Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.147.231.71 (talk) at 20:31, 25 December 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleMuhammad 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 2, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
May 14, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Error: The code letter muh-im for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Template:Pbneutral


Suicide Accusations are Fallacious and Wrong

The statement: "Upon receiving his first revelations, he was deeply distressed and resolved to commit suicide" is totally wrong and goes against Sunni beliefs and Islamic beliefs. There is no proof of such an accusation. It is the bizarre misinterpretations of racist orientalists and those who do not understand the Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him). There are many Islamic sources that counter the claims of these missionaries and orientalists regarding the false suicide allegations.[1][2][3]

As we can clearly see from the sources, the suicide accusation is false. It goes against historical Sunni and Shia beliefs. John Esposito's source is biased, fallacious, and totally wrong. Stop the misinterpretation of Islamic texts.


Pictures of Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him)

Please Remove pictures of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from the main page these are not real and should be considered as blasphamy.Some bastered has abused our prophet in comments page remove these blasphamous comments from comments page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.157.206 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures included in the article fall under the protection of WP:NOTCENSORED and will not be removed because of offense based arguments. Further the article itself is still locked from the last RFC that occured which included community wide discussion. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictrues of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

A.A Please remove pictures from main page.Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) is such a dignified personality you can not make his pictures in Islam its considred as a blasphamy.You read his history he was a a beautiful and honourable person.So please remove these pictures and put his tomb's pictures.Put only hisexcellency's name not his fasle pictures.

Owais

The pictures included in the article fall under the protection of WP:NOTCENSORED and will not be removed because of offense based arguments. Further the article itself is still locked from the last RFC that occured which included community wide discussion. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Tivanir2. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is welll written and completely neutral when one is talking about writing.However I must say that the pictures of the Prophet(PBUH)are highly offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mominjawad13579 (talk • contribs)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#FAQ-q3 might help you. --NeilN talk to me 07:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reader feedback: This article needs a picture...

86.141.24.62 posted this comment on 6 January 2013 (view all feedback).

This article needs a picture of Muhammed to give people an idea of who he was and what he wore

Any thoughts?

Mayourity (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Sorry In ISLAM it's HARAM to showing Muhammad P.B.U.H. Haram is mean Doesn't Allowing .[reply]

We already have several pictures of Muhammad in the article, per our policy of not censoring article content based upon religious opinion. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of word Concubine

The word "concubnine should be removed as historically it is accepted that all of the Prophet's(PBUH) wives were married to him. as can be seen even in the main article regarding it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives ,it is just an unncecessary controversial point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engrusama (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text to more closely reflect what is in the Muhammad's wives article, although I have not removed the word "concubine", since the word is also used in that article. If the word is not appropriate, it would be helpful for you to provide clearer evidence. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent infobox additions

I've reverted some odd and/or misleading (to me) infobox additions ("employer", "monuments", "opponents", "education"?) from Pass a Method and others. Listing here to discuss. --NeilN talk to me 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing i have added it misleading. It is all easily verifiable and is largely even in the article itself. Pass a Method talk 04:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Pass a Method has reverted claiming "unexplained deletion" - well done there. Please explain how "illiterate" is relevant and where is it sourced? Please explain how "employers" are important enough to appear in the inforbox for this subject. --NeilN talk to me 04:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just sourced "illiterate" and it is relevant because of frequent such references throughout Islamic tradition. As for employers, it is relevant because it culminated into the first convert to Islam and served as a form of reputation and protection for Muhammad. Pass a Method talk 04:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not listing historical figures as "illiterate". Seriously, this isn't a 4th grader's essay, it is an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since its relevant and widely covered, then i'd prefer we abide by the infobox guideline and the due weight policies which state we should cover content in proportion to its coverage in relialbe sources. Pass a Method talk 05:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring to add this until you have consensus. The infobox documentation states, "Education, e.g. degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant." Clearly a 6th century figure will not have a degree or graduation year. Plus, the article text itself does not even mention his education and the significance of his illiteracy. The subject of his "employment" is also hardly covered. --NeilN talk to me 07:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. means for example. Its not necessarily limited to formal educational institutions. Pass a Method talk 07:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I know what e.g. means. And for that time period, "None" is inappropriate as formal schooling was hardly prevalent and education was usually informal apprenticeships or tutoring or the like (e.g., "While still in his teens, Muhammad accompanied his uncle on trading journeys to Syria gaining experience in commercial trade") --NeilN talk to me 07:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illiteracy

Is his illiteracy notable enough to be in the infobox? Pass a Method talk 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support: I don't object to include "unlettered" in the infobox... That our Prophet (SAW) did not know how to read and write is quite significant. But "illiterate" doesn't seem ok.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 07:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To further elaborate myself, I want to get this included because this is well-established as well as a counter-intuitive fact. I think this is enough to warrant its inclusion. (I can further explicate why this is counter-intuitive despite the fact that illiteracy was so prevalent then) —ШαмıQ✍ @ 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above discussion. "Education = none" is quite misleading for a 6th century figure and the significance of Muhammad's illiteracy (hardly uncommon at the time) is not discussed in the article. Indeed, that fact currently appears nowhere in the article except for the proposed addition to the infobox. --NeilN talk to me 08:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sensible... I read in a book that there were only 17 people who could read and write in Makkah in the Prophet's time. So the inability to read and write was fairly common. But as I have said, illiterate is not appropriate as he was not totally uneducated; informal education counts. But his unletteredness should be mentioned in the infobox as well as inside the article. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also think we should add "unlettered" per wamiq. I'jaz has a section on it, and some muhammad sub-articles also mention it. Pass a Method talk 12:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NeilN. Apart from not being discussed in the article (although maybe it should be), illiteracy is not an educational qualification. "None" would also not be appropriate, because nobody has zero education. If you can talk, you must have been educated somehow. Formerip (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A lack of education is not itself "education", and there is no significance to a historical 6th century figure's lack of literacy. This is just silly. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But when a person who is himself unlettered, brings what is the finest piece of literature in Arabic, it will attract the attention of the reader when mentioned. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a poster-board. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said... Neither do I want it to be so. I just support its inclusion and am clarifying my standpoint. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think "Unlettered" should appear in the infobox beside Education as that is over-simplifying the situation. I'm all in favour of this fact and its significance as determined by scholars appearing in the article, though. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then how about adding this:
‘Education: No formal education[a] (unlettered)’ ?
  1. ^ Here, formal education should be taken in the historical context.
  1. ^ http://unveiling-christianity.org/
  2. ^ http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/11/prophet-muhammads-alleged-suicide.html
  3. ^ http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_prophet_muhammad_s_contemplation_of_suicide_disprove_his_prophet_hood__assuming_he_did__
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=587662904"