Talk:Muhammad/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Contents

Contradiction

"Muhammad is generally considered to be the founder of Islam, although this is a view not shared by Muslims".

Who doesn't share it? Ahmadiyat(are less than 1%). So, why is is the minority views being taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.1.156 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslims believe that God founded Islam and that Adam was the first prophet, as the next part of the sentence plainly states. Riagu (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahmadiyat likely don't share the view that Muhammad founded Islam, either. What sets them apart is that they don't view Muhammad as the final prophet, that's all. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

it should be (all Muslims) because believing he is the last prophet is one of the pillars of Islam "and by most Muslims as the last prophet sent by God" 2.90.159.133 (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The note says not all Muslims believe that, so "most" is the correct word and not "all" RudolfRed (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. "Most" is anything over 50%. AFAIK, it's only the Ahmadiyya (Nation of Islam?!) that don't accept this, and even the some Ahmadiyya (the Lahori Ahmadiyya) do accept it. The note says "for example" the Ahmadiyya, implying that there are others. Given that the Ahmadiyya are a tiny proportion of Muslims globally and if they are the only ones that don't accept this, does "most" (even if technically correct) and "for example" give a misleading impression? Should "most" be "almost all" and the note be specifically about the Ahmadiyya? DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Would something like "traditional Muslim belief is..." be preferable to "most Muslims believe..."? Resolute 13:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The editors are deliberately not agreeing to the edit. I raised this point about most muslims first but was threatened with a block. Considering Muhammad as the last prophet is one of the tenets of Islam. Of the less than 1% Ahmadiya community, the Lahori sect believes in it as well. Writing most muslims deliberately gives the impression that a sizeable proportion may not adhere to this belief. I suggest it should be edited to almost all muslims.--Maajed (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

honorific -Difference between Prophet Muhammed and Politicans (ie Thatcher)?

Why should Margaret Thatcher honorific have here honorific (Right Honourable) but not the prophet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.14.251 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Which honorific do you think should be appended? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Or prefixed? And I don't see any article referring to Margaret Thatcher as "the Right Honorable Margaret Thatcher". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The top of her infobox. All the same, I'm unconvinced that Mohammed actually has an honorific. His name is sometimes proceeded by his "job title" and sometimes followed by a blessing, but are these "honorifics"? Formerip (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah. We had a discussion some time ago about the plethora of honorifics in the Muhammad infobox and settled on its current form, simply putting "Prophet of Islam" at the top. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I was about the SAW (Peace be upon him (Islam)), you can at least acknowledge and link it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.142.88 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is acknowledged and linked in the forth paragraph of the article. I think most editors believe we should talk about it but not adopt it, because Wikipedia is not a Muslim (or a Christian, or a Jew etc). Formerip (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, "Right Honorable" is a title for Margaret Thatcher, not just an honorific, and that title comes from her profession, like "Doctor" would. The fact that it happens to be in her infobox doesn't mean it belongs there, and doesn't imply anything about any other infobox. Muhammad had no title associated with his profession, no title during his lifetime except possibly "prophet". SAW and PBUH are not titles, they are honorifics, and we don't use honorifics.
See also:
All of those things led to the infobox we have today. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why on the fourth paragraph? Its very important with muslims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.142.88 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is part of the leading section which shows it is important to the religious group, but overall with the impact to history I wouldn't exactly put it above the religious importance, his effects on society or anything else already in the lead. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

LaMartine

The reader feedback for this article included a post pointing out that the LaMartine quote was not in the indicated source. For reference, the book is here. Turns out it was in the first volume, rather than the second. Note that this is the French version. I am not sure where the English translation comes from; it seems too good to have been done by a contributor (this could probably do with looking into, so Wikipedia credits the translator). JN466 18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

remove died word from the personal information

Respected Editor,

Please remode died word from the personal information of Muhammad (SAW), because he is still alive and always be will be but we can not see him.

I request you to look in this metter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.91.82.196 (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What makes you believe that Muhammad is still alive? There is no Muslim sect/organization, as far as I know, claiming that the Prophet is still alive.111.94.13.234 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done As 111.94.13.234 points out, there are no Muslim beliefs (outside of fringe ones) that believe Muhammad is still alive. His religious role is the belief by Muslims regarding his role as a prophet. There's no suggestion he is immortal. I don't think there's any doubt that someone born approximately 1500 years ago is no longer alive. Singularity42 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow... Locobiscuits (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of discussions

Who keeps removing the discussions here? 124.158.107.17 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the page you're looking for: Talk:Muhammad/Images DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC#
Good idea to leave some discussions here? Maybe? 124.158.107.17 #talk) 12:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC#
No, not really. The images sub-page was created to un-clutter this one. Tarc #talk) 12:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC#
I think he meant, leave a stub on the TP. Aggressive archiving is becoming a problem on Wiki. HammerFilmFan #talk) 13:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC#
Not the same issue as archiving; this is a case where a a topic-specific sub-page was created because image-removal requests/discussion were drowning out any other type of discussion on this talk page. Tarc #talk) 14:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Archives

Why have all archives past 25 been deleted? Jersey John (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

They haven't. They haven't existed yet. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
That's my mistake, I completely misread, lol. Whoops. Jersey John (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Another Founder of Islam discussion

I'm sure this has been discussed soo many times before but the sentence "Muhammad is generally considered to be the founder of Islam, although this is a view not shared by Muslims" I think should be changed.

That sentence has a link to a book called Essential Islam: something something. When I clicked it, it brought me to the 101st page of the book which has this sentence: "Although non-Muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam, Islam does not claim to be a new religion." Yes I am a muslim, and I feel the current sentence is unjust when compared to the sentence in the book. Therefore I propose the sentence changed to a direct quote from the book: "Non-muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam" Dead stop. We muslims do not need explanations on who Muhammad was, so that direct quotation is enough. Of course it can be a bit more descriptive: "Non-Muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam, but Muslims consider him to be a prophet of their god." or some variation. But please keep the "Non-Muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam" portion as exact quotation from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.247.224 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi 111.94.247.224. Before initiating a new discussion on the talk page, it is courteous to review the FAQ and archived discussions to see if someone has already addressed your proposed contributions. You should also remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes, as explained on the edit page. Thanks for stopping by. 173.166.110.9 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this was previously discussed quite recently and at length. Have a look in the archive. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
First, assume good faith. The OPs first sentence implies that he is familiar with past discussions.
Second, this specific suggestion wasn't discussed, at least as I recall, being a participant in those past discussions. Here we have a Muslim proposing a way to retain the word "founder" (a term to which I myself have objected), and he observes that the article currently somewhat misrepresents the cited source. Therefore I think this suggestion is worthy of consideration.
Simply saying (slightly paraphrasing the source) "Non-muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam" and nothing more, should be sufficient. The clause "a view not shared by Muslims" is redundant. The rest of that paragraph goes into sufficient detail about what Muslims think of Muhammad. Why not try it out? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right, Amatulic. Yes, non-Muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam seems sufficient. Khestwol (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I changed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Er, Amatulic, can you AGF please! The OP's first sentence implies the exact opposite: he's saying that he's assuming (rightly) that it was previously discussed. Because he is clearly saying it is an assumption he clearly can't have read it or at least that's what I and the IP thought he was saying. All the IP before me and myself were saying is read the archive to see what was previously agreed! Neither of us were dismissing his proposal What's wrong with that? where is the lack of AGF?
But, furthermore, I was a participant in that discussion too, and it was specifically discussed. I had proposed an edit based on non-Muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam. It did not achieve consensus in a discussion over 5 days as some objected to it because it gave the Muslim and secular view apparent equal weight or that it simply watered down too much the bald statement that he was the founder which many wanted or that there are non-Muslims who don't consider him the founder (e.g. John Esposito). I didn't agree, but I put forward the version you've just changed (based on Muhammad is generally considered to be the founder of Islam) as a compromise. It was accepted by a small number, no one objected: as good as you're going to get in this sort of area. I concluded the discussion and said that I would make the edit but added that anyone should feel free to revert because only a handful had supported it. And there the issue has rested for the last three months until your edit yesterday, about which I'm neutral. DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I think, the misleading generalization "Muhammad is generally considered to be the founder of Islam" should not be added again, because no Muslim considers Muhammad as the founder of Islam because the belief that ancient prophets (some of whom are mentioned in the Quran) also preached the same Islamic faith is required to be a Muslim. However, the current version of the lead should be changed a little for accuracy, because there are some non-Muslims too who don't regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam, as DeCausa's link shows. Khestwol (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a problem with that approach which others have posted on in the past. (I, in fact, don't actually have a strong opinion on it.) It does present the "non-muslim" and the "muslim" points of view as though they are of equal weight. Those who object to this approach would say that one point of view is a matter of faith and the other is the predominant (if not universal) secular scholarly point of view. WP, as a secular encyclopedia, should not do that. I'm not going to post on this issue again. DeCausa (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I hope someone can find a way to solve the problem of stating the statement more precisely in the lead. And, sorry, all Muslims don't have to be non-secular, especially if one considers that the person who is considered the Father of Secularism in Western Europe (Averroes) by many scholars, was himself a Muslim. I think, we need to present both Muslim and non-Muslim points of view with equal weight per WP:DUE#Religion. Both points of view can be secular and "scholarly", because many people have secular and scholarly points of view, yet they're Muslim and therefore don't consider Muhammad as the founder of Islam. Khestwol (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Having said I wouldn't post further, I feel I should (just one more)! (1) WP:DUE#Religion doesn't say that the adherents' view has to be presented "with equal weight". It merely says the adherents' view should be "mentioned". The policy that was previously raised as an issue was WP:VALID. (2) Of course a muslim can be a scholar and perhaps a secularist. Just because secularist muslim scholars may believe Islam existed prior to Muhammad as a religious belief, it's still only a religious belief. DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for putting a light on previous issues raised. In response to your second point: It's actually a historical fact that Muhammad, like Moses and other Israelite and other prophets in Islam, corroborated the former monotheistic teachings (e.g. the teachings of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph etc.). It's not only a religious belief that Muhammad corroborated their teachings and testified their holy scriptures. Khestwol (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a historical fact that that Judaism, Chistianity and Islam are all monotheistic, have common aspects as Abrahamic faiths and the latter two derived much from the one(s) that preceded it. There clearly is a "genealogy" running between the three religions, and that is why there is scholarly support for the proposition that Muhammad's teaching was in part derivative of aspects of Christianity and Judaism. But that's not the same thing as saying that Muhammad "corroborated" (by which I think you are actually saying "taught the same thing as") Abraham, Jesus etc. That is a matter of faith (a) disputed by Christians and Jews (again that's a matter of faith), but more importantly (b) unsupported by any non-faith scholarship (that is, scholarship that is not inspired and guided by religious belief) (AFAIK). DeCausa (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Just a correction: mainstream Christianity is Trinitarianist. At least in the point of view of many Muslims and Jews, worshipping others besides the Abrahamic God doesn't make Christianity monotheistic. In basic aspects like Oneness of God, Islam can be considered a continuation of early Judaism, Sabianism and some of the original non-Trinitarianist Christian denominations like Ebionitism. Mainstream Christian point of view does consider Muhammad as the "founder of Islam" (though some well known exceptions exist), because it says Muhammad was a false prophet and only the ancient Israelite prophets and other prior prophets were true. As for irreligious people, their points of view are totally different than Christians because they don't believe in prophets in the first place. "Founder" is a weasel word and seems too strong and loaded for representing the point of view of materialists and atheists etc. because they don't reject that Islam continued many aspects (like monotheism, prayers, fasting, almsgiving, dietary laws, and beliefs in unseen Heavens, angels, messengers of God, Paradise, Hell, Day of Judgement, afterlife and resurrection of the dead etc.) of early Abrahamic religions. Khestwol (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

GA status

This article is currently listed as a GA, even though it was delisted after the last GA review in May (and remained delisted until August, when Tarc unilaterally relisted it). I've raised the matter at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#Muhammad_GA_review. JN466 11:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

Regarding the section title "Aftermath" in the article;

Definition of AFTERMATH

-the period immediately following a usually ruinous event <in the aftermath of the war> [Merriam Webster]
-A consequence, especially of a disaster or misfortune: famine as an aftermath of drought. [free online dictionary]
-A period of time following a disastrous event: in the aftermath of war.[free online dictionary]

This is a non neutral term and against wiki policy as it sums up the life of Muhammad as a "ruinus event" or "misfortune", I think it should be changed to something like "post Muhammad".

I would also like to change the term Rashidun Empire [in the same paragraph] to Rashidun Caliphate the same title used in the link, it was an elected leadership not a hereditary one, similar to how the U.S is a nation with a Government not an Empire. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ τᾱℓк 03:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing "Aftermath" to something else; perhaps "Legacy" because "Post Muhammad" just sounds awkward.
Also I agree Rashidun empire should be changed to Rashidun Caliphate because that's the actual title of the article (Rashidun empire is a redirect).
I'll do both now. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Legacy is used in another section what about "Heritage" Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ τᾱℓк 05:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you are correct. Hmmm. The word "heritage" has overtones of family traditions, but the section is really about aftereffects of Muhammad's life, events that came to pass because of his existence, like the ripples left in a pond after a stone falls through the surface. That is what was originally intended by the term "aftermath". I changed it to "Post Muhammad" as you originally suggested although somewhere in a corner of my mind I am sure there's a better term to describe the events that transpired after Muhammad's death. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Other corrections

In the criticisms section it reads "when he was attacked by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism, his marriages, and military expeditions." His non muslim arab contemporaries didn't criticize him for his marriages it was a cultural norm, the point should be removed, it only redirects to a page on his marriage.

This line is also inaccurate and doesn't quote anyone; "In modern times, his sincerity in claiming to be a prophet has been questioned, and the laws he established, such as those concerning slavery have been criticised." he didn't establish the slave trade it predates islam itself to the time of moses and before, he established laws giving slaves basic human rights who criticized him for that? Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ τᾱℓк 05:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That section is intended to summarize the main article about criticism of Muhammad, and it seems that some ambiguity resulted in the attempt to summarize. He was criticized for all those things, but I think the sentence meant to say that his contemporaries criticized him for preaching monotheism, and later critics focused on marriages and military expeditions. The phrase "by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries" could probably be removed to eliminate the ambiguity.
Also the section doesn't say he established a slave trade. It says he established laws regarding slavery, which is true. Laws he established have been criticized, even if slavery is a bad example to single out. This sentence could be corrected simply by removing the phrase "such as those concerning slavery". ~Amatulić (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what you said, regarding slavery i haven't seen anyone criticize the laws specifically as they are only laws giving slaves human rights what has been criticized is that he didn't abolish slavery an entirely different issue, its like that quote was saying they appose the rights of slaves be treated fairly. If you want to change the sentences go ahead. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ τᾱℓк 06:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I have made the changes. Thanks for your vigilance in making this a better article. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of image from the page Splitting of the moon

1. Splitting of the moon

2. The image on the right side is not real.

3. It hurts the religious sentiments of the people in society and creates disturbances to churches, temples all over the world specially if anyone sees it.

4. Any one does not have the caricatures or cartoons of Muhammed so its absurd to use that image on the above page.

5. Requesting you to remove the image from the above page.

6. Thanks in advance

Baig 18:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not censored
2) Any concerns regarding that article should be posted on its talkpage and not here. Jarkeld (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Not only that, but Muhammad's face is not shown, and the image comes from an early Islamic text used in the tradition of fortunetelling in Persian and Turkish cultures. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
the description is ridiculous, "Muhammad Splits the Moon" he never split the moon or claimed to have done so, that should be corrected. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ τᾱℓк 13:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, that has nothing to do with this article. It should be raised on that article's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with ibm.masud so I have changed the caption on the picture, although the original artwork itself apparently has a description saying Muhammd did the splitting. Anyway, I invite anyone to go to Talk:Splitting of the moon to comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith

The article describes Mo as "...the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith..."

If the faith was uncorrupted, why did it need restoring?

[And, on a side note, I've never seen some many people tiptoe so carefully around issues that would be considered innocuous on, say, the Buddha or Moses pages. You think you're all being politically correct, but it's really stomach-turning behaviour.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.122.237.201 (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The article does not describe Muhammad as the "restorer of an uncorrupted original montheistic faith". What the article actually says is: "Non-Muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam. Muslims consider him to be the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets." That it, it says that Muslims do not consider him to be the founder of Islam, as Muslims believe their religion existed before Muhammad. Non-Muslims consider Muhmmad to be the founder of Islam. I can't see anything controversial about either statement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularity42 (talkcontribs)
Right. To state what Muslims believe as their beliefs is not being politically correct, it's being accurate. Further, the sentence (unless misinterpreted) means that they believe he restored the faith to its original uncorrupted state. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we elaborate on what is meant by "Uncorrupted" in the article, its a bit vague. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ τᾱℓк 09:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)
I think we should delete the word "uncorrupted" as redundant (and possibly a WP:NPOV violation). The sentence conveys the same message without it. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Descendants alive today?

Was just wondering whether there shouldn't be an expanded genealogy section dealing with the different clans in Arab culture of the living progeny of Mohammed today?--Willyfalcone (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Prophet Muhammad had no sons who lived past childhood. Since ancestry is established through the male line in Islam, no one can say that the Prophet is their ancestor. Unflavoured (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The way that Islam defines lineage and inheritance has many important implications, not least of which being the choice of surname, but surely no one would deny that the Prophet is nonetheless an ancestor of all of Fatimah's descendants. After all, biology doesn't cease to exist solely because a society is patrilineal. Dragons flight (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
We already have this article, which I think would be the correct place for any new information that can be sourced. Formerip (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Many Muslims claim they are his descendants, in fact you cant be a leader in shia islam unless you are descendant from him so its very common today. The Jewish people claim lineage through the mothers side btw. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)

Muhammad's Noble Character

Enough. This isn't going anywhere. If there is something to be discussed other than the noble character then a start a new section at the bottom of the page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think there should be a section on our holy prophet's noble and sublime character. An example can be : The most unique aspect of Prophet Muhammad’s life is his noble character. Almighty Allah himself testifies to this in the holy Quran: And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character --Sura 68 (Al - Qalam), ayah 4.

