually agree, I started thinking critically about this, and I've become convinced that WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't actually apply in this case, as per this section. As I said, we could quite easily and constructively expand this article, as the term is quite significant, as a lens, from both an historical and anthropological perspective. The etymological aspect is almost incidental, and would be largely introductory. The term itself also isn't obsolete, though it currently may be as a synonym. It's current prevailing usage is distinctively sociological, so it doesn't fall into the usage trap. I'll happily be bold and start editing; I just wanted to hear from other editors, and get their opinions and any additional ideas before doing so. I've already found numerous reliable sources to this effect. Given this approach, I really do think this article could be "epic", and even achieve the status of a featured article. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)