Misplaced Pages

Talk:Muhammad: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:41, 29 March 2007 editProabivouac (talk | contribs)10,467 edits per Zazaban← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:04, 13 January 2025 edit undoCannolis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,165 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2025: Responded to edit requestTag: editProtectedHelper 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{calm talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{tmbox
{{talkheader}}
|style=border-color:#b00000;
{{WPBiography|core=yes|priority=Top|class=B}}
|type=content
{{WikiProject Islam|Prophets-of-Islam=yes|class=B|importance=core}}
|text=<div>
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|]( ])|An important Article about an important person}}
'''Important notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''some pictures of Muhammad are allowed'''''.
{{ArticleHistory
<big>'''Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, MUST be posted to ]. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted.'''</big><br /> If you find images of Muhammad offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them; see ].

The '''FAQ''' addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior ] of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read ] first.}}
{{censor}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{American English}}
{{Article history|otddate=May 2, 2004|otdoldid=6718112
|otd2date=June 8, 2005|otd2oldid=16335247
|otd3date=June 8, 2006|otd3oldid=57510475
|otd4date=June 8, 2018|otd4oldid=844848325
|itndate=September 19, 2012|itnlink=Special:PermanentLink/513609434

|action1=PR |action1=PR
|action1date=September 7, 2005 |action1date=September 7, 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Muhammad |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Muhammad/archive1
|action1oldid=22674545 |action1oldid=22674545

|action2=GAN |action2=GAN
|action2date=January 8, 2006 |action2date=January 8, 2006
|action2result=listed |action2result=listed
|action2oldid=34393935 |action2oldid=34393935

|action3=GAR |action3=GAR
|action3date=March 30, 2006 |action3date=March 30, 2006
|action3result=delisted |action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=46261936 |action3oldid=46261936
|currentstatus=DGA
}}
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Philrelig}}


|action4=GAN
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
|action4date=11:59, 5 July 2008
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|action4link=Talk:Muhammad/GA1
|-
|action4result=listed
! align="center" | ]<br />]
|action4oldid=223711043
----
|-
|
*], ]
*], ]
*], ]
*], ]
*], ]
*], ]
*], ]
*]
*]
*]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->


|action5=GAR
|action5date=19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
|action5link=Talk:Muhammad/GA2
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=


|action6=GAR
== One click to the Pic ==
|action6date=16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the guy who posted sometime back about the veiled pic. The discussion changed to one of silhouetting the image, which I think misses the point. In my understanding, after reading this debate, most of the issue is about whether or not the image(s) should be here at all. If the images are not included on the main page, or filled with solid black fields, then a casual observer could click on the image and see the picture. This puts the image one click away. I don't understand why this wouldn't be done. Silhouettes change the representation of the image, which rings of censorship (whether people agree or not.) To have "No Image" but make them immediately accessible seems to me to solve everyone's problem. (Except for the people who don't believe any rep. of M. is okay, but they will never be happy with anything on this page as far as I can tell.) This at least limits the "accidental exposure" to the image. I'll listen off-air :-) ] 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|action6link=Talk:Muhammad/GA3
|action6result=kept
|action6oldid=


|topic = religion
:It is very unencyclopedic to modify images in that way. This is not a encyclopedia. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


|action7 = GAR
:: I think it can work, given that we do not have that image on top. There is no policy regarding bowdlerized and wikipedia is censored (see my arguments on mediation ]. --- ] 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|action7date = 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Muhammad/2
:Thanks ALM, but you are wrong. bowdlerizing is a form of censorship, and ]. You cannot say a policy does not exist by finding examples of where you don't think it is being applied. If you think the policy is being broken, address that, but don't say the policy does not exist. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|action7result = delisted

|action7oldid = 1174803389
:Specifically from ]: "Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements" ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|currentstatus = DGA

}}
::To do this would be to treat Muhammad's article differently to that of any other major historical figure. If our readers feel that the article has been censored for religious reasons, they will cease to trust whatever else it says. ] 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Muhammad|living=no|1=
:::''Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Misplaced Pages can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted.''' - is why there's no child porn, as far as I can tell, none of your other claims actually have examples of censorship. For what it's worth, ] is certainly not censored. ] 19:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Biography |core=yes |military-work-group=y |military-priority=Low}}

{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Top|Salaf=yes|Shi'a-Islam=yes|Sunni=yes}}
::I don't see how this violates your sense of "encyclopediadness." the point is not to remove the image from WP, but to show we are sensitive to the surprise some may feel at being shown this, and giving others a way to see the images ''if they choose''. Maybe you could explain why this solution is unfair? ] 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia|importance=Top}}
:Surprise? You go to an encyclopedia, look up a person, and see a picture of that person and you are surprised? What would you expect to see? We try to have a picture for every subject we can. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Biography=y|Medieval=y|Muslim=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
:::Just read Wily's comment. I can see how this would be taken as censorship, but I think making the pics easily accesible would answer that complaint. ] 19:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}

}}
::Those comments aren't Wily's, only the last two sentences are. The first part is part a quote from our core policy ]. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
{{annual readership|scale=log}}

{{Press
:::Excuse me, ''I'' am not surprised, nor am ''I'' the issue. But, as this is a sensitive issue for some, and cause ''us'' a lot of trouble rv'ing abuse, this seemed like a solution that would be viable to unlock the page. We were encouraged to think outside the box (see above) and that is what I attempted to do. If you are asking me, personally, I would love nothing more than to have this image front and center in the article, but as it is vandalized repeatedly, making it a click away might slow action in that arena. Maybe, High in BC, you can try to ignore what you think is my motive and look at the result. Thank you. ] 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|collapsed=yes

|author= Noam Cohen
::::There are many, many articles that suffer from constant vandalism. To use this as a reason for removing content, is to let the vandals win. ] 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|date= February 5, 2008

|url= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
:::Sorry, I really am, to keep jumping in, but I wanted to point out the misuse of the term Bowdlerize. I am not suggesting we remove the image from anyone willing to click on a box, just from the top level of the page. And they are not terrorists, I am suggesting taking away the bait. ] 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|title= Misplaced Pages Islam Entry Is Criticized

|org= ]
:::This idea has been brought up and rejected over and over. This article get no more vandalism than regular articles of this importance. The page is protected because long standing editors are edit warring. I don't attribute any motive to you. I also did not mean for my response to mean just you. I don't see why anyone would be surprised when they looked up Muhammad in a non-Muslim encyclopedia and saw Muhammad. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|author2=Torsten Kleinz

|date2=February 6, 2008
::What exactly do you mean "bait"? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|url2=http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/103052

|title2=Misplaced Pages: Streit um Mohammed-Bilder (german)
:Comparable suggestions come up in every article that's vandalised every day (I myself watch a few.) They never fly. Because it's pretty much a comprimising of the article, which just works against everything we're trying to do. I watch a few articles that are vandalised every day - it's part of the job. ] 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|org2=]

|author3=Fox News
:::I meant, by bait, that by making the image, in essense, a click away, then there would be one less thing to vandalize on this page. I know this page doesn't get substantially more or less vandalism than other controversial topics, but this might be a way to deflate their effort. As was mentioned with Harry Truman's S, it is such a constant target, taking it off the main page, yet making EXPLICIT the link and it's connection to the content would, in my estimation, limit this particular subject of vandalism. I do not agree that doing this "let's the terrorists win" or some other Cheney-ism. It isn't that simple. But making it clear that we want this image available, do not want to offend either side's sensibilities on the matter, I think we satisfy both camps. Now, my boss is going to put me in a pair of cement shows if I don't get back to work. :-) ] 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|date3=February 6, 2008

|url3=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328966,00.html
You people who actually want pictures don't get it, do you? You come back from work/school, check out how the discussion pages is going, and post something controversial you don't even care about. But Muslims actually ''do'' care about this and are offended by those pictures. Why can't you understand that? If you keep on just posting these pictures that hurt people, it just shows how selfish and how much of a jerk you are. Done, done, and done.{{unsigned|Iman S1995}}
|title3=Muslims Protest Misplaced Pages Images of Muhammad

|org3=]
:I think it's about time you review Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Not only are they illogical, but they're also against the rules.
|author4=Caroline Davies
:Concerning your claim that we don't care about this issue, well, it's somewhat insulting. Who are you to decide what's offensive to who, and who cares about what? The fact that many users on the pro-inclusion side care deeply has been discussed here multiple times. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
|date4=February 17, 2008

|url4=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/17/wikipedia.islam?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
== Why I cannot edit the article ==
|title4=Misplaced Pages defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
Hi, Why I cannot edit the article ? --- ] 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|org4=]
*It's temporarily locked due to an edit war. ] 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
|author5=Inquirer Newsdesk

|date5=February 11, 2008
== Why no obvious link to ] ==
|url5=http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/02/11/wikipedia-faces-wrath-islam
If the page is at all important to the resolution of this mess, there ought to be a prominent link at start of this page. If instead people feel that page is embarrassing I can see why there's no link.
|title5=Misplaced Pages faces wrath of Islam

|org5=]
The page ] was started 19:25, 2 November 2006. I'd say almost four months with no resolution or apparent hope of one is a verdict on that effort. '''When''' does this go before the community as a whole? I really think the list of options must get put up before a larger, hopefully more dispassionate, audience and just get ''decided''. ] 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
|author6=K.C. Jones
: I'll add the link to the top of this page. --] 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
|date6=February 7, 2008
::Normally mediation is geared towards individuals who were involved in a conflict. The way the mediation process works, parties needing mediation must all agree to undergo and abide by it so if a link is provided to the mediation case then it should be clear that it is not particularly meant for additional parties to join. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
|url6=https://www.informationweek.com/wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-picture-of-muhammad/d/d-id/1064361

|title6=Misplaced Pages Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad
==]==
|org6=]

|date7=July 18, 2013
"]," whose only edits to Misplaced Pages have been to remove depictions of Muhammad (first on Jyllands Posten, now here) and add the title "Prophet" to mentions of his name, has just removed a depiction, immediately after the article was unprotected.] 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|url7=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
:Report him at ] as a vandalism-only account. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|title7=Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed
::i don't know about this user, but i endorse the removal as per my comments ]. ] 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
|org7=]
:::I think Aminz's idea that during the mediation process it would be fair to have the image be on again off again. There's no denying that the image has been displayed in a locked state for weeks. Since mediation is still continuing and a final decision hasn't been reached would it not be a good faith gesture to leave the image off for some time? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
}}
::::That doesn't change the fact that the user is probably a sock, and his only edits have been trolling, vandalism, or edit-warring. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
<!--{{To do}}-->
:::::there is nothing about his latest edit, nor his other contributions, which strike me as malicious "]" per se. which is why he has been given a test warning. furthermore, i see no trolling or edit-warring. ] 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Muhammad/Archive index|mask1=Talk:Muhammad/Archive <#>|mask2=Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive <#>|mask3=Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive <#>|mask4=Talk:Muhammad/images|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
::::Netscott, I don't know. As the German and Spanish Wikipedias have still more depictions, and as the edit-warring has been constant, a good case can be made that the last version was already an incompletely censored version, yet some have proposed "compromises" splitting the remaining difference (e.g. one or two depictions) premised upon the idea that possession is 9/10th of the law. I have little doubt that someone say, "someone removed it during mediation, and the world didn't come to an end/no one seemed to care," pointing to the stability of the page (if it's allowed to be) after this move as proof that it is the right "compromise." Conversely, the willingness of aniconists to disruptively edit-war has always been their strongest argument.] 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
::Umm, I unblocked him (leaving a message with the blocking admin). Even malicious vandalism doesn't get you blocked after one warning and he, at least, didn't add "penis" to every page he could see as is ever so popular. I explained to him the situation about why it's a bad idea to change images so... if he does it again a block may be in order. But, the first time is a little harsh considering we really don't know if he's privy to these conversations. I hadn't see this section when I did it, but, if he does something again tell me. ] ] 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 250K

|counter = 36
== Transclusion of images ==
|algo = old(60d)
(split from above discussion)<br/>
|archive = Talk:Muhammad/Archive %(counter)d
:Well it is disruptive to other editors who want to edit in other areas of this article not related to imagery to constantly be finding it in locked state. My thinking is in the direction of, "What can we do to avoid edit warring during mediation so that the article can be improved irregardless of the question of images of Muhammad?". {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
}}
::If any particular editor is going to reintroduce the lead image can it be done via this transclusion? → {{:]}} with a little disclaimer that the transclusion should not be removed from the article but its contents edited directly there? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Archives|bot=MiszaBot|age=60|list='''Main archives: (])'''<br>{{Archive list|nobr=yes}}
:::I was thinking a transclusion like this might be a good idea, from a practical/technical standpoint. Is there any problem with transcluding content in articles? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
----
::::Basically all images that show Muhammad could be done via transclusion with the agreed upon principle that directly removing the transclusions would be viewed as disruption. Then if editors want to bicker and be dispruptive about such images this disruption can be limited to the transclusions. I don't think there's any particular policy prohibiting transcluding content. The only caveat is that doing this would be a bit ''exceptional'' in the grand scheme of Misplaced Pages. My thinking is just to limit the disruption to a limited area temporarily at least until some sort of a consensus about these images and/or the mediation concludes. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Image archives:'''<br>{{Archive list|root=Talk:Muhammad/images|nobr=yes}}
::Umm, when has a technological 'solution' ever fixed a sociological/political/religious problem? Unless you can protect the area that contains the transclusion request, it won't be protected, and the changes will continue. Even if you define that altering the transclusion and its page is a 'no-no', that won't have altered the current situation where pictures are included, which already is a 'no-no' in so many minds. 'Playing' with 'no-no's is just playing. And the mediation has been going on for four months... ] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
----
:::No, I'm saying let the image related changes happen only on the transcluded part. That way if disruption returns surrounding the images the disruption can be limited to ''just'' the transclusions. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Mediation archives:'''<br>

1. ]<br>
::::I'm unclear how this would help. Does this somehow allow people who don't like seeing Muhammad automatically block such pictures? ] 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2. ]<br>
:::::There are people who want to edit on this article on things unrelated to images. This "image war" has been going on for awhile and it is disruptive. I'm proposing that images of Muhammad be transcluded onto the article with an ad-hoc rule that if editors remove the transclusions doing so will be viewed as disruptive and they can be blocked for it. This way if editors want to fight back and forth on the sole idea of images of Muhammad they can do so '''only''' via the transclusions and not directly on the article itself... thereby non-image centric editors can continue on improving the article. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
3. ]<br>

4. ]<br>
::::::This sounds good. Why did you remove the leading image? I can't see what you're referring to in your justification. ] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
5. ]<br>
::::::Um, you just now put an empty template there, so I filled it with the leading image and caption. That should have been okay, but you removed that template reference in favor of the old inline approach. I don't think using a template like that would have been controversial in the slightest. ] 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Archive list|prefix=Mediation Archive|prefixspace=yes|start=6|nobr=yes|linkprefix=Archive|linkprefixspace=yes}}

----
:::I think it is worth giving the template a try. I'll watch ], and edit that if I want to change anything. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Images Arbitration:'''<br>

1. ]<br>
::I like it, we can keep the main article unprotected that way. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2. ]
:::I wasn't very insistent in my little &lt;!-- note --&gt; so if someone else wants to word that a bit more insistently (maybe with a small mediation explanation) by all means please do so. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
}}
::::For those not aware of it please note that there is discussion about the lead image here: ]. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Section sizes}}

I'm sorry, but this is just plain silly. If there is an edit war, it will never be confined to another image. For example, if the image is locked, then people will edit the main article to revert to their version. A second article does not help.
:I don't think the transclusion should ever be locked myself so long as people abide by ]. It is just a nightmare to have sockpuppet IPs and the like come in and edit war over this on the main article page and ruin editing for everyone else. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:If people who otherwise disagree about the images agree about the transclusion, at least we can keep this page unlocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you guys are living in a dream world. 90% of the problem here are random edits by people demanding no images. When they see an image of Muhammad, they instantly hit edit and remove the image. You don't honestly think such people will be willing to go to a second page, and edit that.. when the whole goal is to allow easy reversion?!

We have people coming in, and placing religious sayings such as "peace be upon him" throughout the whole article. We have people coming on, and changing anything that does not appear 100% religious, to a fully dogmated article. Catering to such people won't help, and showing such a sign of weakness isn't going to help either.

:I liked the idea at first, assuming it might work(naive). However, it does not seem to be reducing the disruption to the article. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::This disruption is stemming from the Canadian editor {{vandal|Bbarnett}} utilizing sock IPs to avoid 3RR. Read his talk page and you'll understand why he's doing that. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

::It seems to be creating more problems than it is solving, and has caused quite the edit war the last several hours. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::One editor utilizing sockpuppet IPs making disruption... again read ] who vowed to keep the image on the article regardless of 3RR. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I don't get it - what the point (for anyone) of attacking the transclusion?] 04:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::Blind determination? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


I am strongly opposed because I can see no logic behind it, except that it will create more work. Now, some people might edit the second article with the image, and others will just edit the Muhammad article. Some will edit both. Locking the image article will instantly lead to vandalism of the original article.
:All three IPs are from Canada (one specifically tracks back to Montreal). Review Bbarnett's edits and see his Canada centric editing (Bloc Quebequois, etc.) {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 04:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::Good call, Netscott.
::Bbarnett, ''what'' are you thinking? There's no point at all in attacking the transclusion.] 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. As I've stated, it's quite detrimental to the article. It creates two articles to edit and repair instead of one, yet it provides absolutely no benefits. In each case that someone claims it provides a benefit, I can provide logic that it does not. It will duplicate edit warring, yet prevent no warring.
:Hehe, nice. Nothing like a sockpuppet responding (and thereby confirming) to a question posed to his sockpuppeteer account. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! You know I've been using IPs to anon edit! This was determined, what... two hours ago? Clearly I am not overtly concerned, or I would not have edited with my bbarnett login when anon editing came into play. Regardless of this, I still fail to see how this misguided change will help with anything.
:It's stated in ] that 3RR applies per ''person'', not per ''user''. If you're socking (which you've admitted), you're breaking that guideline. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::What IP editor is going to be making an edit to the little boondock town of ] that editor {{vandal|Bbarnett}}'s going to be ? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm. Yehaw, that makes lots of sense. You're right, we should all start to purposefully damage pages that everyone here has worked on, because you (netscott) can't keep your hands off of a page in mediation. That's a great idea. I guess I should start to do something incredibly complex and difficult and utterly so sophisticated as list your edited pages, because it shows.. what?

That I know how to click a mouse?

:::Hmm, looks like blocking is in order for '''again''' violating ] (and sockpuppetry to do so to boot). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:::: Uh, Netscott, you are guilty of the same. 3RR applies regardless of reason.
:::::Bbarnett, I would guess that you will soon be blocked for this disruption. Until then, could you at least sign your posts?
:::::For whatever it's worth, Netscott did not violate 3RR, but ''even if he had'' I doubt he would be blocked, given the nature of this incident.] 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A mediation has been going on for over FOUR MONTHS, over this image. In 24 hours, a tiny cabal of three users decided to modify this article, and in a harmful fashion. It is harmful because it does nothing to protect the article, but does everything to create more work and effort for editors. The people out of line here, are those that tried to modify the subject of mediation, just as much as anyone that tried to remove that image. That image needs to stay, and static, and as it sits, until mediation concludes.
:Bbarnett, was ] also you?] 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:]? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 05:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::Possibly, or it could just be an editor who's not aware of the transclusion due to ]'s ] and removing that as an option. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, the account is newly formed and the only edit has been to the ] article. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::::The account was created on the 7th... so while the account is "newly formed" I wouldn't chalk it up straight away to some other editor sockpuppeting here. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)



Well, this makes me feel weird. I find that I've recently expressed at least two of the same opinions as the ']' in the same timeframe that sockpuppets are being discussed. I assume that my comments will be devalued thereby. What is one to do?

My opinions about articles are mostly driven by this: what will best serve to impart the information in the article to the reader?. I can agree with most any option that serves that goal well. I will have to take the time to review more of the archives, to understand the stumbling blocks here. For one thing, I did not realize that there had been a real attempt at an organized mediation, disrupted when the mediator had to leave. But even after the reading I have done so far, I worry how much of the intentions here have had both the article and the reader as their prime focus. Or, at least, how much of those original good intentions still remain, uncorrupted. ] 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:I anticipate that once the bid to censor the article is put to rest, we can return to the usual business of improving it without further disruption. We shouldn't have to worry about whether we are either disrespecting or capitulating to aniconist Muslims, as this is all quite off-topic to the creation of a qualilty encyclopedia.] 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:If you want to know why I wonder where the impetus for "we have to do it this way" comes from, it's because some of the thought, or lack of it. ] 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

::Here are some ideas to improve the chances that the transclusion method will work (as a method of allowing the main article to remain unprotected a larger proportion of the time while this dispute is worked out):
::*Make the name of the transcluded article seem open to both sides of the dispute. To me, the word "image" in the name "lead image" suggests an image of Muhammad. Actually, this file could contain either an image of Muhammad, or a different image, or more than one image, or no image, and/or other things besides an image (e.g. text). A more neutral name, to increase the chance that the transcluded file will be edited rather than deleted from the main article, could be: "top of article", "lead section", "part before opening paragraph", or "image or no image", etc.
::*I suspect that many of the editors who delete the image know little or no English. I'm guessing they know Arabic. (Maybe someone else can guess better than me what languages are likely involved.) For practical purposes, I suggest putting a bilingual or multilingual message (English and Arabic) in the comment section of the wikitext. I.e. Have the following (or something similar) appear in both English and Arabic in the wikitext: "<nowiki><!-- Per this article's talk page and in the interest of reducing overall disruption on this article, kindly do not remove the above transclusion but rather edit http://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad/lead_image What image is appearing and whether or not one appears in the lead is due to the state of the above transclusion. --></nowiki>" (That's what the most recent transclusion version said, I think.) I think I can translate it into French and Simple English -- perhaps that would help.
::*Also add a bilingual or multilingual message in the wikitext comment "Please participate in the debate (in English) on the talk page before adding or removing the image of Muhammad." both in the main article and in the transcluded page.
::*I just had another idea: Have the Muhammad article be just a lead image (or none) and a transclusion of "Muhammad/rest of article", with everything else from the "Muhammad" article moved there. Then when the "Muhammad" page is protected, the rest of the article can still be edited.
::I welcome comments on these ideas. --] 12:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

] changing name of that page or writing message in multiple languages will not help. The thing that can help if both side are willing to compromise. There is no rule of wikipedia that say that not having picture on the top is censorship in case it is against tradition of that personality. However, this thing they are not willing to understand. --- ] 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

'''IMPORTANT NOTE:''' Conflict is on all the THREE images on Muhammad page. Why you have moved one image to show that conflict is only on the lead image? At least represent the conflict properly. --- ] 12:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:Indeed, I've edited in accord with your concern here ALM. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

== (section) ==
The image should be removed. It does not add to the quality of the page but seems to act as a way for editors to be able to frustrate visiting muslims to wikipedia. It seems to limit the number of actual people able to visit this page in peace. The muslim religion forbids looking at pictures of the prophet but it seems quite ironic that they are present on the page of that religion. I like the idea of a link to see the pictures but the pictures dont seem to make or break the page so removing them wouldnt do any harm. Keeping them is offending for people visiting and may be interpreted as a non muslims only page. If you want to anger people and be disrespectful to people keep this picture. But at least put some sort of warning saying they are there. I personally dont really mind but there are people out there who do. Thank You! (] 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

:This is an encyclopedia, not a religious treatise. ] 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:: Agree, images are necessary- it is not as if the image depicts him in an offensive way or anything. ] 15:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Encyclopedias are allowed to show good taste. The mere fact of depicting him is offensive to some people. Why do you say images are "necessary"? How about putting them somewhere where they're less likely to be accidentally seen by people for whom absence of the images is necessary? --] 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::::And ''Misplaced Pages may contain content that is offensive to some readers''. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::"May" -- not "must". The policy says offensive material is to be left out if it's not informative. The principle here seems to me to be a balance of good taste and provision of information. It doesn't say offensive material must be included and must be placed at the top of the page where everybody will see it. --] 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

::::And that is the argument, whether or not it is informative. As a visual thinker, the image adds a great deal to the article for me. I don't speak for all, but for me the image ''does'' make the article more informative. Most readers of the article would probably agree with this, if they could get past the "It's offensive to Muslims" argument, which has no place here per ]. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== Why this mess ==
Why cannot we keep all discussion in one place. Is that possible that someone move it all on mediation page and enforce to keep it there? Doing so will make it easy to follow. --- ] 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

== Transclusion of images screws up references ==

Now that that images are transcluded, the reference shortcut buttons in the captions don't work. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:Apparently there is a bug in the ] system. I have copy-edited and changed the ref. in response. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now ''Muhammad preaching'' appears to be in the transclusion but not in the article. From a partly technical standpoint, I think the page needs to always reflect the transclusion, or else we need to drop the transclusion. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

== Images should be removed ==

These images are not of Muhammad. These three images are persian kings, Zoroaster, and ruler who built kaba in 1100 AD. These images should be removed. And secondly there should be respect for every religion. You are adding images which were/are never part of Islam. This article is getting less informative but more hurtful for muslims. Misplaced Pages readers are not only christians,jews, or hindus. Muslims also read wikipedia. So it would be better to show respect for religion rather finding ways to hurt muslims. ] 09:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:The ] was built in ]?] 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Funnypop12 is referring to , which would be something like 500 BCE. A fairer response, Proabivouac, might have been to address the underlying concern, and suggest that Funnypop12's dating might have been off.

''Are'' the images of Zoroaster?

Whether they are or not, we must expect variations on precisely this comment, and we must expect them hundreds, thousands of times in a row, from this point forward, if the rub-their-noses-in-it camp carries the day. Is this really how you propose that such should be addressed, Proabivouac? By fixating on a dating error in the message? Suppose the next message comes from someone who does not make a dating error? ] 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:At this point editors can edit ] (read ] as well). Consensus appears to be that there needs to be image(s) in the lead and that there needs to be an image or two of Muhammad somewhere in the article. I would recommend attempting to edit corresponding to that. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::The claim that the images are not of Muhammad is completely OR or, if copied from somewhere else, fringe at best. That images were not "part of Islam" (whatever that means) is beside the point, that they are not photographs of the man is beside the point. Using images doesn't imply disrespect towards Islam. ] ] 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::This is essentially correct - if they're verifiably images of Muhammad, then whether or not they are images of him isn't for us to decide. If another verifiable source disputes this, ''then'' we should discuss replacing them with a different image. As long as we're not including every image ever produced (which is likely) then disputed images shouldn't be used unless they're particularly notorious. ] 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::The threshold for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::::So far there is no disputed image, as no one of those uttering those claims have provided any shred of evidence for this. ] ] 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::'''Dispute''' in this context offers no judgement of the legitimacy of the dispute. So there is a disputed image. ] 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::I was referring to a back-up of the dispute by references. Otherwise it's OR. ] ] 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::: It is simply, basicly forbidden, images of Muhammad. There is nothing hard to understand that, it is a sin in Islam and forbidden. Simple right? Do you get it? Please respect others beliefs. For an atheist, Jesus's gay pictures on Wiki is nothing important, but for Christians and Muslims, it can not be acceptable. Same here, any of Muhammad's pictures may seem nothing bad for you but for Muslims, it is a sin. Please remove.{{unsigned|Lardayn}}
::::::::So what you're saying is that we should censor Misplaced Pages to cater to the demands of a specific religious group. I'd like to direct you to ]. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Lardayn, on the topic of respect: were we to log onto an Islamic site such as and post depictions of Muhammad there, that ''would'' be disrespectful, and you'd have a point. When you come to Misplaced Pages and try to impose your standards on others who prefer to contribute to a project which is free from religiously-motivated ], who is disrespecting whom?] 02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::What Im saying is, this topic is about a Prophet and pics are nothing to do with Him. Those pics are from Persia and they were created after hundrends years, and the creators never seen Muhammad and most probably, they've never seen an Arab in their life. If the topic was "Persian art about Muhammad" or "Pictures of Muhammad" there may be those pictures. But however, this is not cencorship, this is an act against human rights. You can not show pictures of photos of someone if he does not want. Doing this would be attacking personal rights. Not about cencorship. Respect other religions, what you do here is a part of Islamaphobia. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

in 1100 there was a ruler who constructed boundaries around squre Kaaba. So no error in date. It is not picture of Muhammad. Miraj.jpg is pic of zoroaster. You can see clearly fire in Miraj.jpg. Old persian religions had strong concept of fire as God. 1st disputed pic is pic of persian king. It represents time period of Ottoman empire. Disputed images!!!!!!] 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:Citations? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, were are the citations. "a ruler" is hardly anything to go by. The picture definetely is Muhammad. Zoroastrian iconography might have informed this Persian depiction of Muhammad but it is nonethless him. ] ] 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

::In any case, that image is definitely one of our worst-- it can't be seen at thumbnail size. I've replaced it with a different (but still veiled) image. --] 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I thought it quite good and typical of this kind of picture. And your removal of it put the new picture in the wrong place. ] ] 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, if we want to use ], our only choices are to crop it or to enlarge the thumbnail. Or we could switch to a different veiled image. I'm open to all three possibilities, but in its current state, I daresay there isn't a person on earth who could tell me what it's a image of. --] 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::Calligraphy: Maybe people already know this, but here's another calligraphy image: on the Dutch (Nederlands) ] they have the image Muhammed.gif which is black-and-white calligraphy. (In case anyone is looking for more calligraphy images.) I can't seem to find it at Commons, though. --] 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm inclined to agree with Alecmconroy here save for the fact that the image that he's referring to (the Miraj image) actually corresponds to that particular section of the article it currently is displayed in. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Do all of the images we're currently using have a reliable source backing up the claim that they are in fact intended to represent Muhammad? - ] 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like the look of the current version. ] 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:Re this version I agree. My only changes to the images would be to put a note like in the dutch version to the calligraphy (that this is a common practice among Muslims) and to removed the uncited (and after the mentioned addition also unneeded) "though depictions of Muhammad are culturally important, no undisputed record exists of his actual appearance".
:I like the current calligraphy better than the dutch one (presuming that the calligraphy is accurate). ] ] 23:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:As do I. It combines the calligraphy and Maome quite well. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how people are insisting that images are an essential part of the page. Were they made in the time period of muhammad anyway? Are they an accurate depiction of this man? If not then imsges are useless. You might as well draw some random person on a piece of paper and call it muhammad.(] 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
*Given that this "point" has been addressed several times at great length on this talk page, as well as the mediation page and so on, perhaps you could be specific on what you're unclear on. ] 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do people need this image on here so badly if its not necessary and all its doing is causing controversy. This image itself is just causing trouble and will only create more work for revisionists due to muslims taking it out all the time. Millions of people visit wikipedia and these images are bound to be taken out over and over again. Why not take it out and make it easier for everyone? It's not like the images are going to make or break the article. They dont even represent an accurate depiction of the prophet himself due t the fact that they were created hundreds of years after his death. (] 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

:Fear of vandalism is not a reason to break Misplaced Pages policy; What do you think ] would look like if this was the case? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not only fear of vandals but the controversy that will arise. I mean come on, look at the discussion page already. Its extremely long covering only images. If you take them out everyone will be content, and if people want to see pictures we can make a section at the bottom of the article providing links to images or the images themselves (with a warning beforehand of course).