Both Muslim and non-Muslim biography writers have discussed his noble character in their books in detail. They portray him as being generous, just, strong-minded, God-fearing, conscious, patient, caring to others, a loving father, a loving husband, and many other qualities.Imtiazuddin (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please point out a religion that doesn't claim that its founder did not have a sublime character. If a section was created about his apparently "noble character", there would have to be a section claiming that he wasn't noble. Just to keep the article in a Neutral Point of view.
People must understand that wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a 21st century way of worshipping. Brough87 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec) You do understand that this is an encyclopedia, right?
What Allah may be alleged to have said has no bearing on historical fact. That's a religious viewpoint, not a viewpoint from an independent reliable source.
If you have any examples of independent biographers who can make such claims on an historical basis rather than person opinion or belief, then by all means present those sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
"Conscious"? Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems like it'd have been hard for him not to be. I'd guess he meant conscientious but didn't carefully check what he was typing as he copied something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Presumably so. I have to admit I found it a bit droll, consciousness being something of a prerequisite for those other qualities. Rivertorch (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
We cannot state that Muhammad had a "noble character" - that is an opinion and inclusion of such statement would be against rules regarding a neutral point of view. What can be included however is a statement that someone said that he had a "noble character", or that certain sources portrayed him as such. BeŻet (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we add that section? I think it would be very relevant since Muhammad preached a religion and the main business of religion is moral behavior and character. Its the subject of an extensive body of work both in the Muslim and non Muslim world. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ τᾱℓк 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
...as it is for any other religious leader. If you can show evidence of an extensive body of work that don't promote a religious point of view, then propose some words. The proposal that started this conversation, however, promotes a religious point of view and is therefore inappropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Today User:Imtiazuddin added a "noble character" section to the main body of the article and, after reviewing the content, I removed it on the grounds that the material was inherently POV and the tone was unencyclopedic. It may be possible that some small part of the contribution could be salvaged and rewritten, but there was no way the original text could remain in place. It is simply not possible for us to write, in Wikipedia's voice: "The most unique aspect of Prophet Muhammad's life is his noble character. Almighty Allah Himself testifies to this in the holy Quran". Personally I think the main concept from the new section is already adequately, and much more appropriately, presented in the article itself and the expansion is neither necessary nor desirable. Any else care to review and comment? Doc Tropics 16:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment. It is good that Imtiazuddin chose to discuss his proposed addition here first. However, after the community explained to him in this very discussion how and why it would be inappropriate, going ahead with it anyway suggests that Imtiazuddin is not acting in good faith. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Imtiazuddin has done it again today, I have removed it Brough87 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And I have left a final warning. Shouldn't this article be subject to a 1RR restriction? I thought it was, but I must be confusing it with another topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

All of you are correct, in fact. After the initial proposal, I didn't visit this talk page, and missed the discussions; thats why, the problem ensued. Thanks for constructive criticism. Discussion on this topic should end here. By the way, I was wondering what kind of people contemplate edit warring. Nobody means this on this talk page. Imtiazuddin (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Imtiazuddin, you have a added a section about Muhammad's "noble character" twice, that sounds like the start of an edit war to me. (THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS MY VIEWS/QUERY ONLY) How do you know Muhammad had a "noble character"? I imagine you were not around at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brough87 (talkcontribs) 22:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you know trees existed before you where born, rather they where created or appeared on the very day of your birth but everyone is keeping it from you, the answer....evidence. religion is about behavior that's its sole purpose, a prophet is an exemplar of a higher form of behavior, if people [generally speaking] don't know this by now then they shouldn't be commenting on this page and how it should be written especially the relevance of a section dedicated to the prophets behavior. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 06:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)
Guys, it comes down to sources. Wikipedia cites and neutrally summarizes reliable sources. That's all. No argument matters, that's all Wikipedia does and will do. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, tree's don't even exist now unless there's multiple unaffiliated sources documenting their existence.
Imtiazuddin was not neutrally summarizing sources, but cherry picking for undue weight. Just as there are sources praising Muhammad's character, there are sources criticizing Muhammad. It's only fair to discuss secondary observation of all such views, describe him neutrally, and let reader make up their own mind. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ibn.masud, I cannot know for sure if trees existed before I was born. However all the evidence available points to the fact that they did. There are personal testimonies of people interacting with trees before I was born. There is scientific evidence that shows that trees must have come from a reproduced source. There are trees in existence today that have been proven to be centuries old.
It is different with Muhammad. Your religion tells you that he had a noble character, that doesn't make it true. You know nothing more of Muhammad's character than any other muslim or non-muslim human being on the planet. However you are less likely to critically assess such claims because your religion forces you to accept claims without question.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it must come from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a way for you to profess or spread your beliefs, we are simply a repository of knowledge. Brough87 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Glad everyone's is interested in trees :), point was we all have faith in "evidence" when we break down the issue. Ian I didn't comment on the usefulness of his specific posts just the relevance of having that section in general. Brough you are simply taking what has been said about jesus and some other historical figures and assuming it applies to Muhammad, I know from your assumptions you are not familiar with Islam, its history, body of works and what has been done through out history to preserve his image/legacy. Without getting into detail Muslims went to great length's to preserve everything about him, entire sciences where invented for this task including the preservation of the Arabic language, as language has a habit of changing overtime. We invented the dictionary for this task something many take for granted today but many meaning's in the old testament would have been lost if we had not inspired others to do the same for there scriptures. so no its not a matter of he said she said when it comes to Islamic scripture its all very well documented, peer checked for accuracy and well known throughout the Islamic world. Why this section is relevant is because there are examples of his character and not praise of his character this is entirely two different things and your comments don't apply to the former. My religion doesn't force me to believe no one is holding a gun to my head, as a result of humanity following Islam the world was brought out of the dark ages, literally with science and human advancement it wasn't put into it. you may like to see An Islamic History of Europe (produced by BBC),Al-Andalus History of Islam in Spain by the BBC, spain was the spark that took Europe out of the dark ages, or Science and Islam also by the BBC. His character was the entire purpose of his mission so its only relevant, it is obvious by now there is a a large body of work about this very subject as nearly all books written about him focus on this very point it is why he is the subject of criticism because if his character didn't stand up to scrutiny then he wasn't a person worth following in moral behavior. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)
Actually I know quite a bit about Islam, its practices and the history of it. Not only am I engaged to a former muslim, and have a child with her. I also studied the History of the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East as part of my degree at University. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am ignorant of the subject. You claim that I am wrong to contrast Jesus with Muhammad and yet you say: "His (Muhammad) character was the entire purpose of his mission", does that mean you believe that Jesus's personality was unimportant to 'his mission? The fact of the matter is, as a Muslim you are undoubtedly effected (as displayed by your previous comment) bu this particular topic, and it therefore inhibits your ability to scrutinise the claims made in pro-mohammad references. I am willing to continue to this particular chain of thought in another place, to avoid taking up much more space on this talk page. To summarise: No there should not be a section for muhammad's "noble character" Brough87 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
There´s an article called Muhammad in Islam, maybe something about his character would fit in there? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
That would be the best place for it, but as discussed it would have to include criticism. Brough87 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on the question of whether or nor it is appropriate for the article in the first place (although, in principle, I can't see what's wrong with a brief "Muslims consider Muhammad to have had a noble character", properly sourced), it wouldn't need accompanying criticism provided the wording is clear in terms of saying that it's something that some people believe. What would be the balancing content? "However, Satanists hold a different view"? Formerip (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "Mohammed has/had a nobel character" would be problematically because it jugdes the opinion to be true, and there is no reason to do so. In contrast "Muslims consider Muhammad to have had a noble character" is a unproblematically, since it just records the opinion of the muslims. The place for such a sentence would clearly be the section "muslim views on Mohammed". The balancing content is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad . I would say practically all non muslims disagree with the muslim view on Muhammed(Or they would be muslims) Hence, the satanist are one of the smaller groups to consider.141.5.26.41 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Your knowledge doesn't seem to have helped in this subject, categorising historical facts with abstract statements like "pro" muhammad is convenient in ignoring there reality. If its pro it must be wrong and neutral is the new right, sorry that's naive, neutrality is a tool that is used a means not the end. the reality is, there is a truth and a conclusion to the discussion either he was whom he claimed to have been or he wasn't there is no fence sitting. you are wrong to contrast the historicity of Jesus with that of Muhammad there sources are not the same and the body of works around them have nothing to do with each other it's just common sense. Im not here to scrutinize the claims made about him [that isnt the scope of wikki] statements like that about neutrality usually end with a but some sort of comment to the negative and not much in the way of rationale, the idealism of neutrality is fallacious in contrast to reality which demands that answers exist, it has its limits humans are not encyclopedias so don't use it to actually try to win an argument. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 08:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)
Sorry but the word "nobel" is a jugdment and not a fact. Facts are what somebody is doing or not. The conclusion "His character is nobel (or rotten)" is then a conclusion of the facts. Thise wikis way of handling things is giving the facts and citing the different conclusions different people has made of them. This does not have to be the best of all possible ways of handling things and nobody prevents anybody to build up a wiki that works with a different way of handling things. In fact there are several other wikis out there that does this. However, the popularity of wikipedia shows that there are people that want informations given this particulary way.Hence, I suggest you add the description of his nobel character in "the muslim views on Mohammed section".141.5.26.41 (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I was advocating a section on his character not using the word noble in the title. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 12:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)
Yes. However, attributes of a character are most often jugments. And in some cases you will not find many non-muslims to agree on them. That is why I would suggest to include this kind of things in the muslim view section. If you want to include it elsewhere, many people will demand evidence for any single property of his character. Please, also consider that some people will go through typical critism list and draw unfavourbale conclusions what kind of character flaws this or that action of Muhammed may implies and then they will want to include this into this section as well.141.5.26.41 (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
not when your only referencing literal examples of his character and not an analysis of it which is what attributes are. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 14:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)
There is no such thing. All analysis of "quality" of a person is a subjective analysis. Ibn Masud, seriously, just drop the matter. There is no way that Wikipedia editors are ever going to consent to putting in claims in Wikipedia's voice that say positive or negative things about Muhammad. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Not if you add examples of his life, that isn't analysis. What if you add a section called charity that mentions his charitable works and another called public works or reforms that talks about what he actually did in his mission, the page on mother Teresa has a charity section. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 08:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)

Thing about Mother Teresa is the fact she lived in recent times, details about her are less likely to be effected by speculation and the corruption of facts through the passage of time. Muhammad supposedly lived over 1000 years ago. Brough87 (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't know anything about the historicity of Muhammad, stop making sweeping assumptions/generalizations, the history of Islam is not the history of Europe. that is twice now I have pointed this out. either way its not up to you to decide historical accuracy that isn't the scope of wikki you just point out the results of the research and if the research is out there it can be included. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 01:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)

Ibn.masud, what objective, [WP:RS|reliable sources]] do you have about Muhammad's character (noble or otherwise), verus a person, group, or religion's belief about Muhummad's character? (Keep in mind that quotations from religious texts and analysis of religious texts would support the latter rather than the former)? Singularity42 (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the second part of your question can you elaborate on that? Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 06:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Does anyone other than Ibn.masud think this thread needs to remain active? This is pure WP:DEADHORSE activity. Ibn.masud, we get that you believe that somehow Muslim history is different from every other single type of writing in the world, and is able to preserve absolute facts about people from hundreds of years ago. Whether or not you're correct (you're not, but that's not really relevant), no major historian, history publisher, scientist, linguist, or any other major scholar outside of Islam would agree with you. More importantly, Wikipedia editors are not going to agree with you. This is simply never going to happen; I'm sorry that we can't figure out how to show you that your proposals are absolutely in violation of WP:NPOV, but, at this point, you're just going to need to trust us. Please note, though, that these ideas are probably perfectly fine for the article Muhammad in Islam, if they're not there already. In any event, I strongly recommend that either another editor close this, or that Ibn.masud just agree to move on. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I frankly think this thread is over. Ibn.masud's arguement of Muslim history being so different from any other type of history that it neeeds its own seperate classification is something I do not accept. For the record ibn, my 'assumptions' are just as valid as your crazy claims about the historiography of Islam and your prophet. Brough87 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Be aware that several admins patrol this talk page, including me and Qwyrxian. This thread has crossed the line into personal attacks. Not acceptable. Comment on content, not on the contributor. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If that be the case, I retract my earlier comments. I do not see the need for any information about Muhammads character to be on his main wiki page. Brough87 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Qwyrxian and Brough both of you get a clue, we began recording from day one, a major part of Islam's message and warning to Muslims was to preserve there religion and not let it get lost like the other religions let there history become lost [look at the oldest surviving bible's or torah, compared to the Quran. what about the narratives surrounding both religions how far back can you physically or orally date them]. It wasn't some magical feat we did the work, Can either of you claim the majority of jesus's sayings where preserved, we can with our prophet very easily. both of you seem to just assume things, you think if you shout louder ill somehow sound crazier give me a brake you look more and more naive to anyone who actually knows the historicity of Islam on a professional level and not what ever level both of you have concocted in your heads.
Qwyrxian you havnt addressed my question about a charity section. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 09:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crescent-Pentagram, tulip-rose, Allah and Muhammad

Allah: alif (1) + lām (30) + lām (30) + hā’ (5) = 66

Also, tulip and crescent can be written with these letters (arabic). TULIP and CRESCENT (moon) are two symbols of Allah. These symbols are the symbols of Baal too. Also, Muhammad is written like a STAR (pentagram) and ROSE is an another symbol of Muhammad. Therefore the crescent and star symbolize Allah and Muhammad. The Isra and Mi'raj shows this clearly. The pentagram ascends to the crescent. I think, man can write about this theme in the article. My english is not sufficient this to make.

Symbols of Baal: Crescent, tulip, 6, 66 etc.
Symbols of Astarte: Pentagram, rose, 5 etc.
Allah, Tulip (Lale), Crescent (Hilal): http://www.dindersiforum.com/showthread.php?tid=3290
Allah and Muhammad: http://fatimaca.blogcu.com/muhammed-i-bir-bakis/3243889
Tulip and rose: http://www.tulipandrose.net/wp-en/why-tulip-and-rose http://uskumru.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/allah-muhammed-lale-gul/ http://www.sohbetsesi.net/dini-bilgiler/gul-muhammed.html
--Crescentgod (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view. The Star and crescent is not an Islamic symbol, it is a Turkish symbol, and the Ottoman empire (the most recent Islamic empire, but far from the first) was Turkish. In fact, the Crescent was used mostly by Christians before the 14th century. Likewise, the Tulip is not an Islamic symbol, but an Ottoman symbol. The blogs you present (which are not reliable sources to begin with), are really just repeating outdated political lies, not actual history.
Also, please be aware that single purpose accounts dedicated to pushing particular views (except for a neutral point of view, which really doesn't involve pushing) will wear out their welcome really quick. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The Ottomans [first appeared 1227] picked up the symbol which has no religious meaning from the Greek Christians [if I remember correctly], I've also heard it being said it was gifted to them by the Christian's, the numbering system you apply wasn't used in Islamic society until the second or third dynasty and I vaguely remember reading it predates Islam, one more thing if a site tells you Muslims worship the black stone in mecca run for the hills. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 12:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talkcontribs)

Yes. Crescent also has been used in the west. http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mondsichel&diff=prev&oldid=76479013#Flaggen_mit_der_Mondsichel_als_Symbol But, there was a moon god Sin in Babylon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_(mythology) I think, the origin of the crescent symbol is east. And there is a surat in Koran that about Sin mentions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surat_Ya_Sin

  • (Ya Sin -> english Oh Sin). In the Article: Mysterious letters - Opening with the Arabic letters "Yāʾ" and "Sīn", possibly referring to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, since Ya also means "O" while "Sin" is often interpreted as indicating insan (human).[3] The context seems to indicate this interpretation as well, as verses 3-6 specifically address Muhammad. Yasin is used as a name in the Islamic world as it was one of the names of Muhammad.[citation needed]
  • The word SIN do not indicates human in fact. The word INS indicates human (human: INSan). This is misinterpreted. --Crescentgod (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
What part of WP:No original research did you not understand? Also, please read WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Neutral point of view. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You unfortunately do not speak Arabic, you made a simple mistake which led to this long hypothesis. Sin [pronounced seen in Arabic] is not referring to a word or name as you made a connection between it and the name in Babylon of sin, but of simple Arabic letters. some chapters in the Quran start with a simple arrangement of letters which have no meaning we know of, like chapter two of the Quran starts with Alif [Arabic letter] Lam [Arabic letter] Mim [another Arabic letter]. Ya Sin is pronounced as a word to shorten its pronunciation not to make it a whole word, it is comprised of two letters Ya, saad. Ya here does not mean "oh" as you stated it is simply the letter pronounced in that manner, Imam suyuti btw is the only one I know of who thought Ya Sin was referring to the prophet, it is not a strong view and an esoteric one. That wiki page on ya sin is not reliable it quotes the views of an extremist [Rashid khalifah] who held his own beliefs and not anything to do with Islam, see his wikki page he claimed to have been a messenger of God, I don't know why his views are relevant on that page he is not an authority figure or an expert in this field. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 12:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 November 2012

Add a "d" at the end of the word survive:

From "No depictions of Muhammad dating from his lifetime survive"

To "No depictions of Muhammad dating from his lifetime survived"

Francisco Luz (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine the way it is. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It is possible that they survived (i.e. that they survived for some time, however short). All we can say is that they no longer survive. Formerip (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a source supporting this claim -- that there were depictions from his lifetime that did not survive? FWIW, I'm not aware of any textual references to such depictions (but I could be wrong). Wiqi(55) 01:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not a positive claim. It's something we can't affirm or deny, if we want to accurate, because we just don't know. We only know that there are none around now. Formerip (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If so, then this sentence is superfluous. Deleting it and just starting with "The earliest extant depictions ..." would be more accurate. Wiqi(55) 01:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for making the article more concise wherever possible. I agree, it's superfluous; delete it. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I thought i'd add this edit request here than start a new section.in the "Early reforms under Islam" a line reads, "and as Muhammad's position grew in power he demanded that those tribes who wanted to ally with him implement the zakat in particular." This isn't a direct quote so my issue is with the wording "grew in power he demanded". This sentence is talking about the zakat tax or poor tax where money is collected to donate to the poor, i think the word demand is improperly used and rather "requested" is more historically accurate and neutral. The sentence structure itself implies he used his increase in power to extort money from the tribes to give to the poor. He made the same request of any tribe wanting to become muslim which is to pay the zakat. Zakkat is obligatory on all Muslims regardless of which tribe you come from it is one of the five pillars of Islam, so it is a non issue how larger Islam became. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 07:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Self-Identifying Muslims (Edit Request) 6 December 2012

Note the following line in the first para and the associated note n1:

"He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God and, by most * Muslims, the last prophet sent by God for mankind.[5][n 1]"

I believe in the interests of neutrality the word "self-identifying" should be entered at the asterisk. After all, the vast majority of those who claim to be Muslim consider belief in the finality of Prophet Muhammad's (S) prophethood to be a condition of Islam and that ALL Muslims believe in this because those who believe otherwise are just not Muslim. Also, in the note n1, Ahmadis are described as Muslim which is not a neutral position. They should be described as self-identifying Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.24.25 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • This suggestion seems to follow the NPOV method well; if nobody objects I'll do it in a day or two. WilyD 09:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I object as the current wording is neutral and accurate. Most Muslims do believe Muhammad to be the last prophet so there is no need for the qualifier. As to the Ahmadiyya being listed as Muslim in Wikipedia, that is the standard NPOV. Usually any attempt to portray the Ahmadiyya as non-Muslim is reverted. It would be the same as saying The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are self-identifying Christians or that most self-identifying Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity (second paragraph third sentence). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose. The anon is suggesting that people with particular beliefs aren't "real" Muslims, but that's not for us to decide. There's no external Muslim-certification authority, so for our purposes, there is no distinction between "Muslims" and "Self-Identifying Muslims". If somebody says they're a Muslim, they are. I do think it's important to note that the belief that Muhammad is not the last prophet is a minority view within Islam, which we do, but not in such a way that suggests the majority is somehow "correct" and the minority is not.—Chowbok 20:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I also object. WilyD, I have to wonder why you consider this suggestion to be NPOV. Applying any qualifier to the term "Muslim", for the purpose of redefining a population group, is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV. The sentence in the article should remain as it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Ug, go and read WP:NPOV. Us deciding or them deciding that they're Muslims is still privileging one POV or another. All points of view agree that they're self-identified Muslims, the whole point of NPOV is to write things in a way that everyone agrees is true, rather than privilige one POV of view (that identifying as a Muslim makes you a Muslim) rather than another (that holding beliefs X, Y, and Z, or performing acts A, B, and C makes you a Muslim). WilyD 09:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • On balance I think this suggestion has merit. Chowbok says "The anon is suggesting that people with particular beliefs aren't "real" Muslims, but that's not for us to decide. There's no external Muslim-certification authority." Well, exactly. Who is a Muslim? In fact by the statement in the article, we do actually define who is a Muslim. "If somebody says they're a Muslim, they are." OK, that's fine and I've no problem with that - but that's an unstated assumption. The proposal effectively makes that unstated presumed definition (a pernicious concept) explicit for all to understand. I think the phrase "self-identifying Muslims" is a little clumsy. But I don't see a problem (and a positive NPOV advantage) with "those who declare themselves to be Muslims believe..." I think this is more accurate in a factual sense and doesn't carry the same implication of Wikipedia determining who is and who isn't a Muslim. DeCausa (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The Ahmadia movement has been ruled to be non Muslim by the high court of Pakistan after inspection of there doctrine and the ruling is available online [referencing is also available on the wiki page], this is the country they reside in. How are they classified as Muslims on wikki is it simply according to there word or some official channel. I think self proclaimed is better than declared as its more accurate in terms of the state of things. I am not in favor of the entire sentence though, no other religion should be mentioned because if they believe in him and that they are Muslim they would be satisfied with the term Muslim being used alone so it's redundant and irrelevant to this particular page as its not on topic. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 11:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The balance of reliable sources per the Ahmadiyya article considers it to be an "Islamic reformist movement". A ruling in Pakistan is not particularly relevant in NPOV terms given the long-standing strong state-promoted hostility to it and persecution there. "Self-proclaimed" is clearly perjorative and unacceptably lacking in NPOV. Although, given it would apply to all Muslims ("and, by most self-proclaimed Muslims, the last prophet sent by God) that wouldn't necessarily be a problem - it just looks weird. DeCausa (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Thats a conspiracy theory and not factual, it is unanimous across the board all Muslims do not consider them Muslims can you find a single authoritative body that does. so your theory about the bias existing in this case doesn't stand, it's not hard via Islamic laws to see how they are not Muslim so no real arm twisting of judges is necessary it's a forgone conclusion.I actually found self declared to be pejorative clearly it's a matter of perspectives and i was going by definitions. Just to point out simply because there is a claim doesn't make the claim true it is still only a claim. Iβn Mᾱsῡd τᾱℓк 08:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's all very open. "Orthodox" (for want of a better word) Muslim "authoritive bodies" obviously have a religious POV on this and are not, for the purposes of Wikipedia, reliable sources for NPOV in this. They are sources for what they believe only. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the current consensus at Ahmadiyya is that the lead needs to be rewritten. I've also seen some reliable sources that avoid describing them as "Muslim" or "Islamic", either by omitting such term or qualifying them. In any case I think the OP's suggestion is reasonable, and per DeCausa's comment, seems closer to NPOV (i.e., we should avoid taking sides while describing a disputed self-identity). Wiqi(55) 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You'll have to point out that consensus. I certainly don't see one. A splinter sect is a splinter sect, and, in any reasonable classification system of Abrahamic religions, the Ahmadiyya belong on the "Muslim" branch of the family tree. Are any of the reliable sources that don't classify them as Muslim non-Islamic sources? I suspect that we are dealing with source bias, here.—Kww(talk) 21:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on classification, but considering Ahmadiyya to be Muslims (without qualifying it) is a POV that most reliable sources avoid. I also don't see the point of making assumptions and taking sides in that dispute in the lede of this article. Looking at Britannica's Muhammad,[1] there is no mention of Ahmadiyya in their lede, nor do they assume who is a Muslim or who isn't. Wiqi(55) 22:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
"...is a POV that most reliable sources avoid". Can you evidence that? I suspect that from Britannica's point of view, the Ahmadiyya are too de minimis in the scope of things to be worth qualifying the statement on M. being the last of the prophets. It assumes too much to think they positively sided with the Ahmadiyya-are-not-Muslims POV. (Btw, the Ahmadiyya are mentioned only in a footnote, not in the lead itself.) This is a point that has come up before. "most Muslims" gives too much weight to the Ahmaddiyya given their tiny size in the overall scope of Islam. "almost all Muslims" would be better. DeCausa (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
We just need to balance this article based on how reliable sources handle the same info. The use of "most Muslims" is currently not supported by a source. Britannica, while essentially giving the same info, doesn't make the "most Muslims" claim. This indicates that we're probably giving undue weight to the views of a controversial minority in the lede of a major article. Note also that some factions within Ahmadiyya (like the Lahore Community) do not hold this view, so it's even more fringe. Concerning your question, I'm not aware of any reliable source that considers those who believe in the unsubstantiated claims of Mirza Ghulam to be Muslims (i.e., reliable sources do not usually take sides in this dispute). Wiqi(55) 23:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose - All Muslims are "self-identifying Muslims" and all Christians are "self-identifying Christians". Not only is the phrase redundant and unnecessary, it would add an inappropriate POV: by labeling some religious believers as "self-identifying Muslims" but not others, it would clearly promote the idea that the "self-identifying" believers are different from, and presumably inferior to, the "regular" believers. Doc Tropics 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This seems to me like a subtle way of expressing "Muslims and also those so-called Muslims who are impervious to truth". If they say they are Muslims then, as far as WP is concerned, that's all it takes. Formerip (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The current phrasing does have non-neutral implications--saying "most Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet" implies "some Muslims believe there have been prophets after Muhammad", which amounts to the statement "you can believe Muhammad was not the last prophet, and still be a Muslim". And Wikipedia should not take a position on that issue. But saying "most self-identified Muslims believe..." is neutral--there's no question that there are some people who call themselves Muslims and believe there were later prophets. (And as phrased, the article wouldn't pass judgement on whether they actually are Muslims.) So we should use the proposed neutral phrasing. -- Narsil (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The only "self-identifying Muslims" that do not consider Muhammad to be the last prophet are Ahmadi Muslims. As far as I am aware, and as best as I have been able to find, there is little to no acceptance of Ahmadi Islam, at least the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (not the Lahori sect), as being "Muslim" by both Sunni and Shia religious authorities. I understand why self-identification matters, and I dont think that Wikipedia should take the position that Ahmadis are not Muslim, but I also dont think that it should take the position that they are Muslim, which is what the sentence does. It can be readily sourced that the belief that Muhammad is the last prophet is a fundamental tenet of Islam. The idea that If somebody says they're a Muslim, they are is just as POV as the opposing If somebody says that another is not a Muslim, they are not. It is a disputed position, with argument for and against, that Ahmadis are Muslim. Wikipedia is taking one of those positions, the minority one at that, when it says that Ahmadis are Muslim. I dont think the answer is to insert self-identifying before Muslim though. I think the Ahmadi belief should be addressed in a footnote with the sentence just saying that Muslims believe he was the last prophet as a. it is an extreme minority view even among all "self-identified Muslims" and b. it is a minority view that those who hold that view are Muslims. nableezy - 04:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Nation of Islam doesn't believe Muhammad was the last prophet, or they didn't, anyway (I think there's been a schism on the issue since the 1970s), and they still consider themselves Muslims.—Chowbok 16:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The Nation of Islam is described in the lead to its article as "a syncretic new religious movement" and in the body says "the Nation of Islam postures itself as an Islam movement". There comes a point where the weight of opinion of reliable sources trumps self-identification. DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
What remains of the NOI after the mass conversion to Sunni Islam under Warith Deen Mohammed is likewise not considered Islam by most sources. Which is why self-identification shouldnt be the determining factor here, what reliable sources say should. But thanks for the correction, the NOI had slipped my mind. nableezy - 17:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It depends what sources you treat as "reliable". I think you cannot take Sunni and Shia religious authorities as reliable sources on the question of whether the Ahmadiyyah are Muslims. In any religious controversy you cannot take at face value the judgment of the "orthodox" that the "heretics" are heretics. Nemo iudex in causa sua. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I am emphatically not saying that on the basis of the view of the "orthodox" that Ahmadis are "heretics" and should not be labelled Muslim, what I am saying is that saying that Ahmadis are Muslims is a contested POV, and one that is rather trivial at that. It is a tenet of Islam that Muhammad was the last prophet. Sources can be provided for that, for example, this

... Islam, as a distinct religious confession centered on reverence for the Qur'an as the latest revelation of God's eternal word and recognition of Muhammad as the final prophet and messenger of God's word ...

There does exist a minority sect that considers itself Muslim that does not adhere to that belief. I dont think that merits more than a footnote explaining the views of Ahmadis. nableezy - 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

1328101993 Rename.png Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on AbrahamIbrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 December 2012

Suggest deletion of the final assertion in the text that "he most influential single figure in human history". This is a value judgement and arguably an absurd one. Also the entire final section consists of quotations from various sources about Mohammed's alleged virtues. This is unbalanced and should either be deleted, or balanced with quotations from various sources about his alleged defects, such as lust, robbery, murder, etc. Currently the final section reads like a partisan tract rather than an encyclopedia. 98.203.122.84 (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It is presented as one author's opinion, not as claimed/verifiable fact. Merry Christmas. Tarc (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2012

The Name of the Prophet Muhammed needs to be spelt the way I have written it here. The spelling is Muhammed not Muhammad! Sort it out please. DXLI777 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

One English transliteration is just as good as another, it really makes no difference. See Muhammad (name). Tarc (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

#Migration to Medina

"With the help of Ali, Muhammad fooled the Meccans who were watching him..."

Isn't this taking a non-neutral POV? Isn't simply stating he fooled his advisories or that he and/or his followers attributed this otherwise unlikely success to divine agency more in line with Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and verifiability?  —Sowlos  02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ali is his cousin. Perhaps you were misreading? I don't see where magic is being implied. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

European and Western views section is bit odd

I believe some serious considering should be put into the "European and Western views" section. It's clearly not a consensus of European and Westerns views. It reads like cherry-picked bag of quotes from people that have largely favorable views. My first thought is that it should be it's own article, similar to Medieval Christian views on Muhammad. However, I'm not sure about this as the whole idea of this section calls for a subjective POV. Wikipedia strives for objectivity yet this section appears doomed on this point from the start.War (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The point of that section is not to describe contemporary western views, but rather to summarize Medieval Christian views on Muhammad and to document the historical evolution of notable examples of those views since early times. I think the section does that reasonably well. We already have Criticism of Muhammad for negative views, and this is linked in the next section.
Oh I see. Thank you for clarifying that. In that case the section header should be renamed. Calling it "European and Western views" implies contemporary views (at least to me). Also, there are parts of this section which will need to be removed as they do not represent Medieval views or a interpretation thereof, e.g. Annie Besant's quotes.War (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. For one thing, "European and Western" is redundant, just "Western" would be sufficient. Perhaps the section could be called "Historical Western views" or something similar. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I like "Historical Western views". Let's make it happen! Only one tiny concern, the term "Western". I'm not sure if people are going to understand it. Perhaps if the title linked to: the Western world article it could avoid any confusion.War (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

removal request for Muhammad FAQ (Q9/A9)

Please remove Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, section Q9/A9
The assertion in the FAQ is fundamentally flawed because it contradicts the intent of the article Criticism of Muhammad. Muhammad is the objective source of the absolute and final moral standards in Islam. The historic context is thus irrelevant for the relevance of the portrayal of his moral behavior. --STTill (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Not done Wikipedia does not share the opinion that Muhammad is the objective source of the absolute and final moral standards in Islam, and no apparent reason for removing the FAQ is given. The issue in Q9 has been discussed extensively.Jeppiz (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • What do you mean with that Wikipedia doesn't agree? Obviously, followers of Muhammad believe that the ultimate source is Allah, but that's not relevant to my request. I have stated a very clear and obvious reason. There was no extensive discussion on this subject that I can find in the archived talk. STTill (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why you want a change here. I interpret your request as saying that since adherents to Islam believe Muhammad is "the objective source of the absolute and final moral standards", that any commentary on his marriage to an underage girl (by modern Western standards) is irrelevant. I interpret FAQ #9 as being in agreement with your sentiment, just for a different reason. The purpose of the FAQ is to address questions that are frequently brought up on the talk page, and the response to #9 says that this article should not label Muhammad as a "pedophile" or include modern criticism of his wife's age because standards for that sort of thing have varied over time and still vary geographically. Removing FAQ #9 would have the unintended effect of giving people license to re-add commentary on Aisha's age to this article, which it doesn't sound like you want. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted anything. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
First of all the reason for this request is an edit request for Criticism of Muhammad. Muhammad claimed (and or Islam claims) that his allegations about (Allah's) morality are absolute and final. In other words, someone who claims to have the ultimate knowledge about perfect morality for all time, should and must be criticised regardless of the historic development of morality. This should be very obvious and easy to understand. STTill (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's very easy to understand what you want. You want to make a claim about Muhammad that has been discussed and decided not to include, and is described in the FAQ. As you disagree with the FAQ, you want to remove it based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That seems to be your argument. I am not saying the argument is wrong, I can understand your logic and I think it makes sense. Still, the Wikipedia community has discussed this and decided not to include it. You, and anyone else, is welcome to challenged that decission by discussing it. This edit request, however, is not the right way to do it.Jeppiz (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, I think I'm with you now. Without taking a personal position on the matter, I am declining your request solely on the grounds that the {{edit semi-protected}} tag is only to be used when there is consensus for a specific edit request. In this case your request is specific but there is no consensus for it. Consensus to put FAQ #9 into the FAQ was developed twice: one established the position described in FAQ #9 (which points to Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22 for the archived discussion), and the other established that the previous consensus merited a mention in the FAQ.
You are welcome to continue discussing this matter on this talk page, but please do not re-open the edit request unless there is a consensus for your request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I find it curious that STTill claims "there was no extensive discussion on this topic that I can find in the archived talk". Just search for "pedophile" in the search box at the top of this page and you'll find plenty of discussion. Archive 22 is already linked in the FAQ. The addition of Q9 to the FAQ was discussed in Talk:Muhammad/Archive 23#New FAQ entry.

Furthermore, this FAQ was written for the Muhammad article. Q9 was never intended to apply to criticism of Muhammad, although other parts are applicable, such as not using honorifics, not prohibiting images, etc. I can see no conceivable rationale for this edit request to remove Q9 in the context of the criticism of Muhammad article. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already read this talk and my objection was only mentioned once by TharkunColl and was accepted by Imad marie and (violently) refuted by ITAQALLAH. So a consensus was in fact found in favour for this important logical invalidation of the FAQ #9, which itself doesn't represent the concensus due to lack of a voting. --STTill (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Point of order; all of this stems from "RudolfRed" citing this article's FAQ as the basis for an editing decision at the criticism article. That was obviously incorrect, so close this discussion and re-open Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Edit Request, 26/03/2013. It may well turn out to be that consensus will be against the request there, but it will have to be on a basis that does not cite this FAQ. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for clarifying that. Another user already reopened the edit request on the "Criticism" article, and I went ahead and collapsed the initial declination of the OP's request so that other users evaluating the request will not be swayed by it. The FAQ #9 in question only applies to this article (Muhammad), not to any other article, and as presently worded leaves open the possibility for discussion of this matter on other articles, including the criticism article. STTill, is this satisfactory to you? —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2013

Considering Muhammad as the last prophet is one of the tenets of Islam. Of the less than 1% Ahmadiya community, the Lahori sect believes in it as well. Writing "most muslims" deliberately gives the impression that a sizeable proportion may not adhere to this belief. I suggest it should be edited to "almost all muslims".

Maajed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maajed (talkcontribs) 17:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I second Majeed's request. The Ahmadiyya view has been rejected by Muslims from many different backgrounds. In fact, there is consensus(at least among Sunni Scholars) that Ahmadiyya are not even Muslims. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia promote this view, but it should be considered in this issue.

Yster76Yster76 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-stating with minor substitution: Mormonism has been rejected by Christians from many different backgrounds. In fact, there is consensus that Mormons are not even Christians.
We don't consider this view, either there or here. However, I don't object to changing "most" to "almost all Muslims", or saying "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I prefer the second one from Amatulić's options. Should we not change it now?--AsceticRosé 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Amatulic, I think it should be changed now. Faizan (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 Done! --AsceticRosé 09:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for "Muhammad is only the last of a series of Prophets..."

This edit seems to violate WP:RS, as the references seem to be random blogs. Comments? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - none of them are RS. (University Of Pittsburgh Muslim Student Association!) Also, no statement in any article should have 9 inline citations. However, more to the point I think the statement to which the citations are claimed to support ("According to the Quran, Muhammad is only the last of a series of Prophets") is incorrect. AFAIK, The Quran itself only refers to M. as the Seal of the Prophets, it's through the hadith that that is explained to mean the last of the prophets. I may be wrong on that and someone with more knowledge can confirm/deny. DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Which type of references you need? They are not blogs, some of them are by authors, while others cannot be blogs, please discuss those references here which you think that they are blogs.
And to Decausa, dear the "Seal of Prophets" means the "Last Prophet", anyone having even simple knowledge of English can grasp it, both Quran and Hadeeth say that the Prophet Muhammad was last prophet, discuss the reference which you claim that is blog here. Faizan (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as what references are concerned, the answer is in our policy on the subject: WP:RS. Have you read it? Also, have you read our article Seal of the Prophets? From that it can be seen that your simplistic view "anyone having even simple knowledge of English can grasp it" is not well founded. DeCausa (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be better that the references be discussed here first. All of them are not blogs. Faizan (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No, you need to have a good understanding of WP:RS first so that other editors don't have their time wasted. It's quite ludicrous to put forward as an RS the website of a University student association. That says to me you have put no effort into understanding what the RS requirements are. DeCausa (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah no, you've got it wrong. The editor who expressed concern said that they are all "blogs". My point is that the references should be discussed, and the blog references and the references like the "University's organization's" be removed, but the references which are really reliable be restored! Faizan (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"Blogs" is a short-hand for self-published internet material, i.e. where there is no reputable publishing house or editorial review or peer-review (not just classic "blogs"). None of them appear to have that. Your suggestion that other editors should do your work for you is ridiculous. If you had read WP:RS you would know that, for example, a student association website wouldn't qualify. Read the policy, then come back to this page with which citations you think are RS, and put forward your case for each. DeCausa (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Leaving aside this debate, I like to remind you all that the line is “According to the Quran, Muhammad is only the last…”. That’s why the reference should be from Quran (33:40), and it should suffice. If still you need references about Muhammad’s being last prophet, I can add that from books like Britannica publication and by writers like S A Nogosian, and probably more. In my view, the previously cited web pages, though they reflect the truth, should not suffice for this Important article.--AsceticRosé 11:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ascetic Rose! I think that we should add a reference from Quran right? lets do it, I will discuss more references here if needed.

This reference be added? Quran 33:40, Faizan (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't meet the requirements of WP:PRIMARY. 33:40 refers to the Seal of the Prophets and requires further interpretation to mean "last of the prophets". Also, please remember that what needs citing is not that Muhammad is the "last of the Prophets" but that it is "according to the Quran". I think this is a doubtful proposition and the simplest thing is to delete "according to the Quran". DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, to solve it, we can amend the text for which we need reference, For Example, we can say that "According to the Quran, Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, with references! Faizan (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
What DeCausa is trying to say or do is not clear to me. He says reference from Quran will not meet requirements, and again insists adding reference to "according to Quran". And Faizan dont hurry up; we should not say Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, as it is an original statement needing interpretation. And about "Last Prophet, we have sufficient references from reliable books to add. --AsceticRosé 11:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, there is no harm in saying that “According to the Quran, Muhammad is the last prophet”, because the word “Seal” has been interpreted as Last by Islamic Scholars like, for example, Muhammad Shafi Usmani. In that case, we can add reference from Quran followed by other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsceticRose (talkcontribs) 11:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with saying "Seal of the Prophets" and citing 33:40, because that's just providing a citation for where those words comes from and complies with WP:PRIMARY. It must also be easy enough to get a secondary source to say that Muslims believe he is the last of the prophets. But if you want to mention the Quran specifically (and actually I don't see why that's necessary - it's supported by hadith anyway), then you need a source to say that 33:40 is interpreted by Muslims to mean "last of the prophets" - and phrase it in that way. I had a quick look and see that Campo in his "Encyclodedia of Islam" p.494 does that. From a WP perspective, a source like that is better than using a Deobandi scholar as it gives an overview of Muslim belief rather than potentially giving an interpretation of one segment of Islam only. DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
What you said is not contradictory to what I said. I've already said that the word "seal" has been interpreted as Last. Campo (p. 494) clearly mentioned the word "Last". So why are you advocation for the word "Seal" while you yourself have mentioned Campo. And, not only Campo, there are many more references to indicate "Last". So, what now you like to do? --AsceticRosé 12:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you've said. We're in agreement if you are saying that the text should be one of the following:
  • "Muslims believe that Muhammad is only the last of a series of Prophets sent by God" with a WP:RS in citation. (This would be my preference); or
  • "Muslims interpret the description of Muhammad in the Quran as the Seal of the Prophets as meaning that he is only the last of a series of Prophets sent by God" In which case Campo can be used as the citation.
Are we saying the same thing? DeCausa (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we are saying the same thing. I also prefer the first one. But there is a little bit problem. If you say "Muslims believe...", some may insist for "most Muslims" or something like that. In that case, we can say "Islamic tradition regards Muhammad as the last of a series of Prophets sent by God.." Has the consensus been reached? --AsceticRosé 15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this until now. For my part, I felt the word "only" was unnecessary. I like AsceticRose's final proposal, provided one or two carefully selected references can be found to support the statement. And I don't believe we should be referencing other encyclopedias, but that's a personal preference. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually I was also going to say that the word "only" is grammatically inappropriate here. It seems that consensus has been reached. Yes, I'll try to provide two or three references. Thanks to all! --AsceticRosé 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree on the "only". If you can find an RS that supports "Islamic tradition" then fair enough. But, to me at least, "Islamic tradition" suggests something less definite, less doctrinally certain, than the hadith. But let's see what the RS suggests. DeCausa (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi DeCausa, it may be that the phrase "Islamic tradition" is less definite. Can we use something like "In Islamic belief, Muhammad is regarded…"? Or do you have any better idea? Also, it is not clear what you meant by referring to Hadith? Did you say to give reference from Hadith? --AsceticRosé 08:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I also agree with Ascetic, "In Islamic belief" would be a better statement and it should be preferred. Faizan (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

AsceticRose, this is not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that there is Hadith which are quite clear that he is the last prophet. If that's the case, then one way out is to simply say "according to the hadith...", and then one doesn't have to get into the "who's a muslim?"/Ammadiyya etc question. I believe one of the narrations in question is as follows:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?" He said, "Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 661)
Maybe I'm on the wrong track. DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes DeCausa, there is a clear hadith about Muhammad (pbuh)'s being last Prophet which we can cite. But I don't think we have to start like "according to the hadith...". We can still cite this by simply saying "In Islamic belief, Muhammad is regarded…". What do others think? --AsceticRosé 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Has the consensus been reached about using "In Islamic belief"? as no one is contradicting. AsceticRosé 03:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, I also think so! Faizan (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for FAQ Template

The section Q8/A8 of FAQ Template on this page contains links to some indecent images. Given Wikipedia's NPOV, these links may not be problematic per se, but their accommodation into the talk-page dedicated to Islamic Prophet may seem offending to some, and may come as a cultural shock to other pious ones who may be interested to have a look through the FAQs. That the visitation of this page should lead someone to otherwise considered pornographic pages is contradictory in that Islamic tradition sufficiently disapproves of such orientations. Shouldn't, or at least can't, Wikipedia reconsider this to become more agreeable in this heterogeneous world? --AsceticRosé 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree 200% Agreed, Only this article's FAQ were there to accommodate the links to pornographic images? A new Wikipedia Project page or an existing page can be used to accommodate these links, and they should be removed from FAQs of this article, this gives an impression that "Muslims are those who put pornographic images in articles.", Faizan(talk) 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I have removed it, honestly I never noticed that hidden sub-section at all until just now. While I have always been one of the more ardent advocates of anti-censorship on this article, that sub-section was ridiculous. We can't say "no you cannot censor images here, and by the way here's a whole list of them you probably won't like either." That's like one big fuck-you to the readers. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tarc! Cheers! Faizan(talk) 15:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No. This is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That hidden section has existed in the FAQ for a long time, and for a long time before that it was not hidden at all. The purpose of that part of the FAQ is not merely to assert that Wikipedia is not censored, but also to demonstrate that Wikipedia is not censored, and that serves a useful purpose to any reader.

This isn't a gallery. It's just a list of examples of non-censored content. If anyone is offended by what they see when they click on a link, well, there is no requirement for anyone to click on links, the context is sufficiently clear that you do so at your own risk.

I mean, we even made the section collapsible and hidden by default to ensure that no one would inadvertently view one of those links. Hiding it was a good solution to the problem AsceticRose describes. Problem was solved. Removing the section is a solution to a non-problem, and dilutes the informative utility of the FAQ.

We don't make editorial decisions based on the possibility of offending some groups, and hiding the section was performed as a nod of acknowledgment to such groups. On that basis I am restoring the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talkcontribs)

There is no quality of "i don't like it" to my edit, that is quite frankly a very ill-informed comment to make. I was nearly banned from this topic area last year because I was too forceful and blunt in my opposition to censorship of this article. I am fully 100% wanting to retain images of Muhammad here. But an FAQ for an article such as this was created to address perennial editing requests and suggestions rather than answer them over and over again individually. There is no justifiable purpose for a Muhammad FAQ to give the reader a list of links to nudity, racism, and gore to show them what could be censored in this project but is not. This is WP:POINT-making at its finest, and that is the reason why it was removed; it is completely irrelevant to the purpose of a FAQ, I didn't remove it because of offense. . And I do not really care how long it has been in; would have removed it years ago if I knew it existed. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not clear who this "I" is who restored the section as there is no user name. I agree with Tarc that this section is seriously unnecessary. And it is not any article page that the policies will be applied hard and fast. And policies are not all. We should have common sense. Even without having this, the FAQ will "serves a useful purpose to any reader". More importantly, when three out of four users are of the opinion to delete this, isn't it a consensus? --AsceticRosé 17:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
(Correction; Sorry Amatulic, my browser didn't at first load your unsigned name, and I couldn't recognize you). Amatulic one thing, as you said “the purpose of that part of the FAQ is not merely to assert that Wikipedia is not censored, but also to demonstrate that Wikipedia is not censored”, now shouldn't we place that part of this FAQ on every articles talk page (as the issue of censorship applies to all articles equally) to make the world know that Wikipedia is nor censored? AsceticRosé 17:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with tarc. I've never noticed that before. It's bafflingly juvenile. It's nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT - the pics don't bother me. But to include them to supposedly illustate what "not censored" means, well it's just silly, simple as that. It looks like a teenagers' prank. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 Done by User Tarc
Clearly, the community has agreed that such links should not be included any more, either on FAQ, or elsewhere.--AsceticRosé 03:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It was a hold over from a bygone error where a well-intentioned matter was given as proof that Wikipedia is uncensored and that this was not just for this article. I do not think a specific argument for that has ever been made and in hindsight it probably should not have been added in the first place. I recall a user making a gallery of such images on a userpage to be disruptive and make others upset. As for putting a type of faq on talk pages with controversial material, because editors should be aware of the policy if they edit in that region of Wiki, but readers will not be expected to see or find the pages that easily. This page is rather special and it is not alone in controversy. A banner ad for controversy is the most common application on talk pages. You will find them at most sexuality related pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2013

Please remove the pictures in which Muhammad(SM) is being shown. For those pictures this page is getting criticized. 117.18.231.47 (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, and the discussion is in the wrong place. Please see Talk:Muhammad/images.Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I can understand archiving the image discussions to a separate place, but we should keep the discussions on the main talk page for a while after being posted. People who don't understand talk pages very will will wonder why their request has suddenly disappeared. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 18:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad as Last Prophet: about WP:RS and WP:OR

One of Wikipedia"s fundamental policies is to cite WP:RS in support of important statements. So far, the article Muhammad has used, in its lead, statements like "most Muslims believe Muhammad as last Prophet" or "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet". But the statement is without any RS citation in its support. Isn't it a gross violation of wiki policy? Additionally, in absence of any reliable citation to support the statement, there is a clear chance to claim it as original research which is again a violation of wiki policy. On the other hand, all the sources clearly say Muhammad (SW) as the last Prophet. Below has been provided a short list. Now, shouldn't we change the existing statement?

