Talk:Muhammad

"founder" , and images

Muslims believe Islam is not a theory "founded" by a human being (Prophet Muhammad PBUH). Islam is a religion or a message from Allah (God) delivered to people by one of His many messengers (Prophet Muhammad PBUH). Prophet Muhammad PBUH did not write the Qur'an either; it is Allah's own words.

When it comes to religion, I believe Wikipedia should listen to the religion followers, then reflect the image as it is.

By insisting on not to remove the word "founder" Wikipedia loses its advantage of being neutral, and it takes the side of those who believe that Islam is a man-made theory.

As to the pictures, Islam prohibits portraying God, prophets, or angels out of respect to them. That is why all of the icons that picture Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are considered imaginative figures portrayed hundreds of years after his death.

The question now is why does Wikipedia insist on using such imaginary material to back up such an article in the presence of several real photos of the Prophet's tomb, sword, and footprints? Such pictures would be very interesting, reliable, and noncontroversial.

It is not about censorship, it is about showing what is true. If an icon is set into a museum, it means it is old but not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 06:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason Muhammad is described as the founder is because of the requirements that Wikipedia be neutral. You say that "Wikipedia should listen to the religion followers" when it comes to the question of how to describe Muhammad. That does not satisfy WP:NPOV. Your statement that pictures of Muhammad are bad because they're "imaginary" is absurd. People have been smart enough for a very long time to understand that you cannot squeeze a picture of an orange and expect to get orange juice. A picture of a thing is not the same as the thing in question. Read the article on The Treachery of Images and ponder that painting for a while. Anyone confronted with a child's drawing understands that a picture of a thing need not look like a photograph. Frotz (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The images are included are historically significant depictions; they provide cultural insight and on the side, they are contextually relevant pieces of art, too. Wikipedia has actually already compromised on this issue in a way that many editors disagreed with; the images were moved down towards the middle of the article so they would not show up immediately when opening the article. Now, as for those pictures you mention, they might already have been considered and rejected due to possible copyright issues or such, I don't know. You should check with the other editors to see what they think.

The argument that these images are somehow fake or misleading, showing something that is an inaccurate depiction of something showcases a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Someone correct me if this doesn't apply to images, but, to quote WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." 07:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understood there are people who believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the founder of Islam which is a man-made theory (according to their POV). On the other hand Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a messenger delivering a message from Allah that is: Islam. Now for Wikipedia to be neutral, it has to combine both points of views.

There are two possibilities: Either my assumption is right, or wrong.

If my assumption is right, then the sentence "Muhammad is the founder of the religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God..." is oxymoronic.

According to Merriam Webster "to found" means: "to take the first steps in building". This implies Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) invented Islam. After a few words, and in the same sentence Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is described as a "messenger of God". This means Islam is a religion from Allah.

The other possibility is my assumption is wrong and the sentence is not oxymoronic.

If so, then the sentence is biased.

"he is the founder" = decisive statement displaying no hesitation.

"regarded by Muslims" = maybe they are right or maybe they are wrong.

Suggestions: If Wikipedia has its reasons not to remove the word "founder", at least you can state who believes in what. For example, "Muhammad, who is regarded by non-Muslims as the founder of Islam is also regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God..."

I believe the above sentence is a subjective one with no biases, and it also does not contradict with itself.

Thank you for reading my lengthy point of view. Keep up the good effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC) --Haney G. (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that won't work. The article earth doesn't say, believed by some to be billions of years old, and by some religious groups to have been created in seven days by a god 6000 years ago. The fact is that Muhammad did create Islam - there was no such thing before him. Theology does not trump truth, I'm afraid. ðarkuncoll 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The fact that Islam did not exist before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) does not necessarily mean he created it. It could also mean Islam was created by God and was assigned to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to teach people about.

Another thing, Islam is about admitting that there is only on Creator of this universe. So, if we put the names and the practices of religions aside for a moment, we would find out that there are several religions from God - before Islam - built on the same concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The existence of God is merely a theological concept. Furthermore, your assertion that all monotheists are followers of Islam is palpably wrong - Jews and Christians are not followers of Islam, and would probably find the claim insulting. Again, it's just theology. ðarkuncoll 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ðarkuncoll, believe me, I am not here to insult or offend anyone. It is your strange logic which is being insulting.

According to your logic there was no Islam before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as result Islam was invented by him.As you know every religion had its start and its first follower. That means if you applied this same logic to any given religion, you would come up with the conclusion "all religions are humanly made by their prophets or first followers"!!!

Many visitors here were accused of trying to force their POV's or beliefs just for disagreeing to the phrase "founder of Islam"; while this same phrase is being judgmental and is forcing a POV. If it was neutral, it would not have this huge controversy about it.

You cannot also compare your sentence about "earth" to my sentence about describing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).Your sentence about earth might be thought of by a category of users as many confusing contemplations. While my sentence about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a simple fact the reader himself -whether Muslim or not- believes in.

I am not here to go on long discussions about what I believe or what others believe; that would take us months and would be completely irrelevant to what I am here for. I am here to say it out loud: the sentence: "Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh, is the founder of the religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God..." is judgmental, oxymoronic, and free of an NPOV. I am asking Wikipedia admins and editors to restate it to some other neutral form, which I believe is not going to be a very hard task.

No further discussion on my part.--Haney G. (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What would the NPOV be ? Will this do "Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh, is said to be the founder..a messenger and the last prophet of God.(If that's fine with all editors out here)--Notedgrant (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This Article Is In A "Mess"- A Wikipedian Lesson

This article has numerous flaws that I would like to point out, and hereby gain right unto editing it. The semi-protection policy is something which should apply to an article that is almost perfect, in response to the high risk of vandalism from disputers. By perfect, I mean it satisfies all historically "very" reliable sources, and does not offend any followers of such a religion to a great degree, for after all, these are all logical people with logical minds, and will not exaggerate their beliefs so far from truth. According to the many smartass, sorry for the word but this is just extremely annoying, editors and admins who openly refuse any attempt to convince them of the non-neutrality of this article, Wikipedia is "all about truth, not beliefs". Well, putting all emotions as a Muslim aside, I will point to you the problems in the article, in the favoured and "scapegoat" point of view to whom I believe slightly hypocritcal admins and editors, NPOV.

