Talk:Muhammad

Family Tree of Nabi

Muhammad amongst 6 Prominent Islamic Prophets

Although ancestor of Muhammad are covered else in the topic,but this presentation not only give Genesis details but corelate all prominent nabi at a glance which is most important from the point of view of cohesiveness of religion.Due to this reson only ,the item was redone with due justification.We may delete section with table but the Image depicted as Tree can be fixed on side by, will serve the purpose,and will not occupy much space.--Md iet (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

... what? Ogress _smash! 04:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should be include this text and image? Why is it important for this article to include it? Jarkeld (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This table/Image depict 6 islamic prominent Nabi,and thier corelation amonst them at a glance as explained above,and very effective means of presentation.Hope most will agree.Tree is shown again here;

There is no way that the branches of the family trees had no overlap for thousands of years. Surely Mohammad and Jesus are both descendants of both Isaac and Ishmael. 75.159.230.233 (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no further disagreement, 'Legacy' section of the article also describe all the Nabi, and there is no ambiquity on Issac and Ismael. The tree would be helpful in depicting all Nabi's coherence at at a glance, and would be easy to understand and informative to all,hence it is being included .--Md iet (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus either. Therefore I have reverted it. I cannot see how this image adds value to the article, especially as it seems to promote a view based on belief rather than historical evidence. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic, Please don't be a instant judge and allow the matter some time to breath,and let the reader give time to make further opinion on the matter . The tree has been included in many important article of Nabi. There is specific article on each of personality and their genesis is quite proven .Each article have further reliable sources cited to prove the link. The tree has most significance in today's world for cohesiveness.Link are added in the image for easy reach and verification.--Md iet (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the only proponent for this image. There is no consensus for adding it. Therefore, please do not re-add it. This article is a biography about Muhammad. The article already explains that Muhammad is the last of a series of prophets. There is no need to go into any detail about the other prophets; indeed, the word "nabi" isn't mentioned at all in the article. Be aware also that we can't engage in WP:SYNTHESIS on Wikipedia. It is not clear what this image is based on. What reliable source states the lineage you portray in this image? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic,As Politely requested, you are not only reader there are other readers also let them react on this ,give them time,pl. don't bite . If you don't have idea on subject,pl. don't be expert on it .'Nabi' is islamic translation of Prophet and has specific place in the Wiki pages. This not a WP:SYNTHESIS ,there is lot discussion held on the topic and it's reliable sources. This tree has similar importance in Jesus, Moses pages and included there long back. Please don't undo it again. The page Muhammad is for all the material related with Muhammad,Biography is a part of it. --Md iet (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again: You need to get consensus for adding an image like this. I am not biting, and you are hardly a newcomer, either. If you can support this picture with reliable sources that show general agreement with the lineage you portray, I invite you to do so, but as far as I can tell, the image is basically WP:SYNTHESIS. Even if it wasn't synthesis, you haven't established that it conveys any useful information beyond what the article already says. The fact that you added the picture to other articles without objection is irrelevant; from what I can tell, those articles would be fine without it. We are discussing this article. Please remember that edit-warring won't get the image restored to this article. Note that I am not the only editor who has reverted you. The WP:BURDEN is on you to support your assertions about this image and gain positive consensus that it belongs here. That burden has not been met in this talk page discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear,pl.understand my logic, I am not against consensus,my request is only for giving time for assessment. We may undo the thing after one week,if consensus is against it. It is not a serious subject of objection or vandalism for which you are so bothered.Thanks, you agree that I am not new comer now, but bite is always a bite,and I mentioned upto that, let it be a sweet bite.

Now as it is not a matter of Synthesis,It is just matter of repetition as you feel.Here message and information 'the tree' convey is much more than written text. It shows clear link between all personality,which is not available and at all clear from the text ,which is very very important and can not be ignored. Please feel that everybody is not 'Genius' as you.There are various method of presentation evolved to take home the idea easily and effectively.Picutres, illustration,table are amongst the method used and they are very important,much above the text and need no justification.Hope ,you agree on this point of view.There were discussion in other articles also before inclusion,and finally it was agreed. I am not in hurry ,let us wait for any other response on the point of view before edition.--Md iet (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Md iet, please understand three key points:

• The WP:BURDEN is on you to come up with reliable sources that support the relationships in this image you created.
• You have not provided such sources.
• Although you agree that consensus for inclusion does not exist for this article, you don't seem to understand that consensus was never achieved in other articles either. Talk:Jesus/Archive_113#Islamic_family_tree doesn't show consensus at all. It shows disagreement, with you making a final decision to insert your image, and the next edit to the talk page was a bot archiving the discussion, where nobody would see or respond to it. You added the picture to Moses without any discussion whatsoever on Talk:Moses.

I am inclined to remove the image from those articles also, for the reasons stated earlier in this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic,

In article "jesus", where this tree was much sensitive then being edited here.It was accepted after considering "synthesis' , relavance and utility issues. Inclusion need not be discussed for every addition as was in Moses. Reader are quick to understand the importance, when once discussed anywhere . As such survival of matter in Wiki for weeks together itself is proof of it's acceptance and genuinity.

For your quick reference I am reproducing discussion held in Jesus;

Copy-and-paste of Talk:Jesus/Archive_113#Islamic_family_tree already mentioned

"The table contains many of patriach and their family tree already exist in article Patriarchs (Bible),most of member has articles on their name( already linked)which further clarify their Genesis link. These articles further have their own source details,and hence table is linked to all proper sources please.--Md iet (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) As discussed above the table is informative to all & having reliable sources.Hope, there is consensus to add it to article.--Md iet (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)"

"I don't think this is really a problem of reliable sources. All this chart shows is undisputed biblical genealogy combined with traditional Islamic genealogy. So we have Adam - Noah - Abraham, splitting to Ismael and Jacob, then Moses and Jesus as descendents of Jacob on the right, with Mohammad's ancestor Adnan, then his grandfather & father on the left, as descendents of Ismael. Mohammad himself, his daughter and grandsons then follow on the left......"Paul B (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Thanks, Dear Paul for kind understanding of table and its undisputed genealogy.This table has nothing new but it has condensed information placed at one place ,which corelate three religion and help make understand that they are generated from same source. As time elapsed, god created one prophet after another to enlighten human,whenever there is additional need he felt,and all is for betterment of human kind. Islam believe in this policy ,and take things in broader perspective,and treat Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad in a sequence and feel part of their belief.They proudly accept Moses,Jesus as part of them.Many people take it otherwise due to ignorance and give them different shape,they claim proprioty over them and creat dispute. This I want to avoid through this table and make understand all that all religion are generated from common, creatred for betterment of human kind, we should accept all better things told by one after another and respect all.......The table can also be more better presented in form of tree,which I would further try . The table is to be included in all the Prophets article ,let it be under section of Islamic view, as Islam follow 6 Nabi'Prophet" principle, and we do not want to do any original research as per Wiki policy ,correctly pointed by dear Slrubenstein.

Dear Slrubenstein,thanks for your kind suggestion and guidelines given. I tried to point out the reliable sources only,which I suppose you want to list it again from the article pointed out by me. But as pointed out by Paul, they are obvious.

Hope, we may agree of inclusion with my above point of view ,any further suggestion is welcome.--Md iet (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Modified tree is as follows;

Jesus amongst 6 Islamic Nabi Adam, Noah, Ibrahim(Abraham),Musa(Moses), Isa( Jesus)& Muhammad along with Ishmael, Ishac,(Issac),Yaqub(Jacob), Abadullah and Abdul Muttalib

--Md iet (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope now everybody agree for inclusion of this new Tree of Nabi(Prophets) in the article with heading 'Isa( Jesus) amongst 6 Islamic prophets' as sub section of Islamic view. If there is no further suggestion, it may treated for consensus now?--Md iet (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would treat this now as acceptable,and in next step it will be included in the article please. --Md iet (talk) 06

05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)]]]]"

Hope above discussion clarify all the point I want to convey.Dear Amatulic,,hope, your queries are also answered and hope the modified tree as acceptable by readers for inclusion on topic of all Nabi gets favour from you and other readers also.--Md iet (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I already referenced that discussion in my previous comment; there is no need to reproduce it, especially if you conveniently omit the objections. The section shows disagreement, with no acknowledgment that the image is acceptable. Rather, I see a consensus that the information isn't useful to the article, which echoes my objection in this article.

Also, I fail to see any basis for your assertion that survival of the image for weeks is proof acceptance. Surviving for weeks doesn't confer legitimacy. See, for example, Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 17#Proposed removal of deliberately provocative images. A disruptive editor inserted two highly offensive images of Muhammad into this article, and they persisted for four months until I tracked down the history behind the images and removed them. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear ,There is no point in reproducing every thing ,I reproduced only points who has answered your query on "Synthesis ' and 'usefulness' etc.

You are right that there can be matter that can escape eyes of readers and get space in wiki,but these are exceptions, truth always prevail and false don't have legs of it's own and will disappear.

The figure which I wanted to portrait has truth in it and conveys a very important message of unity one ness amongst religion ,people has honoured it,let us be accomodating and wait for mass response.--Md iet (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The figure in question appears to be a combination of synthesis and original research. Furthermore, only a limited group would believe this information to be true, so our policy about undue weight would also apply. It does not merit inclusion in the article. Doc Tropics 03:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dear Doc for enlighting the topic.

I also went through the synthesis , original researchand undue weight .In nutshell it says: ' "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article'.

This logic perfectly applicable here, and I assure that "C" here carry same meaning as depicted for "A" and "B" in relation to the topic of article ,hence it should be acceptable here. All the link shown here are pretty simple and all the article connected give only one connectivity.I would further provide details on this,hope this justify inclusion also on wiki policy terms.--Md iet (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Article Patriarchs (Bible) ,section "Family Tree of Certain Patriarchs Mentioned in the Book of Genesis' clearly give lineage from Adam to Jacob,Ishmael and Issac.

Muhammad, Abdul Muttalib and Ishmael link are very much clarified in individual person's page, no ambiquity in link .

Jacob, Issac, Jesus,Mary andMoses article further link each other. Each article clearly speaks of their link.

All above article are linking each other supported by reliable sources.No variation in meaning in relation to the topic of any article.everywhere it carry same meaning as depicted in the combined tree hence 'A and B therfore C" is acceptable, as stated by me above,thanks --Md iet (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Hope ,there is no further suggestions,we may include the figure now.--Md iet (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Doc, it does not merit inclusion in the article. Also nobody said you changed their minds. Don't include the figure yet. Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctor, I am not claming,just hoping.Please answer to my justifiction given to Doc's view if you don't agree. I have pointed out the benefits,would you please elaborate on any fear you have,else please unite for harmonising all.Silence is a response which convey that there is no harm in agreeing,if so please encourage my hopes.--Md iet (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Read what Doc Tropics said. He's right. You haven't convinced me. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only is silence not a response, but silence has not been evident in this thread. On Wikipedia, non-response doesn't necessarily mean concurrence. We work on consensus here. Far from being silent, five different people besides the proponent have commented here, none of whom indicated support for including the image, and three of whom have made positive statements against its inclusion. That suggests a consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctor ,in reply to Doc ,I have reffered all the concerned articles ,which clearly define the link between all personalities depicted. 'A and B therfore C" is self evident without change in meaning in context with subject of article.Which link is not clear to you, pl.elaborate such that I can convince you further.I think Doc Tropics got convinced ,hope you also will,if you just spare some more time to see all the linked pages.

Why does it belong in this article? Why do readers need to see this? How does it benefit them? Also, why do you think Doc Tropics got convinced? Because that is what you want? He did not say he was convinced. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic, I have answered each argument,if there is no further response to my answer,I presumed it as acceptance of my view. If any body has further question on my reply ,please point out as done by Doctor.thanks,--Md iet (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

NO! Silence is not a response! Did you not see that in the above response, or did you conveniently ignore it? And what you describe in the post with this timestamp: 03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC) is synthesis which is prohibited.JanetteDoe (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The impression I get, is that Md iet may not understand some of those words. Just an observation. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Very correct, I also agree.Thanks Wiki, making editors very frank and open to point out others problem. There is further request. Pointing out is not enough, pl. try to make him understand also as a best friend.

Sorry, I referred half the policy and didn’t read the examples given further. There was no feedback given by Doc to my above response, so I took it for granted that I was able to convince him and didn’t refer the policy further.

I took the policy : ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article" meaning as "A and B therefore C" should be self evident without change in meaning in context with subject of article" and taken it for granted that “c’ would not then require reliable source. Now the policy further meant that if ‘C’ is self evident then also it require source as I now understand, pl. correct, if I am still wrong.

For this also I have answer. The publication 'Summary of the Tragedy of Sayyeda Ruqayya',2008 ,published by Ruqayya Mosque,Damascus,print the complete tree in which all the prophets correlation is made clear. I will try to get the photo copy of that tree, to make my point home.

Mean time I answer other queries of Doctor,who has bombarded the questions. I request him to go through following, which I pointed in my earlier discussion:

'This table/tree has nothing new but it has condensed information placed at one place ,which correlate three religion and help make understand that they are generated from same source. As time elapsed, god created one prophet after another to enlighten human, whenever there is additional need he felt, and all is for betterment of human kind. Islam believes in this policy, and takes things in broader perspective, and treats Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad in a sequence and feels part of their belief. They proudly accept Moses, Jesus as part of them. Many people take it otherwise due to ignorance and give them different shape, they claim propriety over them and create dispute. This I want to avoid through this table and make understand all that all religion are generated from common, created for betterment of human kind, we should accept all better things told by one after another and respect all.......,

Hope Doctor and others are now satisfied.--Md iet (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not believe you have satisfied anyone. Please do not assume you have achieved consensus without getting positive confirmation from anyone else. You have been told repeatedly that silence does not equal concurrence.

• One problem is that it promotes a religious viewpoint.
• A second problem is that, in your comment above, you use your religious convictions to justify inclusion, and those convictions don't matter here.
• A third problem is that you have not demonstrated that the image agrees with reliable sources. For one thing, it implies an incorrect timeline, making it appear that certain individuals coexisted in the same time frame.
• A fourth problem is that the picture may be more appropriate in an article about Islam, but you have yet to convince anyone of its appropriateness in a biography.
• A fifth problem is that you have inserted this image in other articles without gaining consensus for it in those articles. The burden is on you to justify their inclusion, and the justification must be more than "nobody has objected". You are receiving objections now, so it is false to claim no objections.

Due to those problems, I don't see a compelling reason to include this picture in any biography article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

YES, these are the kinds of things I was trying to get at. I have to give Md iet credit for trying to answer my questions. However I agree with Amatulić. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic,your three point are related with one issue that you are taking out Muhammad from Islam.'Muhammad ' is propogator ,main initiator ,nabi of Islam a religion ,you can't differentiate Muhammad from Islam. It is impossible that you discuss Muhammad and don't consider Islam.

On source part ,when the tree is depicted in one of published material on islam, it has reliable source.It's further authencities are getting confirmed from the all article existing in Wiki, whose references are given.This is well known genesis, there is no need to give any conviction on it.In tree each branch is separate there is no time corelation.

In nutshell if we talk in term of wiki policy ,the tree depicts a view point on genesis taken from reliable source,it is well relevant to the subject of article hence it is candidate for inclusion.

The reliabilty of matter as per other articles of Wiki and advantage to humanity are secondary points which further enhance it's utility.

As far as inclusion in other articles, matter was included after discussion.I would further say that when no further response is given on my counter arguments, it is not wrong to presume that there is no reply available and opponent agree to counter given.--Md iet (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But what reliable source is this based on? Also, if I'm interpreting your last line correctly, you seem to be saying that reliability should be an after-thought, given that what's being added is somehow useful. That is not the case. I have to say, I'm having trouble understanding your message. Eik Corell (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's break down your arguments:

• You are taking out Muhammad from Islam. No. Muhammad and Islam coexist perfectly well without the image. You have not established that it is necessary in this article to depict a religious point of view about Muhammad's relationship with other prophets.
• On source part, when the tree is depicted in one of published material on islam, it has reliable source. Whose viewpoint is being presented here? What reliable sources? You have not answered this, you have only made assertions.
• It's further authencities are getting confirmed from the all article existing in Wiki, whose references are given. Then what are they? Other Wikipedia articles can't be used as references. You have not provided any reliable sources for this tree, as depicted, in this thread or any other. The WP:BURDEN is on you to do that.
• In tree each branch is separate there is no time corelation. But a time correlation is implied by the levels in the tree. That is a problem with the design of the tree. Readers of this article may not be knowledgeable about Genesis. As it stands, the tree implies false information. The branches may be correct according to sources, but the tree itself is poorly designed.
• In nutshell if we talk in term of wiki policy, the tree depicts a view point on genesis taken from reliable source, it is well relevant to the subject of article hence it is candidate for inclusion. Whose viewpoint? What reliable source? And just because something is reliably sourced does not make it a candidate for inclusion.
• The reliabilty of matter as per other articles of Wiki and advantage to humanity are secondary points which further enhance its utility. You have yet to convince others of that, beyond simply asserting it.
• As far as inclusion in other articles, matter was included after discussion. While the image was included in Jesus and Muhammad after discussion, it was not included by consensus, and there was no discussion in Moses. Nobody in any article talk page has yet agreed that this image is required in any article. Non-response does not equal agreement. And you cannot claim that past silence constitutes valid agreement when editors aren't being silent about it now.
• I would further say that when no further response is given on my counter arguments, it is not wrong to presume that there is no reply available and opponent agree to counter given. If people don't reply to counter-arguments, it's because the counter arguments have been irrelevant to the point that this image isn't needed in this article. You have yet to convince anyone of that. You have received numerous replies here, from numerous editors, and so far you are the only proponent. All others have been unanimous in declining to support inclusion of this image. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic,

I think you want to discuss the things ,just for the sake of discussion and looks like a making a prestige issue.Wiki accept all view points published in all concerned reliable sources,how come anybody can deny on this single front.Policy is policy and truth is truth,here numbers doesn't count.

Be liberal,be positive,think that what is gain out of it.Is there any value addition?

The tree is family tree of Muhammad,and a perfect truth.Islam, religion etc. comes next. This tree depict all prophets are one family , having blood relations. Is this point itself is not sufficient to unite all? How can one separate itself from his family.How can it not be part of biography.

Please think in broader prospective. It is immaterial for me that it is included in any topics or not,but message I want to convey is of immense importance,which Wiki can be a media, as it predict itself,that's all and thanks.--Md iet (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued family tree discussion

Md iet: No, actually, I would like to see this discussion ended. There have been what, 8 people now who have commented? And none of them have supported inclusion of this image. That seems like a consensus to me. Rather, it is you who keeps insisting that the image be included without anything to support your position except for your own assertions. You haven't addressed the objections. You have only asserted the "truth" of this image, backed up by... nothing. This applies to all articles in which the image exists.

I agree that an explanation the Islamic belief concerning Muhammad's lineage with other prophets is appropriate for mention in this article. It is not evident that such an explanation needs a confusing image such as you have proposed. A biography article should focus on the life of the subject. The beliefs people have about that subject are tangentially relevant but need not be over-emphasized.

