Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Prophet

For evidence, see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/prophet/Evidence.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG/Manual of Style

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

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

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

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

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.

Or:

The prophet Muhammad.

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

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

Prophet Muhammad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manual of Style in Referencing Muhammad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literally, a prophet is a person who fulfills prophecy. According to Muslims, he, not only fulfilled prophecies in previous books but also whatever prophecized in his life was fulfilled and fulfilled in such a way that no secular source would deny it. For example, for the first ten years, Qur'an told people that God destroyed nations who didn't believe in their Messengers, and also Isra and Mi'raj told Muslims that now Muslims will become superpower and will soon take Palestine. He also foretold that Romans will soon defeat Persians when Romans had been destroyed by Persians. These Prophecies seemed to be very inappropriate in first ten years of Muhammad's Prophethood as he had only hand full of people. But when these prophecies fulfilled, now no one can deny them as historical facts. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that referring to the prophet Muhammad as "Prophet Muhammad" is probably POV, as the capitalization seems to imply divinity or holiness (as with capitalizing "God" or "Jesus Christ" or any pronoun referring to a holy religious figure[1]). What's wrong with "prophet Muhammad" or "Islamic prophet Muhammad"? Kaldari 03:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidences

What other Encyclopedias write:

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

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

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

What famous Academic scholars of Islam write:

These scholars do sometimes use the epithet "Prophet":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What some dictionaries write

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

---

What some encylopedias write:

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

What famous academic scholars write:

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

Additionally...

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

What some dictionaries write

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

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

---

OK, so what have we established:

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

Kaldari 23:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that there are lots of men named Muhammad out there, some of them notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Of course, there are also lots of Jesus's too, (particularly in Spain, I'm told,) and that didn't complicate the disambiguation much.--Yannick 06:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Does it only make a judgment when applied to Muhammad, or does it also make a judgement to Blessed Virgin Mary, Pope Benedict XVI and Martyrs of Cordoba? --Striver 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See comment below re these articles. --Singkong2005 ^talk 15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More than Just Muhammad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To maintain NPOV, we should avoid drawing any distinction between "true" and "false" prophets and treat them all the same. (Hopefully, this should be obvious to most people.) The real key to NPOV should be consistency. So if we don't like religious titles in article names, then Saint Peter and the like should be moved to something like Peter (Christian apostle). A Buddhist should be able to compare the Christian and Islamic articles and see no preference expressed by Wikipedia.--Yannick 06:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, if prophet goes, so must saint. What about pope, does it go to? How about general? Tyrant? Traitor? freedom fighter? --Striver 11:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, look at this: Category:Blessed Virgin Mary. And we are disscusing if "Prophet Muhamad" is POV? Talk about western bias...--Striver 15:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at this: Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary with a Capital "V" everywhere. --Striver 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The word :saint" is used for the simple reason that it is the easiest way to disambiguate because Christian apostle Peter is not known simply as "Peter". Muhammad, on the other hand, is known simply as "Muhammad". Pecher ^Talk 19:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

NO WAY! EVER! Have you not noticed how un-introduced Muslims always change it to "Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him"? If the most common use is the standard, the we have at the very least "Prophet Muhammad" as standard. --Striver 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have "Prophet Muhammad" as a standard and never will. Anyway, if you believe that Saint Peter is POV, go ahead and change it, but introduce POV elsewhere. Pecher ^Talk 20:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Im not arguing only Saint Peter, im arguing 100 other examples. You cant expect me to take a answer that sugest to ignore the precedence of mulitple christian articles. How am i supposed to take serious the suggestion of decapitalizing every christian article, only so one single Muslim article can be as you wish? Either ALL christian articles are pov, and then Prophet Muhammad is only one more in the bucket and should not bother you, or Prophet Muhamamd just followes the precedence of Blessed Virgin Mary, Pope Benedict XVI and Martyrs of Cordoba. --Striver 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Martyrs of Córdoba: title does seem POV, so I see your concern. If it's the commonly established common name it's hard to think of an alternative, though... and if the religious term is used for a specific reason in accordance with policy, that's not really something that anyone's taking issue with here. It's worth noting that the word "hagiography" is used upfront in Martyrs of Córdoba, even before the actual title is used in the text body, which helps identify for the reader that the use of martyrs is from a specific POV.
• Blessed Virgin Mary refers to a specific church doctrine about Mary; the actual article on the woman is Mary, mother of Jesus.

Ok, so we can have Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him, instead of Islamic view of Muhammad? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)

Good point - Blessed Virgin Mary should probably be renamed to something along the lines of Catholic doctrine of Mary. --Saint Singkong2005 ^talk 09:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Pope Benedict XVI: Pope is a non-POV title - a fervent atheist or protestant or believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster can say "The Pope is a deceiver" - but Pope is still the term commonly used by friend & foe alike. --Singkong2005 ^talk 15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Role as a prophet

What about when he is clearly addresed in his role as a prophet? Surely it must be as NPOV to say "the pope decreeded" as saying "the prophet decreeded". --Striver 01:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• By definition, the Pope is only followed by Roman Catholics and therefore there is no dispute about whether someone is Pope - the Pope is elected by Roman Catholic cardinals and only presides over Roman Catholics. However, "prophet" is disputed. What makes one a prophet? Who are the true prophets? These questions are easily answered for the Pope. What makes one a Pope? Being elected unanimously by the Roman Catholic cardinals during a conclave. Who is the true Pope? Whoever the Roman Catholic cardinals have most recently elected. "Pope" implies "Roman Catholic leader". "Prophet", however, implies "messenger of a divine entity". The Pope is also a political position: the Pope is considered the "emperor" of the Vatican (which is, in fact, a nation). Srose (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect according to The American Heritage Dictionary (Dell ed. 2001): "PROPHET: a person who speaks by or as if by divine inspiration" Editorius commented. --Striver 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

However, as I (and many others) have said before, using the word "prophet" implies, in our current diction, only a true prophet. As Jesus is not referred to as Jesus Christ, I do not believe that Muhammad should be referred to as the Prophet Muhammad. However, Popes, as I have stated, have no impact whatsoever on this debate. They are not religious figures, porphets, or deities - they are religious leaders as well as political leaders elected by humans. Srose (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Were is the evidence that concludes in "using the word "prophet" implies, in our current diction, only a true prophet"? --Striver 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When I go to Mass and there is a sermon or reading about Moses, Elijah, Abraham, etc., they are referred to as "prophet", not "true prophet". Anyway, my only point in this section was that Popes are religious leaders, not religious figures: they are elected by humans to lead humans and their position is largely political: they are the 'emperors' of Vatican City, not prophets or Messiahs or anything like that. My sole point here is that Popes have no impact whatsoever on this debate. You may have a point with the double standard of "The Virgin Mary", but not with "Pope". Srose (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think i could agree with you on that. --Striver 15:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Epithet

For the present purpose, an epithet is taken to be a descriptive word or phrase applied in a primary nominal reference to a person. Its use may be ornamental or disambiguative, or temporal or spiritual; it may be used to reflect or, in some cases, to enhance a person’s esteem in a community; or it may be used to denote a particular person where multiple persons exist under the same or similar names.

In the specific case of reference material, our primary concern with the use of an epithet is referential clarity for purposes of avoiding ambiguity. That is, use of an epithet clarifies either the particular person intended or, where multiple, ambiguous senses exist in reference to a particular person, the particular sense in which the reference is made. There are three main circumstances in which, for purposes of referential clarity, use of an epithet would generally be viewed as legitimate:

(i) The name standing alone, without an epithet, would lead to substantial confusion as to the particular person intended; in such cases, the epithet is said to be necessary: for instance, it is common practice to distinguish “Suleiman the Magnicent” from, say, “Suleiman the Wise” through use of the respective epithets.

(ii) The name standing alone, though not necessarily confusing as to the person intended, is not the most common or familiar use; in such cases, the epithet may play an ornamental or descriptive role: for instance, in strictly historical terms, the reference to “Empress Catherine II of Russia” emphasizes her identity or rank, or when referring to the person before the events of 1774, whereafter she is most commonly referred to as “Catherine the Great”; however, it is most common to use the latter reference, and deviating from the most common practice would suggest, to the familiar reader, an emphasis on a particular aspect or sense of the person or office – or, possibly and more problematically, to the unfamiliar reader, an entirely unrelated person.

(iii) The name standing alone, without an epithet, would create confusion as to the intended emphasis; in such cases, the epithet plays a qualifying role where multiple senses exist: for instance, a world of difference exists between the references “Allah the Avenger” and “Allah the Compassionate”, though naturally these references denote the same divine personage.

In the particular case of Muhammad, there are many epithets in use, each associated with a specific emphasis, including: “Prophet Muhammad”, “Muhammad the Messenger”, “Muhammad the Refomer”, “Muhammad the Paladin”, “Apostle of God”, etc. In circumstances of multiple alternative and potentially ambiguous references, judicious use of an epithet for purposes of clarification would be appropriate.

However, where multiple senses exist, an attempt to standardize the use of a single epithet would tend to create confusion around the primary sense commonly intended. For instance, the term “Prophet Muhammad” would appear to refer to the person after the revelations of 610, and specifically as viewed by followers of his teachings. “Muhammad the Reformer”, by contrast, refers to the person in the early years of his role as social advocate, while “Muhammad the Paladin” refers to the comparatively short military career spanning 10 years of his later life. A similar rationale exists in the case of Jesus, where reference is made to “Jesus of Nazareth”, “Jesus Christ”, “The Messiah”, among others. These references, while they denote the same person, simultaneously signify biographical, historical, social and religious contexts in which the reference is to be understood.

An epithet, then, has the potential to alter a reference, in both desirable and undesirable ways. Certainly, use of a particular epithet should be governed by the general rules of reference, in the sense of the following general principles:

(1) neutrality, (2) familiarity, (3) simplicity, (4) comprehensiveness, and (5) lack of ambiguity.

Inevitably the five requirements are somewhat conflicting: for instance, the greater is a term's comprehensiveness, or the simpler and less qualified is the term, the greater is the corresponding potential for ambiguity. It seems to be very nearly impossible to offer a decisive guideline as to the weight that should be placed on each of these requirements.

Nonetheless, I would suggest that the simple reference – “Muhammad”, like the reference “Jesus” – would be sufficient in its primary context. What is lost in ambiguity is gained in neutrality, familiarity, simplicity and comprehensiveness.

Looksharp 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

great analysis. As for my conclusion: The analysis only makes is clear how complicated the mater is. From my perspective, it seems like taking a west-centric stance to deny Muhammad (pbuh) an ephitet due to claimed (sic) pov concerns, when no such conserns is expresed for figures such as "Empress Catherine II of Russia". Now, one could argue that "But she is not a religious figure!". So? Who cares, not everybody viewed her as a empress. Or "Great" for that mater. No, not even everybody consired Alexander as "The Great" either. Why this double standard between religious and non-religious figures? Why is this non-religious figures given outragous decorative Epithets, while Muhammad is denied a humble "prophet", even with the ungramatical uncapital "p"? This is not made any easier by the fact that Alexander claimed semi-divinehood, nothing compared to claiming to be a humble prophet. Now, i called this "double standard", to deny Muhammad the most basic epithet, arguing he is religious. As if it mattered, as if non-Muslim scholars have not rejected that argument, giving him epithets. I dare to call this hypocracy considering this: Virgin Mary, Blessed Virgin Mary (omg!), Pope Benedict XVI and Martyrs of Cordoba. Explain to me how this is not hypocracy. Peace. --Striver 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Where were the pov-warriors when Saint Cyriacus and Saint James the Great were created? And even more important, where are they now? --Striver 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a consensus-seeker, can you tell? Perhaps we shouldn't be considering a style for Islam-related articles only? Wouldn't it be better to seek a universal style that could be applied to the key religious figures simultaneously? Surely there must be a single style of reference that would be appropriate to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (listed here, as the primary prophets of the Abrahamic religions, in chronological order)? Trying to find common ground in this way would impose a high degree of discipline on partisan points of view. According to this approach, someone might propose the reference "Jesus, Lord and Saviour of Us All", but such a person would then be required, by his or her own procedure, to accept the reference "Muhammud, Final Apostle of the One True God". Very soon, I think, people would settle on, simply, "Moses", "Jesus" and "Muhammad". Looksharp 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to bring this to a wider scope. I don't agree that we should limit this to religious figures, i don't see why we have "Alexander the Great". What was so "Great" about him? Why was the Mongol guy not equaly great? --Striver 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's say there were three Alexanders: one was a fool, one was a greater fool, and one was the greatest fool. Perhaps "Alexander the Great" means only the greatest among these three. Looksharp 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And that is not pov?--Striver 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, make it "tall" instead. Looksharp 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Height can be agreed by all, Greatness is subjective.--Striver 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My primary point, earlier, is that "Alexander III, King of Macedon" is unfamiliar in comparison with "Alexander the Great"; many people wouldn't know that the reference is to the same person. Am I right in thinking that your primary objection is to the obscure social-historical process that ultimately led to the adoption of a titular privilege such as "Great" -- and not with the Wikipedia style itself, which should reflect common academic usage. Looksharp 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Question is: how comes that a qualifier or title is considered NPOV with regards to Alexander, Mary, the Pope, Saints and multiple other western-christians people, including a capital leter, while it is considerd POV even without a capital letter for the non-western non-christian Muhammad? Why is "Virgin" or "Great" NPOV, while "Prophet" is POV? --Striver 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the article "Blessed Virgin Mary", and I agree with you: this is the worst sort of POV that I have seen - gut-wrenching stuff. I would like to see a uniform approach in the Manual of Style, starting with religious and political figures where POV issues are generally greatest. Looksharp 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Prophet"

according to the MOS on capitalising, which is wiki guideline, the word prophet when speaking of Muhammad should be capitalised. similarly, if you look at the Encyclopedia of Islam, arguably the most scholarly (and neutral) resource we could use on wikipedia for information on islam, it always tends to use "Prophet" as opposed to prophet or anything else. almost all mainstream news agencies tend to do the same. i don't believe that prefixing the name Muhammad with Prophet is judgemental as to his status or not as a Prophet, it's simply the easiest way to direct the readers as to who is being talked about. i think a good suggestion would be for the use of "Prophet Muhammad" the first time Muhammad is mentioned, and then subsequently use 'Muhammad' if relevant. ITAQALLAH 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is against the rules of grammar to write "prophet Muhammad".--Striver 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)