:The talk page pretty clearly demonstrates that the controversy ''has already arisen''. The whole page is a debate about the controversy of including the images. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::I see no reason to allow this type of pressure to influence our editorial style. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed. ] and ] exist for this sole reason. Do you think ''anybody'' gives ] ''any'' kind of respect? If ] didn't exist, it would be a slur-fest against his bigotry. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well after realizing that wikipedia is not censored it is useless arguing whether the images should be put in this article (although they are not necessary). They do have a right to be there although i still believe there should be some kind of warning at the top of the page before we reveal these images. A link to pictures would be ok too but i guess Misplaced Pages doesnt require anyone too (although it would be respectful). (] 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, funnypop, for your contribution. Of course, if the pictorals of Muhammed are evidently incorrect because they identify someone else, they should be removed. However, does it mean that no pictorals should be allowed ? From the encyclopedia's point of view, textual representations of the subject is in the same thrust and timber as that of other religious or cultural articles. Because the inherent discussion is not cloaked in reverential dogma, then comments, versions, even "facts" are subject to an honest debate. If that be true of what is written, then that be equally true of what is portrayed as a pictoral. The key perspective is that the encyclopedia is not influenced by spiritual piety in relating information about any of the religious subjects. Therefore, pictures are a must. However, for faithful adherents of any particular religious persona, the issue of presenting pictorals is more demanding. How can there be a concrete pictoral of a spiritual body; even a representation can be embarrassingly profane. In short, no picture is justified. Is Misplaced Pages responsible for altering its approach, when religious concerns arise, in order to satisfy the faithful, if in doing so, the historic integrity of delivering "objective" encyclopedic content is diminished. --] 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

=='''Misplaced Pages is not Censored? Oh Really?'''==

Please sign your name below my comment IF you think wikipedia is NOT censored. Its a serious call, and I will right here debunk this absured claim forever. Guaranteed.

If you win (i.e. censorship is not applied in wikipedia) then I will support the inclusion of pictures in this article. If I successfully prove that censorship is indeed applied then you must abstain from mentioning this absured claim of 'no censorship' and will have to apply the same censorship which I will prove the existence of.
] 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

: This voting is already done ]. --- ] 10:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, VirtualEye, for your contribution. Is Misplaced Pages censored? Before there is a consideration of that, it would be necessary to acknowledge that the encyclopedia is largely text-based. Given a body of text, the very inherent nature of which necessitated editing, before it is even presented; given a body of readers, the very description of which necessitated a bias of one shade or another, even before the actual lecture; given a body of "editors", the very motivation of which necessitates adding their own colour, even before some sense of duty obligates them: given all that, as a minimum part of the text composite, and one cannot, apart from fact confronting opinion, not find censorship. --] 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Curious2george, but What do you mean? Please structure your thoughts from Shekspere's English to a simpler English. Sorry, I dont understand your points correctly. ] 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:No need to have a vote on something already settled, Misplaced Pages is NOT censored, not discussion here is going to change that. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

==Shahada image==

We obviously need an image of the Shahada; however the flag of Saudi Arabia is, for a number of reasons, not the best choice. ALM has found many images of Islamic calligraphy recently, some of which are historically significant. Perhaps a better example may be found among these?] 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

== Muhammad and Jewish tribes ==
Sefringle, please take a look at ] --] 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:It says that usuaully is an acceptable reason to delete, and in this case it is.

::F.E. Peters states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was quite extraordinary and is "matched by nothing in the Qur'an, and is quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina. We must think then that his action was essentially political, that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God."

I removed this paragraph because it is POV pushing and really doesn't add any valuable knowledge about Muhammad. It is only praise and nothing more.--] 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

: Please be polite Sefringle. That's all Peters says about the matter in his book and it contains valuable knowledge about Muhammad. For example the nature of his behavior, Qur'anic view on the matter and comparison with Muhammad's behavior towards Jews outside Medina. --] 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::OK, 'that' stuff might be relevant, however we are discussing the paragraph above, and that paragraph is POV pushing. What part of the above paragraph is informative and not an opinion?--] 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Ah, what do you mean by POV pushing? It is what Peters say, his POV. Posting his POV is not POV pushing. --] 03:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::yes it is, because it is only an opinion. Opinions don't belong on this page. Only facts. We've settled this way back. (see ])--] 03:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: I think what he is saying is a fact. Do you have any sources against it? --] 03:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::No, that's not a fact... it is ''very'' contested how and why Muhammad treated the Jews. ] ] 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::: My whole point is that ''even'' if assume that the view is not neutral, it shouldn't be removed per ] --] 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Even though that section says:
::::::::"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

::::::::In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly."
::::::: That section says it should be deleted under these circumstances.--] 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: It says:"Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright." And lastly, we are talking about a respectable scholar so his POV has weight. We can not say his views are biased. That's not appropriate. --] 03:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Everyone has a bias. We most certianly can say his views are bias. However the policy says we should present the facts without stating his opinion. That way we are minimizing POV.--] 04:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::So, what is your suggestion? Which parts are the facts and which parts are his biased views? --] 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes. and the paragraph above is an opinion, and really doesn't belong here.--] 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Sefringle, I am open to your suggestions. There are several points in the quote: 1. It was extraordinary behavior because Muhammad's treatment of the Jews is matched by nothing in the Qur'an & 2. Muhammad's treatment of Jews outside Medina was different. So, He thinks the action was "political that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God." These are points which we can check if they are true or not. Please let me know which of these points you dispute. --] 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Analysis of historical process is always opinion to some extent. I don't understand your objection but I have never seen a place stating that opinion isn't valid. Scholarship is much of the time opinion because it's not about simple facts it's about processes. ] ] 05:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I especially have a problem with this sentence:
:::::::::::::::Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an",
::::::::::::::does this sentence provide any factual information other than a POV opinion?--] 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::One interpretation might be that it was "quite extraordinary" and "matched by nothing in the Qur'an" because later Muslims didn't do the same things to the Jewish communities rather they provided them with the pact of "Dhimmi". --] 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Sefringle, I have found another discussion of this topic on another page of the book which I think would bring more balance to the section. --] 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::It provides the opinion (which a scholar tries to form based on their interpretation of fact) that the treatment of Jews at Medina is very different from treatment of other Jews. I don't understand your problem with this. It's one scholar's attempt at analysis of the situation and trying to explain why Jews were treated differently at Medina. It doesn't need to be ''right'' but I see no reason why it's an opinion that needs to be removed. The fact that it contains opinion is rather meaningless. NPOV is not about removal of scholars' opinions. It's about neutrally representing them and not trying to pass one off as truth. No? ] ] 05:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::: In page 7x of the book the author discussed the same issue but had a different approach. So, I added that as well. --] 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::There is nothing wrong with the opinion of a scholar... it can be problematic how it's used but this and other articles are laced with opinions (both explicit and implicit) as is any piece of writing. ] ] 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

== Section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies" hardly mentions anything about miracles ==

Half of the section on "'''Miracles in the Muslim biographies'''" makes absolutely no mention of miracles. Instead, it details Carl Ernst's views on how Muslim authors viewed Muhammad's social and political contributions. Historical views of Muhammad's social and political contributions should be covered in the article, but ''not'' in a section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies". ] 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:Patiwat, if you read the previous paragraph, it says: "The pre-modern Muslim biographies of Muhammad .... Modern Muslim biographies of Muhammad however...", so there is a change. The next paragraph makes it clear why this change happened. --] 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'll agree that it is relevant because it's explaining why miraculous explanations of Muhammad have become less important. So, in the sense that it's talking about a negation of the use of miracles in biographies it is about miracles. I think you can surely improve how it's written, but I wouldn't remove it. ] ] 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

== Muhammad's attitude ==
Karl, I don't think that is disputed. --] 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

== Moving the pictures down ==
I would like to move the preaching picture image down in front of the beginning of the Qur'an section as that's what the picture is talking about. Is that okay to most of us? --] 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:I see no consensus for that. As the Qur'an is mentioned in paragraph two, and as this is for what Muhammad is most famous, there's no credible objection after topicality. Of course, you might strengthen your argument by removing mention of the Qur'an to the section where you feel it (along with the image) more appropriate.
:I did propose a solution which would have kept any depictions out of the lead, but this element of the solution was a ''compromise'', only operative if a plurality of editors opposed to depictions agreed to the other provisions. Even among those editors opposed to religiously-based censorship, it seems I'm a bit isolated - the prevailing opinion might be aptly summed up as, Misplaced Pages isn't censored, period.] 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:: The picture is about Muhammad's ''preaching'' which is only indirectly connected to the Qur'an. In front of the Qur'an section, we can have an image of an old-Qur'an. Muhammad, to Muslims, is known for being a messenger of God, not directly for his preaching in front of people. The picture is most relevant to a section on Muhammad's invitation of others to Islam: i.e. the section in the beginning of the Qur'an --] 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Are there fair use/free content pictures of the JFK autopsy on Misplaced Pages/The Commons? If so, go propose addition at that page, and see what people say. But just because you find examples of where the rule isn't being enforced, does not mean that the rule does not exist. Comparisons don't add anything; we're supposed to be focusing on the policies and guidelines. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

== Depictions of Muhammad ==
On ] (an article I listed on afd) a Muslim user expresses concern about the pictures of Muhammad in this article. The trouble is that he feels he cannot contribute to this page as it would cause him to see things he considers sinful and blasphemous. Now wikipedia is not censored, but would it really be censorship to confine the pictures to the ] article that we already have? It could certainly be linked to provide that information in a perhaps even more comprehensive way. I'm agnostic on this issue, but I can't help thinking that the pictures of Muhammad are only included here to make a ]. ] 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:It's also worth noting that if the conservative element of the Muslim faith feels too aggrieved to contribute to this article on these grounds, it could greatly compound systemic bias. ] 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:Presumably, the rationale for inclusion is that the pictures represent a part of the cultural entity that is Muhammad, but I find instead that such depictions are a marginal phenomenon. Certianly it should be handled on wikipedia, and that it is, however if Muslims do not percieve this to be important to their faith, perhaps it's culturally insensitive to effectively say: "No, you're wrong, these pictures are important to our outside understanding of your prophet (pictures are part of how *we* do biography), so we'll include them in an article that's ostensibly about your beliefs in spite of you." ] 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I agree on most of the thing you have said. However, he can still contribute here by using some blocker etc. I agree that the pictures represent a minority tradition however they are there presenting to the reader as they represent majority tradition. I have no doubt that they are there in prominent places to make a ] and violate ]. However, sadly many people here even after seeing multiple references (that drawing picture of Muhammad among Muslim is very rare trend) are not agreeing to remove picture from the top. --- ] 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::: wikipedia do ot spreads lies and fictional. i dont see the importancy of the image, all the details should be included in the articles, afterall its wikipedia, not picturepedia. '''albiru do not live at the time of Muhamaad s.a.w., what make such picture relevent to this article?''' no censor again? wheres the real picture again?--] 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::::In response to deranged bulbosaur, since this debate has stirred up so much discussion, it has been agreed that any removal of the pictures now would be a conscious effort to remove it based on the whims of one group of contributors. The argument you use ("conservative Muslims won't contribute") is flawed, because it's not our job to keep everybody happy. All of the other topics of discussion have been exhuasted, and now the only debate (at ], at least) is whether or not keeping the pics at the top violates the undue weight policy. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 15:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::Of course, this is not an article about Muslim tradition, but about Muhammad, who's some guy (of variously stated importance, the true value of which I don't know). All the articles about ] or ] have a photograph, painting, sketch, sculpture (photo thereof) where available, regardless of the importance of that particular image, or the general pictorial representation of that person. ] 15:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::It is false to assign motivations in a blanket fashion to all editors who want an image of Muhammad at the lead of this article and doing so runs heavy against the ] (a Misplaced Pages policy). I would argue that there is no doubt that such pointed motivations are in the mix but that at this point it is my impression that the majority of editors wanting a lead image of Muhammad on this article are pushing for that in a good faith way. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Is this directed at me? Maybe I just haven't had enough ] yet but I'm not sure how this reponds to my claim or what you're saying here. My (only) point was that ''Islamic Tradition'' should not be the sole (or even necessarily principle) guide for this article regarding style and the like. The article should not be trying to represent Islamic Tradition, but to represent Muhammad, who was an actual guy (this is fairly uncontraversial). Every article about ] includes a likeness of him if we can obtain it, even when there's no reason to believe it's accurate, as long as it's verifiable. ] 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I think we should follow the precedent of not showing the likeness that has guided this page for at least three or four years is pragmatic: unlike ], people will constantly be appealing to remove the images of Muhammad, or simply removing them without discussion. That makes this article different than, say, ] or ], and frankly the perpetual distractions on this article are keeping us from getting good work done on the article. Some articles are about unique topics. The last time I checked, there was no image of a gaping head wound at ] and no plans to include them, despite attempts to add the image. Help me out here -- is that censorship? ] 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:"...frankly the perpetual distractions on this article are keeping us from getting good work done on the article."
:If that's your concern, why not start by dropping the matter yourself?] 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:If we removed everything that was a target for POV pushers and vandals, there'd be no encyclopaedia left to build. Some articles just require vigilance as part of the nature of the Wiki - there's not much you can do. ] 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:As for Kennedy, I can't find any of the image discussion, so I can't comment. But things like ] definitely have ''religiously offensive'' image(s), for instance. Anyways, one cannot fight every battle, and it's more important that ] is a first class article than it is that ] is a first class article. ] 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::That's the point, there ''isn't any'' discussion about the JFK pictures at this time. AFAIK, there are not even any pictures such as this which exist on Misplaced Pages. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is perfectly true. We should get off the image already. As i mentioned earlier it is not a major part of the article. So if you dont mind i am going to begin editing this page for information and historical accuracy.(] 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

:Go right ahead, just be careful not to do anything inflammatory (anything that could possibly be construed as POV, removal of pics, etc.). --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'''We are talking about an image that had been drawn base on fiction not fact, and please dont similarize Muhammad s.a.w. with any other human.'''{{Unsigned|60.52.92.234}}

:Um, why not? Is it not a fact that Muhammad was a human? Was he not born a man? Did he not live as a man? And like all humans, did he not die? Muhammad may hold a very high place in religious history, but he is a human just as you or I are human. {{Unsigned|60.52.92.235}}

:He was a Human, He die as a Human. He still a Human. He is a Human. But unlike any other Human. He is an Religious figure. Hes not like anyother Human. Hes been respect by all Muslim (and orientalist, perhaps). He changed the humanity from bad to good. The value He has, can not be similaries with anyother human.--] 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

::...Which is your belief system. There are plenty of other religious figures, Muhammad is not the only one, as you imply. ], ], ], ], ], ]... the list goes on and on. All of these people have great religious value to a specific group, but are often vilified and hated by other groups. This is why the ] policy exists, to make sure that opinions (such as yours, or mine, or anybody else's) don't make their way into articles. The facts are what matter to Misplaced Pages. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should we not "similarize" Muhammad with any other human? I'd like to hear your views. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:I think the anonymous contributor actually hits the heart of the matter-- the issue is whether we treat Muhammad like we treat everyone else or whether we treat him as a unique individual unlike everyone in Misplaced Pages. --] 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

::Ah, I am quite familiar with this IP's prefix... It is ''yet another'' meatpuppet/sock of VirtualEye (Along with ], ], and ]). All of the IP's trace back to a company called "Wisma Telekom" (running an RIR on them reveals this). --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:::], u right, thats what i mean. and that picture is base on fictional imagination of an artist. ]. ], if that make somebody or everybody to be virtualeye, why dont u just ban our isp from accessing wikipedia? over 20% malaysian populasion uses that isp, its hard to tells. and Im not virtualeye. probably u just like somebody who want to destroy other user, just because ppl dont agree with ur POV. --] 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:"Making out everybody to be VirtualEye", eh? Sorry, it's sort of suspicious when four editors from the same area and IP prefix (who have ''never'' edited Misplaced Pages before then) come straight to a debate, like they know exactly where it's going to be. And I think you need to review the personal attack policy, because what I did falls more under ], as making an accusation. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:"over 20% malaysian populasion uses that isp, its hard to tells."
:Um, yeah, right...VirtualEye, it's actually quite easy to tell from the character of your posts. Why are you wasting everyone's time?] 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

oops sorry did i accuse somebody with anything related to them?im not virtualeye :) . just because or maybe my POV is same with virtualeye (eventhough its not), its doesnt proves anything :). just like that picture its doesnt proves thats Muhammad s.a.w., cool ur head down. and calm down. and think again. cheers. sorry.

<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

{{{1|]}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
</div><!-- Template:smile -->

sincerely from --] 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) not virtualeye ].

'''Stop assuming bad faith''' I beg you to stop assuming bad faith towards each other. VirtualEye is a Pakistani and came from Germany I believe. Towaru is Indonesian. I beg from you guys to have little bit of following of ]. Please. Otherwise end these accusations and perform the check user. --- ] 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:ALM, I totally agree with your call for assuming good faith. However, I would prefer if you did the same. Instead you posted . Anyway, Towaru's being or not being a sockpuppet of anyone else makes no difference to me: his postings completely miss the point, hashing out the pseudo-objection that this is not actually M., that the painter had not seen M. Well, countless articles on WP do contain such images, a perfectly normal thing and not "fiction". ] ] 09:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Im Malaysian. Sorry. I will ignore these guy for accusing me to be ] next time. Let them be. Sorry. Lets end these.--] 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:Why no admin warn these people so that they can stop having bad faith assumption. Where are admins? --- ]

::] Applies until it is obvious that one side is not assuming good faith. By using socks (probably not ''all'' of the ones accused, but definitely some), the policy states that we must not AGF in unreasonable situations. AGF applies for the first several posts. This mediation/discussion has far surpassed that, and VirtualEye has demonstrated that he is not assuming good faith (by using the sockpuppets). --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==This talk page is an ongoing disgrace==

This talk page is an ongoing disgrace and a total waste of time.] 09:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

== Fiction vs fact ==
the picture that were used on this respective article are in fact fictional, whereas Muhammad s.a.w. is a real human. if its okayto put the fictional picture on an articles, its doesnt suit the articles.--] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*Please see ] which notes the criterion for inclusion is ''verifiability, not truth''. It explains why this argument ''must'' be rejected. ] 17:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the word "fictional" is not really accurate here given the context. Words like "representation", "depiction", "portraial", or "artist's rendering" are more appropriate. Obviously, the technology was not available at the time to produce an accurate picture of Muhammad, so what is shown is indicitive of what was available at that time in history. Note that none of the images here depicting Muhammad claim to be 100% accurate. They speceifically state that they are images, depictions, etc. And this is completely with the depictions of countless historical people made throughout Misplaced Pages, the Web, and accepted scholarly works throughout history.

Please, if you take issue with the act of depicting Muhammad, then state it as such, but don't veil it in misinformation.] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

::Depictions or fiction, same thing in this context. Both don't have truth in them. ] 00:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:::] - roughly speaking, this is because none of us have the slightest clue what the truth is - about ]... ] 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==Combining archives==
Since archives 14 and 15 are both really short, if nobody objects, I am going to combine them.--] 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:Good idea, check the "What links here" page for 15 and fix any links. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
::Done.--] 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

==Compromise on Pictures==

How about including the paintings that show Muhammad vieled only? I don't see the need to have so many paintings of him, as part of his teaching was not to have any, and that very few existed, and are based on guesswork. The absence of paintings of him is a reflection of the history of the individual, and his impact, so absence itself illustrates the character of Muhammad & his legacy. Paintings of him don't add any value to the article either, it's not an issue of censorship, would you include photographs of gutted bodies after an explosion, in an article about a bombing incident e.g. in Northern Ireland? ] 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:]'s lead image is a stack of corpses, for instance - not censored really means that. ] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
] see the voting going on here. --- ] 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No muslim would prefer a picture of Muhammed. Period. For Muslims, are there any grounds warranting a pictoral of any visual effect ? Probably, not. Therefore, it is not a stretch to realize no argument purporting a visual would be accepted by a believer. That eliminates a further fair discussion of the issue, does it not? An encyclopedia , historically, attempts an objectifed perspective on all subjects, those of a religious or cultural nature included. That very point of view, in itself, would prove offensive to faithful adherants. If you're a believer of any religious persona presented, prepare to be misunderstood and bothered. It's just that disturbingly simple. --] 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

*Please don't make generic attacks against all Muslim editors - some are very reasonable. I'm unconvinced the percentage is any different than non-Muslim editors. ] 09:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack? Interpreting Curious2george as an attack on all Muslim editors is misguided. The word editor was never used. Are there Muslims who believe "it is better" to have a pictoral of Muhammed than to not and in the same numbers as non-Muslims? To have such a preferance, is it not contrary to the wish of Muhammed? Would Allah endorse a pictoral of Muhammed? You are convinced that followers of Muhammed and the teachings of the Koran are as fully willing to have a pictoral of Muhammed placed in an encyclopedia as non-Islamic editors? You are convinced that Muslims and non-Muslims alike embrace, and in equal numbers, the willingness to portray varied visual representations of Muhammed? --] 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

==The merits of undue weight==
Having given the ''Undue Weight'' argument (advanced primarily by ALM scientist?) a fair bit of thought, as well as the ''including quote-fictional-unquote images'' and its ] countering, I've come to conclude the following:
#Iff (and I believe this to be the case) ''veiled images'' are more common historical representations than ''unveiled images'', and iff no ''unveiled images'' are believed to be ''accurate historical likenesses'' (which I also believe to be the case) then a ''veiled image'' is a more appropriate lead, because through ] we should see this as a more ''typical'' likeness and therefor a more ''majority'' point of view on his appearence.
#Given that numerous ''unveiled'' representations exist, they cannot really be considered a ''fringe'' position, and merit ''significant-ish'' inclusion.
#Given Muhammad's importance outside of Islam (which I won't pin down, but is undoubtably ''extremely high'') some ''non-Islamic'' representation(s) of him should be included.
#I like '''wiki-markup''' too much, but generally I italicised things when I believed they were unclear, but even in the vagueness I think my point makes sense.
*Then be it resolved, I'm going to rework the image choice/placement a bit. I trust it'll be to the satisfaction of few, but I've come to believe it's actually the ''proper'' choice. ] 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:Point 1, misinterprets our verifiability policy. The threshold for inclusion is not truth, but attribution to a reliable source. If the source says it is a depiction of Muhammad, then the truth means nothing. Misplaced Pages's job is not to find the truth, but to reflect what reliable sources have to say. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
::Okay, I've read this comment several times, and I don't follow at all. Point 1 does not discuss inclusion, so (with regards to it) I don't think anything else you say applies to it. Can you elaborate? ] 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:Okay, I am saying that we do not attempt to determine the truth of a fact on our own for any reason, that is OR. We have attributable sources saying it is a depiction. The fact that it does not necessarily look like him has no bearing, the calligraphy does not look like him, the veil does not look like him. But the picture ] for example has a citation saying it is a depiction of him. So where is the undue weight? <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
::Many ] say '''the veiled images do look like him''' - and that's good enough for me, and should be good enough for any Wikipedian. I'm not convinced either way as to whether the caligraphy can reasonably be considered a representation. The undue weight argument is subtle, but the principle does say we should use something more widely considered an ''accurate representation'' more prominently. Plus, aethetically, I actually like it better - your milage may vary on that last point. ] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:: There are many other pictures with citation then why this picture? What is special about it? --- ] 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have '''more''' veiled images with citation. We have only single freaky non-veiled images with good citation. Right? I have found three images veiled with citation.
* ]
**, Nakkaş Osman
**, ], 1595
They are ''older'' and ''well citied'' right ?
* ]
** .
--- ] 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:But what does that have to do with you undue weight claim? The crux of your claim seems to be either that depictions are so super rare that they don't deserve such a mention(no proof for the presented yet), or that it is not an accurate image of him(citation disagrees, the alternative, veiled and calligraphy, are not accurate images either). <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have given you so many citation if you close your eyes then what can I do. See ] and more Blair/Bloom state: '''"Pictures of Muhammad are extremely rare in Islamic art ..."''' and there are other citation of BBC given to you '''Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative''' <ref> </ref>. You do not listen to them. --- ] 16:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:And I have given you citations showing that there is a long history of such depictions. I can dig it up from the mediation if you like, I will even find more. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One can find citation for any thing. However it is a fact (see ]) page that they are only from 1300 to 1600. (300 years out of 1400 history). Just like BBC says '''Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found.'''<ref> </ref> --- ] 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

===On the WilyD Solution and his Four Points===
The status of the page (as it currently stands at the time of this writing) is entirely consistent with policy as I understand it. I would summarize this solution as:
* Caligraphy first
* Veiled right beneath it
* No other limitations on images (aside from the limits that would be found in any Misplaced Pages article)

If that's an accurate reflection of what WilyD's saying, then I can't find anything to argue with about it. His version makes ample use of images throughout the article-- so it's hard to accuse it of censorship. His version makes use of a veiled in the lead, so it's hard claim it's giving undue weight. I have no problems with it.


Of course, I'm longwinded, so I can't help myself-- I have to ramble on a bit. I disagree with the theory that that unveiled in lead would, necessarily, constitute undue weight-- but I get the "vibe" from Wily's wording that when he says "undue weight", he's using it only in a very subtle and more-tentative way-- not as an outright prohibition against unveiled images, but just as an argument that maybe could be used to "tip the scales" towards veiled in the lead, in the absence of any other compelling reasons. I can easily live with that. :)

As I've said in the past, I don't think unveiled in lead is any sort of "outright violation of policy". We haven't seen any sources that prove unveiled are particularly uncommon. Unveiled images certainly aren't harder to find online-- I haven't had to go out of my way to look for them: just type in Muhammad into image search and you find plenty. In order for us to claim "undue weight", I would expect us to have some really good evidence that unveiled is an extreme minority-- but no such evidence has presented itself. Even if it were true veiled were historically the norm, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And it's not our job to go out and research the historical prevalence of different artistic styles in order to painstakingly construct a page that perfectly mirrors the net sum total of human artistic history. IF we don't introduce any further bias of our own, we're not giving undue weight. NPOV requires '''us''' not to give something undue weight. But if the world prefers seeing faces and has devoted a greater attention to the unveiled images, that's completely acceptable. If unveiled images have become the most popular, we should '''reflect''' that trend, not try in vain to '''overcompensate''' for it.

But at the same time, veiled images are certainly quite prevalent it wouldn't be undue weight if one of those was the lead image either. There are no depictions of Muhammad's face that are historically accurate, so no information is being lost. In the end, it seems like either option is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. I'm comfortable veto removals of unveiled images when those removales seem motivated entirely religious concerns, but nothing make the thing WilyD is doing that.

] has a lot going for it. It's the most visually appealing to my eyes, but that's worth almost nothing. It's an image of "Muhammad the Religious Figure", rather than "Muhammad the Historical Ruler"-- and that is probably a good thing since his religious role is the one that's had the greatest effect overall. It's a veiled image, which gives us a opportunity to talk about that whole debate of Muhammad's Depictions. And because of the veil and the Kaaba, this image is probably the only image that I could have looked at and instantly deduced it was an image of Muhammad.

], meanwhile, has its advantages. It's the most "historically accurate" of the images we have. Except for trivials like clothing color and halos, it depicts a scene that we are 100% certain actually happened-- Muhammad leading and speaking. The image seems to intentionally depict his followers as ethnically-diverse, which underscores an important theme about Muhammad's life. Muhammad is unveiled, which is univerally agreed to be the more historically accurate rendering.

In the end, either is fine with me, so long as we're not just trying to eradicate unveiled images from the article. --] 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:Did Muhammad walk round with a white handkerchief over his face and his head on fire? ] 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::The flames are like the halos-- I think everyone understands that they're a reflection of the artist's religious beliefs-- i don't lose any sleep worrying people will interpret the image as that of a burn victim. Now, the historical inaccuracy of his wearing the veil definitely is worth weighing, although I think it's within the realm of what could be addressed by a caption. --] 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
*Uh, more or less, although there a few nuances I'll shed light on
#I definitely very strongly disagree with this: ''Even if it were true veiled were historically the norm, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And it's not our job to go out and research the historical prevalence of different artistic styles in order to painstakingly construct a page that perfectly mirrors the net sum total of human artistic history. IF we don't introduce any further bias of our own, we're not giving undue weight'' - I will say, for the record or whatever, that a "perfect page" will reflect the views/thoughts/whatever of all times equally for something like ] (the same does not apply to say, ]). It's not usually practical, but an encyclopaedia should not reflect just current opinions and thoughts - that would be a newspaper.
#As a person, I may believe that ''unveiled'' images are better representations of Muhammad than ''veiled'' ones, but I certainly do not believe this as a Misplaced Pages editor. ] leads me to the conclusion that the most ''accurate'' image is the one supported by the most ''verifiable sources'' - so if ''veiled images'' are more common from verifiable sources, then they're more accurate (in a Misplaced Pages way). This is really the critical point of reason that leads me to place a veiled image in the lead (plus I really don't care for Maome aethetically).
#Generically, I appreciate the point that ''Images should appear in some proportion (not necessarily linearly) to their prominence in the subject, when not used for specific purposes, but for general illustration''. This may be a lot of words to cram so few ideas into. Any ''noteworthy'' genre of image should have at least one representation - for instance, I'm fairly sure the article really ''needs'' a non-Islamic image or two - for the European/Western cultural development, Muhammad is one of the may ten most important empire rulers/builders - he's an immensly important figure in the west as the builder of a (historically very important) empire - this should be reflected, somehow.
#I'm not sure I agree with this point: ''It's an image of "Muhammad the Religious Figure", rather than "Muhammad the Historical Ruler"-- and that is probably a good thing since his religious role is the one that's had the greatest effect overall.'' either. I've started to suspect it may not really be true, and that it's certainly not true to the level people seem to believe it is, nor to the level the article represents it as.
Anyways, you're milage may vary - I was trying to find a version of the article that reasonably represented the concerns of everyone involved within the context of the relevent guidelines and policies, within the context of providing readable encyclopaedic information. ] 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


:I get the feeling you and I have very similar thinking styles-- there are some excellent points there.

:The weighting of the past vs the present is a really interesting theoretical question. In articles on science or math, for example, we would obviously be 100% weighted to the present. For the right historical articles, we might could see something weighted almost exclusively to the past. It's hard to come up with a good rule of thumb. Best I can come up with is to use the analogy of a teacher-- drawing upon whatever images would best explain the subject itself without grossly misrepresenting other subjects So, for example, for ], we might draw upon images which are less "historically representative" than ones we would use for "Islamic Art" for example. Interesting question-- I'll have to think on that whole 'past-vs-present weighting' thing.

:Normally, I would tend to agree that Veiled and Unveiled were equally supported by verifiable sources, regardless of my personal preferences. But I ''think'' that even the original artists and othes who make use of veiled sources agree that the veiled images are less accurate than unveiled. Sorta like George Washington chopping down a cherry tree-- it's widely attested, but I don't think the sources say its accurate. On the other hand-- a simple line in the caption can fix it. On the other hand, sources similarly agree that the faces shown in the unveiled images are inaccurate. On the whole, unveiled comes closer to approximating what Muhammad would have actually looked like-- but that doesn't have to be definitive.

:When you talk about Muhammad's important to the non-muslim world, I definitely agree. Some people basically have argued that Islamic imaging practices should apply to Muhammad, which I think missed the point that Muhammad, as an actual historical individual, doesn't "belong" to any one religion or culture-- whereas say, ] might reasonably 'belong' to hinduism for example.

:All and all, the page is really shaping up. Aside from the block of editors who just want to have all the images deleted for personal reasons, the rest of the editors seems to be converging on the current solution. Thank you for your help with it. --] 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} ==

] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> &nbsp; — ] <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">(]&#124;])</span> 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

== Criticism versus vilification ==
According to ] article, "critic is a person who offers reasoned judgement or analysis, value judgement, interpretation, or observation." - A dictionary also writes "The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works."

While "vilify" means "To make vicious and defamatory statements about."

Now, Esposito, Watt, Schiemmel all says Muhammad has been vilified in West while Muslims mythified Muhammad.

E.g. Watt says:

"Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad. We saw above how this has come about. For centuries Islam was the great enemy of Christendom, since Christendom was in direct contact with no other organized states comparable in power to the Muslims. The Byzantine empire, after losing some of its best provinces to the Arabs, was being attacked in Asia Minor, while Western Europe was threatened through Spain and Sicily. Even before the Crusades focused attention on the expulsion of the Saracens from the Holy Land, medieval Europe was building up a conception of ' the great enemy '. At one point Muhammad was transformed into Mahound, the prince of darkness. By the twelfth century the ideas about Islam and Muslims current in the crusading armies were such travesties that they had a bad effect on morale. Practical considerations thus combined with scholarly zeal to foster the study and dissemination of more accurate information abo Muhammad and his religion.

Since that time much has been achieved, especially durin the last two centuries, but many of the old prejudices linge on..."

--] 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to my dictionary: "Fable" is "A falsehood; a lie." but "Theory" is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

So, they are not equivalent. --] 10:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::To characterize anyone's criticism of or position on Muhammad as "vilification" or "old prejudices" as you have done in your most recent edits is not neutral. I'll revert your latest edits per WP:NPOV. -- ] 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Talk pages don't have to conform to ] or most other policies...] 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Of course not, but my above comments was also about Aminz's most recent edit to the article, and not his comments on the discussion page. -- ] 21:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources say "VILLIFY"; that's different from "CRITICIZE". "FABLE" is different from "THEORY". --] 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::Sure. I am aware that you are great at finding sources that advance your personal point of view. The problem is that your personal point of view is not NPOV. Your sources might say "vilify" and call specific positions ""old prejudices" but Misplaced Pages shouldn't make any such judgments. Read WP:NPOV and edit according to that policy. -- ] 11:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Let me chime in: Aminz, you are saying that criticizing and vilifying are not the same thing. You are correct in that assessment. But then you turn around and treat them as synonyms in the article. My edit tried, among other things, to make clear that there were both criticism and vilification in the Middle Ages. Naturally, since a writer who vilifies also criticizes, the criticism is a more frequent phenomenon. Hence I have written: "has often criticized and sometimes v"
:::::::Furthermore, "The medieval scholars and churchmen" makes the following a general statement about all scholars and churchmen, whereas most didn't care to write about Islam or M. I recently peeped into ]'s writings about Islam and this is what he complains about: that noone else wants to tackle writing about/against Islam. Our sentence here should either be prefaced with "Some" or with out an article.
:::::::As for the "666" fable. I don't know from what obscure source this comes from (I am referring to the medieval writer who said this) but I for my part have never heard of it. That doesn't mean that it is inaccurate (though I could think of other reasons behind such a figure), only that it is obscure. I see, obscure as it is, that it has a part in article focusing on M's image in the medieval west, but: this is the overview article about M and this has no place in here. The article doesn't lose anything by dropping it, unless this passage tries to make the medieval critics look like fools, in other words: to vilify them.
::::::::Ah, and Aminz: name calling such as religious censorship are not quite helpful, especially when inaccurate. ] ] 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Str1977, many of such fables were created during the wars between Muslims and Christians in Medieval times. For a comparatively more positive view of Muhammad ("after reformation" as Lewis puts it)
:::::::::Still, this modified view is described as a vilifying Muhammad. --] 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::BTW, I think I shouldn't have written the "religous censorship" bit. --] 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Aminz, I am glad that you take that last bit back.
::::::::::The question is not whether many fables were created but how representative they are of medieval writing about Islam and how notable the fable is. The 666 bit is IMHO not notable and actually not needed for classifying Islam as the Antichrist (let me state that I don't agree with it but I can see how one can come to this conclusion), which BTW is not a fable but an assessment in a certain theological-religious framework.
::::::::::You have not answere my query about your practically (maybe unintentionally) identifying criticism with vilification. Both were present in the MA.
::::::::::Your link doesn't provide anything useful. Maybe you shouldn't be googeling so much. The page contains "villified" once and "Muhammad" several times but a whole lot more and nobody I hope advocates including this in an endorsing fashion into this (or any other) article.
::::::::::From my observation (which doesn't matter much article-wise) I can not confirm that the reformation as such has resulted in a "more positive view" of M. (leaving aside hypocritical statements by Luther about the Pope and the Sultan). ] ] 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Str1977, Please take a look at pages 45 and 46 of Lewis's book here (last paragraph) .
:::::::::::I have read these information from various places and have no doubt that I am correct on this point. --] 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Okay, Aminz, I have read and have found nothing in there that's disputed between us. Though I think the Mahound thing is overdone (but maybe that is a phenomenon of the English-speaking world), you could very well use the first sentence of that paragraph as an attributed quote. This is much better than the "fables". ] ] 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The word "fables" has too much moral baggage associated with its use; I think another word is more appropriate. - ] 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Aminz, I also suggest that you read (if you haven't done so yet) , which I found on the al-Kindi article. Apart from minor squibbles (re the Crusades and the concept of "protected" "minorities"), I think it is a good outline of Muslim-Christian Encounters. Given your record regarding Watt, I think will appreciate this. ] ] 09:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I had a quick look. Does he disagree with what I have said? --] 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Since when could a "source" not disagreeing be the basis for including a statement? The thing is that you beloved Watt manages to writes an article without referring to this silly fable. ] ] 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) PS. Does the word mythify exist? I have found no evidence for that. ] ] 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

==This Edit War Should Stop==

Really, 'Islam' actually means Peace, so why can't we keep it like that? The users who want the picture, I totally know what your saying, but it's really offensive to Muslims and hurts them. The veiled picture of Muhammad (PBUH) is alright I guess, since his face is covered. But the one where his face is completely exposed isn't so nice, and is very offensive. If your so concerned about how he looks, why don't you give him a physical description or something? All I'm saying is that this edit war really, really sucks and we should stop fighting. ] 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
:No Islam, means submission to God.
:If you despise this edit war, why don't you stop it? ] ] 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

::Your proposal is not in line with our policies. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

:::The arguments you make have been discussed on this page already, multiple times, in great detail. Archives 6 and 7 may shed light on this for you. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

::::And of course, members of the "anti-Muslim brigade" reply first as usual. Some things never change ... ] 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Maybe that speaks for our dedication to the subject, which some people (up at ]) seem to think we don't have. And we're not anti-Muslim. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">]</font></sup> 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Bless sins, if you're going to be using anon IP's, please take care that you don't say or do anything you wouldn't be willing to say or do under ] (e.g. vote-stacking, personal attacks, vandalism.)] 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I have no clue of what you are trying to say ..... :D ] 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

== Muhammad and the Jews ==
Arrow, we are explaning Muhammad's view of Jews and its development. That Christians and Jews had disagreements isn't blaming them. It is sourced. --] 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Your "when" blames the Jews and Christians. ] 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::I don't understand what you mean. ''Encyclopedia of Religion'' says that Muhammad was shocked to see that the community of one God is divided into warring sects because of a few theological disagreements. So does Encyclopedia of Islam says that Muhammad's view regarding Jews and Christians changed upon informing the internal disagreements between Jews and Christians and within themselves. How are Christians and Jews blamed here? --] 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::The idea of a "community of one God" became dar al-Islam versus dar al-harb pretty quickly. This is saying that they were responsible for Muhammad's negative opinion of them. In fact they weren't; they were minding their own business and he took it upon himself to butcher most of the Jewish males he encountered and enslave all the women to concubinage and so forth. It is not fair to his victims to blame them for Muhammad's ideas about them. ] 06:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::When I look at the disputed passage:
::::''Muhammad referred to Christians and Jews, sharing the same scriptural tradition as his, as "People of the Book". Muhammad's favourable attitude towards Christians and Jews started becoming negative in late Meccan period when he became more aware of antipathy between Jews and Christians and disagreements between members of the same religion.''
::::I have two issues:
::::1) It is stylistically bad to start the section like that.
::::2) It is indeed pushing a POV, that Muhammad's attitude changed because of the antipathy between Jews and Christians. Fact of the matter is, that he changed it when other would not accept him as prophet. Also, if M. was so concerned about the community of God divided why did he create a third grouping instead of joining one or the other. It is indeed unacceptable to blame Jews and Christians for divisions.
::::] ] 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::"Fact of the matter is, that he changed it when other would not accept him as prophet."
:::::Indeed, this is also easily sourced, as we are well aware. My impression is that this is be the majority view. Even Haykal concurs. The question is, do we wish to launch into an extended discussion on why Muhammad's attitudes changed? If so, then it should be balanced and appropriately placed.] 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::: ] also agrees "This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion."
::::::Encyclopedia of Religion also confirms that.
::::::Then what's the point? Now it is POV-pushing?! --] 09:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Also, can you please clarify what does "It is stylistically bad to start the section like that" actually mean? Or Arrow740 thinks it is bad because it is blaming Jews and Christians for having disputes! I hope that doesn't classify as religous censorship. --] 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Aminz, Just because Stillman and the EoR say that doesn't make it any less POV, to claim that as the sole and main reason for M's change of mind. Stylistically, it is better to first relate what happened and than give an analysis of the possible reasons (note the plural). ] ] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::It is far from apparent that Stillman means Muhammad became more hostile towards Jews and Christians because he became aware of interreligious conflicts. This idea would fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that Muhammad disparaged Chrisitans and, especially, Jews for rejecting his claims to prophethood. The passage in question is not entirely clear to me on its own, and it cannot be included unless we know more about Stillman's line of reasoning. ] ] 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::To Str, "Just because Stillman and the EoR say that doesn't make it any less POV". I will attribute it to them.
:::::::::To Beit Or, you have access to Encyclopedia of Islam. --] 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
<reset>

Why are you removing sourced material Arrow? --] 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:Why do you think that edit summaries are not a reliable source for my views? ] 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry, I'm not understanding why Aminz is being reverted. These are verifiable quotes aren't they? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Wow, you were completely obscuring Stillman's point. The full quote is balanced. I've never seen such blatant cherry-picking to advance a POV before. ] 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
::::My advice: {{]}}, don't just blindly (and ''easily'') revert Aminz's edit out... add to it what needs to be added so that the quote is balanced. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Arrow, you don't stop being rude, do you? --] 07:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

==Hidden table of contents==
I see that Netscott has recently auto-hidden the table of contents on this article and the ]. What do people think? Is it an improvement over the versions with the standard layout: ?


== '''Frequently asked questions''', please read before posting ==
My initial reaction is to be a little hesistant-- it seems like the standard layout works well. There's something to be said for inter-article layout consistency. And in general, I usually don't want to have to click on something in order to see valuable parts of the article. But that's just my initial impression. Have we hidden TOCS elsewhere? What do other eyes think. --] 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
<!-- ] 00:02, 5 July 5672 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|116839929765}}
Please read ] for answers to these frequently-asked questions (you need to tap "Read as wiki page" to see the relevant text):
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


This section is for mobile-device users who do not see the normal talk page header. This section should not have any comments, so that it stays on this talk page and does not get archived.
:I like it. Plus I don't see any alternative that could look any better. - ] 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::No need to hesitate about removing it if you feel it's a distraction ]... I'm just BOLDly putting ] out there ''gradually'' and seeing how folks are responding to it. So far it's only been removed from one article that I have placed it on (that I have noticed) but concurrently placed on another (and some user's are putting it on their talk pages). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 07:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


==GA Reassessment==
==Muhammad died in 666==
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Muhammad/2}}
I've read a lot of material, but I've never seen the claim before that someone claimed that he actually died in 666. I'm suspicious of this claim, I'd like to see it quoted and cited. Thanks. ] 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


== GA or Featured nomination ==
:I should point out that the reason I'm suspicious is the use of "666" as a year. I'm not sure that someone living in 666 would actually understand that they were, and that typically *years* were expressed more in the form of "in the 8th year of the reign of King Gundapharas" and so on. ] 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Is there any plan for this article to be made up to the standards of ] or even ]. This is a very high importance figure and the article should be made up to the best standards. If there is any plan to enact a nomination please let me know so I can help. ] (]) 21:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::It was a fable. He didn't die in 666. --] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


:I would recommend you take a look at the ], and maybe see if there are places in the articles that you could help bring up to those criteria. If you have questions, let me know: GA and FA are different processes and one generally takes place before the other. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 21:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I know that. I'm asking for what the citation is for the *claim* that he did, as was posted to the article. That claim has no citation and it's suspicious. ] 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:It was GA for a long while until now-blocked editor Kaalakaa took it upon himself to rewrite most of the article over a period of several months starting in Jun 2023. This talk page history has records of some contention that caused.
:One of the fallouts was this article losing its GA status, because the article that earned GA wasn't the same article as what it eventually became. Kaalakaa's edits weren't bad, they were overall improvements I think, but his view on what sources are reliable, and his interpretation of them, have been questioned.
:What needs to happen to restore GA status is to go through every one of his hundreds of edits with a fine-tooth comb and check the sources. This is a big job because not all sources are available online, and not all aren't behind paywalls.
:As for FA, that isn't feasible. FA articles are unprotected when featured on the main page, and this Muhammmad article experiences enough disruption when it's unprotected that it would be impossible to keep it free from disruption by people who take offense at its content if it became FA. I mean, do you know of ''any'' article about a contentious topic that ''ever'' became a Featured Article? ~] <small>(])</small> 02:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::So the main problem is with the citations, thank you, I will try to check them but as you said it is a long process. As for contentious FAs ] is one. ] (]) 20:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It isn't just the sources. Many of the sources are good sources, but the interpretation needs checking. Some of the sources may be questionable. A recent example is ''The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah'' by Russ Rodgers, published by the University Press of Florida. Archived discussions ], ], ] (about 2/3 the way into the conversation), and ], is that the book includes extraordinary claims that demand support of multiple reliable sources, yet the author is rather obscure (more of a hobbyist historian) having been largely ignored by academia with few citations. The book may be useful for some military tactics, though. ~] <small>(])</small> 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Here's my question: if some of these sources are so hard to find (acknowledging that's not inherently a criterion for reliability)—shouldn't we consider removing material that's only verifiable in those sources per ], given the enormity of the topic? This article is over 13k words long—frankly, to me that always indicates that we should be cutting it down somewhere, and this seems like obvious low-hanging fruit. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::That particular source by Rodgers is a candidate for removal, yes. I can't say about the others. I suggest you start going through Kaalakaa's edits starting in June 2023, and take notes. He put a lot of work into it, most of it good, but such an overwhelming amount that the other regulars here haven't found the spare time to check it all. ~] <small>(])</small> 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::That is my impression as well. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 21:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I have removed the Rodgers source for now ] (]) 22:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I am going to remove all the citations which cannot be found in the ] section. All the ones not found already have more than one citation, so I would not be removing any information. ] (]) 01:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The more critical task would be checking whether what the Misplaced Pages article says aligns with what the citations say, in proper context. ~] <small>(])</small> 17:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


== Opening paragraph ==
::::I agree. And, as I stated above, the "fable", even if actually really brough up (for which we lack the reference), is in no way representative for how M was viewed in the Middle Ages. ] ] 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


I find the current opening paragraph to be problematic, in that it emphasizes the fact that Muhammad was "an Arab religious, social, and political leader" over the fact that he was "the founder of Islam". I tried to survey how some other encyclopedias introduce him in their very first sentence, and this is what I found (I'll omit technical information like transliteration of his name and his dates for brevity):
==]==
{{talkquote|Muhammad was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.|source=}}
Although I do understand that this has had a spotty history of controversy here, I think there is some room to *mention* that this work exists and speaks of Muhammad. Whether it's spurious, fraudulent, or any other argument doesn't really speak to the fact that it *should* be mentioned in some context, even if only due to that very controversy. "A more detailed mention of Muhammad can be found in the ], the earliest version of which has been traced to the late 16th Century. ] 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
{{talkquote|Muhammad, also known as the Messenger of God, or the Prophet, founder of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community.|source=Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, p 754}}
{{talkquote|Muhammad, the prophet who, according to Muslims, received God's revelation in the Qur'an, and established Islam. His importance for Muslims is emphasized by the central Islamic profession of faith: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his (sic) Messenger."|source=, p 304}}
{{talkquote|Muhammad, the prophet and founder of Islam and that faith's most important and significant messenger. He received his first revelation of the Holy Koran via the angel Gabriel when he was circa forty years old.|source=, "Mohammed"}}
{{talkquote|Muhammad is acknowledged by more than one billion Muslims as the last messenger of God. It was through him that the Quranic passages, which his followers believe present the word of God, had been revealed to guide the nascent community through its predicaments. The religion that Muhammad preached is called Islam, meaning submission to God; its creed asserts that there is but one God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.|source=Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, p 478}}
{{talkquote|Muhammad is revered by Muslims as the prophet to whom the Quran, the sacred scripture of Islam, was revealed.|source=, p 6220}}
In other words, every single of the encyclopedia above introduces Muhammad as the founder of Islam/Muslim community and the proclaimer of the Qur'an, much more than being an Arab social and political leader. I think the opening paragraph can still mention ], but not in the first sentence.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)


:I'd say feel free to propose a rearrangement of the lead. ] requires that the lead be a concise overview of the contents of the article, and insofar as the article goes into depth (likely more than other encyclopedias) about political leadership, I don't see the ordering of facts in the lead as a problem, but I don't object to changing it. ~] <small>(])</small> 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Again, mentioning that the work exists, in no way asserts that its useful, factual, non-POV or any other thing. It merely asserts that it exists and mentions Muhammad and is notable. ] 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Another one (already cited in the article):
:Do you have any idea how many completely ridiculous (yet sourcable) things have been said about Muhammad over the past thirteen centuries, and how long (and bizarre) this article would be if we listed them all?] 08:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
{{talkquote|The Prophet of Islam was a religious, political, and social reformer who gave rise to one of the great civilizations of the world. From a modern, historical perspective, Muḥammad was the founder of Islam. From the perspective of the Islamic faith, he was God 's Messenger (rasūl Allāh), called to be a “warner,” first to the Arabs and then to all humankind.|source=The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, }}
So I propose this is the opening paragraph:
{{quote|Muhammad (/moʊˈhɑːməd/; Arabic: مُحَمَّد, romanized: Muḥammad, lit. 'praiseworthy'; ; c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was the founder of ]. According to Muslims, he was the ] sent by ], to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of ], ], ], ], and other prophets. Muhammad's life and ], along with the ], form the basis for ] and ]. Muhammad established the ], which later gave rise to the ].}}


Definitely open to suggestions.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 22:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::It doesn't seem like what's in GOB is ridiculous or bizarre. But it does seem notable. ] 08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::It's a Renaissance-era forgery, and of basically no importance to this article.] 08:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


:Makes sense to me. ] (]) 11:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Proabivouac: i totally agree with wjohnson,that was my point all along.you definitely went overboard.besides,we are not citing "ridiculous (yet sourcable) things" as you said.st barnabas still has followers and his churches are still alive in u.s-there's one beside my place actually-regardless of what you may believe.if something doesn't make sense to you then know that it doesnt necessarily mean that it doesn't make sense to everyone as well.i don't know how religious you are but if you are christian then remember this:jesus(peace be upon him) was never hateful or rude as much as you are,you should be ashamed of yourself to be that biased.i would really appreciate if you can take users wjohnson or netscott as an exmaple on how to talk with others.hopefully US muslims can teach how to follow a loving person like jesus.its 3 am now i will hopefully attend to this later] 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)..
:maybe "final" is more correct than "last"? — '''] '']''''' 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Do not speculate about my religious beliefs, for it is incivil, or discuss yours, for they are completely off topic to building a neutral encyclopedia.
:The final prophet isn't "according to Muslims" it's "according to most Muslims" or "according to nearly all Muslims". Amadiyya consider themselves Muslims but they recognize a prophet after Muhammad. ~] <small>(])</small> 04:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Just because your forgery is called "St. Barnabas" doesn't mean that institutions named after Barnabas follow it.] 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:I don't see the problem. He was "an Arab religious, social, and political leader" because he was the founder of Islam. --] (]) (]) 14:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::I agree, the proposed replacement isn't really an improvement over what we have. The lead sentence already says he's the founder. Maneuvering the words around to get "founder" to appear earlier in the sentence isn't making the lead paragraph better. ~] <small>(])</small> 15:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Heck, the fact that he founded Islam is only really important because he was able to use it to become the dominant religious, social, and political leader. Lots and lots of religious movements are started and more or less quickly fade away. --] (]) (]) 15:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Can you cite several sources, maybe a dozen, that introduce him as "an Arab religious, social, and political leader"? Because I've cited above 7 above that introduce him as a founder of Islam (or some variant of that), and could probably easily find a dozen more. Lets focus on the sources.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::I see that this description may neglect the theological message he delivers. He did had unique ideas by subjugating the Arabian pantheon under one supreme deity he later identified with the God of the Talmudic tradition. He did have unique contributations in matters of theology as well. But this shouldn't mean that the part about his political identity should be removed, maybe just emphazize more his role as a religious figure? ] (]) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::To me, the current lead fits the best as the proposed doesn't make the opening paragraph more appropriate for the figure than the current. Even before what is known as ], being active in Arab tribal meetings, ] and his participation in ] (as sources mention) also indicate sort of his social as well as political role (although not as leading person) and not as religious role at that time. Though the latter role got widely known. ] (]) 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::And that's what this is about: what is Muhammad known ''the most'' for. No one is saying those other parts of his life shouldn't be in the lead, but we shouldn't claim somehow his early life is more important than his founding of Islam.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@] I didn't propose removing his political identity but rather writing it as "Muhammad established the ], which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization." This is not inconsistent with ], ], ] and ] all being introduced as (one of) the founders of the Republic of Turkey, United States, modern Egypt and Pakistan, respectively, in the first sentence. What do you think was his political identity? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Another one:
{{talkquote|In the perspective of history, the origin of Islam can be traced back to the prophetic career of Muhammad, its historical founder in the first third of the seventh century.|source=''The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought'', "Muhammad", p 367}} ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


:Why not just shift the word "founder" forward in the existing opening sentence? You rewrote the entire first paragraph, and to me it isn't an improvement over what we already have. ~] <small>(])</small> 19:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I don't think Gospel of Barnabas is relevant to this article. What might be relevant is the belief of Jewish communities in Arabia before Muhammad that God would choose a prophet from Arabia (though he was supposed to be a Jew and not a Gentile). --] 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::Like I said, I'm open to rewording. Lets consider your proposal: "Muhammad was the founder of Islam and an Arab political, social and religious leader." That would be an improvement over the current version. But we can improve it further:
::*Isn't it redundant to describe him both as a "founder of Islam" and a "religious leader"? The former just about covers the entirety of his religious career.
::*I replaced "Arab political and social leader" with "Muhammad established the ], which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization". Isn't that more specific?
::''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 21:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::To your points: Sure, "religious leader" could be removed. The second replacement is fine too. It's your middle sentence in your proposal that isn't an improvement over what we have already. How about:
::::Muhammad (/moʊˈhɑːməd/; Arabic: مُحَمَّد, romanized: Muḥammad, lit. 'praiseworthy'; ; c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) is the founder of Islam, and an Arab social and political leader who established the first Islamic state that was the precuror to the Islamic civilization. According to Islamic doctrine,...
:::~] <small>(])</small> 07:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's a longish opening sentence. I sort of get the point that the OP makes at the beginning of this thread. But I think that the reason the wording kinda underplays the founding of Islam is not so much its position in the sentence but the use of "and" to add it. It gives it a "tacked on" feel. It seems right to begin with the "personal" fundamentals about him: that he was an Arab leader - though the "social" descriptor doesn't add much, IMO. My suggestion would be closer to the current wording but: {{tq|Muhammad...was an Arab religious and political leader who founded Islam.}} ] (]) 08:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for making suggestions, its important we make them. But I don't think yours is an improvement. Calling Muhammad "an Arab religious and political leader who founded Islam" makes it sound like he was a politician first who decided to create a religion. Historically, we know it was the other way around; he began religious preaching in 610 CE, and only founded a state in 622 CE.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just to add that the opening formula of "X...was ...who " is a common solution across many WP bios - from ] to ]. ] (]) 09:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that was kind of my point earlier. I think the existing opening sentence is fine. If it can be improved by giving more prominence to the position of "founder" then that's good too but I'm not really happy with the alternative so far, including my own suggestion. ~] <small>(])</small> 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I think "founder of Islam" fits really well as both a personal description as well as what he did. I'm fine with "an Arab social and political leader who established the first Islamic state that was the precuror to the Islamic civilization" anywhere in the first paragraph but probably not the first sentence.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Vice regent}} It is important to mention he was a Arab leader given that it is through his leadership and those following that not only Islam but also the Arabic language and culture spread from its homeland across most of the Middle East and North Africa (and as a language of scholarship, much further). ] (]) 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm fine to mention him as an Arab leader, but he must be mentioned as the founder of Islam ''first''. That is the absolute one thing he is the ''most'' notable for. Everything else is important, but secondary. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@], also can you quote sources that describe his influences on Arabs that you mentioned above? It will help us in seeing what wording scholars use to describe that and then perhaps we can mimic that wording.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well Britannica has "For instance, a Syriac chronicle dating from about 640 mentions a battle between the Romans and “the Arabs of Muhammad,” and an Armenian history composed about 660 describes Muhammad as a merchant who preached to the Arabs and thereby triggered the Islamic conquests. Such evidence provides sufficient confirmation of the historical existence of an Arab prophet by the name of Muhammad." The earliest evidence of Muhammad outside of Islamic sources describe Muhammad as an Arab leader. BTW are you saying that Muhammad should not be described as an Arab leader in the lead? ] (]) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. The ] says that Muslims believe he was "God 's Messenger first to the Arabs and then to all humankind." I'm fine with describing him as an Arab leader both in the lead and the first paragraph but not the first sentence, I'll explain in a table below (English Misplaced Pages FAs and GAs on early Islamic leaders don't tend to call them Arabs in the very first sentence). One way to describe his Arab-ness would be:
::::::"Muhammad established the first Islamic state in ], which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization. He also proclaimed the Qur'an, the central religious text of Islam and widely regarded as a masterpiece of ]." ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024 ==
:: I agree with aminz.that doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.the reason why i want to include the gospel of st barnabas is because he is still looked at with respect from christians and he still has followers.i don't see any reason why he shouldn't be included.] clarified my point.please help me with any tips on how to include my entry as well as include yours.thank you ]
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 5}}
{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
] (]) 16:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Add Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam by the side of The name of our prophet.
:{{notdone}}. Muhammad's full name is already given and sources are cited. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024 (2) ==
]:
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 5}}
1)thank you for teaching me how to talk to others,i always value other's opinions and advices.i just hope that you can also direct your precious advices to yourself as well.hopefully that will make you more respectful to others as well,even those who don't necessarilly agree with you.
2)so what do you think about my entry and ]??or are we going to just keep on entering and deleting entries randomly forever??hope to get a constructive opinion from you this time...
]


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
:] was not any kind of reputable scholar, either academic or religious, nor a respectable mainstream interpreter of either the Qur'an or renaissance-era forgeries, but a ] in the mold of ]. His talking points are about as relevant here as are those of ], whom he debated: that is, they're not. Perhaps another article ] would provide a good home for this material. Otherwise, it should appear only in the ] article.] 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 16:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad change it to https://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad+Sallallahu+Alaihi+Wasallam
:I think this article should mention the gospel of Barnabas' relevance to Muhammad. Doesn't matter if one editor thinks it's forgery or not, that's just their opinion.] 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


cause it is must to read this thing beside our prophet name for muslim
my question is not whether to include the gospel of barnabas entry or not.but rather how to write it.i agree with ]'s point of mentioning ahmed deedat's analysis in his page but what of the gospel of barnabas thing??i also agree that it is definitely relevant to muhammad's page.regardless of what he or anyone else thinks.can someone please help me finalize this before i-or anyone else-enter it again??also,],please let me know of any recommended edits that you may want to include,i will listen and consider any opinions you may have.thank you
:Hi Hasbbdee. Please read the FAQ at the top of this talk page, as this is a commonly discussed issue. Thanks! <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 16:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


:{{notdone}}. See ] for information about how articles are titled. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
It's just fine to write on the Gospel of Barnabas. It just doesn't belong here. ] 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:Per Frotz and Proverbiouac; I know this sounds odd, but the Gospel of Barnabas is, um, not a very verifiable source. There are many forgeries attributed to some prophet or another; we can't list them all. ]<sup>]·]</sup> 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
::That isn't what verifiable means in wikicontext. Verifiable only means that the average editor could go look it up themselves and proves that it says whatever it says. That is, you can verify the quote or summation matches the source. Verifiability says nothing about whether the source is truthful.] 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not taking sides here,but ] so far has provided the strongest arguments.so now what??how should i post the gospel of barnabas entry again??if so,can anyone provide any suggestions on hwo to do so so i can write an entry that everyone agress with??i already withdrew a lot of my previous ideas so i can be in agreement with everyone.please be fair and open-minded.i believe that i've done my part-that is to do my best to write an entry that everyone could agree on-and i hope that i find appreciative ears...] 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 ==
:::Patstuart didn't quite state it correctly. The reason why the Gospel of Barnabas does not belong here is that it's a forgery and therefore not a source of prophecy, as you suggest it is. The fact we can point at the document in a museum or library is not relevant. One can also point to documents claiming that ] was a space alien. Note that the ] (also a forgery) is not mentioned in ]. ] 09:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 5}}
::::Not only is it a forgery (which is the main point), it is also a forgery not very relevant to the person of Muhammad or to Islam. The former lived in the 7th century, the latter started at that time, almost 1400 years ago. The "Gospel of Barnabas" was forged around 1500, more than 700 years later, when Muhammad was long dead and Islam had fully formed. Or can anyone tell me the impact of the GoB on Islam? ] ] 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
:::::Guys: 1)for the millionth time,just because this gospel is looked at as mere forgery by some doesn't mean that it is so in the eyes of everyone else. 2)please,provide any useful advice in re-constructing this entry so everyone else can be happy about it. 3)again,i've done my part of listening to your advices and actually took them into consideration.can someone do the same??4)Dear ]:we have discussed this before and it was decided to omit this entry for the time being.but i still didn't get any tips from you on how to make this entry agreeable with everyone??i respect your character and i hope to get some sincere advice.and I thank you for your discussion with us so far.hope to get more ideas from you.5)last but not least,none of you editors represent ALL Christians therefore you can't say that it is definitely a forgery.even if it is forgery in your eyes,it is still notable to mentioned because of other’s different views concerning all this(and-obviously-no they are not merely a minority).thank you for your kind attention everyone and i apologize in advance just in case if i offended anyone,please know that i didn't mean to...Thank you] 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My request is to write the name of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him with respect and not only his name, so please write “Prophet Muhammad” with respect ] (]) 11:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::This has nothing to do with "represent ALL Christians," or anyone's religious beliefs. It should be obvious by now that there is no consensus, and likely will never be a consensus, to include this ] material in this article. My advice, therefore, is to write about this in places where it is accepted as sufficiently topical.] 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::And where would you suggest that??] 02:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Everyone,i will take ]'s suggestion and start a ] new article titled: "various other views of muhammad" where all editors can include as many views of muhammad as possible.agreed??] 09:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


:Hi, Please read the FAQ section at the top of this page as well as ] to see why we don't do this. Thanks! <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 11:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
==The Jews==
:also {{notdone}} <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 11:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
That section is badly written and takes Muhammad's side. ] 03:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages is a secular encyclopaedia that is not bound by Muslim custom. ] (]) 06:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:Couldn't agree more. Should I tag it with {{tl|sectionrewrite}} or {{tl|balance}}?--] 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:::{{tl|sectionrewrite}} inserted. BTW, I don't feel the section is really necessary, as it is a detour from the chronological layout of the article. ] ] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I tend to agree; although some of the material is fine, it should be presented chronologically along with the rest of the biography.] 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: I remember you welcomed having this section? --] 21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::The material is fine. I am only saying that the biography portion should proceed chronologically rather than thematically. As it's from the same general period, all the material will wind up nearby the rest anyhow. Generally, the article should be structured as follows: I. lead, II. sources, III. biography, IV. legacy (including "views").] 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Do you have any sources that disagree with what is written here? --] 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024 ==
Please state ''why'' you think the section needs re-write? --] 21:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
So Proabivouac, you only disagree with the order/placement of the section, not the content itself?] 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad's birth date is 571 so it should be changed to 571 from 570 ] (]) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> --] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== Why is this article locked == == Encyclopaedia of Islam source ==


Hello! I have been looking over the sources of Islam-related pages and one I find consistently is "Buhl and Welch 1993", which is only linked to a purchase page for the book.
Why is it locked/protected from editing? And if yes, where is the tag?
] 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:Editing of this article is restricted to established editors in order to protect it from vandalism.] 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::It's the small padlock in the corner ({{tl|sprotect2}} instead of {{tl|sprotect}}). --] 00:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Yesterday I find out that it is actually ]. This got me thinking: is it better to leave the source's link as it is, or should we link the aforementioned reference.
== So called "Images of Prophet" are NOT part of islam ==


In addition, I cannot find Buhl or Welch's names as the authors of the Muhammad section which is most frequently used. I can only Trude Ehlert. I would be grateful if somebody clears up my confusion. ] (]) 06:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
These images are Not part of islam but actually they are part of middle eastern and persian art traditions. These images cannot be linked with islam. There are many saints of islam who came after Muhammad to preach islam , these images could represent them but not Muhammad. There is simply no evidence in that case. If you have evidence you can show it up here ] 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


::See . ] (]) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:First, this is not an article on Islam. Secondly, there are reliable source that we attribute the claim that these are images of Muhammad, see the citations. Details are at ]. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you! ] - ] 13:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::F.&nbsp;Buhl was the author of the Muhammad section in the first edition of ''The Encyclopaedia of Islam'' (1934), which in the 1993 edition was revised and updated by A.T.&nbsp;Welch .] (]) 14:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:I've bundled a citation underneath for the new online edition of that article. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== Age of Muhammad at his death ==
::I assume the above user meant that the should replace the |url= in the existing main Encylopaedia of Islam source, not that a new citation should be added with a url going to what is for them also inaccessible content. ] (]) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That was my inquiry pretty much. ] - ] 17:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 ==
The numbers don't quite add up in the article. Apparently he was born circa 570 AD, died in June 632 and was aged 63 at his death. Which is the dodgy number? --] 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:My understanding is that circa 570 AD could mean he was born about 570. So if he were born in 568 or 569 you could still say he was born circa 570. On the other hand, it does seem a bit strange one would know the age and year of death so accurately but not the year of birth (although then again he could have either been born in 568 or 569 from the details we know. One more thing, if the age were given from Islamic sources it could be based on the ]. Of course, if this is the case we should make this clear ] 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
::The Islamic calendar was not in use prior to 622, even in a proleptic sense, so it should make no difference. Perhaps the confusion as to his year of birth has been caused by people not realising this. Over sixty years, the difference between a lunar and a lunisolar calendar adds up to two whole years. ] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
change date of birth, its 22nd Apr, 571 ] (]) 09:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


:What source do you have? Consider ]. ] (]) 10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So are you saying that he ''was'' 63 years old, but those 63 years may have been measured in an old style which could correspond to about 61 of our years? Where are we getting this figure of 63 anyway? Is it from a contemporary source, an islamic tradition or just a wikipedia editor getting their sums wrong? --] 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 ==
::::I have no idea what the source for his age is, but ''if'' it is contemporary, it would be measured almost entirely in lunisolar years. The intercalary month was not suppressed until Muhammad's final decade, which only makes a difference of three months at most. Measuring 63 from AD 632 takes us to AD 569. The same period measured on a purely lunar calendar (as the Muslims now use) would be 65 years. What I'm suggesting is that some people counted backwards incorrectly using lunar years, as if the Islamic calendar was already in force. This would take us to AD 571, hence the confusion. ] 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
:All of these sources confidently assert that he was 63: . While these make a similar statement that he was 62: . There seem to be fewer sources saying 61 or 64, at least in the first couple of pages of a Google search. I've found one for 61 and one for 64 . There seems to be some uncertainty here and quite what all these supposedly reliable sources are doing giving a definite figure when it is far from definite I'm not sure. Anyway I've taken it out of the article. --] 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Change leading sentence from {{green|'''Muhammad''' (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social, and political leader}} to {{green|'''Muhammad''' (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious leader"}} as per ] that states: "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". The lead sentence should stick to what he was primarily known for. The infobox is there to include additional occupations. The world knows him as a religious leader, not as a political and social leader. For example, ] was a prominent philanthropist and poet but since the world knows him as a professional boxer, we have that on his article. ] (]) 08:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:I don't find the current writing particularly overloaded/everything. Social/political is quite relevant, religious too limited. ] (]) 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Vilify ==
::Political can arguably be relevant as he was the founder and ruler of a state but social is definitely not that relevant. Just because a few social norms changed during Muhammad's lifetime doesn't mean he's widely known as a social leader in the world. Major encycloepdias' introductory sentence just calls him a religious leader or the founder of Islam i.e. {{green|Muhammad (born c. 570, Mecca, Arabia —died June 8, 632, Medina) was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.}}. Best case scenario is having {{green|'''Muhammad''' (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious and political leader"}}. ] (]) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I have presented the details instead of arguing whether it was a vilification or a criticism. --] 08:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I'd be fine with removing 'social'. It does seem redundant. {{ping|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} Agree? ] (]) 04:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Drive by comment: I too do not see the need for the term "social". I'm not sure what constitutes a "social leader" to begin with. ] 04:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::same ] (]) 06:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Good enough. ] (]) 07:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Done. ] (]) 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2025 ==
== Edit summaries ==


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
There has been remarkably low edit summary usage for long-time editors. Aminz, Arrow740, TharkunColl, others have done it in the last 50 edits. It really helps to make clear what your edits are doing for the article. ] ] 08:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear (who will take time and read my request) :


I hope you are doing well. I recently came across an article featuring images of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). While I truly appreciate the effort in sharing insights across different perspectives, I wanted to kindly bring something to your attention regarding Islamic teachings.
: Okay :) --] 10:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Alright. ] 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


In Islam, depicting the Prophet is avoided as a way to maintain respect and prevent any unintended idolization. The Prophet said, “The people who will be most severely punished on the Day of Judgment will be the image-makers” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 5950). Additionally, there’s a general discouragement of creating images of living beings, as mentioned in the hadith: “Those who make images will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them, ‘Bring to life that which you have created’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 5951).
== Muhammad the reformer ==
I was wondering in what sense it is unbalanced. --] 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Out of respect for these principles and the significance they hold for Muslim readers, I kindly request the removal of these images, if possible. This small adjustment would greatly enhance the inclusivity and respectfulness of the piece without detracting from its value.
==Archive for ]==
Since the discussion at ] is over, can we move it to an archive? Can we somehow do the same with ]?--] 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:I would say just archive them both in place. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::they are now archived--] 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:Is the dispute/discussion over the images in this article resolved? I'm new at this and I'm trying to figure out how that long discussion ended (if it did). On those two pages and this one, I don't see a clear consensus or agreed compromise regarding the images - was one reached? If so, where and how? Thanks ] 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::there was a clear consensus to have the images as they are now.--] 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, apart from the new/anon Muslims who come and complain every once and awhile there is a consensus. ] 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you so much for your understanding. ] (]) 21:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::A consensus that took a lot of talk, one that is based on policy. I am very glad that we got this figured out(for now). <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> see faq 1 ] (]) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:04, 13 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
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

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that some pictures of Muhammad are allowed. Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, MUST be posted to the images subpage. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted.
If you find images of Muhammad offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them; see the FAQ.

The FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims? A1: Further information: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not § Misplaced Pages is not censored, and Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer

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.

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Misplaced Pages because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer.)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people.

Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Misplaced Pages 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:
  1. Sign in or create an account
  2. Click on this link to modify your personal CSS stylesheet (if no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page)
  3. Click the edit button, and add the following line: .page-Muhammad .depiction {display: none;}
  4. Click Publish changes or Publish page to save the preference

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 Misplaced Pages 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: Further information: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles § Muhammad Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages is required to maintain. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Misplaced Pages 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: Further information: Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 (Misplaced Pages contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license.

Q9: Can censorship be employed on Misplaced Pages? A9: No. The official policy is that Misplaced Pages 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. 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.
References
  1. C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp.34–35
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleMuhammad was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the newsOn this day... 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
September 10, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 19, 2012.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, June 8, 2006, and June 8, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Core
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
WikiProject iconIslam: Salaf / Shi'a Islam / Sunni Islam Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.
WikiProject iconArab world Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSaudi Arabia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / Medieval / Early Muslim C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
Taskforce icon
Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Archiving icon
Archives

Main 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, 36

Image archives:
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

Mediation archives:
1. Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild
2. Statements
3. Clarity discussion/Refining positions
4. Ars' final archive
5. The rest of the mediation by Ars
Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8

Images Arbitration:
1. Images Aribitration Remedies
2. Arbitration related RfC


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Section sizes
Section size for Muhammad (49 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 8,061 8,061
Biographical sources 340 11,253
Quran 2,679 2,679
Early biographies 3,742 3,742
Hadith 4,492 4,492
Meccan years 47 39,734
Early life 9,057 9,057
Beginnings of the Quran 6,708 6,708
Opposition in Mecca 4,721 4,721
Quraysh delegation to Yathrib 2,138 2,138
Migration to Abyssinia and the incident of Satanic Verses 5,537 5,537
Attempt to establish himself in Ta'if 3,986 3,986
Isra' and Mi'raj 2,784 2,784
Migration to Medina 4,756 4,756
Medinan years 47 30,322
Building the religious community in Medina 1,680 1,680
Constitution of Medina 1,610 1,610
Beginning of armed conflict 5,204 5,204
Conflicts with Jewish tribes 3,126 3,126
Meccan retaliation 3,038 3,038
Raid on the Banu Mustaliq 1,016 1,016
Battle of the Trench 3,850 3,850
Invasion of the Banu Qurayza 4,318 4,318
Incidents with the Banu Fazara 616 616
Treaty of Hudaybiyya 2,034 2,034
Invasion of Khaybar 3,783 3,783
Final years 17 9,049
Conquest of Mecca 3,823 3,823
Subduing the Hawazin and Thaqif and the expedition to Tabuk 3,583 3,583
Farewell pilgrimage 1,626 1,626
Death 1,717 1,717
Tomb 4,055 4,055
Succession 2,038 2,038
Household 5,403 5,403
Legacy 12 27,818
Islamic tradition 4,598 14,144
Appearance and depictions 9,546 9,546
Islamic social reforms 2,283 2,283
European appreciation 7,374 7,374
Criticism 1,273 1,273
Sufism 833 833
Other religions 1,899 1,899
See also 485 485
References 15 32,018
Notes 26 26
Citations 34 34
Sources 29,223 31,943
Encyclopaedia of Islam 2,720 2,720
External links 1,254 1,254
Total 173,207 173,207

Frequently asked questions, please read before posting

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for answers to these frequently-asked questions (you need to tap "Read as wiki page" to see the relevant text):

  1. Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
  2. Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
  3. How can I hide the images using my personal Misplaced Pages settings?
  4. Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
  5. Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
  6. Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
  7. Why does it look like the article is biased towards secular or "Western" references?
  8. Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
  9. Can censorship be employed on Misplaced Pages?
  10. Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?

This section is for mobile-device users who do not see the normal talk page header. This section should not have any comments, so that it stays on this talk page and does not get archived.

GA Reassessment

Muhammad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: While instability is not in itself a reason to delist, poor quality sourcing is; the discussions on the talk page constitute, in my view, consensus that the sourcing has been degraded. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It has recently been brought to light that this page and its sourcing have been altered fairly wholesale since the page was last reviewed and kept as GA, and that there is little reason to believe the level of former quality has been maintained; on the contrary, recent informal assessments by editors have uncovered significant issues in terms of prior content and source removal, as well as in terms of the quality of new sourcing and the resulting balance of the page and its contents. The sum conclusion of the current state of affairs has already been assessed by several editors as no longer meeting GA standard. For details, see the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Removal of "good article" status, as well as the broader discussion entitled Talk:Muhammad#Recent neutrality concerns, and other subsequent talk page discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fails Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria It is not stable due to edit warring on the page....: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Moxy- 04:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Even excluding the wholesale rewriting the article has undergone recently, 2012 is a long time ago, and the article quality standards back then were arguably lower. I do not see a reason to maintain GA status given the current edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA or Featured nomination

Is there any plan for this article to be made up to the standards of GA or even Featured. This is a very high importance figure and the article should be made up to the best standards. If there is any plan to enact a nomination please let me know so I can help. Titan2456 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend you take a look at the GA criteria, and maybe see if there are places in the articles that you could help bring up to those criteria. If you have questions, let me know: GA and FA are different processes and one generally takes place before the other. Remsense ‥ 论 21:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
It was GA for a long while until now-blocked editor Kaalakaa took it upon himself to rewrite most of the article over a period of several months starting in Jun 2023. This talk page history has records of some contention that caused.
One of the fallouts was this article losing its GA status, because the article that earned GA wasn't the same article as what it eventually became. Kaalakaa's edits weren't bad, they were overall improvements I think, but his view on what sources are reliable, and his interpretation of them, have been questioned.
What needs to happen to restore GA status is to go through every one of his hundreds of edits with a fine-tooth comb and check the sources. This is a big job because not all sources are available online, and not all aren't behind paywalls.
As for FA, that isn't feasible. FA articles are unprotected when featured on the main page, and this Muhammmad article experiences enough disruption when it's unprotected that it would be impossible to keep it free from disruption by people who take offense at its content if it became FA. I mean, do you know of any article about a contentious topic that ever became a Featured Article? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
So the main problem is with the citations, thank you, I will try to check them but as you said it is a long process. As for contentious FAs Jesus is one. Titan2456 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
It isn't just the sources. Many of the sources are good sources, but the interpretation needs checking. Some of the sources may be questionable. A recent example is The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah by Russ Rodgers, published by the University Press of Florida. Archived discussions here, here, here (about 2/3 the way into the conversation), and on RSN, is that the book includes extraordinary claims that demand support of multiple reliable sources, yet the author is rather obscure (more of a hobbyist historian) having been largely ignored by academia with few citations. The book may be useful for some military tactics, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's my question: if some of these sources are so hard to find (acknowledging that's not inherently a criterion for reliability)—shouldn't we consider removing material that's only verifiable in those sources per WP:DUE, given the enormity of the topic? This article is over 13k words long—frankly, to me that always indicates that we should be cutting it down somewhere, and this seems like obvious low-hanging fruit. Remsense ‥ 论 09:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
That particular source by Rodgers is a candidate for removal, yes. I can't say about the others. I suggest you start going through Kaalakaa's edits starting in June 2023, and take notes. He put a lot of work into it, most of it good, but such an overwhelming amount that the other regulars here haven't found the spare time to check it all. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
That is my impression as well. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the Rodgers source for now Titan2456 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I am going to remove all the citations which cannot be found in the Household section. All the ones not found already have more than one citation, so I would not be removing any information. Titan2456 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The more critical task would be checking whether what the Misplaced Pages article says aligns with what the citations say, in proper context. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I find the current opening paragraph to be problematic, in that it emphasizes the fact that Muhammad was "an Arab religious, social, and political leader" over the fact that he was "the founder of Islam". I tried to survey how some other encyclopedias introduce him in their very first sentence, and this is what I found (I'll omit technical information like transliteration of his name and his dates for brevity):

Muhammad was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.
— Britannica

Muhammad, also known as the Messenger of God, or the Prophet, founder of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community.
— Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, p 754

Muhammad, the prophet who, according to Muslims, received God's revelation in the Qur'an, and established Islam. His importance for Muslims is emphasized by the central Islamic profession of faith: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his (sic) Messenger."
— The Encyclopedia of World Religions, p 304

Muhammad, the prophet and founder of Islam and that faith's most important and significant messenger. He received his first revelation of the Holy Koran via the angel Gabriel when he was circa forty years old.
— Encyclopedia of World Religions, "Mohammed"

Muhammad is acknowledged by more than one billion Muslims as the last messenger of God. It was through him that the Quranic passages, which his followers believe present the word of God, had been revealed to guide the nascent community through its predicaments. The religion that Muhammad preached is called Islam, meaning submission to God; its creed asserts that there is but one God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
— Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, p 478

Muhammad is revered by Muslims as the prophet to whom the Quran, the sacred scripture of Islam, was revealed.
— Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, p 6220

In other words, every single of the encyclopedia above introduces Muhammad as the founder of Islam/Muslim community and the proclaimer of the Qur'an, much more than being an Arab social and political leader. I think the opening paragraph can still mention Muhammad's reforms, but not in the first sentence.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say feel free to propose a rearrangement of the lead. WP:LEAD requires that the lead be a concise overview of the contents of the article, and insofar as the article goes into depth (likely more than other encyclopedias) about political leadership, I don't see the ordering of facts in the lead as a problem, but I don't object to changing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Another one (already cited in the article):

The Prophet of Islam was a religious, political, and social reformer who gave rise to one of the great civilizations of the world. From a modern, historical perspective, Muḥammad was the founder of Islam. From the perspective of the Islamic faith, he was God 's Messenger (rasūl Allāh), called to be a “warner,” first to the Arabs and then to all humankind.
— The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, Muḥammad

So I propose this is the opening paragraph:

Muhammad (/moʊˈhɑːməd/; Arabic: مُحَمَّد, romanized: Muḥammad, lit. 'praiseworthy'; ; c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was the founder of Islam. According to Muslims, he was the last prophet sent by God, to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Muhammad's life and normative examples, along with the Quran, form the basis for Islamic theology and law. Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization.

Definitely open to suggestions.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. 142.105.69.34 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
maybe "final" is more correct than "last"? — 🧀Cheesedealer 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The final prophet isn't "according to Muslims" it's "according to most Muslims" or "according to nearly all Muslims". Amadiyya consider themselves Muslims but they recognize a prophet after Muhammad. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. He was "an Arab religious, social, and political leader" because he was the founder of Islam. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree, the proposed replacement isn't really an improvement over what we have. The lead sentence already says he's the founder. Maneuvering the words around to get "founder" to appear earlier in the sentence isn't making the lead paragraph better. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Heck, the fact that he founded Islam is only really important because he was able to use it to become the dominant religious, social, and political leader. Lots and lots of religious movements are started and more or less quickly fade away. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Can you cite several sources, maybe a dozen, that introduce him as "an Arab religious, social, and political leader"? Because I've cited above 7 above that introduce him as a founder of Islam (or some variant of that), and could probably easily find a dozen more. Lets focus on the sources.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I see that this description may neglect the theological message he delivers. He did had unique ideas by subjugating the Arabian pantheon under one supreme deity he later identified with the God of the Talmudic tradition. He did have unique contributations in matters of theology as well. But this shouldn't mean that the part about his political identity should be removed, maybe just emphazize more his role as a religious figure? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
To me, the current lead fits the best as the proposed doesn't make the opening paragraph more appropriate for the figure than the current. Even before what is known as foundational event of the religion, being active in Arab tribal meetings, setting the Black stone and his participation in Pre-Islamic tribal wars (as sources mention) also indicate sort of his social as well as political role (although not as leading person) and not as religious role at that time. Though the latter role got widely known. MSLQr (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
And that's what this is about: what is Muhammad known the most for. No one is saying those other parts of his life shouldn't be in the lead, but we shouldn't claim somehow his early life is more important than his founding of Islam.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle I didn't propose removing his political identity but rather writing it as "Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization." This is not inconsistent with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Thomas Jefferson, Muhammad Ali of Egypt and Muhammad Ali Jinnah all being introduced as (one of) the founders of the Republic of Turkey, United States, modern Egypt and Pakistan, respectively, in the first sentence. What do you think was his political identity? VR (Please ping on reply) 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Another one:

In the perspective of history, the origin of Islam can be traced back to the prophetic career of Muhammad, its historical founder in the first third of the seventh century.
— The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, "Muhammad", p 367

VR (Please ping on reply) 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not just shift the word "founder" forward in the existing opening sentence? You rewrote the entire first paragraph, and to me it isn't an improvement over what we already have. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm open to rewording. Lets consider your proposal: "Muhammad was the founder of Islam and an Arab political, social and religious leader." That would be an improvement over the current version. But we can improve it further:
  • Isn't it redundant to describe him both as a "founder of Islam" and a "religious leader"? The former just about covers the entirety of his religious career.
  • I replaced "Arab political and social leader" with "Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization". Isn't that more specific?
VR (Please ping on reply) 21:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
To your points: Sure, "religious leader" could be removed. The second replacement is fine too. It's your middle sentence in your proposal that isn't an improvement over what we have already. How about:
Muhammad (/moʊˈhɑːməd/; Arabic: مُحَمَّد, romanized: Muḥammad, lit. 'praiseworthy'; ; c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) is the founder of Islam, and an Arab social and political leader who established the first Islamic state that was the precuror to the Islamic civilization. According to Islamic doctrine,...
~Anachronist (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
That's a longish opening sentence. I sort of get the point that the OP makes at the beginning of this thread. But I think that the reason the wording kinda underplays the founding of Islam is not so much its position in the sentence but the use of "and" to add it. It gives it a "tacked on" feel. It seems right to begin with the "personal" fundamentals about him: that he was an Arab leader - though the "social" descriptor doesn't add much, IMO. My suggestion would be closer to the current wording but: Muhammad...was an Arab religious and political leader who founded Islam. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for making suggestions, its important we make them. But I don't think yours is an improvement. Calling Muhammad "an Arab religious and political leader who founded Islam" makes it sound like he was a politician first who decided to create a religion. Historically, we know it was the other way around; he began religious preaching in 610 CE, and only founded a state in 622 CE.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Just to add that the opening formula of "X...was ...who " is a common solution across many WP bios - from Christopher Columbus to Martin Luther King Jr.. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that was kind of my point earlier. I think the existing opening sentence is fine. If it can be improved by giving more prominence to the position of "founder" then that's good too but I'm not really happy with the alternative so far, including my own suggestion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I think "founder of Islam" fits really well as both a personal description as well as what he did. I'm fine with "an Arab social and political leader who established the first Islamic state that was the precuror to the Islamic civilization" anywhere in the first paragraph but probably not the first sentence.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: It is important to mention he was a Arab leader given that it is through his leadership and those following that not only Islam but also the Arabic language and culture spread from its homeland across most of the Middle East and North Africa (and as a language of scholarship, much further). Erp (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine to mention him as an Arab leader, but he must be mentioned as the founder of Islam first. That is the absolute one thing he is the most notable for. Everything else is important, but secondary. VR (Please ping on reply) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Erp, also can you quote sources that describe his influences on Arabs that you mentioned above? It will help us in seeing what wording scholars use to describe that and then perhaps we can mimic that wording.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Well Britannica has "For instance, a Syriac chronicle dating from about 640 mentions a battle between the Romans and “the Arabs of Muhammad,” and an Armenian history composed about 660 describes Muhammad as a merchant who preached to the Arabs and thereby triggered the Islamic conquests. Such evidence provides sufficient confirmation of the historical existence of an Arab prophet by the name of Muhammad." The earliest evidence of Muhammad outside of Islamic sources describe Muhammad as an Arab leader. BTW are you saying that Muhammad should not be described as an Arab leader in the lead? Erp (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World says that Muslims believe he was "God 's Messenger first to the Arabs and then to all humankind." I'm fine with describing him as an Arab leader both in the lead and the first paragraph but not the first sentence, I'll explain in a table below (English Misplaced Pages FAs and GAs on early Islamic leaders don't tend to call them Arabs in the very first sentence). One way to describe his Arab-ness would be:
"Muhammad established the first Islamic state in Arabia, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization. He also proclaimed the Qur'an, the central religious text of Islam and widely regarded as a masterpiece of Arabic literature." VR (Please ping on reply) 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

FAQ No. 5
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hasbbdbee (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Add Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam by the side of The name of our prophet.

 Not done. Muhammad's full name is already given and sources are cited. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024 (2)

FAQ No. 5
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hasbbdbee (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad change it to https://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad+Sallallahu+Alaihi+Wasallam

cause it is must to read this thing beside our prophet name for muslim

Hi Hasbbdee. Please read the FAQ at the top of this talk page, as this is a commonly discussed issue. Thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
 Not done. See WP:COMMONNAME for information about how articles are titled. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

FAQ No. 5
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My request is to write the name of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him with respect and not only his name, so please write “Prophet Muhammad” with respect 156.215.43.238 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Please read the FAQ section at the top of this page as well as Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles § Muhammad to see why we don't do this. Thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
also  Not done Gaismagorm (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is a secular encyclopaedia that is not bound by Muslim custom. 2401:7000:CA83:7400:8559:E255:3053:DFE6 (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Muhammad's birth date is 571 so it should be changed to 571 from 570 Berkyyy (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Islam source

Hello! I have been looking over the sources of Islam-related pages and one I find consistently is "Buhl and Welch 1993", which is only linked to a purchase page for the book.

Yesterday I find out that it is actually available online. This got me thinking: is it better to leave the source's link as it is, or should we link the aforementioned reference.

In addition, I cannot find Buhl or Welch's names as the authors of the Muhammad section which is most frequently used. I can only Trude Ehlert. I would be grateful if somebody clears up my confusion. Daminb (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

See p. 376 (left column). AstroLynx (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Daminb - Here 13:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
F. Buhl was the author of the Muhammad section in the first edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam (1934), which in the 1993 edition was revised and updated by A.T. Welch .AstroLynx (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I've bundled a citation underneath for the new online edition of that article. Remsense ‥ 论 07:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I assume the above user meant that the archive.org link should replace the |url= in the existing main Encylopaedia of Islam source, not that a new citation should be added with a url going to what is for them also inaccessible content. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
That was my inquiry pretty much. Daminb - Here 17:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change date of birth, its 22nd Apr, 571 AbdulHakeeem27 (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What source do you have? Consider Mawlid#Date. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change leading sentence from Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social, and political leader to Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious leader" as per MOS:FIRST that states: "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". The lead sentence should stick to what he was primarily known for. The infobox is there to include additional occupations. The world knows him as a religious leader, not as a political and social leader. For example, Muhammad Ali was a prominent philanthropist and poet but since the world knows him as a professional boxer, we have that on his article. Mirza Elia (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't find the current writing particularly overloaded/everything. Social/political is quite relevant, religious too limited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Political can arguably be relevant as he was the founder and ruler of a state but social is definitely not that relevant. Just because a few social norms changed during Muhammad's lifetime doesn't mean he's widely known as a social leader in the world. Major encycloepdias' introductory sentence just calls him a religious leader or the founder of Islam i.e. Muhammad (born c. 570, Mecca, Arabia —died June 8, 632, Medina) was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.. Best case scenario is having Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious and political leader". Mirza Elia (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd be fine with removing 'social'. It does seem redundant. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Agree? Srnec (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Drive by comment: I too do not see the need for the term "social". I'm not sure what constitutes a "social leader" to begin with. Anonymous 04:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
same Rainsage (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. Rainsage (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dear (who will take time and read my request) :

I hope you are doing well. I recently came across an article featuring images of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). While I truly appreciate the effort in sharing insights across different perspectives, I wanted to kindly bring something to your attention regarding Islamic teachings.

In Islam, depicting the Prophet is avoided as a way to maintain respect and prevent any unintended idolization. The Prophet said, “The people who will be most severely punished on the Day of Judgment will be the image-makers” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 5950). Additionally, there’s a general discouragement of creating images of living beings, as mentioned in the hadith: “Those who make images will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them, ‘Bring to life that which you have created’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 5951).

Out of respect for these principles and the significance they hold for Muslim readers, I kindly request the removal of these images, if possible. This small adjustment would greatly enhance the inclusivity and respectfulness of the piece without detracting from its value.

Thank you so much for your understanding. Hanenbou11 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: see faq 1 Cannolis (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: