Talk:Muhammad in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Middle Ages  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Stop hand.svg Important notice: Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ addresses some common points of argument, such as the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

Congrats[edit]

Congrats to Aminz for putting in the hard work getting this article started and to Zora for the idea. —Aiden 04:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aiden, :) --Aminz 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Lack of Content[edit]

Why is this page so short? This doesn't even contain a discourse of Ali's views of Muhammad! --IHusain 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a new article. Please add the sourced content you speak of. —Aiden 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why you didnot write the honour words of Prophet Muhammad Sallallaho Alaihi Wa Alihi Wasallam when writing His name? Rashkehoor (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What part of question 5 of the FAQ was unclear in explaining that? —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

There is no reason to have an article named Islamic view of Muhammad and another named Islamic views of Muhammad. No objection has been raised on talk, so I will be merging. --BostonMA talk 14:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, was the merge done properly? Is all the information preserved? --Striver 09:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
All the information is preserved. However, I'm not sure if that means that I performed the merge properly. --BostonMA talk 12:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That was my question. Thanks. Can we rename the article to "view", it sounds better. Im going forth and mirroring the merge in the Muhammad template. --Striver 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the word "view" should not be included, as it is not only our views, rather well-documented history. −AsceticRosé 15:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Shahnawaz Ali[edit]

I am no sufi, I am a lay man with only the basic knowledge of Islam. It is my belief that Muhammad(pbuh) was a man and has passed away. The proof that i present is a quote from none other than Abu Bakr(may Allah be pleased with him) after the Prophet(pbuh) had passed away he addressed the grieving Muslims by saying that those who worship Muhammad should know that Muhammad is dead, but tell those who worship Allah that Allah shall never die.

I removed this from the article - please see WP:NOT#OR for an explanation. Can you find a citation for this? --87.112.78.48 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Visual Representation[edit]

Muhammad is never depicted visually by any Muslim. Because this considered as un-islamic action. <<Smart_Viral 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Depictions of Muhammad proves otherwise. TharkunColl 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
this action is non-islamic in other words no Muslim can do under the rules of islam => not considered to be Muslim.what is ur definition of Muslim someone who follow Muhammad or someone he said "i'am muslim"! <<Smart_Viral 17:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)>>
It is not up to you, or Wikipedia, to decide who is and isn't a "true" Muslim. TharkunColl 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
yes its called "Islamic views of Muhammad" not u. Its a fact that Islam forbid this. Return to Depictions of Muhammad. <<Smart_Viral 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)>>
It is a fact that some Muslims throughout history have depicted Muhammad. The article Depictions of Muhammad proves it. What you're trying to do is impose religious dogma on Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. TharkunColl 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
anyway not "quite often". <<Smart_Viral 18:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Depiction ofLiving things in any form is forbidden in Islam and it is rystal Clear .What ever one ortwo muslims do we don't subsribe them.Shabiha 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talkcontribs)

Why are earth is this here? There are no images on this article. Zazaban (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people bother so much about Depictions of Muhammad which is not good from Islamic perspective. Which one is more important to a Muslim? His depictions? Or his great ideal that he left behind? Surely the latter one. Yes, some Muslims throughout history have depicted Muhammad. Surely they are wrong. All the Islamic scholars are unanimous on the point that depictions of Muhammad are prohibited in Islam. No depiction should be allowed on this article, because it is Muhammad in Islam, not in general. Any such violation must be reverted immediately. −AsceticRosé 12:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That is blatant censorship and POV. For example, to the Shia, only sculpture is illegal, not drawings. The Persians and Ottomans depicted Muhammad, and in a reverent way. Who are you to say that they weren't Muslims? It helps the reader to see reverent images made by Muslims in honour of Muhammad. The views of the Amish and Puritans are not overriding pictures of Jesus are they? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Muhammad has been depicted by Muslims, such as Rashid-al-Din_Hamadani. The Qu'ran does not prohibit images of Muhammad. The Qu'ran only prohibits worships images and idols. An image simply depicting Muhammad, therefore does not go against Islamic beliefs. Also saying "any image must be reverted" is not true. Wikipedia is a neutral source for information, and does not censor itself, AsceticRose, please check out their FAQ regarding the matter Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Expand[edit]

Can you help expanding this article? Sunni view is lacking now. In addition, there are unsourced statements. It could be great if you can expand the page with adding beliefs in Islam related to the prophet. Kavas (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when do Sufis believe that the Prophet has the 'power of invisibility' and is still alive? That is not within the orthodox Sunni tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.236.94 (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Perspectives on Muhammad[edit]

Please see Category talk:Perspectives on Muhammad#Reverts by Doc Tropics. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul[edit]

This article needs a major overhaul: it currently reads like a short excerpt from Muhammad's basic bio with numerous irrelevant facts about his personal life, but almost no useful content about his historical place within the religion that he founded. The first part of fixing this is easy - removing the crap that doesn't belong at all. The next stage will be harder; it will require finding and using RS to expand the necessary content. For this, the works of recognized scholars would be preferable to quotes from the Quran and hadith. Doc Tropics 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes this article needs a complete overhaul by experts on this topic. I like to invite those who have good referenced materials to do this. I also will try as far as possible. −AsceticRosé 12:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

HELP EXPAND THIS ARTICLE[edit]

This article lacks vital sections and information. Plz help expand this incomplete article. −AsceticRosétalk 10:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, your edits are good but I have a question, there is already a page Muhammad, what's the relationship of this page to that page? Kiatdd (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not get your point. Are you saying that this page has no relevancy? Or, what do mean by relationship? -−AsceticRosétalk 15:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
No,I did't mean that!, I am actually asking you that what this page is going to cover? is this page about the prophet as seen by muslims? or the role of prophet in islam? or another view? thanks. Kiatdd (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually you have raised an important issue. Apparently, my edits intend to describe the prophet as seen by Muslims, but I'm not quite sure how this page actually should be. I request you to present your suggestions about how this article should be. Additionally, the role of Prophet Muhammad in Islam is also important. That should also be included. In that case you and the others can put your comments about what items or information can be included here so that we can enrich this article accordingly. Someone else also should contribute to this important article. --AsceticRosé talk 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion proposal for two sections[edit]

The sections namely "Marriage" and "Death of Muhammad" do not seem to be relevant with the purpose of this article. The info on death will come when relevant sections will be created, no need for a separate section. If no one objects, I'll delete them after a few days. --AsceticRosé talk 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete, as they are irrelevant, I support their deletion! Faizan (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done! --AsceticRosé talk 08:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

section name changing[edit]

It would be better if the section name "Divine revelation" is changed into "Prophethood". That would be more clear, direct, and in line with the article's purpose. "Divine revelation" and "Muhammad’s early teachings" can be kept as sub-sections with relevant info. --AsceticRosé talk 03:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support with Amendments, Well I think that the sub-sections of "3.2 Divine revelation, 3.3 Muhammad on preaching ,3.4 Muhammad’s early teachings ,3.5 Opposition and persecution, 3.6 Last years in Mecca ,3.7 Migration to Medina ,3.7.1 Medina at that time, 3.7.2 Hijra ,3.8 Muhammad in Medina , 3.8.1 Establishment of first Muslim state" should be under the section of "Prophethood" (Location:After the sub-section of "3.1.1 Social welfare"), and the sub-sections of "3.8.2 Persistent hostility of Quraysh, 3.8.3 Causes of and preparation for fighting, 3.8.4 The Battle of Badr" Should be moved to a new section of "Opposition"(Location:After Prophethood). I hope than the concerned sections would be perfect. Faizan (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Partially agree with Faizan. First of all, sections like 3.6 Last years in Mecca ,3.7 Migration to Medina ,3.7.1 Medina at that time, 3.7.2 Hijra ,3.8 Muhammad in Medina etc. may need to be cut out as far as possible due to the risk of content forking, hence they probably can't come under section "Prophethood". I'm completely agree with Faizan that sub-sections like "3.8.2 Persistent hostility of Quraysh, 3.8.3 Causes of and preparation for fighting, 3.8.4 The Battle of Badr" should be moved to a new section of "Opposition". --AsceticRosé talk 09:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure! As consensus has been reached by users participating in the discussion, the section of "Prophethood", be expanded and section of "Opposition" be created. Faizan (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg First one done! Second one awaiting. --AsceticRosé talk 13:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg fully done.

Early years: sub-section name proposal[edit]

In this article, the texts in section Early years should come under some headlines. I have the following proposal: "Orphanhood: a divine plan" for the second para; "God's protection" (combining the third para and the lower text of the first para), and "Early sign(s) of Prophethood" for the last para. (the sub-sections will come in sequence as has been mentioned). --AsceticRosé talk 09:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Support I agree! As per the aim of the Article, these corrections and amendments are necessary and undeclinable! Faizan (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
As consensus has been reached by the participants of this discussion, and no one has presented any alternative view, I'm going to create these headlines. --AsceticRosé 11:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, good work! Faizan (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sunni view?[edit]

Some of article text is in my opinion Sunni view, since it cites Bukhari and other Sunni hadith books. But the part named "Sunni beliefs" is missing. The main text of the article, relying on Sunni hadith books, is decribed as "Muhammad in Islamic thought". I assume Shia accept most of those beliefs too, but through different hadith books. What about moving Sunni sources to Sunni beliefs section? Any ideas? Kavas (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The section "In Islamic thought" uses only one citation from Bukhari. Even if it used more from there , I don't see any problem. I don't agree with the idea that the section should be moved to Sunni beliefs section as that section is the main section of the article. It would be better if we don't go for Sunni-Shia distinction as their views on Prophet Muhammad (SW) are almost same.--AsceticRosé 05:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that this article is not about comparative sects in Islam. We should remove the section: "Views of different Madhhabs". Faizan 06:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree to remove this section.--AsceticRosé 10:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I counted Bukhari 4 times (not including different Bukhari references for the same information) in the whole text. Kavas (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
So what????? It can be cited more than that if necessary!--AsceticRosé 13:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It can be cited more than that if necessary. But, I wonder what a Shia expert Wikipedia editor would reply to my above comment about Shia's view on Bukhari. Kavas (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Then we will have to wait for a Shia. This article is not about comparative sects' reverence about the Prophet Muhammad. Removing the sections for now. Waiting for the editor required. Faizan 15:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Prophet's Surname is Missing[edit]

It was Al-Qorashi القرشي after his tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.108.101.54 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Prophet's name should be limited to his grandfather, whom he saw. He did not see his great grandfather.

Correction[edit]

' "al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين), meaning "the Faithful".[8][9] ' The correct meaning is "the Trustworthy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilaila (talkcontribs) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

vandalism[edit]

User:The Almightey Drill, you seem to be an experienced editor. It has appeared that you offended User:Kww by calling him as "Wahabbis". Please read Wikipedia:Civility. Moreover, I can report you due to your bad action, but I will not do it. Change your behaviour. --Lippolop (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

this is not complicated.[edit]

Islamic belief[edit]

The Infobox[edit]

The article is about Muhammad in Islam, so the infobox is supposed to reflect "what Muhammad in Islam is". This is why this change is not controversial.--The Coffee Monster 1 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing misleading references to so-called "Main Article"[edit]

I have previously removed references to the so-called "Main Article" (the page "Muhammad"); which uses a secular POV and intentionally quotes misleading historical POVs; namely the well-known mistranslated Quran / biographies by André du Ryer (sanctioned by the King of France), subsequent version from French to English by Alexander Ross (see: English translations of the Quran) and subsequent "Western" "scholarly" works based entirely on these two primary misinterpretations. These works differ drastically from first-hand accounts of Muslim historians, and this page serves the perspective of these individuals. I have argued that the two articles (the aforementioned page "Muhammad" and this article Muhammad in Islam) serve entirely separate purposes, and therefore the reference to "Main Article" is misleading and "nefarious" (I do not use this word lightly). This is why I believe so, the so-called "Main Article" does not contain any references to this page or its POVs, and yet WP editors insist on redirecting this page to "Muhammad". I will argue therefore that references to "Main Article" should be removed as it is not in good faith.

I have been requested by editor @C.Fred: to obtain consensus before removing the links. In my experience, consensus is rarely achieved on WP as TP discussions are largely ignored, I am however creating an entry on the TP for that purpose. As people tend to largely ignore these discussions, I will remove the said links / references to "Main Article" after 24 hours of this entry. Vdr11 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting at least a week, if not more, before taking action. Talk pages aren't as low-traffic as you may think. clpo13(talk) 00:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • My understanding of the two articles is that Muhammad is the main article about the historical person and this article deals with how he is represented in Islam. @Vdr11: Are you suggesting that Muhammad in Islam is not about the historical person? That's the only reason there should not be a link between the two articles.
I do not think this article is a POV fork; I think there is a good cause for a separate article on how he is portrayed in Islam and his historical personage overall. Since the two articles are thus related, we need navigation back and forth between them. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Clpo13: - Thank you for your suggestion. @C.Fred:, you actually answered your own question; this is the Muslim POV, while the former is the secular POV. This page was created because of these two conflicting POVs. They are being written about the same historical person, but with entirely separate perspectives (as you may also see Muhammad in Islam contains various Quranic references). You cannot call the page "Muhammad" a "Main Article" linked to the page Muhammad in Islam (herein the former and the later). It is utterly misleading. And again, as you suggested that "we need navigation back and forth between them"; there are ZERO links from the former page to the later page, which adds creed to me my argument that you are imposing the POV of the former page on to the later. While not making any mention of Muhammad in Islam page to the so-called "Main Article". This is entirely not in good faith. Calling it a "Main Article: is not true. The only rational conclusion would be to present a "See Also" on both pages or to have no links between the two. Vdr11 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If this is a POV fork, then the other question is, should this article exist at all? —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Please, I feel like I am going around in circles. You are avoiding the main issue, the reference to "Main Article" is misleading and not true and the only rational conclusion would be to present a "See Also" on both pages or to have no links between the two. as stated by me earlier. I have also stated why it is not in good faith to include such a link, i.e. the fact that you are imposing a secular POV on this page, but not making any mention of this page vice-versa. Also, this is not a POV fork (contrary to forking, editors often create spin-offs or new article for related material. "This is acceptable" per WP). As I said in my very first post at the start of these discussions, the TP entries most often go in circles and consensus is never reached. But this issue is rather clear, either link both articles to each other with a "See Also" or don't link at all. Otherwise, it is not fair. Vdr11 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that similar articles like Judaism's views on Muhammad, Medieval Christian views on Muhammad, and others don't have this "main article" note at the top, I decided to remove it. If you think that it should stay, then please go and add it to the similar articles I mentioned.--31.218.178.125 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The introduction to Judaism's views on Muhammad now parallels this article in the linking process. I'm happy with the current situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred:, thank you for your changes and for our consensus. It is appreciated. May I please also remove the link to the other page using double brackets "[[ ]]" around the name Muhammad in the introduction paragraph? Because I feel again, it is essentially the same issue / argument that I put forward earlier. There are no linking to this page from the other ones, so it would only be fair. Vdr11 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vdr11: No, I disapprove of removing the link for the reason I stated above: similar articles like Judaism's views on Muhammad also link to Muhammad in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article refuse to knowledge Quranists?[edit]

With statements such as "Muhammad, is considered in Islam to be the greatest messenger.", "regarded by them as the greatest of all the prophets", "is considered by them as the greatest of all the prophets", "Muslims see Muhammad as primary intercessor and believe that he will intercede on behalf of the believers on Last Judgment day.".

All of which Quranists, and even non Quranists have differed over. Jahelistbro (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately our article on Quranism doesn't go into any detail about how Quranists view Muhammad except as the person who first received the Quran. One could qualify the statements you quoted above by saying "most Muslims believe..." or "...is widely considered in Islam...". These are sort of WP:WEASEL words however, so it might be best to state the Quranist view directly if it opposes the view attributed to Islam and Muslims in the article.
Do you have any specific suggestions on how the text should change? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A weasel word is when you use a word like that for unsupported assertions, Wikipedia is straightforward about that, and "muslims believe", "is considered in Islam", "according to muslims", these all seem much closer to Wikipedia's description of weasle words than what you suggest. It's like it used to state most, then someone saw that description on weasel words, and went, well these're unsupported assertions, I'll just take out the "most" and noone will care. I do suggest we write in "most Muslims believe", because to state otherwise is a fabrication, and is against the NPOV of Wikipedia. And then perhaps, although I am unsure if this would be helpful, because as I stated there might be as much perspective between Quranists, we could write a sort of "A minority of muslims believe that we shouldn't distinguish between the prophets (2:136, and 3:84). I wouldn't write Quranist though, because there isn't a sure Quranist perspective but that "we all follow the Quran", some Quranists might be of the perspective that 2:136, and 3:84 don't mean that, and some non-Quranists might be of the perspective that those do. Also since I am referencing to the Quran, what does the reference to 48:29 have to do with the statement "Muhammad is considered in Islam to be the greatest messenger", it doesn't state that. (And the linguistics of this article, noooooooo) Jahelistbro (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)