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 08:54, 13 January 2016 edit92slim (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,333 edits A New Hope← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:59, 20 December 2024 edit undoAstroLynx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,277 edits Undid revision 1264060299 by 202.47.33.85 (talk) reverted (again)Tag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|auto=yes|search=no|noarchives=yes}} {{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}}
{{tmbox
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=People|class=GA}}
|style=border-color:#b00000;
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
|type=content
{{Article history|action1=PR
|text=<div>
'''Important notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''some pictures of Muhammad are allowed'''''.
<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
|action1date=September 7, 2005 |action1date=September 7, 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Muhammad/archive1 |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Muhammad/archive1
Line 37: Line 52:


|topic = religion |topic = religion

|currentstatus=GA
|action7 = GAR
|action7date = 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Muhammad/2
|action7result = delisted
|action7oldid = 1174803389
|currentstatus = DGA
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Muhammad|living=no|1=
{{ITN talk|September 19|2012}}
{{WikiProject Biography |core=yes |military-work-group=y |military-priority=Low}}
{{On this day|date1=2004-05-02|oldid1=6718112|date2=2005-06-08|oldid2=16335247|date3=2006-06-08|oldid3=57510475}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Top|Salaf=yes|Shi'a-Islam=yes|Sunni=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=GA|core=yes|listas=Muhammad|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Muhammad|class=GA|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Saudi Arabia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Islam|Prophets-of-Islam=y|class=GA|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Arab world|class=GA|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Biography=y|Medieval=y|Muslim=y|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia|class=GA|importance=Top|Mecca=y|Mecca-importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=GA|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Biography=y|Medieval=y|Muslim=y}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Philrelig|VA=y|coresup=y}}
}} }}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}
{{Press {{Press
|collapsed=yes |collapsed=yes
Line 81: Line 99:
|author6=K.C. Jones |author6=K.C. Jones
|date6=February 7, 2008 |date6=February 7, 2008
|url6=http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206106192 |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 |title6=Misplaced Pages Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad
|org6=] |org6=]
Line 88: Line 106:
|title7=Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed |title7=Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed
|org7=] |org7=]
}}
}}{{Article discretionary sanctions|topic=muh-im}}
{{tmbox
|style=border-color:#b00000;
|type=content
|text=<div>
'''Important notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''some pictures of Muhammad are allowed'''''.
<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 Muhammad images 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.}}
<!--{{To do}}--> <!--{{To do}}-->
{{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}} {{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}}
{{American English}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 29 |counter = 36
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Muhammad/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Muhammad/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives|bot=MiszaBot|age=60|list='''Main archives: (])'''<br>{{Archive list|nobr=yes}}
{{Archivebox|search=yes|auto=short|
----
*'''Image archives'''
'''Image archives:'''<br>{{Archive list|root=Talk:Muhammad/images|nobr=yes}}
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],
----
], ],
'''Mediation archives:'''<br>
],
], 1. ]<br>
], 2. ]<br>
], 3. ]<br>
], 4. ]<br>
], 5. ]<br>
{{Archive list|prefix=Mediation Archive|prefixspace=yes|start=6|nobr=yes|linkprefix=Archive|linkprefixspace=yes}}
],
----
],
'''Images Arbitration:'''<br>
],
1. ]<br>
],
2. ]
],
}}
*'''Mediation Archives'''
{{Section sizes}}
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
* '''Images Arbitration'''
# ]
# ]
|index=Talk:Muhammad/Archive index|bot=MiszaBot|age=60}}


== '''Frequently asked questions''', please read before posting ==
== The opening paragraph ==
<!-- ] 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.
..is horribly clunky. I know it's been discussed umpteen times before, but neverthless I've had a ] go and tried to do something with it with . The problems with the existing text are:
#The first sentence is really uneccesarily cluttered with the name information. It seems to have grown over the years. I've moved most of it to a footnote. It's massive detail for the opening - and very off putting for the average reader think. Also, it's a notional name composed according to a presumed formula rather than evidenced as his ''actual'' name.
#If you take out the name, dates etc, what you are left with is "Muhammad, from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." Is that really the best we can do with the first sentence? Surely, the first sentence has to be about founding Islam (in the non-Muslim view) and being the last prophet of a restored monotheistic faith (in the Muslim view)? sure, the unification of Arabia shaould be in the first paragraph but really isn't where his long-term importance lies.
So I'm ready to be reverted...
] (]) 18:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
:Good job. Now the lede is better and more balanced than the previous version. ] (]) 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks - actually what I was trying to do was not disturb the balance but make it more readable and informative (and encyclopedic). ] (]) 06:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
:::What he was actually trying to do is to add more anti-Muslim sentiment to the lead by pushing his anti-Muslim POV in the very begining of the opening. The first statement in this article now about Muhammad is a non-Muslim POV.--] (]) 17:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
::::Not writing from Muslim POV is in accordance with ] and is not "anti-Muslim". --] <sup>]</sup> 17:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::#1 Writing from "non-Muslim" POV '''is not''' in accordance ]. #2 The anti-Muslim sentiment of the systemically biased wiki is evident throughout the article. 3# Changing the opening of the lead by making the first statement about Muhammad to be a non-Muslim POV against him is an "anti-Muslim" behaviour. 4# Do you dare to do the same with the articles of "Christian figures".--] (]) 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::]. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::].--] (]) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Seriously..... User 31.218.175.248, he presented a neutral opening article.
There is nothing wrong with that mate. Please stop nitpicking. 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC) <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No, he didn't present a neutral opening or a neutral article. The opening and the article are not written in accordance with ].--] (]) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
::You've made that point (repeatedly and tediously) and failed to gain any consensus. Time to move on. ] (]) 21:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
:::You are the ones actually who failed to provide any counter-argument for my point. Till now, no one of you addressed the issue I raised. I wanted the oppening of this article to be neutral and unbiased toward any group, but you still want to keep it biased toward a non-Muslim POV. Opening the article directly with a non-Muslim POV is a clear violation of ]. However, you clearly are not going to face any problem for this violation of ] since wikipedia is ] and most admins here will be at your side. This is what i think has been .--] (]) 10:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
:::I get that I'm joining this discussion late, but I just have a question on the "newer" version which states "...but by almost all Muslims as its last prophet sent by God..." As an absolutely impartial editor to this subject, WHY are Ahmadis/Ismailis being counted among Muslims here? By definition, a Muslim considers Mohammed as the last prophet...full stop. Ismailis are Muslim like Mormons are Christian; they can call themselves whatever they want, but they do not fit the definition. Is there some Ahmaddiya editor here that is insisting this be included or is it some editor who is again unfamiliar with the subject matter and feels they should give any minority viewpoint the same weight? Just curious.] (]) 04:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::We identify groups on how they self identify. This is regardless of dogmatic practices or self defined requirements, ergo why mormons are considered christians regardless of what the church at large may describe them as. ] (]) 04:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::"We" meaning who? Are you speaking on behalf of Misplaced Pages? If so, do you have a reference setting this precedent?] (]) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


