Talk:Muhammad - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.12.173.177 (talk) at 08:30, 3 March 2009 (→to tell a seeriouse mistak with respectively). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:30, 3 March 2009 by 212.12.173.177 (talk) (→to tell a seeriouse mistak with respectively)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

The FAQ below addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

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:

Sign in or create an account
Click on this link to modify your personal CSS stylesheet (if no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page)
Click the edit button, and add the following line: .page-Muhammad .depiction {display: none;}
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

C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp.34–35

Misplaced 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.

To-do list for Muhammad: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2009-03-14

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : reduce the number of inline and block quotes by summarizing them efficiently.
Expand : " nah and Islamic law" section
Verify : Recently the references were cleaned up. Some errors may have crept in. Please check if the statements are supported by the sources. Feel free to remove any information or pictures that you feel may be inappropriate, biased or have a detrimental impact on the authenticity of this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Core

	Biography portal This 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
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arab world Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Middle Ages Top‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Medieval / Early Muslim

This 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Noam Cohen (February 5, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Islam Entry Is Criticized". New York Times.
Torsten Kleinz (February 6, 2008). "Misplaced Pages: Streit um Mohammed-Bilder (german)". Heise.
Fox News (February 6, 2008). "Muslims Protest Misplaced Pages Images of Muhammad". Fox News.
Caroline Davies (February 17, 2008). "Misplaced Pages defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet". The Observer.
Inquirer Newsdesk (February 11, 2008). "Misplaced Pages faces wrath of Islam". The Inquirer.
K.C. Jones (February 7, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad". InformationWeek.

Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 7, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 30, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
July 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Image archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Mediation Archives

Archive Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Aisha's Age

In other pages mentioning Aisha, her age is given as 5 or 6 with supporting references (ie: Aisha, Muhammad's wives). Why is it not the same here? I see awhile ago there was a revert war between the words "young" and "5 or 6 years old", but with the current supporting pages and references, I think the text should be changed to include her age here too. Thoughts? --Judgeking (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it's sourced. Rklawton (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, it's kind of pointy and probably fails the undue emphasis clause. The point also isn't totally undisputed, and is better dealt with where there's space to deal with in more in-depth. WilyD 12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sourced" wasn't the issue back when the discussion took place. POV pointedness was. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. In the passages about Muhammad's marriages, we don't mention the age of each of his wives when they married him (and this would be excessive). There doesn't seem to be much basis to unduly focusing on one or two ages just for the sake of it. ITAQALLAH 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the other ages can't be found Mohammad's earliest biographies, but his early biographers thought Aisha's age was significant enough to mention - repeatedly. And her age is used as justification for child-marriages even today. This makes it both significant, relevant, and notable. Rklawton (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is being brought up for no other reason than to rehash the "OMG Muhammad iz a Pedophile!" anti-Islamic arguments, in an attempt to denigrate the religion and the man. There is nothing "significant, relevant, and notable" about it. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your attack on motives does nothing to counter the points I made above. Rklawton (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the ages probably can be found in the biographies, or at least deduced from them. Specifically, which early biographers made repeated mention of Aisha's age but didn't mention others'? As for your second point, that may well make it noteworthy for an article like Islamic marital jurisprudence so long as its significance in that context can be verified, but I don't see why it merits inclusion in the sentence in question (esp. if that significance itself isn't explored). ITAQALLAH 18:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That no other motivation exists for introducing it is a big part of the problem though. Aisha was a more significant figure than any of his other wives, and more is known about her. But the place to go into nitty-gritty detail is here. Muhammad's marriage to a child is used in some contexts to justify the practice today, but the place for that discussion is here. To put it in here serves no purpose other than to disparage, and is thusly incompatiable with a neutral point of view by putting an undue emphasis on a point to promote an anti-Muhammad, anti-Islamic POV. WilyD 18:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside of Misplaced Pages, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a scholarly source that references Mohammed's marriage to Aisha that does not also reference her age at betrothal. This makes noting it here quite neutral. Rklawton (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not find that claim to be very believable, honestly. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, give it a try! Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea. Articles etitled "Aisha in trouble", Christo-centered books from 1889, and excerpts from overtly bigoted websites like answering-islam.org? I'll pass, thanks. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources listed are of varying reliability and significance. I'm sure most academic biographies would mention the respective ages at marriage. But what makes Aisha's age uniquely significant here as compared to other wives? The context of child-marriages doesn't necessarily make it noteweorthy here as I opined above. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How can stating facts (like someone's age) be anti-anything? A fact is not POV. If a fact makes you uncomfortable, that's your issue, not Misplaced Pages's. --Judgeking (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The manner and the context in which a "fact" is presented can indeed by POV, as we see quite clearly with this subject matter. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How you choose to present facts, what facts you choose to present, et cetera, all reflect a point of view. It's even well recognised in policy: WP:UNDUE. WilyD 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I included the ages of all wives. And why not? Muhammad's age is mentioned in the Marriages section and throughout the article. There is no undue weight placed anywhere that way. --Judgeking (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning all the ages is a nice CYA attempt, but it isn't gonna fly. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the edit speaks for itself. Anyone reading the edit immeadiately knows why it's being added, what POV it's trying to push onto the reader, all of that. An article is neutral when you can read it and not know the POV of the author - is this edit the POV is as subtle as Mechagodzilla on PCP. Adding the other ages is not the disguise you're looking for, it doesn't alter the POV being pushed. WilyD 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit is just the re-addition of material that was removed earlier. What about removing the ages of subjects, is that not POV? And Wily, what we're worried about here is how the article reads, not the history of the edits. If editing a certain section of an article is POV, then Misplaced Pages should just shut down, since every edit would be POV. --208.124.175.34 (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest? The "search other sources" challenge intrigued me, but I was very surprised to find that encarta's article on Muhammad doesn't mention Aisha's age when it talks about her. -BaronGrackle (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Encarta's article is much shorter than this one. Rklawton (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Count me as one who sees no reason this information should not be included. If you look at European kings who made political marriages, the ages are included. So why not here? This is ridiculous. I want a good reason, WP:POINT is not one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE that's the issue. The information is included time and time again. One can only harp on it so long before it's too much. WilyD 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a valid one, whether you like it or not. WP:UNDUE also comes in to play. I will repost a response I made on this the last time the subject came up;

"Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here; the issue of Aisha's age stems from a decidedly Western-oriented, right-leaning agenda of painting Islam in general and Muhammad in particular in the worst light possible. That does not make it any less notable of course, which is why a section of the "Criticism of..." article is devoted to it, Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha. But placing it on this page serves no purpose other than to criticize, and that is quite inappropriate and out-of-place"

Summation; appropriate in Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad. Here? Not so much. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a separate criticism article a POV fork? And I never said one should be critical of her age. That's a value judgment. Like I said before, look at some of the royalty pages; ages are mentioned all the time at the time of weddings, they are considered relevant. Why is in only this one page it's considered undue weight? Leaving out relevant information because others don't like it would be violating WP:POINT, in my opinion. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a sub article because Muhammad is probably the single most important or influential human in history, and requires more than ~60K to discuss to a reasonable depth. WilyD 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that alleged "5 or 6" was in dog years. Baseball Bugs 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, didn't you say "because it's anti-Islam" is a worthless argument? I guess you were wrong. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. Baseball Bugs 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no laws or customs based on the age of his other wives but there are laws and customs based on Aisha's age so I think it is very important to state her age clearly here. Bluetd (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is, it isn't relevant to an article about Muhammad himself, other than to make a veiled criticism. The controversy about the girl's age is covered in the appropriate articles. Tarc (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Her age is relevant to any mention of her. If the profit of Islam was a pedophile, then it is relevant to any discussion of him. Lacarids (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

i don’t know why you guys are so worried about the age .....In fact, you all know that humans are different by culture and by climate I cant live there at north pole ...or at himalyas..but i am so fine in the desert with hot sun and the people who lives in deserts or in the extreme hot condition they grows faster & the women in Saudi Arabia reaches puberty around 9 or 10.Prophet Muhammad had a contract of marriage when Aisha Radi Allah was about 6 & when she turned 9 and reached her full puberty as its quite normal here in Saudi Arabia then her father sent her to Prophet Muhammad PBUH & the couple lived happily quite nicely.. ….but at least we should read good stuff about Islam & should have at least basic knowledge of Islam before saying something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont know why i am being ignored,deleted,blocked....please as per wiki policy there is a freedom of speach.let the people read my comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Did you say something? (Signing in and signing your statements helps.) Bluetd (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Please don't publish any WORD regarding prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from unauthentic Islamic scholars' writings. Like, it's mentioned here that fasting and pilgramage (hajj) are not in Qur'an. This is a big lie, fasting (Sawm) and hajj are mentioned in Qur'an.

In accord with the above I have removed mention of an empty space next to the grave of Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H.) There is no empty space in the tomb. According to Ibn Kathir (Sirt Ul Nabawaiyya, Vol IV) when Abu Bakr was buried in the chamber the feet of the prophet were uncovered due to lack of space. This empty space is a myth concocted by modern-day Mullah. The only source quoted is from a little-known western writer. (SEMTEX85 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your contributions. Any scholarly sources, however, are valid for citing in this article if they meet the WP:RS and WP:V policies. "Authentic Islamic scholars" do not have a monopoly on the historical knowledge about the Prophet. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC

to tell a seeriouse mistak with respectively

dear sir, iread about muhammed , but at firstly in article tells prophet muhammed is the founder of islam. it is not correct, he came in sixth century only. befor that came number of prophets. adam was the first man and first prophet.since his period have ther islam . so how we can consider prophet muhammed is the founder of religion. actually islam is compleeted by muhammed. he is the last prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.31.125 (talk • contribs)

Prior to Muhammad's preaching, there was not a religion called "Islam". That makes him the founder. Frotz (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

yes Islam not founded by Prophet Muhammad PBUH Allah sent his messenger to mankind just to reveal the truth it means Allah God is the founder of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is generally accepted that Islam originated with Muhammad, devout muslims believe Adam was the first prophet and thus the origin of Islam. Coradon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Adam, Mosses, Jessus were following the path of Allah but it was not islam indeed they have preached the same thing like monotheism. there are 4 devine drived books what muslims believe in and without believing in them they cant be a muslims & those books have nothing to do with Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All religions are man-made. The holy books connected with these religions are believed to be the word of God. But in each case, the religion itself is an invention of humans. Baseball Bugs 12:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We've only been through this about a dozen times, and the replies to the anon still miss the point. The point is that in English "Islam" means "Mohammedism", while in Arabic, islam means "piety". Yes, Muhammad was the founder of Mohammedism. No, Muhammad wasn't the founder of "piety". Please, at least the regulars at this article should get this right by now, because this is truly a faq. --dab (𒁳) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Islam" is a built-in POV-push then. We should stop calling the religion "Islam" and start calling it "Mohammedism". Baseball Bugs 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the English meaning of Islam is the religion founded on the teachings of Muhammad. Just as Christianity is the religion founded on the teachings of Jesus. 'Islam' means in Arabic that very same thing. The meaning of the word 'islam' in Arabic isnt piety but generally translated as the act of submission. Yes, Muhammad wasn't the founder of piety, he was the founder of Islam. Mohammedism is a made up word first used in a time where Islam was presented in Western academia as the teachings of a mad man, or a renegade cardinal of the Catholic Church. I think we have moved beyond that time. Unless of course you would like to name Christianity Jesusism. Nableezy (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "Islam" meant "submission (to God)", and you've confirmed that. Calling Christianity "Jesusism" would be fine by me, because giving it the name "Christ" is also a built-in POV-push. :) Baseball Bugs 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting you should say that, as the Arabic for Christianity (المسيحية) takes its name from the word for Messiah, pretty much meaning literally 'Messiahism'. Guess Christianity has been pretty successful in pushing that POV. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

see, i am a muslim and i know the best about Islam we muslims would never say that all the religions are man/human but some how there are editions in Bible that are obviously by humans we believe in Allah/God & we dont impose any one to believe in it. but, what we believe is for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the Islamic view of Muhammad, that article exists at Islamic views of Muhammad. Nableezy (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

kindly elaborat the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Id rather not, this page is meant to be used discussing the article, not general discussions on Muhammad, Islam, or religion. There are any number of forums on the internet for that, and by choice I have not joined them, precisely for this reason. Nableezy (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

now that like a good boy speach is silever but the scilence is gold.. we will keep sayiing that Islam is devine derived religion not founded by Mohammad. Allah is the one and Mohammad is his messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The religion known to us as Islam did not exist before Mohammad came along. He is the founder of that religion. Baseball Bugs 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm you don't know your father till he tells you so...???in that case he is your founder the one who tells you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that supposed to make sense? Baseball Bugs 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Let me rephrase it. When is your father your father? Is it when he tells you he's your father - or sometime before? Of course, I don't think it applies to Islam. Muslims believe two things above all else: there is one God and his name is God, and Mohammad is his messenger. Therefore Muslims could not have existed or practiced Islam *before* the messenger. This does not deny the fact that there were previous prophets and many people who learned from them and worshiped God. However, none of these people believed Mohammad was his messenger (he hadn't been born yet), and so they didn't practice Islam - where faith that Mohammad was God's messenger is required. Rklawton (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what the anon is saying. He is saying that Islam existed from the time of Adam and was perfected by Muhammad, not created by Muhammad. Of course, that is Islamic theology and really doesn't bear much on the article saying Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From a Muslim's point of view, that makes a lot of sense. I agree that Mohammad would not have considered himself to be a founder at all. He thought of himself as the messenger and was often referred to as such during his lifetime. Indeed, Mohammad built on a foundation of monotheism and his earliest conflicts were against its corruption with idol worship, so he saw his work as a continuation of previous prophets' works. So, let's put our brains together and sort out a way of expressing this relationship. For starters, I think we can agree that he didn't "create" a religion from the ground up. As a result, the term "founder" isn't strictly accurate. I'm open to other ideas - with the obvious caveat that the description reflect the world view rather than a particular religion's view. Rklawton (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the language now is fine, but if we really have to get super accurate I would say the best wording would be 'whose teachings the religion of Islam was founded on' but that is passive, dont know what wiki says on that. But I think founder is fine. Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let’s put up the things in this way. Is Jesus the founder of Christianity??? What about bible? Written by Jesus??? Or it’s an intuition?? Be more factual, how humans can be a founder of any religion or a writer of the holy books its impracticable for us to create a single verse by mentioning each aspects of our daily life routines lets suppose If that is the case than there is no need of GOD no need of churches and mosques or temples.I hope you believe in GOD too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually not all of us believe in God and Misplaced Pages is written from a secular (or at least neutral perspective). As for Jesus, I think most Christians would consider him the founder of of Christianity. The historicity of early Christianity is not as clear as that of Islam and as such it would be non neutral to claim that Jesus was in fact the founder of the religion (even though that is the belief of most Christians). Jesus the man certainly did not write the bible, no one claims this, the new testament was written by numerous authors after his death. --Leivick (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

brother you are right that is why we are not discussing secularism. the comments for the people who believe in GOD.

name

Before making an edit I wanted to clear this. I think that Muhammad's full name (as it is usually given) should be present, for reference. It would appear thus: Abu-l-Qāsim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh (Arabic: ابو القاسم محمد بن عبدالله).

I don't think there's a problem with mentioning this in the beginning of the article. Frotz (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not the name used in the Arabic version of this article. Rklawton (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad's face is blurred out in pic Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg

Please note: regarding the artist's 16th-century depiction of Muhammad and his companions advancing on Mecca, I observe the following. Muhammad's face is blurred out with white (to match the white cloth on his head). The pic file is "Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg". Picture should be reverted back to a previous version of the picture if possible.

Wimfort (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This so called "previous version" is long gone. I mean hundreds of years. Hell, it probably never existed. Most art depicting Muhammad has his face censored. The original artist probably did that, because Islam dictates that that art depicting Mohamed's face should not be made. But if the original artist didn't do it, then somebody else somewhere along the road did. --68.199.39.111 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

you want to read depictions of Muhammad. This is how the picture was originally created. --dab (𒁳) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories: