Talk:Muhammad
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 3 days  |
 | Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. The FAQ below addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad.
Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
A1:
There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam. Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions, and it is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible.
Q2: Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
A2: No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th- to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See Depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad.
Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history. These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted. None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people.
Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
A3: If you do not wish to view Muhammad images, you can hide the depictions in this article from your personal account by following these steps:
Please note that this will not hide the images for other users, or from yourself if you log out of your account. Alternatives: If you do not have an account, and do not wish to register an account, you can disable all images on Wikipedia by going to the mobile version of the website (en.m.wikipedia.org), then going to "settings" and choosing "images off". You may also block a list of specified images, following the format of this example. Experienced JavaScript programmers can hide depictions of Muhammad on the desktop site using Greasemonkey or a similar tool.
Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.
Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
A5:
Wikipedia's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Q6: Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
A6: While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a Wikipedia biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region. The word "founder" is used in that context, and not intended to imply that Muhammad invented the religion he introduced to Arabia.
Q7: Why does it look like the article is biased toward secular or "Western" references?
A7:
Accusations of bias toward Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Wikipedia are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion. In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Wikipedia. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG).
Q8: Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
A8: Persistent disruption of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts, while still allowing edits by more experienced users who are familiar with Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.
In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, so long as the original authors (Wikipedia contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license.
Q9: Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
A9: No. The official policy is that Wikipedia is not censored.
Q10: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?
A10:
This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period; therefore, there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia.[1] Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is as young as eleven years old, or any age inside of a marriage. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha for further information.
|
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, and June 8, 2006. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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, raseaCtalk 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)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Islam-related articles
- Top-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- GA-Class Arab world articles
- Top-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- GA-Class Middle Ages articles
- Top-importance Middle Ages articles
- GA-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- GA-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles
- GA-Class early Muslim military history articles
- Early Muslim military history task force articles
- Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press