--AsceticRosé 12:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support I agree As per WP: RS statements in the lead are not acceptable and as per the sources given above they should be amended, according to the above clear sources it is universally believed that Muhammad is the last prophet and it should be amended as such, Wiki policies should not be breached. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Er, do you not see that note marked "n 1" at the end of the passage, that points to this source ? Tarc (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Tarc, I want to ask you one simple question: is a single, personalized web page more acceptable against all the scholarly works from all over the world? And if it is, then what is the meaning of WP:RS to you?--AsceticRosé 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with Rose, The references provided above are more reliable, and the ought to be trusted. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You're making this a lot more complex than it should be. There is a statement in the note: " Not all Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet. For example, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community considers Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet as well." Is this statement true or false? If true, is it verifiable? Tarc (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
If you try to bypass policies by accusing someone of making complexities, then anyone can include anything by dropping a note below. And, u haven't answer the question!--AsceticRosé 13:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Your question is not really relevant, though. Let's take this from the top; you're complaining about statements in the article that call into question the "last Prophet" status of Muhammad, yes? That there should be no "most Muslims believe..." or "almost-universal" types of statements, because you have sources that say "he is the last Prophet", 100%, yes? But I'm pointing out this link that is in the article at present, to a Muslim group that does not believe Muhammad is the last prophet, and I'm asking if that is a true statement regarding their beliefs. It doesn't matter what source it is as long as it is an accurate statement. Primary sources can be used to establish basic facts. If it is true, is this Ahmadiyya group's point of view significant? If they are just a tiny group of cranks with little relevance to Islam as a whole, then their point-of-view can be ignored. If they represent a sizable opinion within the Muslim community though, then per WP:NPOV their point-of-view is important to consider for the article, and would justify the "most Muslims believe..." and "almost-universal" statements. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Tarc, you are partially correct. As you said "It doesn't matter what source it is as long as it is an accurate statement", how can you prove it is an accurate statement? For statements to true to us, we use RS. And I want to say that this statement is lacking this. And how can you say that "it does not matter what source it is". If sources does not matter, then why are there so many policies and restrictions? And about ahmadia, they are really a tiny group. and against all the RS, there view can be ignored. --AsceticRosé 14:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Tarc's point is that the primary source illustrates that sub groups do not necessarily believe it and that is backed by a reliable source. Also of note the ahmadiyya community is estimated over 10 million world-wide and while that might not make up a huge percent of Islam that hardly constitutes a "tiny" group. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes absolutely Tarc and Tivanir! That's what we are saying. They are tiny and as per WP:NPOV not notable. The muslims, don't consider ahmadis as Muslims as 1, 2, 3. They have no right to claim that the Islamic Prophet Muhamamd (P.B.U.H) was not the last prophet, even if they are 10 million, that just means a "trace". Even there is not reference to the already existing statement in the lead of "Most Muslims" Faizan -Let's talk! 10:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's no gross violation of wikipolicy here. There is a minor one: the lead used to say "Most Muslims believe ...", and someone has changed to to "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims ...". Saying that the Ahmadiyya represents a minority view isn't a problem: that's simple math. To describe them as being such a small minority that the other group represents "almost universal" belief is WP:OR.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Here we are not talking about the figure of Ahmadiyya. Our concern is WP:OR and WP:RS. Either you have to prove the "Most Muslims"-type statement doesn't violate WP:OR and WP:RS, or it will be changed. Just saying that "There's no gross violation of wikipolicy here" without showing logic should not work on Wikipedia. I've already presented my logic. --AsceticRosé 04:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking about the Ammadiyya. They are Muslims. They do not believe Muhammad to be the last prophet. We have sources for that. It's not original research to say that not all Muslims believe Muhammad to be the last prophet. Your logic appears to be based either on denying the existence of the Ammadiya or denying that they are Muslim. Neither is a tenable position.—Kww(talk) 05:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Kww! Who are you to decide that Ahmadis are Muslims are not? These decisions cannot be made by you! They are Ahmadis, and Non-Muslims. Even if they are in millions that is justa trace of the whole Muslims, and thus their crapping comments about the Islamic Prophet Muhammad are not notable. Authority should not be posed. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're quite correct. Kww has absolutely no right to decide who is and isn't a Muslim. It's you who has that particular right. Formerip (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not claim such right, it would be WP:RS which will decide. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Would the Oxford English Dictionary do? Formerip (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes obviously it does!! Even the definition provided by Oxford tells us that ahmedis are just a part of the movement which claims Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as their leader and the Mahdi. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, but it also tells us they are Muslims. Formerip (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it does not. Even if it does then it's not clear, and it refers to Ahmedis only as a movement as opposed to the general Muslims. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
It calls them a "muslim movement". To say that the word 'movement' means they are not muslims is a bit of a stretch. And yes, no one is disputing that they are a subset of muslim beliefs. But that's why the lede says "almost universal". Singularity42 (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
See this too. Faizan -Let's talk! 15:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I again sincerely like to remind all that we are not discussing about Ahmadia. Here our concern is WP:RS and WP:OR. Kww, you have clearly gone out of track because you can't prove that the statement doesn't violate the wiki policies. Wikipedia statements will not be decided by what you think; it will be decided by what WP:RS and WP:OR permit. You said you have sources. What source? A personalized web-page against all the reliable sources we have already used to write this very article? If you insist on such funny tendencies, then all the wiki articles can be filled by what people themselves think by citing personal web-pages. That very statement clearly violates WP:RS and WP:OR. Probably this is my last comment on this issue. If you can't prove your point by wiki policies, I'll change the statement as per WP:RS and WP:OR. @Formerip, you have offered us a real laugh! Your given source clearly goes in our favor, and not yours. Plz, read that again!--AsceticRosé 15:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Kww, you don't have any jurisdiction to decide whether the Ahmadiyya are Muslims or not. It is an Islamic theological issue, and accordingly, only the Islamic theologians can decide it. Being a non-medical person, if I today make my own medical theory on any specific treatment, will the medical world accept that? Surely not because it will create serious disorder. The Islamic theologians have already declared them non-Muslim in many countries, and some are on the process, because their perverted view on the Last Prophet (SW) has created serious theological problem in Islamic world which you probably don't try to understand. Please do not try to impose your self-made comment in the field you are not expert on. Do you have sufficient Islamic Sharia knowledge to decide that?--AsceticRosé 17:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The Ahmadiyya consider themselves to be Muslim, and there is no one in the world with the power to take that away from them. I reject Islamic theologians as a source on the topic due to bias: the very bias that your description of their view as "perverted" and Faizan's use of "crapping comments" reveals. You don't want them treated as Muslim because you view them as heretics. That's your right. It doesn't mean that this article will reflect your bias, however.
The website you despise so is a reliable source about the Ammadiya beliefs, and that is what the sentence refers to. What both of you need to keep in mind is that this is not a debate as to whether Muhammad actually is the last prophet of a supernatural entity. That's purely a religious belief, and the article won't take a stance as to whether any particular religious belief is accurate or not. Certainly the religious beliefs about Muhammad are an important part of any reasonable article about the man, but they don't drive article content.
Now, if we were to use that website to say "Hundreds of millions of Muslims are wrong about Muhammad being the last prophet of God, per the Ammadiya" or anything approaching that statement, you'd have a good argument that the article contravened policy.—Kww(talk) 18:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, AsceticRose, your error in logic has an actual name:No true Scotsman. Comparison of your beliefs to the statement "No true Muslim believes that there was a prophet after Muhammad" might be illuminating.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't automatically discount such an argument when used in the context of a religious discussion. "No true Christian denies the immortality of the soul" should be generally accepted as a truthful statement regarding the adherents of that faith. There are some sects that do deny the immortal soul, e.g. the Branch Davidians, but such groups have historically been branded as heretics and not considered to be of the body. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
You would seriously argue that the Branch Davidians aren't truly Christian because they believe that the dead have no existence between death and resurrection? Despite the fact that they worship Christ and believe that we are living in an era that immediately proceeds his return? That's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. They self-identify as Christian, they use the same religious texts as Christians, differing only in their interpretations of some verses, and their belief set about Christ generally conforms to the beliefs of most Christians (more conformant than Mormonism, for example). There's no authority that can decree them non-Christian.—Kww(talk) 19:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
That is, quite frankly, bullshit. If reliable sources describe Branch Davidians as non/un-Christian (and they do), then that is how the encyclopedia should (and we do) describe them. There isn't any exception granted to their fringe beliefs at immortal soul, for example. If this Ahmadiyya group is so far out of the Islamic mainstream regarding their views on who is/ is not a "last prophet", and there are sources to support that characterization of their beliefs, then perhaps there is validity to this AsceticRose person's view of this matter. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The Ammadiyans are fairly large group, numbering in the millions. Much larger than the Davidians, so they can't be dismissed as a tiny fringe cult. What reliable sources say that the Davidians aren't Christian, by the way?—Kww(talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Kww honestly, you are ignoring the policies. You kept saying what you believe, but you are not proving how they are consistent with WP:RS and WP:NOR. Why are u not proving that u are correct in the light of WP:RS and WP:NOR. I expressed my view about ahmadia because you kept discussing about them. I don’t have any desire to speak about them. Do you want to say that very statement in the lead is an exception, and can exist without any RS (currently there is no source)? The RS say Muslims believe Muhammad to be last prophet, but that very statement has wrongly been interpreted as “Most Muslims…”. This is original research. Can you tell me if their opinion is so important, then why all the reputed writers all over the world have written in their book that Muslims consider Muhammad (SW) as last prophet? Are they wrong? And you are right? Is Wikipedia different from all other encyclopedias? Plz, don’t discuss this from religious viewpoint, because in that case we can never reach a consensus.--AsceticRosé 00:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
We have a source for the Ammadiyan's belief that he is not the last prophet that meets WP:RS in terms of describing their beliefs. That's all it's reliable for, but it is reliable for that. Since they are Muslims and do not believe that Muhammad is the last prophet, we have a reliable source that indicates that not all Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet. There's no question of WP:OR here.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
When Faizan commented about Kww "Who are you to decide that Ahmadis are Muslims", I thought he was a little bit harsh. But now I see he was 100% correct. Kww is really talking bullshit as Tarc said. He is trying to propagate theological doctrines without being a theologian. He is trying to handle issue outside his range. Nice display. If the World take your example, all will dwindle into chaos. Stop this bullshit. How can one become a believer who can't respect their Prophet? Can u imagine a doctor without medical certificates? A shoulder on the battle-field without his gun?--AsceticRosé 01:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The source u mentioned is a RS for ahmadia belief, but I'm talking about the statement in the lead. It is without any WP:RS. The source u mentioned can't be a substitute for WP:RS we use for important statements. This is evident from the fact that it has been placed in the note. Can you use this source for the whole statement? Notes are used to explain any point, and not to substitute WP:RS. And once that source goes outside the purview of RS, that very statement can be considered as WP:OR--AsceticRosé 01:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a substitute for a reliable source, it is a reliable source. It is a reliable source for the statement that not all Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last prophet, and whether the exception is phrased as "Most", "nearly all", or other variations is a matter of editorial judgement. That you consider that their belief that he wasn't the final Prophet disqualifies them from consideration is the essence of the No true Scotsman fallacy, and that is the basis of you trying to disqualify their own statements about their own beliefs from consideration.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kww here for the most part. First, though, I think it best to lay out what needs to be decided here. Specifically is there a group which reliable sources can confirm the following three things:

  1. The group is specifically recognized by reliable sources as being Muslim.
  2. The group is specifically noted by reliable sources as not believing that Muhammad is the last prophet.
  3. The group is does not fall under WP:FRINGE.

It does not matter if a Wikipedia editor believes it is impossible for a Muslim to belive that Muhammad is not the last prophet. It does not matter if a Wikipedia editor believes the group is not Muslim. It does matter if a Wikipedia editor believes the group is a fringe group because the editor does not share the group's logic or beliefs. It does not matter if a Wikipedia editor does not like it. All that matters is the above three criteria. If a group meets all three critera, then the article can say "almost universal". If no group meets all three criteria, then the article should say "universal" instead.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been proposed as a group that meets all three criteria. So let's see:

  1. There's no doubt the group itself self-identifies as Muslim, although that is probably not enough. Most of the editors in this discussion were comfortable looking at the Oxford dictionary definition of this group, which states they are a "Muslim movement". However, is a dictionary definition enough? Well, here the BBC calls them a "Muslim sect". Personally, between the self-identification, and multiple outside sources calling them Muslim, I'm inclined to say that criteria #1 is met. I think we would all be more comfortable, though, if there was a neutral academic source confirming this one way or another. Although deciding what is "neutral" may be a whole other can of worms.
  2. I don't think there's any dispute that critera #2 is met. In that sense, Kww is perfectly correct: the primary source is a reliable source regarding the group's belief.
  3. The Wikipedia article gives sourced information that the current population is 10 million. It would be hard to say this meets WP:FRINGE.

Singularity42 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Singularity42, please tell me if you are also not talking bullshit. I've never insisted about their being Muslim or not (though what I believe is my personal matter). My point was WP:RS and WP:NOR. Why are you bringing theological discussion? Kww, I told you that their website is a RS for their belief, but what about the belief about the majority of Muslim sects? Where are references for that? Is Ahmadia belief more important to you than the rest? And if that is a reliable source, then I also have more reliable sources to support my claim. Should I use that hastily now?
[I'm not disqualifying them from showing their belief as you have misunderstood me]--AsceticRosé 04:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I will never accept that that very citation in the note will be or should be sufficient for the whole statement in the lead. We need other RS for that sentence just as all other sentences in wiki articles have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsceticRose (talkcontribs) 05:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you demanding a citation for the notion that most Muslims do believe that Muhammad was the last prophet? I think the sources we have suffice, but I'm sure we could find more. Since we have sources indicating the most Muslims do believe he was the last prophet, but roughly 10 million Muslims do not believe that, the statement we have seems quite well sourced. What precisely do you want a source to say before you would find it acceptable?—Kww(talk) 06:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
As the reliable, third-party sources say "Muslims believe that Muhammad (SW) is the last prophet…", I like to use that sentence without any "most" or "almost" as per RS. If you like, you can drop a note below declaring "However, the AMC, which also claim to be Muslim, believe…" . I think this can be a nice conclusion and I will do that as per WP:RS. (although I will not write the note due to my own belief. Interested people can do that)--AsceticRosé 08:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure everyone will agree with you in making this important edit (as you have already done) without waiting for comments from other WP editors. As the text now stands it is slightly misleading because one has to read the last of several footnotes before one learns that there is a small group of Muslims who do not believe that Muhammad was the last prophet.AstroLynx (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
There's millions of people who think Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but we don't alter Barack Obama to read "...most people think he was born in Hawaii in 1961". Quantity isn't always a reliable yardstick when taking measure of views that lie outside of an accepted mainstream opinion. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of objective fact, simply of belief. Muhammad was a man viewed by various groups as being various things. Most people don't believe he was a prophet sent by God at all. Many groups of people do. Most Muslims not only believe that he is a prophet, but that he is the last prophet. That's all the lead says. The Barack Obama article does mention the birther controversy. A 10-million strong religious group is a large religious group, and not one to be casually neglected because some other Islamic groups find their views offensive.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I can see where you're going with your argument, but this is the point where your argument also loses its bearings. You assert that a 10 million or so believe that he isn't the last prophet. Fair enough. But you somehow appear to overlook the 1 billion or so who are the mainstream and who do not identify with the same school of thought as the 10 million, and you further seem to classify (or devalue, if I'm getting this right) these one billion as "some other Islamic groups" simply existing just to oppose the 10 million because they find their views offensive. Your argument, of giving equal footing to a minority in parity with the majority, is flawed. See my comment below; we have a policy that deals with this, it's called WP:WEIGHT. The passage I have bolded is a textbook rule for dealing with this kind of issue. PS. I have no personal opinion on the Ahmadi movement nor have I intentionally passed any judgements here. My argument is solely policy-based and concentrated on WP:WEIGHT, which I shall reiterate yet again, is very relevant to this topic. Mar4d (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It is the mainstream view that should be accorded WP:WEIGHT and emphasis in the article. And the mainstream view is that, barring one identified group, Muslims do recognise Muhammad as the last prophet. I think going out of the way to give space or preference to the views of one group in the same sentence that describes the views of the overwhelming majority might be an exaggeration or inappropriate comparison. Once again, I would like to stress that WP:WEIGHT should be thoroughly considered before making a change like this. I would like to quote a relevant passage from WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The present amended statement is backed by reputed reliable sources, and conforms to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. It is the natural law of the world that majority/mainstream is given priority. It is sufficient that a note has been provided for AMC. That is the function of notes. Thanks Tarc and Mar4d for valuable comments.--AsceticRosé 15:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Using "almost universal" was agreed upon to remove WP:UNDUE issues, Mar4d. I agree that there would be a problem if the lead said something like "The status of Muhammad as the last prophet of Islam is in doubt, as the Ammadiya ...". That kind of statement would be giving a small group far more recognition than would be reasonable. The Ahmadiyya are nearly 1% of the world's Muslim population, though, and 99% is not 100%. That's all the lead is objectively trying to state.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Mar4d is right. WP:WEIGHT proves that previously undue weight was given to AMC belief. That's why the problem was created. Look, We are not ignoring the belief of AMC. A clear note has been provided. Kww, you are trying to overlook the policies. Plz put the new comments below and not inside the previous comments. It create confusion.--AsceticRosé 16:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
@kww: I am going out of my way to understand your perspective. But I'm inclined to feel that I will have to essentially repeat the point I put across previously. The question is based on proportions: just how significant is the school of thought identifying with the 1% when compared to the school of thought identifying with the 99%? Mathematical probability and common logic would dictate that the scale tips over to the 99% majority. It's not a question of whether you like it to be represented as that or not, it's a question of the overwhelming mainstream view. Per above, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views... - from what I can see, as far as policy-based discourse is concerned, Wikipedia seems to be overtly clear about it. Moreover, given that belief in Muhammad as the last messenger of God is one of the core tenets of mainstream Islam (read up Khatam an-Nabuwwah), it wouldn't be a stretch to go along with the change that has been proposed. If you're trying to be an WP:NPOV-conformist, be careful because you don't want to go to the point where, while vouching for NPOV, you forget WP:WEIGHT and mis-apply WP:BALANCE. Mar4d (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how anyone would need to go out of their way to understand my perspective: the belief that Muhammad is the last prophet isn't universal among Muslims, and the lead says that. The weight given the Ammadiya perspective is to change "universal" to "almost universal" and bury their perspective in a footnote. That's an appropriate weight for the view of 10 million people. Not obliterated, but clearly and absolutely marked as a minority view. It's clear from the use of phrases like "perverted" that AsceticRose has decided that he wants to exclude their view entirely, and the WP:OR argument is simply a fig-leaf.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Like I said previously, I've no comments to pass on the Ahmadi movement and if anyone else has here, it is their personal view. Having said that, we should try to keep the discussion as rational and policy-based as possible. The footnote about the Ahmadiyya perspective can stay, but as far as the article lead is concerned, to have the wording "almost universally" due to a 1% that somehow stack up against the 99%, really... is it conforming to WP:WEIGHT? Why should a mainstream and core tenet belief not be represented as such in the article lead? Because 1% of people have a different view is not a very strong argument on the face of it. I'd like you to specifically read WP:WEIGHT and think it over. Mar4d (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
What percentage does it have to be to modify a universal statement like "universal" in your mind? We aren't talking an obscure cult or anything. If this was one lone sect in a small town, I'd be in absolute agreement with you. We're talking a group with a size comparable to the Mormon churches, which provide a very good parallel: clearly an offshoot branch of a major religion that possesses some unique points of theology, but still clearly belonging with the parent religion. 1% is a sizeable group, and, reviewing the five pillars of Islam, the belief that Muhammad is the last prophet is not a pillar.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Is describing the belief of 99% of a group as "nearly universal" a case of undue weight?

The lead of Muhammad describes the belief that Muhammad is the last prophet as "nearly universal" amonng Muslims. The facts of the matter are not in dispute: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, a group with 10 million adherents, is a large group that identifies themselves as Muslim, but does believe that their leader was himself a prophet, coming after Muhammad. The article has long had variations of the the statement indicating that most Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet, and, in its most recent form, describes the belief that Muhammad is the last prophet as "almost universal" among Muslims, and relegates the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya to a footnote. Is this appropriate weight?—Kww(talk) 06:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Mention is reasonably appropriate:10 million isn't huge compared to the total Muslim population, but it is too large to completely ignore. Noting the belief of the 99% as nearly universal is certainly an accurate description that doesn't try to minimize the facts of the matter, and relegating the Ammadiya to a short footnote seems appropriate. The attacks on the sentence above do not seem to be rooted in good faith. AsceticRose describes the views as "perverted" and Faizan refers to them as "crapping comments". It's hard for me to view their efforts to take even the small footnote away as a good-faith exercise in neutrally applying Wikipedia policies. It's probably also worth noting that Mar4d identifies as being from Pakistan, a country where declaring the Ahmadiyya non-Muslim was actually written into the constitution. The effort so far appears to be an effort to bring Wikipedia in line with a long-standing case of religious persecution.—Kww(talk) 06:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
It's probably also worth noting that Mar4d identifies as being from Pakistan, a country where declaring the Ahmadiyya non-Muslim was actually written into the constitution. I can identify or not identify with whatever I want. What does that have anything to do with the outcome of the discussion here? What bearing does it have, if any, on my comments above which are policy-based? I do not take this "identification" from you in good faith. Have I not already mentioned that the Ahmadi perspective can be mentioned in a footnote, which is entirely appropriate with consideration of WP:DUE? Giving attribution to a mainstream and majority-held view as per WP:WEIGHT is not persecution. Let's desist from trying to make wild claims on the intentions of everyone here or making some Muslim conspiracy out of this. If you focus on the main issue which is essentially a matter of WP:WEIGHT, the argument is not very murky or hard to understand. A strawman is being raised out of nothing. Mar4d (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but you haven't explained why you don't view "nearly universal" as an accurate and balanced description of a view held by 99% of the group.—Kww(talk) 07:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Precisely because the view of the 99% is the mainstream view and the prevalent status quo. The other 1% exist, all right, and that's what we've got a foot note for. But the 1% are not as important as the status-quo 99%. Having exhausted myself repeating the same arguments to you over and over again, I cannot be any more blunt than this. Mar4d (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
You do repeat, but you never explain. "Nearly universal" is much stronger than "the mainstream view is". It means "the mainstream view is held by all but a very small portion of the group", which appears to be the case. What about "nearly universal" is either inaccurate or misleading in your view? That's my question, and you never answer it.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Avoid defining "Muslim" in this article, and instead use the phrase "people who self-identify as Muslim". I note a couple things. First, the article Muslim has managed to avoid linking Muslim beliefs to the belief that Muhammad was the last prophet. Second, I compare the Ahmadiyya situation to Mormons. Mormons have approximately 14 million followers. Mormons self-identify as Chrisitian. Many larger groups of Christians do not believe Mormons are Christians. Wikipedia has chosen to avoid defining Christianity so precise as to to include or exclude Mormons (or other similar religions or denominations). Applying similar logic, I would suggest the sentence be: People who self-identify as Muslim almost universally consider Muhammad as the last prophet sent by God for mankind. Singularity42 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Kww, you are bringing a series false allegations against me which can be regarded as a misconduct on your part. I and Faizan never said to remove that footnote from the article. My concern, from the beginning was the sentence on the lead. Even I advocated to drop a note below. Secondly, the passage where I used the word perverted was obviously not a part of this edit request, rather a reply to your theological discussion that you started. You also presented false info on TBrandley’s talk page that I pointed there. I don't expect such misconduct from you.--AsceticRosé 16:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's true that you only wanted to delete all mention of Muslims that did not view Muhammad as the last prophet from the text, leaving that information that they existed only in the footnote, and giving all readers that read only the beginning of the article the false impression that they did not exist.—Kww(talk) 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe try wording his differently? Something like, "...are taught that Muhammad is the final prophet"? "doctrine of the faith includes a tenant that ..."? If it is the term "Universally considered", that User:AsceticRose objects to, I think that this can be resolved without resorting to edit-warring with a different more fact-based way of stating this. It appears that this belief is part of the doctrines and tenants of the religion, and a cornerstone to understanding how members of this religion understand their faith so weasel, subjective terms should probably be avoided.
Many religious followers are indoctrinated with beliefs, but saying that "99%" believe or Universally considered,something is tricky unless there is some way of knowing what they are thinking. Is there any kind of physical manifestation/sign or ceremonial swearing/validation that believers do to affirm their individual beliefs? Something like that would help to give a statement like this more weight. I'm thinking that Catholics who use a Rosary to pray exhibit a physical sign that they believe in something, Mormans wear Holy undergarments, Jews have customs like covering mirrors that physically manifest their faith. Are there any signals here that would verify one's belief? TeeVeeed (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually per WP the exclusion of other groups to suit a viewpoint is wrong unless they changed consensus recently as CLDS is the correct view; we identify them as considering themselves christian whether or not the mainstream views of christianity considers them as such. This was argued in archive 24 and still holds true today - one size doesn't fit all so like most things in wikipedia they are addressed in general terms and statements using statements such as "Most believe..." Hell if the want is to trudge up the ancient arguments I will happily trudge up the old responses; this hasn't changed in three years, the group identified itself then and identifies itself now as muslim ergo it is a muslim sect. whether or not they are heretics according to the mainstream viewpoints is irrelevant as we still tag it as self identified. By all means lets start an RFC if the wider community wants to change the status quo with well thought arguments I will be happy to listen. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you were responding to TeeVeeed, but actually their point was a very good one. We would be better to talk about doctrines as opposed to people. It's a bit artificial to pretend like we have access to a survey of all the world's Muslims. We wouldn't (or shouldn't, at least) say in WP's voice that the virgin birth is "almost universally" believed in by Christians. We would talk in terms of doctrine. We should do the same here. Formerip (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I will say that considering the view of 99% as "nearly universal" is not justified because there virtually exists no difference between 99 and 100. The difference has only mathematical value. we should use only "universal". The reasons I've explained above.
As TeeVeeed mentioned, actually I'm not totally opposing "nearly universal", but my point was that as all the reliable sources are saying "Muslims believe that Muhammad (SW) is the last Prophet…", I was inclined to use this one. Problem has been created as Kww is not trying to understand this simple point, and unduly inviting other type of discussion. For only 1%, is not is sufficient that we are providing a clear foot note (while WP:WEIGHT says to relegate them in the "See also" section.
User:Mar4d and I are really exhausted to explain the same thing to Kww. But he is trying (I’m pathetic to say this) to take things in a roundabout way.--AsceticRosé 04:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
"Universal" and "nearly universal" do not mean the same thing, AsceticRose. I don't think the article should intentionally make a false claim. If you truly thought there was no difference between the two, you wouldn't have resorted to edit-warring. Please don't hold out that this is some kind of failure to understand the situation on my part.
That said, I would have no problem with a phrasing like "Major Islamic sects hold that Muhammad was the last prophet of God" or something similar. That would satisfy most of the comments received so far.—Kww(talk) 05:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It is appropriately weighted as it stands, mentioning the Ahmadis in a footnote. That ten million out of over one billion disagree in some sense (and not even then completely, the Ahmadis believing that Muhammad was the last law-bearing prophet) is a great example of "nearly universal" (leaving aside completely, for the moment, the thorny issue amongst Muslims, of whether Ahmadis are Muslims: many authoritative Muslim bodies say "no", the Ahmadis say "yes"). Much like as in our articles on the age of the earth and biological evolution, we don't note that probably one percent of scientists disagree (likely more scientists disbelieve in the neo-Darwinian synthesis than Muslims - including Ahmadis - disbelieve that Muhammad is the last prophet), but describe said belief as "scientific consensus" or "nearly universally acknowledged". St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Why not just state it as it is? "Muslims (although not some of the Ahmadiyya) consider Muhammad to be the last prophet sent by God for mankind" Or are there some Shia sects that spoil that simplicity? I suppose can't really do that anyway - too close to giving readers information. DeCausa (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the way that statement is worded it passes the judgement that they aren't a Muslim group. If it can be rewritten neutrally and doesn't try to make a declarative statement then it might work but in the current suggestion it looks to me like it is more trying to draw a "these people aren't muslim line" than anything else. . Tivanir2 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the phrasing, but I don't see how you get that out of it. It clearly identifies the Ahmadiyya as Muslim, excluding them only from the group that believes Muhammad is the last prophet.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
my apologies my sleep addled brain apparently misinterpreted it. I think a better phrasing would be "Muslims (though some sects believe differently like the Ahmadiyya) consider Muhammad to be the final prophet sent by God to mankind". Thoughts? Tivanir2 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Kww’s proposed sentence may be problematic. If we say Major Islamic sects, it means there are some minor sects who believe otherwise, while in reality, we all know, there is only one sect (AMC) who believe otherwise. Even that sect is only 1% that hardly makes any difference. And it is because of the fact that all the reputed sources clearly say Muslims believe Muhammad (SW) to be the last Prophet. This is exactly the point I'm trying to point out.--AsceticRosé 05:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How about if we name the sects? Could we find a source that says "sunni, shiite, etc comprise x% of mulims and they believe etc etc". TippyGoomba (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose "generally considered" isn´t good enough? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I could see the use of the statment "Most major Islamic sects (with the exclussion of the Ahmadiyya) believe that Muhammad was the final prophet of God to mankind" which would work as well. I believe the sticking point in AsceticRose mind is that we are not saying "All muslims believe x" because the Ahmadiyya are a small group. The problem is if we use "All muslims believe x" that is tautamount to saying "Ahmadiyya's are not muslim" even though they identify themselves as a muslim group. Wikipedia isn't here to label groups it is here to report things as based on reliable sources. As long as it is not a universal belief within a group we have to caveat it with wording, like the phrase most, in order to show that it isn't 100%. Hell even if there is a large group I am not very comfortable with the idea that we use definitive statements because there are bound to be people within the group that differ on points. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I I agree with Tivanir2, and I relate it back to my earlier propostion (but I like Tivanir's solution better). The issue is that Wikipedia cannot say all people (either generally or a certain group) believe something when it is demonstrably untrue. Compare to the Flat Earth situation. Wikipedia has no problem saying the Earth is not flat, as that is an objective fact, and the opposite is a fringe theory. What Wikipedia does not say is that "All people believe the Earth is not flat", because that is simply not true. Singularity42 (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
But Singularity42, how do we know that the Earth is not flat?--AsceticRosé 14:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Because we have reliable sources saying so. It is an objective fact, backed up by reliable sources, that nearly all Muslims believe Muhammad to be the last Prophet, and a small minority do not.
I disagree with singling out a specific sect as an exception in this biography about Muhammad. This is WP:UNDUE weight. We may as well add other groups like Buddhists and Catholics too, just to make everything perfectly clear.
The statement "Nearly all Muslims believe..." with a footnote is best. Nobody would disagree with that statement. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, by reliable sources. But on my part, I so far haven't encountered any reliable source that uses "nearly all Muslims...". They generally use "Muslims believe...". Actually I don't have any special interest for the latter as its being used on Wikipedia, but WP:RS is saying so. (By the way Amatulic, where have you been so far? I was expecting your comment).--AsceticRosé 15:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A reliable source need not use those exact words. here is one, for example, that acknowledges that not all Muslims believe Muhammad is the last prophet, while at the same time acknowledging the point made on this page above that it matters how different groups identify themselves. This source took me less than 1 minute to find.
It is curious that this source also mentions a different-named group who self-identifies as Muslim but does not believe Muhammad is the last prophet: the Qadiani sect, which appears to be a branch of Ahmadiyya, according to the article we have on it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Addressing your WP:RS argument for a moment, AsceticRose, there's no requirement whatsoever that we mimic any source. There's a lot of reasons that a source might choose to simplify things. Sometimes just to make things simple: Islam for Dummies isn't interested in explaining every detail, it's interested in getting the main points across. Sometimes it's political: any source that recognizes the Ahmadiyya as Muslim risks backlash from orthodox Muslims and from the Pakistani government.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Saying "nearly all Muslims..." means there are other Muslims who don't believe that. But we know there is controversy regarding Ahmadya’s being Muslims. If there is source that calls them as Muslims, there are also sources that strongly deny that. How will Wikipedia solve that conundrum? I mean, if we accept Ahmadya’s insistence on self-identified as a basis, the question is can only a claim legalize anything?
Qadiani is not any branch, as far as I know, of Ahmadis, rather the Ahmadis is called by that name in Indian subcontinent. @ Kww, I'm not sure why you are specially targeting Pakistan? (u did this on 2 occasions!)--AsceticRosé 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
So far as I know, Pakistan is the only government that has officially declared the Ahmaddiya to not be Muslims and included that in their constitution. The way we resolve the conundrum is simple: they self-identify as Muslims, reliable sources describe them as Muslims. The declarations that they are not Muslim all appear to come from sources with religious bias and can be discounted.—Kww(talk) 17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That may be simple to you, but not to us (just as considering them non-Muslim is simple to us but not so to you). If you consider the view of the majority as biased, then probably you are walking on the wrong way. It is highly objectionable that you are discounting the sources that represent the 99% Muslims. It is those sources by which we have so far written the all the Islam-related wiki articles. It is those sources which have their foundation in mainstream Islamic theologians' works; sources the World use to know Islam. The tireless efforts of Islamic theologians over the years across the regions have created those sources.
It is curious to see an Islamic theological issue is being solved by you. Can you solve the other Islamic theological issues of the Muslim world?
By the way, if you can resolve the conundrum in your way, we can likewise resolve that in our way: all the Muslim communities unanimously (see this) consider them non-Muslim. So treat them as non-Muslims and amend the article accordingly.
And, salute to the Pakistan government for their bold step.--AsceticRosé 17:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I make no effort to resolve Islamic theological issues. Theological issues aren't particularly relevant to this article. I will point out that the majority of the world is not Muslim, so describing the Ahmadiyya as "Muslim" isn't necessarily a minority view. All you have demonstrated is that it is a minority view among Muslims, who represent around 20% of the world's population.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Calling Ahmadis muslims or non-muslims is essentially a theological issue. I couldn’t work out the meaning of the last part of your last message. However, on my part, when I said the sources that represent the 99% Muslims, I meant both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. You will see, when Western non-Muslim reputed writers discuss about Muslim communities, they even refrain from discussing Ahmadis. Can't you get any message from this?
Ok, think for a moment: if the Ahmadis were really Muslims, what problem would the mainstream Muslim have to accept that? If they were really Muslims, what would Muslims get by excluding them?--AsceticRosé 04:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll make my last statement simpler. 80% of the world is non-Muslim. Most of that 80% would, upon having the Ahmadiyya described to them, immediately classify them as Muslims. If 99% of Muslims say the Ahmadiya aren't Muslims, that still leaves around 80% of the world saying they are. That they are widely considered to be heretics by other Muslims still makes them heretical Muslims. Note that this RFC has generated essentially no support for your position of treating them as non-Muslim, with most of the discussion centering on whether the "nearly universal" phrasing the article uses is too strong, and the only people that are arguing that it is too weak are those that have stated biases. —Kww(talk) 05:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Yah, thou think the world is so infatuated with the Ahmadis, while in reality most conscious writers shrink even to mention them.
The present "most-Muslim" type statement stands illegally without any citation. Can't any administrator notice this and fix it according to what WP:RS say.--AsceticRosé 16:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Most" is uncontroversial. Ahmedis are Muslims - they submit to the will of Allah - and they do not believe Muhammad was the last prophet; ergo, most but not all Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last prophet. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Most people who identify as Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last prophet. It's clumsy but I think this is as close as we'll get to an uncontroversial statement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet" is uncontroversial, not mentioning it is special pleading. This article is not about the Ahmedi controversy. The complex theological issues of the Ahmedi controversy are not relevant to the general Islamic view of Muhammad. An editor claims, "If 99% of Muslims say the Ahmadiya aren't Muslims, that still leaves around 80% of the world saying they are." This is not even "original research"; it's not even research, just a claim he made up. One editor's unsupported claim is no basis to remove a perfectly obvious statement from the article. Shii (tock) 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient citations

In order to meet the GA criteria, an article can't have citation needed tags laying around. Can someone fix these citation problems? If no sources can be found to support those statements, then the statements should be removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The entire article contains three.
The first one was put there by someone with a reading comprehension problem, since the citation given clearly says what the article claims. I removed the tag.
The second tagged sentence can be safely removed entirely, as it contains what appears to be original research for a dubious claim that contradicts other parts of that paragraph. I removed that sentence.
The third one, in the "Establishment of a new polity" section, I'm not sure about. I have no access to the source cited later in that paragraph, which should logically include support for that claim. If it does, then the tag can be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I assume the source you're talking about is "Watt 1956". It's available online.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Google Chrome shows nothing. IE shows the top 1/5 of each page. Given the detail I can see in there, that's probably the source of that sentence, in which case the reference occurring later in the same paragraph may be sufficient. But without being able to see the whole pages, I can't be sure. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
There are other options to view the book. You can find them on the left side of this webpage.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Oddly, today it worked.
And I was correct, the citation that followed was the citation for the "citation needed" sentence. That citation referenced two different pages, so I split them up to reference separate pages and removed the tag.
We still have a problem with GA status, though. The sentence that needed a citation is taken nearly verbatim from the source:
Source: One feature common to nearly all the men in the first two lists is that they came from clans which had not produced great leaders themselves but which had suffered from warlike leaders belonging to other clans.
Wikipedia: The first group of pagan converts to Islam in Medina were the clans who had not produced great leaders for themselves but had suffered from warlike leaders from other clans.
The sentence should be paraphrased, but I'm not sure how just yet. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What about this one: The first group of pagans who came under Islam in Medina were the clans without any great leaders from amongst themselves, but they were sufferers of hostile leaders from outside clans.--AsceticRosé 17:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
That's still uncomfortably close to the original but I'll work with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism"

The content of this section should be merged into other sections per guidelines.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that what you linked to is neither policy nor guideline, but merely an essay; it has no formal standing. Thanks, Doc Tropics 13:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Blessings"

I've added the long material removed in this edit to Relics of Muhammad, which seemed the most appropriate place. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been moved to Muhammad in Islam, it needs discussion before moving it here. Faizan -Let's talk! 05:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

dateline is wrong

The battle of Badr is before the Kudr invasions ... GerardM (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 May 2013

The Name of the Holy Prophet has to be written with respect hence my request is to change the entire page where the name appears to [Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)]. Zuberhere (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We do not do honorifics or titles in an encyclopedia, this is not a religious institution, sorry. Tarc (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
He is a new user, you ought to refer him to MOS:ISLAM. I think your comment was not appropriate. Prophet Muihammad is respected not only in institutions. Faizan 10:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks appropriate to me. No idea why it bothers you. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You confuse "respect" with "deference"; declining to show the latter does not imply a lack of the former. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Nah, by respect I meant the "titles and honorifics". The edit requesting user did not say that Wikipedia was an Islamic institution. Faizan 15:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, I regret if my comment bothered anyone. Faizan 15:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
He should have been referred to the FAQ, which is highlighted in big bold letters at the top of this page. This is a common request, that's why we have a FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I chose to answer the person with actual English sentences rather then boilerplate templates and "See FAQ Number whatever". There is nothing wrong with that, and I'd greatly appreciate it if people would cease getting on my fucking case. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Amatulić's comment was directed squarely at you. Let's all just take a deep breath, it's what the prophet would want (lol). TippyGoomba (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Tarc, lighten up, I wasn't commenting at you. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Come on put it to bed. Faizan 08:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I had just expected a better answer. Faizan 08:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mohammed

The article lacks an explanation of why this spelling, the one that used to be the usual one, is no longer used, or used rarely. It is found in book titles and in quotes, but why it is supposedly a valid spelling never explained.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no explanation because it is irrelevant to a biography article. The only valid, consistent spelling is in Arabic. Anything else is a transliteration. The article you're looking for is Muhammad (name). ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to make a change in this article. The "Mohammed" spelling IS used inside quotes, so I'm getting ready to do research on why this is no longer the preferred spelling and add that to Muhammad (name), but something needs to be done to explain in this article why the different spelling is there. I'm asking how hereVchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Not just quotes, but book and article titles. And I had no luck figuring out why the preferred spelling changed. Some newspapers still use the old spelling.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
People tend to use what they're accustomed to using. "Mohammed" was the most common spelling as I was growing up. Now that I know "Muhammad" is the most accurate transliteration, I use that but still find myself accidentally typing the older spelling on occasion.
As suggested on the Village Pump, using the {{as written}} template to wrap alternate spellings like Mohamed (as I have just done) may be the best solution to ward off any inadvertent attempts to make all occurrences consistently spelled in the article. It doesn't change the appearance but serves as a comment when editing. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Footnote expansion

Pass A Method expanded the lead footnote it this set of edits. The expansion seems quite reasonable to me, eliminating the impression that the Ammadiyya are the only Muslim group that believes that Mohammed was a prophet but not the last prophet. It's been reverted twice now without any substantial explanation.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I initially reverted that because no source was provided at first.
Now that we have a source, I fully support its inclusion, because it reduces the potential for more needless endless debate about the "most" versus "all" issue. The information isn't appropriate to put in the body, but it is encyclopedically relevant in a footnote for the purpose or explaining a statement in the body.
Even a third example wouldn't hurt, but at that point it may be best to create a new article on the subject and refer to that instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of cause of death in infobox

@Amatulic - Your interpretation of WP:BURDEN is incorrect [3] as the cause of death has been present for over a year. The bold change was removing it and consensus must be gotten for the removal. --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note I assume you mean WP:BRD as the cause of death seems to be already sourced. --NeilN talk to me 17:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
My bad. Didn't see the source at first, so yes, I did mean WP:BURDEN, but WP:BRD is also a pretty good excuse too Face-smile.svg. I'll add my comments in a new sub-section below. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Inclusion I don't know why the death cause should be highlighted there in the infobox. The infobox should contain major important info only. "death cause" seems to be so odd. Especially for the founders of the different religions, we should not have a "death cause" there in the infobox. Also for Hazrat Jesus Christ R.A. we should exclude this vague term of "crucification". The death cause is already explained there in the relevant lower sections. So why this disputed inclusion? What is special or attractive in this "Illness- High fever"? As for Hazrat Muhammad P.B.U.H. I would strongly oppose the inclusion of the cause of death. Faizan 11:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep status quo (which means leave it in). I see no reason to remove this from the infobox. Of course it is repeated elsewhere - an Infobox is a summary of the information in the article. That's the point! The Infobox serves to summarize information about the person the article is about - including the cause fo death. No policy reasons have been cited for removing it. There's no issue of the information being unsourced - in fact, its not controversial. I've already addressed the repitition of the information. I see no policy that the Infoxbox should only contain "major important information" (and in any event, isn't a person's cause of death "major important information"?). And if you want to create a new policy for Infoxboxes for founders of religions, this is not the place for such a discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the status quo has had this information in the infoxbox for over a year. As per WP:BRD, the bold edit was to remove the contet. It was immediately reverted. The status quo should now remain until there's a consensus otherwise. An editor can't remove long-standing information, and then oppose the re-inclusion of that information because there's a discussion about that removal. Singularity42 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not satisfactory. Status quo is not always the best option. As "infobox is the summary", therefore it cannot contain every thing. The infobox is not for the crap like "Cause of death". It should be for the important things only. Faizan 11:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. I disagree with your interpretation of what an infobox is for. I see it as a snapshot of a person's biography, which includes the cause of death, if known.
  2. I disagree that cause of death is "crap". Who are you to judge that that info is not important? I put it up there with spouses, year of death, number of children, etc. It is encyclopedic information that should be contained in a snapshot of the person's biography.
Faizan, it seems to me your bigger complainant is what purpose infoboxes serve, and I do not believe this is the best place for a wide-range policy discussion like that. Singularity42 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I may get it in discussion for removal from the "infobox template". Cause of death is not worthy of inclusion in the box. If I am not one to judge that is important or not, then you have the same too. What does high fever give the reader? Faizan 12:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I really don't find it to be an important detail, honestly. The manner, time, place of Jesus' death is central to Christianity, that is why "Crucifixion" is in that infobox. Muhammad? Not so much, he just...died, he was old and old people come down with any number of ailments that fell them. Compare the article on Buddha, wouldn't it look a bit silly to list "Cause of death: food poisoning or old age (disputed)" ? Tarc (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I am saying. Fever is not as such like the crucification. So do you support the exclusion? Faizan 13:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, support, but not enough to edit-war over. Y'all need to hash it out here, it won't hurt anything for the line to remain while discussion continues. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah sure, sorry for the reverts. Faizan 15:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • While the infobox is a summary of a biography I've been looking at the infoboxes of related subjects and see very few "Cause of Death" entries. In light of this, I weakly support removal. --NeilN talk to me 15:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously it looks too odd. The reader doesn't get any info while reading that "Illness-High fever" Faizan 15:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Though the illness is a historical fact, this is unnecessary and silly to add this here. Agree with Tarc. Faizan, don't you think that infobox item "Crucifixion" on Jesus article should also be removed as Muslims don't believe that Prophet Isa (AH) was ever crucified. Hence, it is not universal, rather controversial.--AsceticRosé 04:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
After here, there would also be an RfC at Jesus Christ. It is disputed there too. Faizan 11:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It was removed citing WP:BURDEN, meaning the source is in question. What source supports the inclusion? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
See the "Death and tomb" section. I don't think the source is being questioned as it's used many times throughout the article. --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? All I see is An Introduction to the Quran II (1895), p.279. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Errr, get the text and have a look at the page? As I said, I have no reason to doubt the source as it's used to cite many passages in the article and Amatulić has not explained his reasoning at all. --NeilN talk to me 13:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I did, it looks like a secondary source for the Koran, not an account of history. Is that not an issue? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
It comes from an academic journal published by the The University of Chicago Press. If that's an issue, and it may be, then many sentences will have to be resourced or reworded. --NeilN talk to me 15:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Neither of those statements address my point. Is it or is it not a historical account? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I have addressed your point. If consensus says it's a historical account then we're fine. If we decide it's merely an explanation/analysis of the Koran then many other sentences, along with this one, will have to be resourced or reworded. --NeilN talk to me 15:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
NeilN, don't you think we are wasting our time over this unnecessary issue? If the community wants to remove the item, let them do that. We have other things to ponder over. Thanks.--AsceticRosé 16:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
TippyGoomba raised a sourcing issue that could affect the entire article. If you don't want to waste your time pondering that, then you don't have to participate, right? --NeilN talk to me 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So you're saying "An Introduction to the Quran II" is history and not simply an account of the Koran? Or you're saying it's very inconvenient that we're using it as a source everywhere, so let's ignore it? I'm fine with the latter, to be honest. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My gut feel is that it's an account of the Koran and should not be used to cite historical facts (or sentences should be prefaced with "The Koran states...". I'd really like to hear opinions from others more versed in the matter, though. --NeilN talk to me 13:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Side question: I'm not well-versed in what the Quran contains. But if the Quran was dictated to Muhammad by Gabriel, why would it contain an account of Muhammad's own death? The book of Deuteronomy in the Bible also has a similar inconsistency, where the book supposedly was authored by Moses yet contains an account of his own death. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The answer is straightforward. The Quran does not contain such reference, and it cannot. There is no other reliable source for this "illness-high fever". Faizan 16:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've found [4], [5], [6]. --NeilN talk to me 16:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Good, but we are concerned with the inclusion of the cause of death in the infobox here. ANd most of the editors have agreed to remove it. These refs will change nothing. Faizan 17:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fine, but you confused me with, "There is no other reliable source for this 'illness-high fever'". --NeilN talk to me 17:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To Amatulic, the Quran does not contain any account of Prophet Muhammad (SW)'s death. There is no such inconsistency. I don't know where you have found it.--AsceticRosé 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I never said I found it. Please read more carefully. I was asking a question in response to the comment "it was an account of the Koran".
I don't see that "most of the editors have agreed to remove it." I recall removing it once, myself. But, as I stated elsewhere, how a prophet died (crucifixion, illness, whatever) is useful, encyclopedic information to include in an infobox, so including it may be beneficial. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Amatulic, five editors including you have agreed to remove it. See the above comments? Or I am wrong? To err is human. Faizan 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Seven editors have commented so far. Four (Faizan, AsceticRose, Tarc, and NeilN) support removing the content from the infobox. Two seem to favour not removing the content (myself and Amatulic). The remaining editor, TippyGoomba, has not voiced a specific opinion, only questioning if there were reliable sources, which were provided. At the moment, I do not believe we have a concensus to remove the content. Singularity42 (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a question: on Wikipedia, does consensus require consensus from all the participants, or from the majority? Can anyone help? --AsceticRosé 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Consensus" isn't a vote, although it's often treated that way. It's complicated. WP:CONSENSUS describes the policy and how to recognize when consensus has arrived.
For me, I have no strong opinion on this matter we're discussing. I simply have a preference for keeping the cause of death in the infobox, for which I provided a rationale, but I have no objection to omitting it, and agree that the article will not be worse off for omitting it. If Singularity42 also feels the same way, I'd say we have a consensus toward omitting the cause of death. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
If I'm the sole hold-out, than I think I would have to agree that consensus is against me. I think my opinion is a bit stronger than Amatulic's. That is, not only do I prefer the inclusion, I would probably object to the removal. My position remains that the cause of death of an important person - even if the cause of death is due to natural causes - is not trivial information (as defined in Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?, a non-policy page). Ultimately, my position can be summarized as: 1) I believe it should be included, 2) I do not agree it should be removed, and 3) this issue is so minor that I don't think we should be debating it even this long (that is, if there are only one or two editors who are suggesting it should not be removed, then just remove it).
I guess I have just one parting question: why is it so important to remove this from the infobox? Singularity42 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we've wasted a lot time unduly over this silly question. The decision now should be finalized by those who raised it.--AsceticRosé 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
My stance is that we should remove it from the infobox only. As NeilN has cited the references, so they should be added where the concerned text "appears in this article". I am just against its inclusion in the infobox, the infobox is a summary. Again, the summary at least does not contain the cause of death. And "Fever" i not as important as "Crucifixion" Faizan 12:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"Fever" isn't as sensational as "crucifixion", yes. However, I thought it was notable that Muhammad didn't die in battle (in spite of being a military leader), didn't die as a martyr (although martyrdom seems to have meaning for many of the faithful), wasn't stabbed by a betrayer, or any number of other ways religious leaders have met their demise. That's why I supported its inclusion, but as I said, I have no problem with the cause of death being removed from the infobox as long as it remains in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Completely Agreed. Then we can make it to "Natural death". Faizan 08:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with the Infobox saying something along the lines of "Natural causes". Singularity42 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Muhammad's death

Sorry for not coming to this conversation earlier. There are two sources cited in the context of Muhammad's death, and both are problematic.

One is something called An introduction to the Quran II which doesn't seem to have a full citation anywhere in the article. I can't find it on Google Books. And yet it is cited all over the place. WTF? This could be a serious problem. I mean, what would we change in the article if all of those citations were removed and replaced with a {{cn}} tag? This is supposed to be a Wikipedia:Good article and yet it relies on an unverifiable source.

The other source is a work written by someone named "Lewis Lord" on a US News and World report website.[7] That work appears to be an historical account, but offers no sources, and I can find no bio for the author that suggests he is an authoritative expert on the topic.

As for the infobox, I don't really care if the cause of death is there or not. It does need a source. And it is encyclopedically useful to know that he didn't die of, say, crucifixion, as a certain other Prophet died. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's on JSTOR: [8], [9] --NeilN talk to me 17:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. It needs to be fully cited then, where it first appears in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Stylish font ?

The section Beginning of the Quran uses stylish font unconventionally. I'm not sure who did this, and whether the community has accepted this. I think is should be in regular font. --AsceticRosé 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --NeilN talk to me 17:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the fancy font. Don't know when it was added or who did it.
I have a fundamental disagreement with quoting the Quran in a biography of Muhammad, but that quotation has been there for several months (since last year at least) so I left it in for now. I recall the article managed to get by without it in the past, and still manage to mention Gabriel in Islamic tradition. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with the quotation in this section. Quoting from the Holy Quran in Prophet Muhammad (SW)'s biography is quite common as long as it is relevant and short. The two boxes containing sura can be transferred to Quran article.
Not sure what you meant about Gabriel.--AsceticRosé 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Quotations from a religious text are generally not relevant to a biography article about an historical figure. I argue that it isn't relevant in this instance.
The quotation with the fancy font is what Gabriel is supposed to have commanded Muhammad to recite. This isn't relevant to a biography. It's Islamic religious belief. One could say instead that according to Islamic tradition, Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and issued commands, but going further than that by quoting a religious primary source goes too far.
Muhammad and Islam are inextricably intertwined, certainly, but we shouldn't be giving undue weight to religious digressions in an objective article about established history. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that we can't at all include quotation from religious texts. Our task is to represent what the RS is saying. Sources say that Muslims believe Gabriel came with this verses. We are just representing them. I don't see how it goes too far. Better to stop it here.--AsceticRosé 04:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the mythology surrounding a historical figure is relevant. However, the verses cited are totally inane, they should be removed. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no need for that kind of description. Those verses are part of the foundation of a religion. It's reasonable to discuss whether the contents are necessary and whether they convey a point that is relevant to Muhammad's history, but there's no call for insults.—Kww(talk) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
When TippyGoomba used that certain word, I was wondering whether hatred or incaution had the better claim. Care should be taken when verging on such adventure which may land us on a dirty game.--AsceticRosé 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
None of your statement makes any sense to me. Which word do you have a problem with? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
"Inane" is an unnecessarily insulting word.—Kww(talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, I didn't realise the connotations. I just meant to say that the quote conveyed no relevant information. My apologies to Ascetic and anyone else who was offended. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the details of the quoted text are relevant to the historical biography.—Kww(talk) 16:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do the quotes add to the understanding of muhammad? (I am asking as a litmus test to whether or not they should be removed. I would like to see rationale for both keep and remove.) Tivanir2 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
They don't help mine: they appear to be some form of free verse about a creator, but they aren't specific enough to provide me with any meaningful insight.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The verse doesn't help my understanding either. The verse is merely an expansion to illustrate a statement about a religious belief, and is not relevant to a biography. I should be enough for the article simply to state that according to Islamic tradition, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I got rid of it. The sentence I added is a bit clunky, anyone wanna take a stab at it? ...the angel Gabriel appeared to him in the year 610 and commanded Muhammad to recite verses which would later make up the Koran TippyGoomba (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Changed the last part to ... which would later be included in the Koran. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add lineage and Hira

Can administrators or others add the section lineage of the prophet ref guillaume ref: {cite book |last1=Ibn Ishaq |last2= Guillaume |title=The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Isḥāq’s sīrat|url= http://archive.org/stream/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume/The_Life_Of_Mohammed_Guillaume#page/n23/mode/2up |location=London |isbn=0195778286 |year=1955|quote=Lineage of Prophet Muhammad|page=3} and also Mount Hira' on the outskirt of Mecca where he recieved the first revelation story at page 106 of Guillaume {cite book |last1=Ibn Ishaq |last2= Guillaume |title=The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Isḥāq’s sīrat|url= http://archive.org/stream/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume/The_Life_Of_Mohammed_Guillaume#page/n23/mode/2up |location=London |isbn=0195778286 |year=1955|quote=Moustory of the first revelation on the prophet at Mount Hira' on the outskirts of Mecca|page=106,419} thanx for helpValentino2013 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is a historical biography, and what you are proposing represents a religious belief. The article you want would be Muhammad in Islam. There you will find more information about Muhammad's lineage according to Islamic tradition. That article also includes a very nice chart showing the lineage relationships between all the prophets from Adam to Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

what ancestry has to do with religion. Mount Hira' is an actual mount visited every day by peopleValentino2013 (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So? Why is that relevant? The beliefs surrounding it are still religious beliefs. You have added material to Muhammad in Islam, but what you added should either be designated as a quotation (if you only copied it from the source) or its religious POV should be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

With all do respect, the Arabic article has the Prophet's family tree, and it's considered to be THE BEST by Wikipedia, so to add information about his biography is legitimate unless you want to argue with what Wikipedia considers to be the best.

~Yster76 (talk) 17:16, 21 June(UTC)

The family tree has been discussed already at great length, and it was determined that inclusion of such a tree is inappropriate for a historical biography article such as this one. Just search the talk page archive for "tree".
Also, what the Arabic Wikipedia does has no bearing on the English Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia does not determine what is "the best" on the Arabic Wikipedia. Such decisions are determined by their respective communities. Each Wikipedia has its own rules. The Arabic one evidently allows a religious point of view to be presented as fact in a biography. The English Wikipedia doesn't allow that.
We already have an article here about Muhammad in Islam and that is the appropriate place to present a family tree based on religious belief. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: age at death

86.177.124.16 posted this comment on 30 December 2012 (view all feedback).

change when prophet muhammad (saw) actually died at the age of 63.

IP brings up a good point. The infobox says he Muhammad died at the age of 62, the the death section says it's 63. Which is it?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point. The reference in the death section says 63. But if we consider that the Islamic Prophet was born in 570 A.D. and passed away on 632 A.D. then it is obviously 62=632-570. I am confused. Most of the references support that he was born in 570 A.D. If that's it, then 62 is the right answer. Faizan 09:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Several references also say that he was born in 571AD. Faizan 09:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The mathematical calculation depends on whether he was born before or after 8 June. I think most sources say it's 63: [10] [11] [12] [13], although are some that say 62: [14] [15]. Maybe we should mention both? (i.e. 62–63) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can work out, his year of birth is not known for certain, but is "circa" 570. If we don't know the precise date of birth, then it is just not possible for us to give an age at death, even though 62 or 63 may both be good guesses. Formerip (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

We should write the years manually in the infobox, so that we might be able to mention both. Like: "Aged 62 or 63". Mentioning both of these frequently used figures is the best option. Faizan 07:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
He died because of poison, so this needs to be edited, atleast in the 'death' section..

'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713 Capitals00 (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying this will be a misrepresentation of source, because several days before his death, he was caught by fever. -AsceticRosé 10:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Not really, because he was caught by the fever probably cause of poison. Otherwise he wouldn't be dying. Capitals00 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A mysterious sentence

In the article says: "Non-Muslim views regarding Muhammad have ranged across a large spectrum of responses and beliefs, many of which have changed over time".

Can someone explain to me what this sentence means? I think it is completelly meaningless. 87.219.34.139 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me: Non-Muslims have had a variety of dominant views that have changed over time. It's an introductory sentence to a major section consisting of smaller sub-sections. I don't see any problem removing it, however, and titling the section "Non-Muslim views" instead of "Other views". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, if we use "Muslim" at one end, then "Non-Muslim" at the other is appropriate. I have renamed it. Faizan 07:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I am who started this section.
Sorry. English in not my mother tongue, and I am not as proficient in it as I would like.
So I did not choose my words correctly, and where I wrote meaningless I should have written useless.
The sentence is obviously true, but if we apply it to anything, instead of Muhammad, it remains true.
We can say: "People views regarding hard rock (or cubist painting, or nature of stars) have ranged across a large spectrum of responses and beliefs, many of which have changed over time" and in all cases it is true.
So I think the sentence does not contribute in anything to the article.
87.219.34.139 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I do agree with the IP above - pretty much any topic will have a wide variety of opinions expressed about it over time. The sentence should state why this is notable or interesting in this particular case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC).
Like Lankiveil, I think the IP makes a fair point. Sure, views about Muhammad have ranged across a spectrum and changed over time. That's true for virtually every person or aspect in history, provided they are known. Views about Julius Caesar, Buddha, Charlemagne, Paul, Napeoleon as well as views about the fall of the Roman empire, vaccinations, meat consumption, high heels etc. Views range across a spectrum and change. So what? Why is this particularly relevant to this article, more so than to almost any other article?Jeppiz (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy about a Religion's Belief

Hi, I'm new here and will request correction, if I'm doing something wrong. I'm starting this discussion to discuss about Wikipedia's policy about the beliefs of some specific religion. Will Wikipedia respect the guidelines of a religion (Islam in this case), when posting or publishing information about it (Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, in this case). I mean, if there are certain rules and laws (I could provide reliable sources) in Islam about art, drawing and painting, and a large group will vote for it, will Wikipedia respect those rules and remove the imaginary arts/drawings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). As I've stated about, I'm new here and will be seeking guidance from senior members and will be doing this discussion for positive and educational purposes. Raees Iqbal (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images for a comprehensive view on how Wikipedians think we should apply our guidelines and policies with regards to pictures of Muhammad. --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia contains a great deal of content that various groups may find offensive on the basis of cultural, historical or religious grounds. We cannot accede to the wishes of any of these groups to remove content without damaging the integrity of the project. We do, however, offer you a way to hide images of Muhammad for your own viewing sessions without altering the view for others. See question 3 at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Regards, Resolute 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Seizures versus epileptic fits

Ascetic Rose has repeatedly attempted to insert the following passage (in boldface) (diff): According to Welch these revelations were accompanied by mysterious seizures, and the reports are unlikely to have been forged by later Muslims. However, Husayn Haykal rejects any possibility of seizures as unscientific and groundless.

This is a straw man fallacy, especially when presented in a point/counterpoint fashion as Ascetic Rose has done.

First, the source Ascetic Rose cites (Husayn Haykal) dwells exclusively on an Egyptian author's assertion about Muhammad having epileptic seizures, making the scientific case that people who suffer from epileptic fits have no memory of what happened during them. Welch, on the other hand, appears to refer to "mysterious seizures" in general, which could be anything besides epilepsy.

Second, Husayn Haykal is not even arguing with Welch, but rather with an Egyptian Muslim author.

Furthermore, Ascetic Rose's generalization of the Husayn Haykal source to encompass seizures in general is a misrepresentation of that source, because that source speaks about epilepsy only.

The point/counterpoint context sets up a straw man fallacy. Therefore, I am reverting this addition one more time. The WP:BURDEN is on Ascetic Rose to support that addition, or at least propose how to include it without misrepresentation and with proper context. As it has been inserted so far, it looks like simple white-washing. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment The first step is that both Ascetic Rose and Amatulic back down from the article as you are both on the verge of violating WP:3RR. I am not taking side in the content dispute, but edit warring of this kind is a violation of the rules.Jeppiz (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Amatulic for opening this discussion. First, I didn't have any intention to misrepresent the source with which I have been repeatedly charged incorrectly. If eventually this is the case, then that was my misunderstanding. But the source at one place says After recovering from such seizures, the claim continues, Muhammad would recite to the believers… . Second, I didn't say that Husayn Haykal was arguing with Welch. I added that simply to present the fact that many writers have denied the notion of seizure. As Welch’s statement deals with this issue, adding the content next to it seemed to be the right place. I was never aware of point/counterpoint context. The third point is that most of the writers have not made any significant distinction between seizure and epileptic seizure. Haykal has used both seizure and epilepsy. Daniel C. Peterson has used the phrase epileptic seizure here
Encarta dictionary gives the definition of seizure as a sudden attack of an illness or condition, especially of the kind experienced by people with epilepsy. So, when referring to the case of Prophet Muhammad, what is actually the significant difference between seizure and epileptic seizure? Moreover, Welch didn’t elaborate anything. So, how can we be certain that he was suggesting any different seizure apart from the one discussed by these writers?
I didn't take the matter so seriously to which it has arrived now. Otherwise, I would have posted a discussion on the talk page.
Still, if we cannot add that in that way, then another way should be suggested. That is a sourced content.
And honestly speaking, here is no case of edit war, from no side, I will say.--AsceticRosé 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add in a sentence like Some scholars have suggested that seizures occurred during this time, but others have disputed this claim.? It should be better written, of course, but this would present the point/counter point without mentioning specific names AVAAGAA 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I see an editor has changed the line of Welch. If the amended sentence is true to source, then I think we do not need to add or further change anything, because the contentious element is no more there. --AsceticRosé 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The cited article was written by [F. Buhl] for EI1 (~1930s), and only revised for EI2 by Welch. The "mysterious seizures" statement was made by Buhl and found in the 1930s edition. It is also made "in passing" to support a different point than the one cited here, i.e., "These mysterious seizures must have afforded to those around him the most convincing evidence for the superhuman origin of his inspirations." Wiqi(55) 18:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AsceticRose that Wiqi55's modification is a good solution, especially if the topic of seizures was mentioned only in passing and isn't a notable element for Muhammad's biography.
Husayn Haykal does seem to spend a great deal of effort refuting it, however, so I wonder how important a point this might be to mention somewhere. It is probably inappropriate for a biography, but isn't there an article on spiritual revelation to which a discussion about Muhammad's alleged seizures may be added? We have an article on special revelation but that's more of a Christian theological topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe Muhammad's first revelation? AVAAGAA 01:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I see the problem was in Welch's statement. That was actually the misrepresentation of source and still that existed for long, whereas I was hurriedly accused for misrepresentation. I still think Husayn Haykal was dealing with the same issue earlier mentioned in the article because such allegation is only one; now you also accept that Husayn Haykal was spending a great deal of effort refuting it.
If an editor sees their edit valid, is there any wonder that they will try to add that? It is rather awkward for others to remove that without discussion, and on shaky ground.
I also agree that we can avoid this alleged notion of seizure for this article as it is somewhat baseless.
After all, Wiqi55's present amendment is nice and it seems we have reached a peaceful consensus.--AsceticRosé 05:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting the Prophet of Islam everywhere instead of the Name

NO ACTION:
WP:SNOWBALL closure. The responding editors have clearly explained why this will not be happening. Singularity42 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Most of you know that most of we Muslims take it as a grave deed calling Our Beloved Prophet his forename without adding some phrase to praise him. In our belief Allah warns us so:

Do not make [your] calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment.(Quran 24:63)

Therefore I suggest calling him in all English Wikipedia as the Prophet of Islam replacing all "Muhammad"s (sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam) with the Prophet of Islam including occurrences in the article about him except its title. We are obliged to follow Article 18 of UDHR:

"Everyone has the right ... to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Concerning worship: Observance of commandments of Quran is essential in worshipping Allah in Islam. Most of Muslims cannot add information which includes his name to Wikipedia because we cannot write his forename solely without any praising phrase. Other than that, hundreds of thousands of Muslims cannot read such occurrences of his name without feeling uneasy, because of the commandment I quoted. So we all have to figure out a neutral phrase where most of us can read without feeling discontentment. Also this way, some actions which are seen as vandalism by non-Muslims will come to an end in the future, I guess.

So, this problem must be handled. I assume the phrase "the Prophet of Islam" is the phrase that we can end this conflict with. Using bots this can be handled in time. What will be the decision?--SeyitCmesaj 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyitserdarcihan (talkcontribs)

Your assumption is regrettably incorrect. You've provided no encyclopedic reason for a change that would cause more confusion. So, taking a not-so-wild guess, the decision will be "status quo". --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those are interesting interpretations, of the Qur'an and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how they apply here. Unfortunately, this is not an encyclopedia for Muslims, but an encyclopedia for all people and so -- regardless of potential commandments incumbent upon Muslims -- we must write the encyclopedia in a neutral manner. I should add, also, that "Prophet of Islam", even on subsequent reference, is misleading, since, as you know, Muhammad is not the only prophet in Islam. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but you have no hope of your request being met, because it is contrary to the established way of doing things on Wikipedia.
I can understand some Muslims being dissatisfied with this, but I don't think you are correct that it will prevent most Muslims from editing the article, because Muslims do edit the article and because Muslim-majority language versions of Wikipedia (for example, Arabic Wikipedia) are happy to use the name Muhammad without honorifics. If there are some Muslims who feel they can't, though, perhaps they could still make their suggested changes on the talkpage. Formerip (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The propsed change is highly WP:POV. Besides, it would be interesting to hear Tariqabjotu explain the "unfortunate" part of "Unfortunately, this is not an encyclopedia for Muslims". It looks extremely racist. Why is it "unfortunate" that Wikipedia is open to all people?Jeppiz (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
tariq was rhetorical, Jeppiz misinterpreted, FormerIP responded. Can we all move on to something more constructive now? Singularity42 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't be daft, it's just a rhetorical "unfortunately" which, unfortunately, does not make your case that the editor in question is racist. Which should not be taken as implying that I wish the editor was racist. Formerip (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I never said the user is racist, didn't even suggest it. The way s/he phrases the comment was very poor, though.Jeppiz (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternate transliteration

Is "Mohammed" common enough to be listed in the lede as an alternate spelling? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don´t know. Googling "prophet Muhammad" vs "prophet Mohammed" shows the former to have about 6 times as many hits (and that´s not a good way to decide anyway). Muhammad (name) is linked from this article, and that may be good enough for the various transliterations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
A better indicator would be the Google Ngram viewer results, which clearly shows "Muhammad" as being more common than "Mohammed" since about 60 years ago. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not by any means arguing that "Mohammed" is more common; I'm not proposing we move the article or anything. I just think it's common enough to warrant a mention. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion, but I´m leaning towards that it´s better to have the (many) other transliterations in the name article. They, like Amatulics graph, are more about the name than just the prophet. Maybe the lead could say "primarily transliterated as..." to hint that there are others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

remove images

plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz remove those images and drawings of Muhammad(S.A W). please--عرفان ارشد (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Per our site policy of WP:NOTCENSORED, this request cannot be accepted. See the FAQ at the top of this page. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


I bet wikipedia is still having a good laugh with this, what a shame, the pictures are still outrageous, and add no content to the page other than the controversy talks about them all still under the umbrella of the allegedly "Honorable" wikipedia censorship regulations which were also "by the way" developed by people of non-"machine"-type nature i.e. also do make mistakes, and also can be corrected without having to believe it is correct to them or to the best of their thoughts/ideas.... Fdabbass1 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The controversy you speak of has been discussed numerous times, check the archives. Wikipedia is not censored and that is the crux of this issue. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Suicide Accusation is Fallacious and Wrong

The following statement on the article is wrong: "Upon receiving his first revelations, he was deeply distressed and resolved to commit suicide." Espositos claims are fallacious and has no merit. This claim is not found in any of the authentic traditions of either the Sunni or the Shia sects. Please remove this false accusation against the Prophet Muhammad (S). The Prophet Muhammad (S) openly condemned suicide and was never suicidal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.109.6.2 (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly does the source come from then? --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I know that wikipedia in its content tries to avoid allegations, therefore, they should 100% confirm a trace of information from the people who delivered this piece of information on "for lets say" the last approximate 1450 moon (Hijri) years"ish", for it to be actually validated for use, in such a Public article about the Highest Man Figure of Islam. Wikipedia users may agree that the sensitivity of subject of Prophet of Islam Muhammad, whom Muslims refer to as (Muhammad-Peace Be Upon Him) does not give Wikipedia much "slack" in posting misguiding postulates about his character, rather should provide solid proof for such content to become publicized. It is a fact that Muslims would majorly disagree with the validity of "the suicide statement", they also being trackers of the Biography of their own Prophet, and it is also a given, that a theory stating that the majority of Muslims are "illiterate" to their prophet's biography is invalid, unless proof provided is also solid thereby encompassing their entire era of existence. Fdabbass1 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Providing reliable sources is key here if you wish to change article content. Your edits however must adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE & WP:SYN. Muslims of course will defend their prophet, and counter-views should always be represented or left open to reader interpretation both ways. This is more evident on the Criticism of Muhammad article. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC).

So you like "your version of the story" to be based on "reliable enough references" (to Wikipedia(as far as you are concerned)) (what is Wikipedia ("users") to create "the everlasting sacred scripture" of proper referencing ?) and then to have it intentionally, at all time available for "possible" double interpretations, without referencing your purpose or intent of doing so, in order to do so in the first place in this article? I'm sorry I have to ask, but what do you interpret from my words so far? Fdabbass1 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For starters, I have no personal opinion of Muhammad, and I couldn't care less about Islam - so accusing me of trying to "write my own version of the story" is an obscene accusation. We will have no more of that, please. Second, I have merely directed you to Wikipedia guidelines and not once given you my own opinion on them. I didn't write the rules here or the article in question. If you wish to challenge content, feel free to do so, but provide a reliable source to back it up. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For starters, that's your problem, don't backfire, (I would like to also redirect you to a Wikipedia article that explains Third Person usage of the English pronoun "You")having possibly misinterpreted that. Second, how about having a reliability analysis to the resources quoted for adding the discussed at hand thread?Fdabbass1 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of correct pronoun usage, but that doesn't mean I'll always get it right (And not caring about someone who kicked the bucket 1400 years ago is not a problem to me ;)) How reliable sources are assessed is covered in WP:RELIABLE. Where is this source for the whole suicide thing? For instance it could go like this: "scholars such as X and Y have suggested Muhammad was suicidal at this time, while scholars such as G and K have suggested {insert sourced analysis from scholars G and K}. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I shall disagree with "premature" methods of Analysis just advised, and would rather have data be analysed more objectively prior publicizing it to a character's Biography on such wide scale, and then having them challenged for correctness, as this method would not relieve any resulting complications of which.

As for the out of line remarks, I think readers might Agree that referring to "the greatest figure in humanity according to Muslims" requires special demeanor in doing it(an e.g. would be acceptable demeanor that one prefers for referring to themselves?),"this is not solely a pacifistic-audience stage". Fdabbass1 (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

First point: The name of the source for his alleged suicidal thoughts is "Esposito (2010), p.8". I presume the author is John Esposito. Second point: Nope, the article on Muhammad is treated in the same fashion as we treat the articles on Alexander the Great or Jesus. There are no special exceptions just to cater to a certain groups sensitivities. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well about that, no it isn't, prove me wrong.Fdabbass1 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely follow you, are you suggesting there is something inherently wrong with the article? Do you think something needs to be improved? Are you saying this article has an anti-Muhammad slant to it? If you think there is a WP:NPOV issue in the article, then by all means bring it up.--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)