1. According to only two hadiths, Prophet Muhammad did marry Aisha at the age of six, and consummated the marriage at the age of nine. These hadiths, however did not deploy the usual scrutinizing methods, that are constantly used by Muslim scholars to check the reliability of a Hadith. As Wikipedia is all about knowledge, you must know something to be able to judge on a topic, not express your point of view about an opposition. Wikipedia articles are not holy script. They are "not" written first in a few weeks, then remain almost unchanged for years. Those who did write the articles, however educated they are, will certainly never be the best in their field, or will never certainly be true and non-neutral in all their points of view, however many who write an article or contribute towrds it- the human psyche will overpwer in the end, by nature, the reason and non-neutrality, and unfortunately; a Western writer will speak in a very slightly biased tone towards his convictions (which will mostly be against Islam, due to the growing wave of Islamophobia in Western countries), a Muslim contribution will show slight bias against Westerners, an Indian against Pakistani, a Jew against a Muslim, a Russian against Americans, aethists against every other religion, eccetra... Those people are excused, for that is the nature of bias, and the human mind. These articles are not written by angels or prophets. That is okay. But since the majority of editors, and indeed most admins, on Wikipedia are Western, it is really difficult to ensure a NPOV when it comes to highly sensitive and respected articles as about a man such as the Prophet, whom we Muslims deem as the greatest being in the history of mankind, and as an embodiment of everything holy, not in an actual sense (he was not God) but in the logical sense of the direct connection to Allah. Refusing critcism of the article is the norm at start. But as I mentioned before, admins and editors must bear in mind if the wish to apply our highly prized NPOV, that it is impossible to write something that more than one billion Muslims consider offensive, "and" that "all" of the refusal towards any removal or editing of this portion, comes only from Western or Christian admins and editors. I do not know who semiprotected this article, but I assure you it is probably a Western admin, as is the person who wrote "all" of the controversial issues of this article, that's how sure I am. Wikipedia is not about taunting any religious group, by writing psychologically disturbed ideas then challenging others to disprove them in an article, "then" refusing any criticism, and asking others whom are offended to be civilized and accept an NPOV, or rather a Western biased NPOV!!! You can imagine how offending it is, hypothetically, if a Muslim scholar or man of religion had said in the sixteen hundreds, that what christians call a cross, is a piece of trash, and that Christians are idiots to cherish the symbol of what they believed to have been the cause of the death of their son of God, and that is retarded to think that a son of God could die, or that the Pope is a homosexual, or that the Bible is a bedtime tale, etc.... All these statements had reliable cause for the Muslim scholar, but if I were to cite possible references to them, and mention them in an article about Christianity, you would imagine how offensive this would be, and that I would be dubbed as biased towards Christianity. I could very simply state that this piece of information is encyclopedic, and that it deserves to be mentioned, and that I am adhering to a NPOV policy, when secretly I may be enjoying taunting all who read the article. Such is the very case with this article and many others, especially about the pedophile part. One cannot possibly count the number of times some notable figure had said something offensive about Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, or Americans, or Arabs, etc... But one cannot also put these into an encyclopedia, using the phrase "the people deserve to know this" as a scapegoat. Surely he will not put all the offensive statements in, he'll only put what his human psyche determines to be most offensive, and out of excusable human habit, take pleasure in saying that he is still legally neutral. Wikipedia ignores emtions, that's true and just... But it should not ignore logic, upon which my whole letter is based. I mentioned before that is excusable to be slightly biased, and indeed, that is why many people contribute to the same article, and we have discussio pages. I doubt if Jimbo Wales had been an enthusiastic reader of Islamic History, and had been asked to write a section in an article about Prophet Muhammad's wives, that he would not be slightly biased. It is the nature of humans... What is inexcusable, judging by the sensitivity of this article, is the blatant disregard of criticism, in the hypocritical way I have mentioned earlier. Wikipedia has a policy against censorship, but "all" of its policies are built on logic, and acceptance and keeping an open mind. As for the topic of the age of Aisha, please read this reference to see how this article has been mistaken, and that I am not speaking on a weak reference, and that Islamic topics should be mostly written using reference to works by muslim scholars, and how many are they, besides the Quran and Hadiths, rather than Western enthusiasts or scholars, as the level of education in any western university when it comes to Islam will never rival that of an endless history in Islamic education when it comes to Arab countries, speaking out of God-gifted common sense. The reference is A very recent study has totally confirmed that Aisha was at the age of "nineteen" at the time of actual consummation of marriage, and since any historical reference about Prophet Muhammad's life taken by anyone in the world writing anything about him most undoubtly comes, in source, from the Quran, or Sunnah transmitted by way of Hadiths and Muslim scholars' books, not by Western Historians, as at that time, there were no Western Historians studying the subject, and indeed there was no western interest in the subject or the archaeological significance for determining the existence of all these events, if you as a person believe in the existence of a man named Muhammad in that period of time in history, you as a person, whoever you may be out of the 6.66 billion people on Earth will accept one of the two sources when it comes to the source of history, which, unfortunately for all biased people out there, come from Muslims. Therefore, if muslim scholars make a mistake in the age of Aisha by way of interpretation of a weak Hadith (Hadiths are classified into many categories since, through their progression through generations, some have been forgotten, others have been unknowingly slightly altered, and Muslims prize the Hadith as an important source on the prophet's life.) only another Muslim scholar, with another strong source or Hadith, may rectify this affair, which has been done.

2. As regards the word founder; there was one particularly "smart" editor who refered a lot to theology. Theology, my friend, does not refer to religion, since religion is acted upon and is believed to have been sent from a higher being (God or Allah). Religion is a belief that is acted upon. Theology is something like the belief that UFO's exist, or like Christianophobia, or Fascism. You cannot call any belief a theology, as you then ignore the matter of spirituality. Muhammad is not a founder of Islam. Islam is not a public company, or a university!! To make a long story short and avoid several needless arguements, what should have been said is:

Muhammad ibn Abdallah "is" believed by all Muslims to be the Prophet on whom Islam was revealed by Allah... A good example is in the article beginning of "Muhammad and slavery"...

3. As regards to the pedophile affair. I have already clarified the logic behind the inclusion of offensive statements and criticsims in an encyclopedia. They have to be all or none, and they have to have reliable cause, they have to be supported by well-put-forward arguments by the person who made them in History, and they have to have a limit in obscenity and accusations, and most of all, they have to be based on a true event, as was disproved in this post, that the article is mistaken about Aisha's age!!!...

You can notice that there was a very small hint of bias in my tone, but the difference between me and others was that I do not ask you to act on this bias, only the rest of the logic included above. I was very reasonable and logical, and informative, but couldn't of course control all my emotions as a Muslim, and that further supports my statement about the human nature, and waht is excusable and inexcusable. Please take all of what I said into consideration, as this is the summary of a sea of thoughts I have about this article, and the absurdly biased usage of NPOV in many articles of Wikipedia. I have many other thoughts and emotions that I would have liked to put forward, but in avoidance of a flame war, or the extreme offence of some Wikipedians, I have controlled my anger considerably as regards to this article. I ask you to use the same amount of will power in accepting "my" NPOV.... Walid 1990 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What changes would you like in the article ?wp:boldWP:Islam --Notedgrant (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"By perfect, I mean it satisfies all historically "very" reliable sources, and does not offend any followers of such a religion to a great degree" You got one very right and one very wrong

1. A good article should always build on reliable sources and when there is a conflict, reflect credible and academic sources of both sides.

2. A good article should never shy away from offending people. The aim of an article should never be to offend anyone, but it is inevitable that it sometimes will. If we deal with topics such as religion or political ideologies, there will almost always be people who are offended no matter which we way write, as all major ideologies and religions have their followers and their contractors. It is impossible to satisfy them all, and we should not even try. We should stick to the first principle you mentioned of having good verifiable academic sources and to build on them. If we offend anyone in the process, it is unfortunate for them but we should not change the article because of that. You mention a few claims you think would be anti-Christian. Please feel free to include them anywhere you like, as long as you can back them up with good verifiable sources. Sources are what matters, not personal opinions.Jeppiz (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm Jepiz I jut read the article How can a kid own slaves (The article specifically points out that he owned slaves from birth to death ( here) ).That part of the article is unverified (unsourced)I think it should be removed --Notedgrant (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim this article is perfect in any way, nor did I comment explicitly on this article. If you see anything that isn't verified, tag it. If it remains unverified after some time, remove it.Jeppiz (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the part of mohammed owning slaves from birth to death then (If that's fine)I'm Gonna WP:bold :D--Notedgrant (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually we leave tags for at least a week or two, putting a tag there one day and removing the claim after just a few hours is a bit too hasty.Jeppiz (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To Notedgrant, I have to agree with Jeppiz on that point; except in BLPs, tags are generally left in place for a period of weeks to allow editors time to search for reliable sources to bolster such statements. Also, it was relatively common for slaves to be assigned to care for children, even if the child didn't "own" them. The statement should certainly should be sourced, and might benefit from revision to clarify matters, but deletion at this point is definitely premature, especially since only a part of the sentence is questioned (when did he first own slaves?).

To Walid 1990, I'll give you the courtesy of an honest answer: you're completely wrong, and the many points you make simply have no relevance to a secular encyclopedia. "Not offending Muslims" is in no way a part of our mandate or our principals, any more than "Not offending Jews", or "Not offending Croations". If we ever removed material on the basis that someonoe found it offensive, we would be failing our own principals. Regarding the "recent scholarship" about Aisha's age, there is simply no historical evidence to support the assertion that she was 19; it is a rather blatant case of contemporary apologetics, nothing more. Doc Tropics 17:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2. As regards the word founder; there was one particularly "smart" editor who refered a lot to theology. Theology, my friend, does not refer to religion, since religion is acted upon and is believed to have been sent from a higher being (God or Allah). Religion is a belief that is acted upon. Theology is something like the belief that UFO's exist, or like Christianophobia, or Fascism. You cannot call any belief a theology, as you then ignore the matter of spirituality. Muhammad is not a founder of Islam. Islam is not a public company, or a university!! To make a long story short and avoid several needless arguements, what should have been said is:

Muhammad ibn Abdallah "is" believed by all Muslims to be the Prophet on whom Islam was revealed by Allah... A good example is in the article beginning of "Muhammad and slavery"...

Theology most assuredly refers to religion - that's its whole point. As for UFOs etc., that is a modern form of mythology. The difference between theology and mythology is that theology is worked out by someone, and tends to disallow any form of deviation. And if Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, who is? It certainly didn't exist before him. And here's a clue - the answer is not "God", except in Islamic self-defined theological terms. We duly note what Islamic theology says on this matter, and that's as it should be. But we would be failing in our duty to censor ourselves on theological grounds. ðarkuncoll 17:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm That's right:DThanks.--Notedgrant (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like during the first ten days of Muharram we get an influx of Shi'a Muslim editors on religious articles, I believe we also get an influx of all Muslim editors in Ramadan. I hope this influx will lead to some improvement and not needless fighting. --Afghana ^[talk] 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Founder is the correct word in both its meaning and it can be supported by references e.g. Muhammad Hamidullah in the book title of Muhammad Rasulullah: A concise survey of the life and work of the founder of Islam by Muhammad Hamidullah (1979) clearly uses "founder". We could actually have both words i.e. founder and revealed but we can only have revealed if you can find some reliable source that says this. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Religious minorities in Iran By Eliz Sanasarian pg 19 states that "Muhammad was not the founder of Islam ,he did not start a new religion.Like his prophetic predecessors,he came as a religious reformer" --Notedgrant (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well prior to Muhammad there was no "Islam" and after Muhammad there was Islam. We need a word that describes that event and "founder" suffices well given that articles are not for experts and we have support for that word (from Muslims as well as non-Muslims). As others have mentioned, without Muhammad there would be no Islam, no Quran, no Hadith and all the other stuff. I understand the sophistry of the religious reformer claim but in the end we have to use common sense and e.g. though someone else may claim that 'x' is science, if it really is pseudoscience then we'll tag it with that as that is the common sense approach. Where a religion borrows from earlier religions it is nonsense to support claims that the reformed religion is contemporaneous to the unreformed religions for all time even though it did not actually exist as a reformed religion until a precise time. That time is its founding and unless it was a popular movement or invented by a committee, it has a very distinct founder. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At WP we quote wp:rs and form an article.It's not for us to decide what's right or wrong.According to the book Islam outside the Arab world By David Westerlund, Ingvar Svanberg ,pg2,"In western studies,Islam is often portrayed as a founder religion,whose origin can be dated back to the seventh century. Since Muhammad is regarded as the founder the term 'Muhammadanism' has been used.According to Muslims however Muhammad was not the founder of Islam and,as a consequence,they reject the concept of Muhammadanism.Islam is the original religion of humankind,founded by God .For the same reason, Islam is the natural religion,the religion which is in perfect accordance with human nature and reason." We can use According to Muslims however Muhammad is not the founder of Islam Wp:npov--Notedgrant (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and that is why I quoted the book title of a well known Muslim that says "founder". We can't reasonably cater for all the inconsistencies of Muslims in the lead of one article. Founder is the most common sense word suitable for this English Wikipedia, though other Wikis can do what they like according to their own editing policy. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are far too many sources to ignore this POV .Here's another one "Africa from the seventh to the eleventh century By Ivan Hrbek, Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa Ivan Hrbek" Pg 16 "Muhammad is thus not the founder of Islam,a religion that already existed,but the last in the chain of the prophets,being the 'seal of the prophets' (Khatimu L-anbiya)." I suggest that we add both western and Islamic POV to maintain the neutrality of the article--Notedgrant (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not understanding the substance of this argument, the article already covers both "POV"s (fact and belief) extrememly well. The intro currently reads: "Muhammad...is the founder of the religion of Islam, and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God." This statement is true, verifiable, accurate, and wel-sourced. It very neatly and concisely explains both historical fact and religous belief. How can there be an issue with that? Doc Tropics 14:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"he is the founder" = decisive statement displaying no hesitation.

The statement should be somewhat like this Muhammad, is regarded by non-Muslims (or the west) as the founder of Islam though (Most of the) Muslims consider him to be a messenger and the last prophet of God.--Notedgrant (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The present lead is perfectly NPOV, more so than the arguments presented against it here.Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Notedgrant, for such a concise and extremely useful response! Your specific example of how you'd like the text to appear is also an excellent example of a productive comment in talkpage discussions. Now I can clearly see and understand your point. And I definitely do understand, although I don't quite agree 100%. I think it's because from the "non-Muslim POV" there really is no question that Muhammad was the founder of Islam which is why we present it that way. Also, it's because in English, there simply is no other clear way to express the idea that the religion we now call Islam did not exist as Islam before Muhammad. The idea that Muhammad was the last prophet is certainly acceptable as a theological statement, but in terms of "encyclopedic value" it carries less factual weight than events which can be historically established.

While I personally think that the opening sentence is clear and accurate, I would still be willing to discuss other possibilities along the lines you suggest, but it would require a strong concensus of editors to change the existing text. My first thought was maybe something like "Scholars and non-Muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam...", but then I realized the structure implies that Muslims aren't scholars, so that doesn't work. However, it needs to be clear that for non-Muslims, his status as founder carries the weight of historical fact. Thanks again for such a cogent response! Doc Tropics 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility would be adding the statement 'According to the Islamic point of view it is not correct to say that Muhammad the founder of Islam or is preaching a new faith or According to Muslims (or IslamicPOV) Islam is not the name of some unique faith presented for the first time by Muhammad. '

Or 'Western studies regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam but Muslims do not consider Muhammad as a preacher of a new faith but as .....Hopefully we will reach an agreement acceptable to all.Quoting Jimbo Wales Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal --Notedgrant (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, it would probably be best to avoid casting this in terms of "Western" and "Muslim" views, even though that is the historical division. Although Islam is originally a "middle eastern religion", today there are significant Muslim populations in countries all over the world, including Europe, America, and Asia. I'm searching for ways to phrase the first sentence that would still be considered accurate and NPOV by WP standards, while perhaps being less offensive to those Muslim readers who find the current language troubling. It's certainly worthwhile persuing a reasonable and civilized discussion to find some common ground. Doc Tropics 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't actually finished your sentence for us to consider what it is saying. You said, 'Western studies regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam but Muslims do not consider Muhammad as a preacher of a new faith but as...." - "but as" what ? I suppose we could say "messenger of God" (reference to a suitable Sirah Rasul Allah or something e.g. in Islam#Muhammad we have "Muslims view him not as the creator of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others.". Oddly enough not much room for Australian aborigines in there. We can't actually reach any agreement unless you tell us what it is that you want to edit in. Jimbo Wales is irrelevant unless you want to involve Office actions or Arbitration which is not the usual route for most content disputes. Please also explain "Western studies" and explain why you don't say "most Muslims" because I have cited at least one well known Muslim that does call him a founder. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To begin with How about adding but& Last here "BUT (instead of and) is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and The last prophet of God",I'll wait for you guys to figure out a NPOV statement -Notedgrant (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well given that a few days ago you said to the original editor who posted their essay-length complaint was "What changes would you like in the article ?wp:boldWP:Islam --Notedgrant (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)" - I think we should just leave this article as it is then. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider adding unreferenced statements in to an article His proposed edits were not properly sourced wp:rs.I've given proper references for my edits.All significant views should be presented WP:YESPOV--Notedgrant (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article should simply state that he founded Islam, which he did. We can then add what Muslims believe. We should also, for the sake of NPOV, also add what other religions believe - such as Christianity, which has often regarded him at best as a teacher of heresy, and at worst as an instrument of Satan. In other words, if we have one religious view - the Muslim one - why not others? ðarkuncoll 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have a page on Medieval Christian view of Muhammad,It's mentioned in the article too "While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and premodern times were largely negative, appraisals in modern times have been far less so." Check European and western views & Other Religious traditions.You are right adding an explicit statement about the belief of Muslims could be a suitable alternative.OR we can add Mohammed is widely referred as the founder of Islam (Could do as well) --Notedgrant (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

the article is fine. It should above all avoid obsessing over the "pedophilia" question just because some editors decided they want to obsess over it. It is a red herring. WP:UNDUE. The article should mention the Aisha marriage, and perhaps that some people get all worked up over it, but delegate any detail to the main Aisha article, presenting the wikilink so that, you know, anyone interested in the question can click on it and read all about it there. The "founded" thing is even more of a red herring, and we have been over this in detailliterally dozens of times. I really don't see why people cannot leave alone a perfectly balanced phrasing that was the outcome of months of detailed debate. --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

