Talk:Muhammad

there are no three goddesses that were associated with Allah as his daughters: Allāt, Manāt and al-‘Uzzá.

I agree with everyonewho say that its blasphemy , and allay ,manat , and al-ezza are not but fake gods like buddah , gods from the human imagination. I hope everyone would send me their opinoins of what i said , i am arab egyptian muslim so i think i am the best who know about these things . i only think .and if there are 3 gods how would we worship one god .and thank you. Aceriano 95 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ALLAH has no daughters. Please remove that statement from the text. It is inaccurate and does not contribute to the authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.146.165 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No. It's sourced. Thanks for your concern.

Allah has NO daughters or siblings or parents or any other alikes. This's a main believe in Islam, so please don't resemble our God with gods of other religions. A source for any statement of Islam must come from Islam's holybook (Quran), no other source are valid or qualified. Thank you. Namures (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll find more information about this subject here: Satanic Verses. I think you'll find it a fascinating article. Do let us know what you think. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For Muslims, Satanic Verses is a blasphemy to our religion, our prophet and our God. I think you know that already, but if you don't please read about The Satanic Verses controversy. Something that's rejected by a majority of people who understand it should not be used as source, especially if without note. Thanks. - Namures (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should include a note. Rklawton (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the history, the satanic verses are rejected as blasphemy, not because their accuracy is disputed but because it doesn't follow Islamic theology(that was established after Muhammad The Prophet), it is a notable and interresting part of Islam and sourced, I see no reason not to include it in the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards disagreement with this assessment at the moment. It seems to be a fringe theory about Islamic polytheism, somewhat similar to Biblical apocrypha. Why is such weight being given to non-canonical subject matter? Tarc (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the satanic verses are pretty widely accepted as having been written by Muhammad especially by secular scholars(not a fringe theory), but because they contradict current Muslim Theology there has been an attempt to sweep them under the rug. The wikipedia article is pretty good. I do not know how important this issue is to Muslim theology but it is interresting and there has been controversy surrounding this issue, most famously the book, Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that satanic verses are widely accepted by secular scholars, not by muslims. There should be a page titled "Secular scholars view of Islam". And we move this debatable part to that page. Or is it already available? Thanks. Namures (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That approach constitutes what we call a "POV fork," and we don't allow that. It's better to represent the various views in a single article. Rklawton (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORK for more details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, an article about Muhammad should not be restricted to presenting only a Muslim point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

PBUH

wherever the name of our holy prophet MUHAMMAD is written you must write (PBUH) in front like MUHAMMAD(PBUH).please do it thankz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazzyraja (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed in the archives and FAQ. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No. No we don't.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Error

The line "and put an end to the conitnuous grapevine that was going around." should read "and put an end to the continuous grapevine that was going around."

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Founder"??

Can I just say, that he is NOT the founder of the religion. It is Allahs religion and Muhammad ﷺ is the Messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.166.219 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

By all historical accounts, he is. Eik Corell (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The term founder does not speak to who created or the truth of the religion. It merely means that Islam, the historical phenomenon which came out of Hijaz during the time was founded by Muhammad. It should be noncontroversial among Muslims to say that Muhammad brought Islam to the Hijaz in the 600s. gren グレン 18:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

connection with Judaism and other pre-Islamic monotheistic religions

Can you please make the article explai more why Muhammad connected his new religion to Judaism rather than just making up a new religion from scratch? If he was trying to convert the Jewish people it would makes sense to make some of their Tanakh cannon in his new religion, but the article says that he was trying to convert polytheists. Is it because he was related to Abraham? Was he raised in a non-Jewish, non-Muslim monotheist religion that also saw Abraham as a profit? If so, what was that religion called? Does it have something to do with "the original monotheism of Abraham" that is mentioned in the article about Mecca? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.9.119 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)