Draft illustration of Nabi relationships - original research

I think I and other participants in this thread would agree to a compromise: Propose an improved image, one that isn't ambiguous about the timeline (remember, not all readers are familiar with your religion), and backed up by reliable sources that you must provide. You have not yet met this burden.

For example, I just made up the picture to the right. It is pure original research on my part. I used no reliable sources to make this image. I have no intention of proposing it for this article. I created it to show that it is possible to convey the information with a timeline. I make no claims about the correctness of the relationships. Indeed, the Nabi article shows many more prophets of Islam, and does not say Mary is a prophet, as this illustration implies. So there are likely many things incorrect about it. That is the problem. Md iet created a family tree that we have no way of knowing is correct; Md iet has only asserted correctness and never once offered reliable sources. The tree may have missing elements (are all the family relationships shown?) or it may have extra incorrect elements (such as Mary not being a prophet). Without reliable sources, there is no way to know. Therefore, it should not be in any article.

If anyone wants to improve upon it, and provide actual sources backing up the relationships shown, I am happy to share my original PowerPoint file. But right now, neither Md iet's tree nor mine would enhance this article without solid evidence that the tree depicts exactly what reliable sources say. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,Dear, This is the thing actually I expect from a real value additor, a wellwisher of Wiki. There can be thousand problems in a issue, but there are many thousand solutions also exist.We should work on the line and give the chance for improvement, then there will miracle everywhere.I also agree that we have to work under guide line of Wiki,to keep it's sanctity,but somewhere we have to begin. I really appreciate your efforts in value addition of tree . As I mentioned above that there is published booklet of well known Rukkaya Mosque, Damascus, which has depicted complete genessis and I have quoted the exact edition. Preliminory source is available,there is backup of other wiki articles and inline further citation will be available as further reader contribute to it. Hope we can begin with tree you proposed.--Md iet (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Md, the image Amatulic added was an example of original research -- He made it up, not using any reliable source. I think you need to read his reply again. Eik Corell (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Corell, I understand, we all need to help and let's move together & assure ,how to achieve the target.--Md iet (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A Secular and Neutral Point of View

I would like to praise wikipedia and it's administrators for their sincerity in their principles, and patient and polite response to every one of the (sometimes inflammatory) demands that the pictures depicting Mohammed be removed. I think these pictures of Mohammed are well chosen since they come from highly intelligent persian/ottoman artists of past centuries by whose time the notion of being tempted to worship Mohammed because of an image has long since evaporated. Modern Muslims who are offended by this should question the relevance of such a prohibition in a contemporary context and realize that this prohibition itself is a manifestation of the growing influence of the fundamentalist ideology of the Wahabbist movement which gives mainstream popular Islam the draconian reputation it may have today.

Such images are very useful for those of us wishing to gain knowledge of the historically ascertainable Mohammed from as neutral and secular point of view as possible. Being offended by these images and the fact that honorifics (PBUH/SAW) are not given to each mention of Mohammed's name is unreasonable in the light of intelligent discourse. Masry100 12:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

pls add "PBUH" after the name Muhammed.

Hi, This is a request which is not difficult to comply with. The full form of PBUH is 'Peace be upon him', which i guess, if added will not hurt any one, but on the other hand, it will definitely bring joy to many. In any case it is just a good gesture towards a person. Compementing or blessing any one is what every religion teaches. Hence my suggestion of adding "PBUH" after the name Muhammed might not hurt any one in any way, nor it might create any negative stir. Pls think about it. This may prove good in long run.

--Walnutpen (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? Even the Arabic version of this article isn't that extreme. Rklawton (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a good gesture towards a person, then we should add it after every person's name in every article in Wikipedia, right? thx1138 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as some people would like the honorifics after the mention of his name, I don't think it would follow with WP:NPOV, though that is more of a guess. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to describe events, concepts, language and people of importance and many other things. but encyclopedias are not there to honor someone, only to present the information with a lack of siding of the encyclopedia... what I'm saying is that saying (PBUH) after his name would give a concept of the encyclopedia having religious backing which wouldn't be neutral. Dayofswords (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

to add this if from the FAQ:

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad

It is recommended to remove 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 Islamic prophet Muhammad is the recommended form. Dayofswords (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that this conversation has been had again and again and again, and instead of debating here, we should just refer people to the archives. 2tuntony (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

New image suggestion

I noticed the French version of the article uses this image. I think you should use it (maybe removing another image if you have too many) because it depicts the keystone event of the subject's life, plus it's a nice looking image for something so old. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a nice image. It fits nicely in the section that discusses Muhammad's revelation, without removing the image that's already there. I added it for others to evaluate the position in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No! This image is insulting, and a misrepresentation of the religion itself. Beside having drawings of Muhammed, and Gabriel, the picture depicts Angel Gabriel as a female. Giving gender to Angels has been criticized by the Quran itself! The picture might give the viewer the impression that Muslims believe the Angels had a gender and were female, where in reality the very Quran criticizes Other religions for calling the angels "women". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look female to me. thx1138 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ndteegarden. The angel does not look female. Jarkeld (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of the images from that book, I concede that the angel might be female. However, the rule against female angels does not apply to Wikipedia any more than the rule against images of Muhammad. If the artist was purposely trying to misrepresent the event by making the angel female, there would be an argument against the image, but Rashid-al-Din Hamadani is a respected historian, so the image is probably accurate of the era's perception of the event. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is remarkably absurd. You somehow manage to oversee the majority of Muslims, and the entirety of their scripture and somehow "stumble" on the things that insults them and misrepresents them. No this is important, you want to talk about Islam, talk about Islam! We can also nitpick and find some stray uninformed view about a "Christian" author who says knows Jesus's human father and perhaps draws him, or a white American burning the American flag and post his picture, where in reality Christians believe Jesus was born without a father, and Americans are very loving of their country. This is just absurd and tiring. You truly can find any view you want if you are out for mischief. This is just ridiculous. Where do you find those stray authors and works. Just unbelievable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest. The image is fine. Eik Corell (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"but Rashid-al-Din Hamadani is a respected historian, so the image is probably accurate of the era's perception of the event." Read a little history please, and learn what the Muslims at the time thought of this "great historian". If my memory serves me correctly, this man was finally executed for the damage he did to Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources that say that Rashid-al-Din Hamadani he is not reliable, please add them to our article about him, because right now it is fairly positive. Even if you do have sources, I should point out that being unpopular with one group, or being executed (if he was executed), does not by itself sugest that his views were not accepted by anyone. In fact, many people executed for heresy are killed because their views are popular. I'm not exactly sure what our criteria for image inclusion is, but since the image looks nice and represents what is being discussed, I think you would have to argue that the slightly feminine features of the angle are misleading enough that they make the image unencyclopedic. In my opinion, that would be a difficult argument to win given that the angel's gender is trivial to the point of the image. And by the way, we do have articles that discuss whether Jesus had a father and images of the suposed father. Check out Virgin birth of Jesus#Epistles of Paul, Adoptionism, and Saint Joseph.—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad is not the FOUNDER of Islam

Greetings of Peace! I would just like to correct the common mistake committed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike when referring to Prophet Muhammad (saw) as "founder" of the Islamic Religion for the reason that:

"Islam or submission to the will of God and testifying to His Oneness has been the religion of Adam, Abraham down to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. It is the faith and message which all the Prophets conveyed. Its profession and propagation did not start only during the time of the Prophet Muhammad but dates back to the first Prophet Adam pbuh. Hence, it was not Muhammad pbuh who created it(religion of Islam) and therefor was not the one who "founded" it. He was just a mere propagator, preacher and messenger of one and the same message by all the Prophets.

Norhassan 01 (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review Talk:Muhammad/Archive 23 where this is discussed in several sections. Basically this is a problem of terminology. In the context of "Islam" meaning "Mohammedism", Muhammad is the founder, because there was no religion called "Islam" prior to Muhammad. In the literal meaning of "Islam" being "submission to God", Muslims would want everyone to believe that Allah is the founder of Islam, which would basically push a religious point of view in the article.

Personally I'd have no objection to calling Muhammad the "prophet" of Islam rather than the "founder". But strictly speaking, in English usage, "founder" is technically correct. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But, Mohammedism is an outdated term which would basically push a Christian point of view in the article. The books usually define Islam as "submission to God", and I have not found any book which defined it as "the religious system of Muhammad". Some of the books I have read are The Qur'an : an encyclopedia, edited by Oliver Leaman, and Historical dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Adamec. Yes, some of them define Muhammad as a religion founder. But, they never say Muhammadanism is a correct term. Can you give me the names of modern books which define Islam as the religious system of Muhammad? Kavas (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Although some books use "founder of Islam" term, we have to admit that it is a non-Muslim POV. Kavas (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But certainly not exclusively a "Christian" POV. If you take the perspective that all religions are fictional constructs, Mohammed is the founder of Islam as well.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have wrote: Mohammedism is certainly a "Christian" POV, "founder of Islam" is a non-Muslim POV. I have not wrote the founder of Islam is a "Christian" POV. Kavas (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a non-Muslim POV, this is an encyclopedia article not a religious text, so we write from a neutral point of view. Please note that the Muslim POV is clearly explained as well (messenger, prophet, last law-bearer, etc.) in the same sentence. Thus we convey what people's beliefs are on the subject without actively endorsing those beliefs or presenting them as facts (which would be non-neutral). Doc Tropics 17:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, founder of Islam is used in some neutral sources like Britannica. My point is that Islam does not have the meaning Mohammadism as definded by User:dbachmann in modern times. Can dbachmann or you give me names of some modern books (other than English dictionaries) which define Islam as "The religious system of Muhammad, Muhammadanism", the books I have read (The Qur'an : an encyclopedia, edited by Oliver Leaman, and Historical dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Adamec) use classical "submission to God" definition. Kavas (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The two aren't correlated. Islam is believed by Muslims to have pre-dated Mohammed and been practiced by Adam, and no one is disputing that. However, since all religions are created by men, and Adam is a mythical character, no secular encyclopedia could take that perspective as literal truth. The belief that Mohammed did not found Islam is a portion of the Islamic belief system, and has no validity outside of it.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read The Qur'an : an encyclopedia, edited by Oliver Leaman? I don't think it has a Islamic point of view. Kavas (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but if it actually defines Islam as a religion practiced by Adam, it certainly is biased: it promotes elements of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism as literally true, not just as a common elements of historically linked mythologies.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are speculating about a book you have not read. Indeed the encyclopedia uses this definition in Islam article and does not use it in Muhammad article. This is the definition of Islam in Wikipedia you can read online: Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔislæːm] ( listen)[note 1]) is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh), and by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad's teachings and normative example (which is called the sunnah in Arabic, and demonstrated in collections of hadiths). Islam literally means "submission (to God)."[1] The words Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, and Islam are grammatical derivatives of the Arabic verb meaning "surrender, submit" (see Islam (term)). Wikipedia does not define Islam as "The religious system of Muhammad, Muhammadanism". Kavas (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I never said it did. It does, however, define Islam as a "monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an". It does not state that it is true, it says that it is "considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God". It then explains that the name comes from the Arabic verb meaning "surrender, submit". In the same way, my name means "peaceful wagon-making warhelmet", but I certainly am not a warhelmet, nor have I ever made a wagon. I tend to be relatively peaceful, though.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That definition is perfect, "considered by its adherents" to be the verbatim word of God. In last discussion, Amatulic suggested this: I have no problem with putting a qualifier in front of "founder of Islam" saying that's how Westerners view Muhammad. What about adding a note saying Muhammad is not considered founder of Islam "by adherents of Islam"? You can improve the sentence or use a similar sentence. Kavas (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it would be counterfactual. Prior to Mohammed, there was no "monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an". After him, and because of him, there was. The Islamic perspective should probably be explained, but there's no reason to make it appear to have any bearing on reality.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a fact: Muslims do believe Muhammad is not founder of Islam but they believe Allah chosen for them Islam as a religion as stated in Al-Ma'ida, 3 in Qu'ran. Why is Islamic perspective on "founder" of Islam (at least as a footnote) not explained here? I don't say you should write "Allah chosen for them Islam as a religion", but I say we should write "Muslims believe Allah chosen for them Islam as a religion" Kavas (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "The Islamic perspective should probably be explained". That's different from removing the description, or from noting the description as a "Western perspective". From all secular perspectives, Mohammed was the founder of Islam, and that description should not be removed or minimized.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you agree that "The Islamic perspective should probably be explained", why don't you explain it by writing Muslims believe Allah chosen for them Islam as a religion as a footnote? Yes, the article has this sentence: Muhammad is a prophet. But it does not explain Muslims believe Allah chose for them Islam. Kavas (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that Muslims "consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets."?—Kww(talk) 23:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Partially fair. Yes, it mentions the Islamic view that Islam comes from Adam's religion. But, it does not explain the main Islamic belief as stated in Al Maide 3. Kavas (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Britannica and other sources say Muhammad is founder of Islam, but no modern book (except English dictionaries) define Islam as religious system of Muhammad, but they use the Arabic meaning of the word. If you can name the books which don't use Arabic meaning of the word, I can read them. I am against the editor's point of view in this talk page that Islam's English meaning is different from its Arabic meaning. Kavas (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion went to a different point, the editors insisted on the idea Muhammad is the founder of Islam. I am not providing arguments against it, I propose to report Islamic viewpoint on this issue in a non-biased way. But, this is not my main argument here. No one provided a modern English source other than ED that does not use Arabic meaning of Islam. I assume English meaning of the word changed in modern times and no one argues the opposite. But, they say "Muhammad is the founder of Islam". I know this. Don't reply to me with this if I write Islam means submission to God, but please name the sources that do not use the Arabic meaning of the word Islam. Kavas (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is debating the literal meaning of the term "Islam", which is indeed "submission to God". Similarly, I don't see that the term Mohammadanism appears in the article (where it wouldn't be appropriate for general usage) since it's a rather archaic Christian form not used in contemporary academics. However, neither of those issues relates to the topic of Muhammad as the founder of Islam. The former points regard terminology and linguistics while the latter is a matter of historical fact. If Muslim beliefs regarding Muhammad have not been explained thoroughly then we should rewrite and expand the information, but it would still need to be written from a neutral point of view, not presenting beliefs as facts. Doc Tropics 23:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But, there were at least two editors, they supported the thesis that Islam means Mohammadanism and they used it as an argument to show that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Do you agree that it is irrelevant to this debate? Kavas (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the things mentioned here don't have to do with Muhammad and would belong in the article on Islam. This is the article about Muhammad. Muhammad can be described as "founder" of Islam in the most common sense of the word "founder". Just as Bahaullah can be described as founder of the Bahai Faith, and so forth. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It seems that use of the term "Mohammadanism" in this discussion has clouded rather than clarified the issue and I suggest we simply move past it. We may reasonably need to add text further explaining both the literal translation ("submission") of the term Islam as well as beliefs about its origin; this topic comes up often enough that it probably needs to be addressed somehow. Per Doctorx0079's observation above, the main Islam article is actually the best place for most of the content though, and as I tried to explain previously we will always need to differentiate between beliefs and facts and present both from a neutral point of view. Doc Tropics 00:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy if editors move past "Mohammadanism" when supporting the idea that Muhammad founded Islam and users here ask them to move past it when I'll not be here. Kavas (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If I would to write a report about any religion that is not my faith, I will need to ask someone (more than 1 person) in that faith on what they believe in. It is not going to be from my point of view. Any point of view by me will be biased and might be even wrong.

Here, what Kavas argued about is the article being written Muhammad as the founder of Islam. In Islam, Muslim doesn’t believe that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. There is also no source of Muhammad claimed that he’s the founder of Islam.

Reason of this Wikipedia is to be the source (not the only source) for people to read more about what they would like to know. To maintain the standard of this site, this article should be what Muhammad in Islam is all about. Not from yours or anyone point of view.

If the Jewish, the Christians or any other faiths who would like to read more about Muhammad in Wikipedia, they would like to know what Muhammad is all about in Islam. Not from any other point of view. Rawpedia (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The focus of a Wikipedia article should always be factual. The facts about Mohammed are presented, including what Islamic beliefs are about him. Islamic beliefs themselves are never presented as facts, as no religious belief should be presented as fact.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For policy reasons the article is not written from an Islamic point of view, but rather a neutral point of view. Similarly, articles like Jesus and Buddha are also written from the neutral point of view. Thus, all religions and all people are treated equally and all are written about in the same manner. This is considered entirely proper and correct for an encyclopedia where the goal is to provide information without endorsing any particular belief or philosophy. Doc Tropics 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

On this day

An event from this article is featured on Wikipedia's main page in the "On This Day..." Section. And I think the template up at the top of this talk page should reflect that since I think 3 other events are. Not being very experienced with templates and things, I'm not quite sure how to do that... Thanks for the help! Flightx52 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That particular "on this day" fact refers to the article Hijra, because it's in boldface. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence suggestion

Resolved

The very opening sentence needs (relatively minor) work.

the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets and by most Muslims the last prophet as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40

That is a mess at the end, and difficult to understand.

What about something like:

the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets, and, by most Muslims, as the last prophet (as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40)

It probably really needs to be rewritten to be more legible by someone who really understands the nuances of what it is attempting to say, but at least my suggestion above would make it a bit more legible.

SiltedTea (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change. I think your version is an improvement but could use further improvement. No comma is needed before 'and'. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot; there is no Edit button, only a lock icon. That's why I made the suggestion here, so that someone with more power could consider doing it. SiltedTea (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've also made some other minor changes. You should be able to edit the page directly in a few days when you become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Zunaid 08:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no comma before and? Kavas (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just not proper punctuation is all. Dayofswords (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Improper punctuation!? Why do you claim this? (It does not look to me like a matter of being proper or improper at all, but rather a judgment call as to whether the clauses are too long and separate.) SiltedTea (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Muhammad/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

My issue with this being classed as a 'good article' is that I feel that the 'Other Views' section appears somewhat dismissed. I believe that this section ought to be either expanded, or deleted. At present, the reader may simply read the extensive section on Muslim views, then scroll down and see a one-liner on 'other views', which understandably can cause anger or upset, should they fail to see the views states in the Western and European views section. I would suggest that, were this section to be expanded, it include references to some of the portrayals of Muhammed by non-Muslims which demonstrate some popular opinion.

I would be interested to know what people think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwarner7264 (talk • contribs) 28 September 2010

Are we reading the same article? "Other views" isn't a 1 liner.

"Other views" gives extensive coverage of European and Western views, just below the section on Muslim views. "Other views" then goes further to elaborate on views in other religious traditions, ending with a one-liner section about criticism of Muhammad, which could easily be moved to a "See also" section. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As Amatulic points out, the section on "Other views" provides a reasonable level of content, it is the "Criticism" subsection that is brief to the point of bluntness. I am the one who added that subsection a few weeks ago and I had deliberately left it short due to the controversial nature of the subject. On review, it is admittedly too short to provide useful context for the link to Criticism of Muhammad, which was my original intent. Would it be better to expand the content and context, or simply reduce the link back down into the "See Also" section? I suspect it is information that readers will specifically look for and should probably be expanded, but I'm reluctant to increase the article's exposure to more contentious editing than it already sees. Either way, I don't want my clumsy editing to be responsible for lowering the overall quality of the article so I will certainly bow to consensus! Doc Tropics 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One way to flesh out the Criticism section is to re-state or paraphrase the lead from Criticism of Muhammad which is supposed to provide an overview of the rest of the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It fails to summarize the article adequately. Until the lead in Criticism of Muhammad is fixed, I don't see the point of trying to summarize it in the Muhammad article. Therefore, I think the link to Criticism of Muhammad should be relegated to the "See also" section for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point; I've removed the subsection pending a rewrite of the intro to the main Criticism article. Thanks, Doc Tropics 23:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment / Original research

I have commented on the article talk page regarding the original research that is currently in this article. No article with original research has any business being a good article. 2tuntony (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the OR policy appears significantly flawed. In no circumstances does an internal link to another WP article constitute Original Research; your assertion is simply wrong. Doc Tropics 19:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. This article obviously has a number of editors who blindly stick up for each other, which, in itself poses a problem to a GA. 2tuntony (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's what it says: "Not all Muslims believe Muhammad to be the last prophet. For example the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community considers Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet also." There is no WP:RS used to back up this claim. If I follow what you are saying, then I may add the following statement to the article: "The Nation of Islam considers Elijah Muhammad to be a prophet as well. In addition, Louis Farrakhan has claimed to be a prophet of Muhammad." I take it you will have no objection if I insert this claim as a reference. 2tuntony (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a parallel reference which directly backs the statement. You can't footnote a footnote. Additionally, I would consider the Nation of Islam to be another example of an Islamic group that believes there have been prophets since Mohammed. Go ahead and add that case to the footnote if you wish. These seem to be fairly direct parallels to the Mormons, who some claim are not Christians.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

All Muslims

ALL muslims think MOHAMMED(PBUH) as THE last messenger of ALLAH, NOT "most muslims"---this is the most WRONG saying, CORRECT it or the whole article becomes FALSIFIED, the beleief that MOHAMMED(PBUH) as THE LAST messenger of ALLAH, is one of the CENTRAL THEMES OF BELIEF IN ISLAM , WITHOUT IT every other saying in ISLAM becomes QUESTIONABLE, so CHANGE THE "most muslims" PART IN THE BEGINNING of the article, or your ARTICLE becomes COMPLETELY FALSIFIED and you have NO RIGHT to distort THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL BELIEVE IN ISLAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.32.203 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 29 September 2010

Moved this down from in the middle of the templates. To the OP, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also a prophet. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You can also argument that of the one billion+ Muslims, there is bound to be a few or more who have a different view of it. And Cap Lock is not needed to state your point...Dayofswords (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly worth discussion. As I understand it, most Muslims hold that those who consider themselves to be Muslims, and yet deny Muhammad to be the final prophet, are, in fact, not Muslims. 2tuntony (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

2tuntony, you are correct, but the Ahmadiyya consider themselves Muslim. If the line was changed then Wikipedia would be stating that the Ahmadiyya are not Muslim. Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance the status of any particular group. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone claims to be something that contradicts what that something is, then I don't see how Wikipedia would be stating anything. Since Messianic Jews "call themselves" Jews, should we refer to them as Jews, so as "not to take a stand"? 2tuntony (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

2tuntony, see the no true Scotsman fallacy. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an absurd analogy. By your logic, Messianic Jews would be Jews. There is quite a difference between a Scotsman who doesn't care for a traditional Scottish dish, and someone who claims to subscribe to a faith, while denying a fundamental belief of that faith. 2tuntony (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a question: is it actually a fundamental Islamic tenet that there will be no prophets between Mohammed and the second coming of Jesus Christ? This sect is not denying the divinity of Muhammed (which I would agree make the identification as "Islamic" pretty questionable), simply adding an additional divine figure.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And, yes. (Not that it matters, of course.) But the Qur'an states that Muhammad is the final prophet of God. 2tuntony (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a matter of definition: one group calls itself Muslim, while the other claims that by definition they are not Muslim. I think that in general it is not our roll to define terms in an exclusive way, so we should normally err on the side of using the words "most Muslims". However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, so if Muhammad being the final messenger is a defining belief of Islam (not just one belief of many), then we should probably say "all Muslims". Whether or not we decide that his being final is a defining belief, we should be consistent about it, so if it is a defining characteristic, it should say so in the opening of our Islam article, which it currently does not. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard is "self-identity", or how people define themselves. This also comes up in other religious articles; many Christians try to exclude Latter Day Saints (ie, claim that the LDS church isn't really Christian), but since Mormons self-identify as Christians that's how WP describes them. While it's certainly reasonable to note that some Muslims exclude Ahmadiyya, the proper place to do so is in that article, not this one. Doc Tropics 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you'd better go over and fix our article on Judaism. Think how happy those Jews for Jesus will be when they find out that simply calling themselves Jews means Wikipedia has to do the same! 2tuntony (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with 2tuntony on this point (although I don't necessarily agree with him about the central issue of the Ahmadiyya). In almost any social group there will be sub-groups that differ from the central tendency, so including anyone who self-identifies as a member of a group means that when talking about social groupings, we will always have to preface facts by saying "most members". There must be some line where we can say that person A does not meet the defining characteristics of group Z. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly where this "self-identity" policy is listed. The KKK claim to be as wholesome as the Boy Scouts. David Duke swears he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Admitting to being rather new here, I have never seen in Wikipedia anything that states that if someone or something identifies themselves as something, we then declare that as fact. I respectfully ask that you show me where it says "the Wikipedia policy is self-identity". 2tuntony (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is veering off the subject, which is "most" versus "all". WP:NPOV policy requires that Wikipedia must not take a position regarding who is and is not Muslim. The Qur'an states Muhammad was the last prophet. But does it completely and unambiguously exclude the possibility that another prophets may appear after Muhammad? There exists a group of Muslims, presumably who have studied this point in great detail, who recognize a more contemporary person as a prophet. The article could use weasel words like "the majority" of Muslims consider Muhammad the last, or it could say "nearly all", but "most" is simpler and accurate, with a footnote to explain the word "most". It would violate the WP:UNDUE policy to include any explanation in the lead section. This is an article about Muhammad, not about distinctions between Muslim sects. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV demands that we accept all self-identification. The problem here is that identifying these small splinter groups as Muslim is the only reasonable categorization. It really is more parallel to the Mormon faith than cases like the Messianic Jews. In the case of the Messianic Jews, they have a trait which is more normally characteristic of Christians than Jews. Thus, both objective reasoning and the reasoning of the majority of Jews comes to the same answer, and we basically lump Messianic Jews in with Christians. In the case of the Islam splinter sects, there isn't another place to put them. By any objective standard, they get grouped with the Moslems for the simple reason that their religious beliefs are most congruent with Islam, much like Mormons are grouped with Christians based on their self-identification as Christians and congruence of religious beliefs.—Kww(talk) 07:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of precision...

I made a minor change to one of the captions in the article. I changed "Muslim beliefs" to "Muslim belief", as it was referring to one specific belief. I also wonder, would it be more precise to say, "according to Islamic belief"? 2tuntony (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research

A "reference" has been inserted into this article, which is no more that original research. An editor has added an "explanatory note" concerning "Muslims" who do not believe Muhammad to be the final prophet of Islam. This "note" redirects to a controversial Wikipedia article. For the claim to remain in this article, it should be backed up with reliable sources, rather than redirect to a disputed article. 2tuntony (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a supporting direct reference. Trying to define a splinter sect as not being of the primary faith is not a reason to reject a perfectly sound explanatory note.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

An ADMIN has spoken. So let it be written, so let it be said. 2tuntony (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, consensus has spoken. You stand alone in that discussion. It happens.Resolute 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, slap my ass and call me Susie. Why would we write something that makes sense when we can go with CONSENSUS? 2tuntony (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I did not "define a splinter sect as not being of the primary faith". I simply objected to the original research that is being masqueraded as a "reference". 2tuntony (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If something makes perfect sense to everyone but you, maybe the problem isn't with the writing....Doc Tropics 19:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you took the time to survey each and every editor of this project to conclude that it makes sense to everyone except me. 2tuntony (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a review WP:AGF and WP:NOTTHEM is in order, for participants here. There is no original research masquerading as a reference. It's simply a footnote, like many others in the article.

It is possible to split the notes and references into different sections. Order of the Stick is one such article, using the "group" keyword in the ref tag, to distinguish between two groups of footnotes. Perhaps that structure would be more useful here, to avoid 2tuntony's confusion about what constitutes a reference versus simply an explanatory note. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just organized the footnotes into a separate section, and renamed "References" to "Bibliography" so that the non-footnote could be in a References section. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The bad news is we got trolled by a sockpuppet/banned editor. The good news is that Amatulić's changes to the format and structure were good, solid improvements. Time to close this section and move on. Doc Tropics 17:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, if people want to add an explanatory note, they'll do it right. It's easy: just add the parameter group="n" inside any <ref> tag to make the note appear in the notes section rather than the references. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Imranak123, 6 October 2010, Paintings of the Prophet

Already covered at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images explains how not to view the images. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the pictures/paintings of the Prophet on this article. It is causing a great deal of anger among believers. I am making this request with regard to the fact that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and nothing it has on it is supposed to be objectionable to a particular race or religion. Imranak123 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Won't be done. Please see Talk:Muhammad/images and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC) There is no policy anywhere, written or implied, that says Wikipedia is not supposed to be "objectionable to a particular race or religion". In fact, to have such a policy would violate its aims of being a neutral encyclopedia. Resolute 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC) The first line of Wikipedia is not censored says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer)." Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC) If you are so prone to idol-worship that you risk worshiping a thumbnail image of a crude painting in an encyclopedia article, I sugest that you talk to your imam about getting some more self-control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.83.59 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC) i would thank Wikipedia for Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. plz remove the images of Muhammad, strictly prohibited in Islam to draw and represent.. plz consider this point!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar1996 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Please read the Koran (or the above links regarding images) and notice that the Koran does not forbid these images, but the Koran does say that what is not forbidden is permitted. Rklawton (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Even if the Koran forbid it we are not compelled to obey the prohibitions of any religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The images depicting muhammed's physical appearance should be deleted

Already covered at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images explains how not to view the images. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why? First, Islam is very different from Christianity because, unlike Jesus is to Christians, depictions of Muhammed don't play any role in the religion, neither spiritual nor cultural. The point of wikipedia is to depict an idea or theory or subject according to what it is. Not to give a skewed, westernised perspective on the subject. For instance, would you write an article on the Einstein's Special Relativity and then depict things that he never mentioned nor intended? You are messing with history. True to sticking to the lack of ANY images in the religion of Islam, we should also not show images of Muhammed here. Whats the point of showing examples of images of Muhammed that are, first, clearly clearly totally based on the artist's imagination, and second hold no value in telling people who Muhammed is or what he did. Showing images of Jesus on his page is acceptable. Because, he is depicted in hundreds of ways around the world in the various forms and out crops of Christianity. Like some african Christians have a black Jesus. So, the images inform the reader about how cultural background skews the imagery of Jesus and also how the image of Jesus plays an important role in Christianity it self. Like people wearing crosses with mini-jesus's on or the church windows with Jesus and his halo. But, ALL the examples of Muhammed's images are just the rare random image some artist decided to paint. Its far too sideline a thing to be considered to show people for any educational purpose. But we can keep the images of the cave or other images like his name written in arabic. But that image showing the Angel Gabriel visiting Muhammed has got to go. It gives people false information that A) Muslims 'agree' that angels look like humans with wings and B) that Muslims create or endorse images depicting so called 'famous' events in Islam's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC) There are many articles where we have images of people who never had portrates made during their lifetimes. For example, see Abraham, Romulus and Remus, King Arthur, and Socrates. Our policy is to include later paintings of these people anyway. To change this policy, I think you'll have to take your argument to a more general forum, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from annonymous, 16 October 2010

Already covered at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images explains how not to view the images. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{edit semi-protected}} hi i am requesting to have the pictures containing prophet muhammed S.a.w pbu as they are highly offensive and could insight racial hatres as it is not allowed for muslims to draw pictures of the prophets pbut and muslims become upset when other draw theese type ofpicture there is already a group on facebook dedicated to getting theese pictures deleted it will not leave any gaps in information as all the main information is in writing it is just this little thing that could cause uproar against wikipedia and the person who made the article if more people come to know about this as happened when a newspaper tried to do a similair thing their was protests and riots against that newspaper so thank you for reading i hope you will lissten to my advise as it will benefit wikipedia as a whole and stop any unwanted effect regards anonnymous ps i wish to remain anonymous 12:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Also, if you plan to make any more implied threats, please read WP:Harassment. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Ambox warning pn.svg Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images has been nominated for deletion. This template is useful for addressing objections. I think editors interested in this talk page can comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page if they want to use this template in the future. Kavas (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)