People cannot leave it around because it's a significant view .I've given sources (Reliable I presume them to be so) in the discussion WP:YESPOV' Oriental studies put Mohammed as the founder of Islam but the Islamic faith regards him as one of the prophets and the last messenger of God' could be an appropriate statement. Anyway if no one is interested then we can leave the article as it is. --Notedgrant (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all... about this 'Slaves' subsection I've noticed: #1. The topic is not significant enough to merit its own subsection, #2. The source has been taken from the the article Muhammad and slavery, and anyone familiar with the previous discussion on that talk page will be aware that the extract from Ibn al-Qayyim's work has not been independently verified and has instead been taken from unreliable polemical websites (see WP:CITE). So we don't have a clear and full representation of what IQ writes on the matter. If we could find an academic text with a comprehensive but concise coverage of Muhammad's dealings with slaves then that would be good. The current passage is not up to par with the standards observed in this article. ITAQALLAH 22:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I have to take responsibility for that. The current version was a "quick and dirty" compromise, supposed to be temporary. I think that the topic merits inclusion because Muhammad was a significant reformer as regards to slavery. Although he owned many throughout his life, it's also understood that he freed many. Since the material is sufficient to have its own article, Muhammad and slavery, it seems significant enough to include here. I agree that more scholarly references would be desireable and that the text would benefit from revision. Specific suggestions are always welcome  :) Doc Tropics 23:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to whether Mohammed the "founder" of Islam or not, why not cite what Qur'an and he himself said about that, since both are the sources of the sources mostly used to present this article. As far as I'm concerned, that Qur'an refers to Mohammed as messenger who’s been sent to redirect mankind to the right path the path of Allah (God), the same course that all of his successors such as Adam, Ibrahim and Jesus followed. Someone may not believe in Qur'an as the words of God and do not believe in Mohammed as a prophet nor a messenger, which he or she has the right to do so. However, we all know that this book (Qur’an) was "delivered" to us through or "by" Mohammed, and in which it's been stated that Islam is not a new religious, it's the religious of Allah (God). The point that I'm trying to make is that Mohammed had never mentioned or stated that he's the founder of Islam. Instead, he "claimed" that Islam is a religious of Allah (God). Thus, and to be NUTRAL, When writing an biography of someone we need to sate his notions and believes instead of what others believe or think despite the truthiness of his or her concept or philosophy.

As regards to Aisha's age, why we all use nowadays thinking and ways of living to judge historical habits and actions. Assuming that the argument about Aisha was 6 or 9 years old when Mohammed married her, is correct and true. The question here, was that odd at that time?? I do not think so, since I'm from country where men and women married at early ages just decades ago, and it was very normal, whereas, nowadays the people are getting married at their thirties which was abnormal 2 decades ago. I believe that whenever this argument is mentioned, the extent of its normality should be mentioned as well. Ehab Mafish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.50.35 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

please change name

this my humble requst to you to please change the name Muhammad by Muhammad (sallal laho alehi wa sallam) or Muhammad (BPBUH)

Please see this link, which is in fact listed in the FAQ at the top of this page, for the explanation of why we will not do that. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Names of Muhammed

Strikes me as odd that there isn't a list of his 99 names (such as can be found here http://itgateway.tripod.com/html/nameofprophet.htm) or an article dealing with the historical process of his aquiring of these names and their uses in worship/caligraphy

Pictures of Muhammad

I would like for someone to EDIT (not remove) the pictures that are depicting Prophet Muhammad.

It is forbidden to draw pictures showing his face. would someone please blank out the faces.

Thanks