==GA Reassessment==
== Respect the belief of the religion ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Muhammad/2}}


== GA or Featured nomination ==
Kindly remove the pictures in prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. It is really not appropriate for Muslims. i though there is respect in the belief of the religion, respect in the viewers, respect in the request of contributors. the text is already enough but to put picture of how prophet Muhammad looked is very bad.


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)
the reason that the pictures must be removed is that it is really not appropriate and should not be mocked. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


: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)
: Please read the notice at the top of this page. ] (]) 12:34, 29 September 2015 (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)


== Unusual invisible comment above category section section ==
:We're no more forcing Muslims to create images of Muhammad than we are forcing non-Muslims to follow Islam. "No compulsion in religion" for everybody. ] (]) 12:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Right above the category section, there's an invisible comment that just says "killing against Banu Qurayza". I can't really figure out the context, and while the ] seems to be related to Muhammad, the comment feels very out of place. I was tempted to just remove, but I'm gonna post here just in case. <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
: The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating or displaying visual depictions of figures. '''Key:''' ''Prohibited MUSLIMS''. If you don't follow Islam you are under no obligation to follow the rules. Just because you find something "offensive", that doesn't mean it should be removed. It's like Kim Davis: watching someone be in violation of your religious belief (in Kim Davis' case, gay people getting married) does not mean you can impose your belief on them. ] (]) 09:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:I've removed it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::ah okay thanks! cool signature btw! <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi ! I saw, there was an unused religion parameter field just below the ]. I filled that with Islam. Is it better, I am not sure as the infobox already displays establishing Islam in parameter known for. ] (]) 03:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::], generally if such parameters are absent/unfilled, there's a good reason.<span id="Remsense:1730525648400:TalkFTTCLNMuhammad" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
:::::Reason..? Reply when feel free. ] (]) 13:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:It’s from . {{ping|Sharouser}} care to explain why you made this edit? ] 06:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] actually it appears to be a comment explaining why they added one of the categories, I think it just loaded weird because I was using visual editor. It might be a good idea to add it back honestly. <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 13:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@] just pinging you since you are the one who removed the comment (please read the above reply). <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't see any reason for the comment to be there, which is why I removed it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 23:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I guess. Eh I supposed it doesn't have to be there. <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 00:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== Opening paragraph ==
:::To support the opinion that the images should remain, I would point out that images depicting Muhammad are commonplace in the Shi'a school/world http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30814555 . ] in the Persian, Turkish and Mongolian Muslim cultures throughout the centuries. There is no need for them to be removed.


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):
== Founder of Islam? ==
{{talkquote|Muhammad was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.|source=}}
{{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)
The phrase "to have been the founder of Islam" is really horrifying as it is not true, and moreover it is in the first line of the article. This stuff should be removed. ] (]) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Another one (already cited in the article):
:The phrase says ''"Muhammad is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam"'' which is perfectly correct, and sourced. ] (]) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (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, }}
::Did not know that this thread existed but i started a ], i would appreciate if both (] & ]) can reply. ] (]) 20:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015 ==


:Makes sense to me. ] (]) 11:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
:maybe "final" is more correct than "last"? — '''] '']''''' 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Begin request -->
: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)
: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)
Bismilah Hir Rahman Nir Raheem
::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)


== Some garbled text in the Early biographies section ==
Thing is that kuffars, that I wish to add "Salaho Allahe Wasalam" becuase this is attached with his name.


Looks like this got mangled by the 22:42, 2 November 2024 revision.
And curse be upon that person who does not pay Salam to Him when his name is recited.


In the second paragraph where it reads "Recent studies have led year to distinguish", 'led' should be replaced by 'scholars'.
And curse be upon those who hold the salam against him.


Just above this, there's an extraneous "Narratives of Islamic Origins". I think this is caused by a messed up citation.
Remember dear wikipedia, this non-sense of not adding Salaho Allahe Wasalam in not going to last long, so give up now.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 11:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Anyway, I don't have permission to edit this article, but I thought I'd point these out since the paragraph is pretty wonky as is. ] (]) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you ] (]) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
:I believe the erroneous word was "year" rather than "led". {{fixed}}. ] (]) 11:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024 ==
:{{notdone}}. We don't make changes to articles based on threats and insults. ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 5}}
::I don't see any threat in this edit request. He is just expressing his wish as a ] and basically saying that this unnecessary ban is not going to last, ] can put "Great" next to Alexander's name and add "Sir" to whoever is conferred a title by the Queen of Britain but cannot add "Peace Be Upon Him" to Holy Prophet's name because majority of editors are ] and they don't let this policy be changed so he was only saying that this bias is not going to last very long and is bound to end. ] (]) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
::: A "sir" or "great" is pretty generic, whereas "Peace be upon him" is tied to religious beliefs. With Misplaced Pages being a secular website, I don't think this "bias" will end anytime soon. ] (]) 09:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 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) ==
He used offensive language towards anyone that is none muslim, and he stated a demand, which is nothing more sensical than me requiring everyone to call the greater Prophet of the Latter Day Saints, PotLDS, both things would be silly.
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 5}}
] (]) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
I don't think the "kuffars" ever added SAW to the Holy Prophet peace be upon him's name. AS the readers of wikipedia are both muslims and non muslims, we should not force them to add this here. To be frank the Holy Prophet peace be upon him never demanded from anyone that he should salute him, so be like the great prophet and let everyone live free. ] (]) 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
:I agree. ] (]) 10:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 16:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad change it to https://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad+Sallallahu+Alaihi+Wasallam
== All images of the Prophet Muhammad is forger Prophet Muhammad no painted ==


cause it is must to read this thing beside our prophet name for muslim
All images of the Prophet Muhammad is forger Prophet Muhammad no painted <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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)
:{{reply|Abdoadawy92}} So? Images of most ancient historical figures weren't painted by the subjects themselves, or even painted while they were alive. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
::I also don't see anyone making this complaint at the Jesus article where all the image would be forgeries by this definition.--] (]) 07:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


:{{notdone}}. See ] for information about how articles are titled. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
== Lede question ==

I am trying to tighten up the lead paragraphs with wording, syntax and everything. Is there a reason we mention that he was orphaned and raised by his uncle in the lede? I know this happened but I don't think those would necessarily be lede worthy in my view. ] (]) 18:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

:I actually need to expand that. I don't know if we should be mentioning the merchant part either. Our first paragraph gives scope and clarity about him but this one seems to go in the opposite direction. ] (]) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

:Here is a rewrite I am working on if people would weigh in "Born approximately 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca, Muhammad was orphaned, then raised under the care of his paternal uncle. Periodically he would retreat to a mountain cave for several nights of seclusion and prayer. At age 40, he reported at this spot, that he received his first revelation from God through Gabriel. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" (lit. islām) to him is the only way (dīn) acceptable to God, and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, similar to the other prophets in Islam."
:Ok les chopping than I thought but I think this does better than drowning in details. ] (]) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

::Thinking of removing this from the lede "While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far more favorable. Other appraisals of Muhammad throughout history, such as those found in medieval China, have also been positive." as criticisms are a subsection under legacy, so I think that would effectively make it undue. ] (]) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good so far,,, ~] <small>(])</small> 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Umm... if you are going to take a chunk out of ''this'' article, use an edit summary. I nearly reverted this as vandalism. ]] 04:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

:My fault. I didn't realize that was quite that large. I will try to remember them in the future. ] (]) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

::It's looking better. The lead is in the best shape it's ever been at this point. Hope it sticks and doesn't get messed around again. ] (]) 11:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

::: Excellent work guys. ] (]) 23:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== More clean up and questions ==

I think the first paragraph in early childhood needs a bit of a rewrite. I propose "Muhammad was born about the year 570 and his birthday is believed to be in the month of Rabi' al-awwal. He belonged to the Banu Hashim clan, part of the Quraysh tribe, and was one of Mecca's prominent families; although it appears the clan was less prosperous during Muhammad's early lifetime. Tradition places the year of Muhammad's birth as corresponding with the Year of the Elephant, which is named after the failed destruction of Mecca by the Aksumite king Abraha who supplemented his army with elephants. Alternatively some 20th century scholars have suggested different years, such as 568 or 569.". Thoughts? ] (]) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

== "Bunching" of citations ==

] has gone through the article removing the inline citations and bunching them at the end of each paragraph. I think this is contrary to Misplaced Pages practice and destroys the linkage bettween the citation and the statement it is supporting. I have therefore reverted . ] (]) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

:] If the material isn't contentious, and I'm sure the facts of the life of the individual under consideration are ascertained with some finality, why would it be necessary to have numbers within the body of the text? The numbers are confusing for a person, if they would like to freely read the material without the distraction of numbers. If a person needs to know the source of the material they might still go to >View History, where they would be able to re-locate the original relationship prior to bunching. Otherwise, considering the nature of the subject, it seems more likely the facts of the situation are more trustworthy in any case, so why would some-one need to fear losing the text-source direct connection, I'm sure people are less likely to want to distort the information unwittingly or otherwise, from source to copy within the article, why would someone need to know for certain the information upon Misplaced Pages matches or corresponds to the source, that they need to find the source immediately? Anyone might just go through each reference to find the source again, is that such a problem? What is the hurry for anyone who needs to find the source to any given sentence of fact? ] (]) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
::Yes it is a problem: ]. It makes it imposssible to tell which citation is supporting which statement and, even, misleads into appearing all citations support the entirety of the paragraph. You are doing something which is contrary to how the vast majority of articles are set up and how most experienced editors edit, and is just wrong. I suggest you don't do it again. ] (]) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree. The article isn't improved by introducing ambiguity by bunching the citations together. You don't know what will be contentious to any individual user, and we shouldn't make researchers hunt through the article history to figure out what citation belongs on which sentence. The relationship of citations to content should be clear and unambiguous. ~] <small>(])</small> 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

== Historicity ==

Hi, I just came from the Jesus wiki, and I saw that the info is divided in a 'Gospels Accounts' section, and a 'Historical Views' section. There is also a seperate wiki about the Historical Jesus,

This Mohammed wiki, however, seems to only convey the story of Mohammed according to the (mainstream?) Muslim tradition and sources.

Given the fact that there is also an (academic) debate about the veracity of these "Islamic scriptures Accounts", I wondered if a 'Historical Views' section could be an useful addition in the interest of informing readers as fully as possible. At the very least, a clear link to the wiki about the historicity of Mohammed would be a worthy addition to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Historicity_of_Muhammad

May his holy Noodleness keep your pastasauce spicy <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's covered in the Sources section where there is clear link tk the Historicity article. ] (]) 20:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

The Messenger of ALLAAH MUHAMMAD (SAAW) is not generally regarded to be the founder of Islaam. Please remove this sentence from the article because it is false and a "wicked lie". Muslims don't consider The Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD to be the founder of Islam. The sourcebook given doesn't say what this sentence is saying. The sourcebook says something different from what this sentence is saying. Add to this that the sourcebook reflects the personal opinion of the author only and is not true.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please establish a ] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] 10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

== Lede again, alas ==

Could we open in a slightly different way, partly borrowed from another article? At present, this article leaps straight into controversy in the very first clause and the qualification "generally regarded as" doesn't really weaken the "founder of Islam" statement. "Generally regarded" has connotations of "regarded by all but a fringe minority" or of a matter of taste (Misplaced Pages examples ), rather than of strong disagreement from one or two billion people. Even a small change might help, for example (links, Arabic, translations etc omitted)
{{quote frame|Muhammad is a central figure in Islam. Non-believers generally regard him as the founder of Islam, but Muslims almost universally consider him to have been the last prophet of Islam, sent...}} or
{{quote frame|Muhammad is a central figure in Islam, seen by many non-believers as its founder, but by most Muslims as its last prophet, sent ...}} ] (]) 18:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
:"central figure of Islam" seems a little bland and not terribly informative. What about, "Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, is seen by most non-believers as its founder, but by almost all Muslims as its last prophet..." ] (]) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, that is better - I was quietly fretting about the blandness of "central figure". ] (]) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If Prophet Muhammad was not the "founder of Islam", why is the entire article on ] about his teachings? The lede of the article ] puts it rightly, that Muslims consider Islam to be "the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." This is not the same thing as being "sent by God to mankind to restore Islam" as it is claimed in the lede.'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 21:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
::Could you clarify why you think there's a difference between the two. As far as "founder" is concerned, if it is a primordial faith (i.e since the beginning of creation) revealed, inter alia, Moses (possibly 2nd millenium b.c) and Jesus (1st century a.d.) how does someone in the 6th century found it? ] (]) 22:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|Peaceworld111}}'s reasoning above would seem to be in tune with ] thinking. Different readers may include the Ahmadis among "most non-believers" or among the remainder of "almost all Muslims". ] (]) 22:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|DeCausa}} If Islam is "the complete and universal version of a primordial faith" then Islam is not ''the'' primordial faith. I hope this explains it succinctly.'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 22:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::That's certainly not a mainstream Muslim view, in which all the ] preached Islam and not some ''other'' "version" of the "primordial faith". ] (]) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please change Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) is generally regarded to be the founder of Islam to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is the final messenger and prophet of Islam.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/muhammad_1.shtml</ref>
Muslims believe that Islam is a faith that has always existed and that it was gradually revealed to humanity by a number of prophets, but the final and complete revelation of the faith was made through the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century CE.
{{reflist-talk}}
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

:This is not the Muslim Misplaced Pages (nor the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever Misplaced Pages) so we don't change articles based on religious beliefs. ] (]) 18:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

== Party responsible for fighting/conflict and Muslim converts ==

There is unsourced POV text in the article which seems to put the responsibility for fighting or conflict with Meccan tribes on The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) which is far from truth. Although ]'s edit tones it down and i would prefer it over the previous text but it still puts the responsibility on The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) and it is unsourced to begin-with. All three battles were fought because of Meccan tribes starting an advance towards State of Medina forcing Muslims to come out of Medina and meet Meccan tribes midway for a battle so they were more on a defending side than a responsible party. Also, i think it's better to call followers of The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم), "Muslims" instead of "Muslim converts" especially when there is no source to support that. This needs to be corrected or removed completely since there is no source. ] (]) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

:Not everything needs to be sourced in the lead as it is a summary of the body text that exists lower on the page. I think it is a fair summary, and fully endorse the intermittent conflict change since it describes it best in the most neutral wording. ] (]) 18:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

:{{ec}} :Putting the phrase "war was imposed on him" in the lead is unsourced, untrue and actually sounds fairly ridiculous. Nothing was "imposed on him": there was an ongoing conflict which either side initiated at various times. This is sourced in the body of the article e.g. "Economically uprooted with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with Mecca. Muhammad delivered Quranic verses permitting Muslims to fight the Meccans (see sura Al-Hajj, Quran 22:39–40). These attacks allowed the migrants to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working towards the ultimate goal of conquering Mecca." and "In March 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for the caravan at Badr." to give just two examples. In fact, the current wording of the lead gives no indication as to who initiated the conflict. ] (]) 18:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
::All of these sources (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 111) cannot be verified for their content. ] (]) 09:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

::105 I verified through Google books in about 30 seconds. These are well known books and I believe all of them are freely available with a quick search. If there is a specific portion of the text you do not believe is supported please state it so a discussion can start. Simply saying that sources can't be verified when it is exceedingly easy to do so is not going to get people to agree with you. ] (]) 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

::: If you think they are easily accessible then you need to make them easily accessible from within the article and you need to include the page numbers where the text is which supports the content in the article, ] to provide proper and accessible sources is on the party which is trying to include something controversial in the article. ] (]) 13:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

::::I clicked on the reference, went down to the reference list to retrieve the name and typed it into google. None of those actions are difficult to accomplish. ] (]) 13:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Sherrif, there is no obligation to make them "accessible" they just need to exist. See ]. They just need to be published and reliable per ]. They can be offline. But, in this case, as Tivanir2 points out, they are easily accessible online - page numbers and all. We can't cater for your particular and inexplicable inability to access them when everyone else can. ] (]) 13:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::I have to fully agree with Mr. Sheriff here on the point that the conflict between the Prophet Muhammad {peace and blessings of God be upon him} and the Meccan idolaters were imposed on the Prophet. Quran 2:216 says "Fighting has been enjoyed upon you while it is hateful to you..." & Quran 22:39 says "Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought , because they were wronged...". I have also to point out for Miss DeCausa here that ]. This is why we can't trust whatever you tell us about a source if it is not accessible and checkable by the others. You have already misquoted the Quran. Why should we not assume that you have misquoted the sources! The Prophet Muhammad didn't attack a Meccan caravan before the Great battle of Badr except in the cause of restoring the wealth that Muslims had lost during the Noble Immigration. Then the Great battle of Badr itself was imposed on him when the Meccans wanted to attack Medina. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::Well dear IP, whether you like the policies or not is, frankly speaking, irrelevant. A source does not have to be online, and that is that. I would also encourage you to read ]. ] (]) 09:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::All I must say to your wall of text is where are the reliable sources? You are approaching the subject from an impassioned and dogmatic view. As I already demonstrated the sources are easy to verify with very little leg work. I suggest a review of both ] and ] policies. ] (]) 11:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

== Request new style for the view of picture ==
{{atop|Per the notice at the top "'''Important notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''some pictures of Muhammad are allowed'''''. <big>'''Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, MUST be posted to ].</big> --] <sup>]</sup> 19:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)}}
{{collapse top|{{u|Humanidk}} again --] <sup>]</sup> 06:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)}}
I request to made a new style where pictures can either be show or hide.

Recently, I am making some progress about this. What do you guys think?

P.S, I force alt-f4 earlier when i look at those pictures. Too bad for me, I have now seen the picture and may still in my mind. We usually don't look at the picture of prophet. Not kidding. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I am not sure how people got consensus to include them to begin-with. I am asking for a new consensus. Let's start a discussion. You cannot include something which completely offends the other party. We need to strike the balance. ] (]) 09:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:: This discussion should be conducted on the ]. ] (]) 10:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

::To the original poster, you can setup your browser not to automatically display pictures and it is written up in the FAQ though it is a little difficult to follow. As for a "new consensus" if you can figure out a new argument that doesn't hinge on offense by all means bring it up. I would however suggest you should look at both the archives and previous RFC. If you don't have a rational that is already covered in there it is likely this will just be a rehashing of years past. ] (]) 11:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:::These drawings don't have any encyclopedic or artistic value and are certainly irrelevant to the historical person of the Prophet Muhammad. Why then were they put in the article? I will tell you. "To offend Muslims" only. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::: They do have encyclopedic and artistic value, therefore they are relevant. ] (]) 11:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

::::By your argument that means every single article before the invention of the photograph should have no images because they have the potential of not showing a the true characteristics of the subject. If we included things like Dantes' Inferno, like it used to, I could understand the comment of being purposefully antagonistic. Every image in this article shows a historic event. ] (]) 12:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@], No, they don't. Please clarify their relevancy.
@], I think you go so far. What (]) means is that is neutrality of the picture that the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. Putting pictures to offend Muslims should not be supported in here.

I have support to delete the pictures. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 ==
{{ping|Alexis Ivanov|Tivanir2}} How does a fake depiction of ] delivering verses to a fake depiction of ] adds encyclopedic value while article details in words that when and where were verses delivered. Human mind is well developed to portray how they might have been delivered and same is true regarding other depictions. They do not add any encyclopedic value beyond the information present in the article. ] (]) 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 5}}


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
{{ping|SheriffIsInTown}} I understand where you coming at, but there is no photograph hence everything artistic depiction is technically fake. They have encyclopedia and artistic value because it is how people viewed it, whether right or wrong, that painting of Gabriel was from the Ilkhanate period. Hundreds of years later. ] (]) 14:45, 30 November 2015 (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)


: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)
:One more question, do we have sources to confirm that these depictions are as they are described like for example "painting of ]" is from "Ilkhanate period" and it is "from the manuscript Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani" as i do not see any sources which confirm this. Same for other such depictions. ] (]) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:also {{notdone}} <span style="font-family: Arial; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 11:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages is a secular encyclopaedia that is not bound by Muslim custom. ] (]) 06:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:I can see if the archives or commons has the information but I do know they are pulled from manuscripts that are quite old. ] (]) 16:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::See ] with numerous links. ] (]) 17:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

:These drawings are ] in an article about the Prophet Muhammad. Given that the Prophet is the central figure in Islam; in which these drawings don't have any due weight at all, putting them in an article about him is a sign of bad faith or incompetence. They have due weight only in articles related to the persons who drew them.--] (]) 17:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::The fact that Muhammad is a central figure in Islam does not confine this article about a historical figure to Islamic thought. As a rule, we use depictions of historical figures wherever available, and Muhammad is no different in that regard. ]] 17:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::Pictures (images technically) that depict the subject aren't undue. If we were trying to show random everybody draw Muhammad day cartoons, those would be undue. Even the Dantes Inferno picture was removed for being needlessly offensive since it didn't add anything to this article. Is there a policy based argument for removal of these images? ] (]) 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Relevance of the Throne Verse ==

What is the Throne Verse doing under ]? It seems awkwardly placed at best, perhaps even irrelevant to the article. Delete maybe? - ] (]) 23:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:I think it is important for context but I think it is a little wordy. When I get to that section I will see what can be reduced without losing context or readability. ] (]) 23:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
:Actually checking it again I would agree that it is unnecessary in that spot and adds little to nothing. Anyone have a suggestion for a better section? ] (]) 13:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

:: You might as well delete it, the verse is about God's power, maybe switch it with the verse in which God orders Muhammad to fight in , this the earliest verses to command Muhammad to fight. ] (]) 15:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Decided to boldly go ahead and remove it but it looks a bit weird. Would it help if we moved one of the next sections pictures up to compensate? Or maybe get a different picture for that area. ] (]) 22:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: Good idea on removing it. But I'm not sure on getting picture from different area. ] (]) 14:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::::{{re|Tivanir2}} Sometimes a suitable image simply does not exist. Not everything needs an image, ]. It looks fine to me now on my 1024x768 pixel tablet; maybe it's your screen resolution? - ] (]) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::I was on my phone at the time editing so it is likely that it was my screen. As long as it is not starting to look like a massive wall of text without breaks it's fine. ] (]) 21:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

== Aisha "reaching age of puberty" ==

{{ping|Eperoton}} you recently undid my edits claiming WP:OR. There is no Original Research there. NONE of the citations mention the word "puberty" or that Aisha menstruated. The ahadeeth say the opposite: that she was playing with dolls, which meant she was pre-pubescent. If you or anyone can find a contemporary citation or a passage that mentions Aisha reached puberty as stated in the article, then it should stay. But if you can't, then we need to delete the word.] (]) 03:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

: How does playing with dolls confirm that someone is pre-pubescent? ] (]) 14:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

: {{ping|Trinacrialucente}} Your edit description suggested that it was based on your interpretation of primary sources, which runs afoul of ] and falls under ]. There are five non-primary sources cited for this statement. I haven't checked them myself, but, according to my understanding of the policies, removing the phrase would require either verifying that the non-primary sources don't support it or disqualifying them as ]. ] (]) 03:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::Then are we to take it you simply reverted out of principle and not out of knowledge of the facts? Let me clarify; the relevant sources (namely the ahadeeth in source 232 and the Encyclopedia of Islam WILL corroborate that Aisha was 9 or 10. I am familiar with both sources (and they are easily verifiable since the online links are added as well). What they do NOT say ANYWHERE is that she reached puberty. Not once. Once again: they DO support her being 9 or 10, but do NOT support the word puberty ANYWHERE.] (]) 03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Trinacrialucente}}there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty. Would you like em to link them or will chapter numbers and tradition numbers suffice? Be kind enough to reply as looking up these hadith on the net might be kinda hassle-ish and take me a couple of hours, however if you have the primary sources with you I can just give you the chapter and "hadith" number. Regards ] (]) 03:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:::you don't have to cite a huncred ahadeeth (FYI...hadith is singular, ahadeeth is plural) just one that has the word "puberty" in it will do. I use http://sunnah.com/ ] (]) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Trinacrialucente}} According to Tabqat ibn-e-saad volume 8 Page 54, she was born during the fourth year of "prophethood" and according to Zurqani volume one page 374, volume 3 page 230; Allamah aini Sharah bukhari volume one Page 45 and Alkhamis Volume one Page 403 (who quotes Muwahim ludniyyah, Tarikh Yafee and Usud-Al-Ghabah), the marriage was consummated at the end of fourth year of Hijra and according to these sources she was 12 at that time. Now it up to you to show me where in the entire world it is the norm that 12 year old girls DO NOT reach puberty. Perhaps a quick look at the ] article will let you cool your jets. Regards ] (]) 04:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:::No...her age is not in dispute. I will not play that game with you since I already stated that clearly above. You said there are "like a hundred of "hadith" (sp) that say she reached puberty". I'm waiting for ONE. Not her age (the ahadeeth do not agree on her age...we know that)...one more time: <b>puberty</b>. Since there are "like a hundred" you shouldn't have any problem.] (]) 04:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Trinacrialucente}} I think you are taking ]'s words out of context, saying that hundreds of ahadith confirm that Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا) reached puberty before her marriage does not mean that there are hundreds of ahadith which has the word "puberty" in them as it can be confirmed indirectly by just referring to a person's age. To describe that someone reached puberty, you do not need a source with the word "puberty" in it, a source can confirm puberty by other ways such as age. So if there are sources describing Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age as 12 years at the time of marriage then it confirms her puberty and you should not insist on sources with the word "puberty" in them. ] (]) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::::The age Aisha reached puberty is irrelevant. This is a biography of Muhammad, not Aisha. Furthermore, the primary-source interpretations of Misplaced Pages editors are also irrelevant. ~] <small>(])</small> 04:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::So let's completely remove the irrelevant information, let's remove any reference to her not reaching puberty or reaching puberty. ] (]) 15:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Trinacrialucente}} When someone says that a person is 12 they are saying that she has reached puberty. I am pretty sure that is the norm in the world. So putting in puberty is not much of a problem because it is the norm. But feel free to provide any hadith which says she "did not" reach puberty. ] (]) 04:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

: {{ping|Eperoton}} OK. See above. Like I said, you will not find any references saying Aisha reached puberty. Can we close this or do you have any further objections?] (]) 04:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|Trinacrialucente}} These secondary reliable sources agree that she had reached puberty. , , , . So your Original Research is kinda not welcome. Regards ] (]) 04:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Trinacrialucente}} I'm not going to discuss primary sources here, because we can't base our edits on them per ]. If you have reason to believe that the wording doesn't reflect the ''non-primary'' sources and you can't verify them yourself, you should see if others here can. I can confirm that Armstrong's book does support the statement (how reliable she is on these matters is a different question). ] (]) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I understand you don't find it welcome because I just exposed a falsehood. You said there are "like a hundred hadith(sp) that say she reached puberty". And now you know there are none. Your "secondary sources" are op-eds by apologists. None are contemporary sources and you know this. {{ping|Eperoton}}under your logic I can write a book saying anything I want and it will qualify as a "secondary source". I can see we are not going to reach consensus so we'll take this to arbitration. I don't think there will be any difficulty settling it.] (]) 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|Trinacrialucente}} If you write a book that meets the criteria of ], by all means. You're not following the law of the land. If you want to dispute a sourced statement, you should either do one of the things I mentioned above or find a non-primary source that supports it and highlight a scholarly controversy. As for arbitration, I think you'll want to consult ] first. ] (]) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm absolutely following the rules of Misplaced Pages if that's what you mean. I do not suffer apologists reinventing history. I can cite any number of anti-muslim cites that state Aisha was in fact pre-pubescent, and they would be just as reliable as your apologist cites mentioned above for "secondary sources". Neither are scholarly or of any benefit to discussion. If you are honest you know the Sahih hadeeth and Tafseer are the only source of reliable narration to Mohammed's life, although in this case they don't support your view/reality. So, I've taken this matter to arbitration.] (]) 04:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::Where it will be probably rejected as 1) This discussion is barely a day old and 2) You haven't followed the DRN instructions. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|NeilN}}How did I not follow DRN instructions? and where is there a prohibition against putting a dispute resolution request on the DRN that is less than a day old?] (]) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Trinacrialucente}} "Has this issue been discussed '''extensively''' on the article talk page?" In barely 24 hours? Not really. And you're supposed to '''list and notify''' each participant in the dispute. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Trinacrialucente}} Which "Relaible, Secondary Sources" can you provide that say she had not reached puberty?. Do keep in mind biased sources "ARE ALLOWED" in wikipedia, however "ISLAMOPHOBIC" books by authors who are not considered to be scholars of Islam are bound to be rejected as "Expression of facts", rather they will be solely used to describe the said authors "personal opinion". Regards ] (]) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:::If it is a single source reporting puberty it is likely to be undue. We can just remove the portion about puberty entirely, and call it a day so it is labeled neither pre pubescent or having reached puberty. ] (]) 12:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{talkquote|Hello! I see that ] has already provided 4 secondary sources to prove the notion that Mrs. Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage to the Prophet Muhammad. In response to ], I would like to add also the following citation from a '''primary source''': specifically stating that Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage. Here it is:}}
{{quote|'''Original text:''' قَالَ الدَّاوُدِيُّ وكانت عائشة قد شبت شباباً حسناً رضي الله عنها <br>'''English translation:''' Narrated Imam Dawudi: and Aisha - God bless her - then had physically matured well indeed’.|Explanation of Sahih Muslim, by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207: citing ] in the context about the age of Mrs. Ayesha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet.<ref></ref>}}
:{{talkquote|I hope that was a good lesson for ].--] (]) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)}}
:::: {{re|Tivanir2}} Our problem here is that we're speculating about some of the secondary sources, which are offline. ] enjoins us to default to the assumption that the sourcing was and remains correct unless we have solid evidence to the contrary (at this point, I don't think we do, except about Watt/IE, per Trinacrialucente), including with respect to ]. The right approach would be to do a solid review of secondary literature, and if both positions have reasonable acceptance among authors of ], take out the puberty phrase out of the sentence, and add a sentence like "Some scholars believe that X, while others Y", possibly indicating their reasoning, if it's clear from the source. Is anyone up to this challenge? ] (]) 14:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Eperoton}} I can provide you scanned pages of Watt and IE(My edition is 2013, not the latest but I am sure they do not remove things like this on whim). Also I can upload scanned pages of the secondary sources I quoted because they are very old and no copyrights problem. I would like to ask, however, what proof does Trinacrialucente have for Watt not having this sentence? Can he upload relevant pages from watt which show that this phrase is missing? Assuming bad faith must have some root, did he read the book and find the phrase missing or is this just his own personal pov? Regards ] (]) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I did not mention Watt; I mentioned the ahadeeth and the Encyclopedia of Islam, since they are theoretically primary sources. You yourself stated very clearly above "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty." I was very generous with you and said you only needed to cite one...which you still have not. If we are going to revert to secondary sources, once again...I can provide sources which are arguable just as reliable as Watt. How do you feel about Robert Spencer?] (]) 03:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
{{re|Trinacrialucente}} First of all please answer the question, "DO you have First Hand Knowledge that WATT and EI DO NOT mention this?" This is the basic question. If you say no, then this debate is moot and you should learn something about AGF before going further. If you DO have this knowledge please mention the edition and page number of the relevant pages. Secondly As per wiki policies, biased sources "ARE ALLOWED" in wikipedia, however "ISLAMOPHOBIC" books by authors who are not considered to be scholars of Islam are bound to be rejected as "Expression of facts", rather they will be solely used to describe the said authors "personal opinion". Which means that Robert Spencer writes hate literature therefore we do not take his words as "facts" rather we take them as "his opinion on Islam". So no Herr Spencer is not allowed here. ] (]) 03:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::You'd have to get consensus that Robert Spencer writes "hate literature". How about Daniel Pipes? Or Brigitte Gabriel? Could I use either of them as "secondary sources"? And I'm still waiting for your one hadith source, since you said "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty." Are you still having trouble finding one?] (]) 03:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::{{re|Trinacrialucente}} I think you did not bother to read my first reply, I will copy paste it here for your eyes only , as all other editors already know that removing/changing long standing consensus needs to have some rationale So here goes, I'll bold it up for ya this time, so its easy on the eyes. '''First of all please answer the question, "DO you have First Hand Knowledge that WATT and EI DO NOT mention this?" This is the basic question. If you say no, then this debate is moot and you should learn something about AGF before going further. If you DO have this knowledge please mention the edition and page number of the relevant pages.''' ] (]) 03:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Actually I missed your question since I was waiting for you to answer whether or not you were able to find a single hadith passage that says what you claimed (since you say there are like a hundred, it shouldn't have been difficult). And absolutely I am familiar with the Encyclopaedia of Islam (I did not know "Watt" because he is not one of the principle authors) http://library.ut.ac.ir/documents/381543/3581025/Brill_-_The_Encyclopaedia_of_Islam_Vol_9_San-Sze_.pdf. If the claim is if in the section about Aisha that it mentions her being pubescent or contains the word "puberty" the answer is absolutely no. I have read it and it says nothing of the sort. Just like I have read Sahih Muslim and Bukhari...and none of them say this either. So yes...go ahead and scan the passage on Aisha (it's in the 2nd volume). We'll wait.] (]) 03:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::<S>To determine if something is of use we would need consensus either as a group or on the ] noticeboard. I honestly don't know if any of the above would qualify at this time as a RS but we can always pose the question if people want to quote them. </s> Strike that. Apparently the publisher is to say the least problematic so that would probably make it a no go right there. ] (]) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::I appreciate you being so level-headed in this discussion. I for one would accept the Encyclopaedia of Islam (I stated as much among my first posts) as well as any hadith source. I'm familiar with the EI and it is very conservative and "old school" (i.e. even the newer additions do not attempt to insert new "faddish" ideas). I'm not sure what the publisher has to do with it, as it was originally published by a University in the Netherlands if I am not mistaken. And as I mentioned, the editor in question will not find what he is looking for. ] (]) 04:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::'''Notice:''' ] requested to provide him/her with a quotation from a primary source ''' specifically asserting that Mrs. Ayeshah was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage, and I have just provided him/her with that quotation he/she was looking for'''. In addition, ] gave 4 secondary sources available online in the English language saying the same (i.e that Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage). '''Given that the request of ] was to "provide a quotation from a Muslim primary source", and that I have just answered his request''', I can broadly say that the dispute of this discussion has been resolved. Any additional efforts to push the false claim that Ayesha wasn't adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage to the Prophet can only be read as a sign of bad faith or incompetence. {{Ping|Trinacrialucente}} Have you read the quotation that I provided above in my previous post here or are you just not willing to read it?!--] (]) 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I am going to just go ahead and remove the puberty, pre pubescent reference entirely. It doesn't add anything to this article and is causing significant issues. This is the easiest way to resolve this issue.
:::: Whatever else one might say, I don't think one can seriously claim that the puberty phrase is irrelevant or doesn't add anything to the article. This has been a lynchpin of anti-Islam polemics, based on the assumptions that modern readers have about nubile age, and it's no coincidence that one sees explicit discussions of it in writers who seek to assess moral character of Muhammad, like Armstrong and Spenser. It's very much relevant to that latter topic. If someone is in a position and willing to look up the other secondary sources, highlighting the controversy would be the best approach (perhaps with a side discussion of ] and ] issues). As a lazy-man's compromise, one could change "Traditional sources dictate" (which is unidiomatic anyway) to "According to the traditional view" (indicating the traditional ''reading'' of the sources), but frankly I doubt this would be accepted by all. ] (]) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Tivanir2}} how can you be so obtuse?! didn't you read the quotation in my previous post?! If somebody is going to rely on the books of hadith to determine how old Mrs. Ayesha was at the time of her marriage, then he or she should not ignore that according to the scholars of hadiths themselves, Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage. The quotation above from the book of Imam Nawawi is very clear on that point.--] (]) 15:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::Again comment on content not on contributer. I read it but simply put <b> whether Aisha was pre pubescent or had reached puberty is irrelevant in this article. </b> Full stop. This is an article on Muhammad and while she is his wife this information would be best presented at the Aisha article. I have no issues with whatever consensus occurs, it is just not relevant and contentious on an article that isn't about the individual it pertains too. ] (]) 17:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Mention of age is irrelevant and controversial and ] accepts that ] then why include something disputed which disputes itself? ] (]) 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

===Removal of paragraph===
I suggest that whole paragraph with the mention of puberty and Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age should be removed. This information is irrelevant to this article and need not be mentioned in this detail. This article is about The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) and not about Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا). I went ahead and boldly removed it but was reverted by ]. What do you guys say about removing that paragraph in its entirety? ] (]) 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' The age of Aisha at the time of marriage is oft-discussed in biographies of ''Muhammad''. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' for the same reason as NeilN and also because the article on Aisha doesn't include a thorough discussion of the point under dispute here. ] (]) 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::LOL...no one is disputing the age of Aisha at marriage since no one can legitimately prove or disprove her age, given the ahadeeth mention 3 different ages. You cannot dispute something that disputes itself. What <b>IS</b> in dispute (for the "nth" time, not sure why it even begs repeating since it's RIGHT here in the subject title) is her reaching puberty upon marriage as the article currently states. There is NO primary source (including the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which I am willing to accept as a primary source) which states anything about her reaching puberty, DESPITE the mischaracterization of the citations.] (]) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Why include something disputed which disputes itself? ] (]) 18:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::: {{re|Trinacrialucente}} I'm honestly baffled why you don't want to open ] and see the Misplaced Pages definition of primary source. The EI is a ''tertiary'' source. ] (]) 17:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I understand it can be considered a tertiary source (although arguably it could be considered a secondary source since it is directly quoting the Qur'an and ahadeeth). Regardless, I was stating I am willing to accept it in this discussion were it to say Aisha reached puberty. So far the other poster claimed there were "like a hundred hadith(sp)" that say she reached puberty. Then he said the Watt citation in the EI said it (which it does not). I'm just waiting for ANY citation from either source. ] (]) 17:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: Well, I'm not the other poster. You have confirmed that one cited source doesn't support the phrase. We have also confirmed that Armstrong's book does, although its status as ] is debatable, as the archive of RS noticeboard confirms. That still leaves three cited secondary sources to be either verified or disqualified as RS. The policy does not allow us to change statements with cited secondary sources based on our interpretation of primary sources. Trust me, I've been tempted to do it myself elsewhere, including a case where an EI author clearly misread an Arabic text, and this bit of nonsense spread into other books. But it's the law of the land. ] (]) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::OK, once again, the EI is not a blanked "tertiary source" simply because it has the word "encyclopaedia" in it and "thus sayeth wikipedia". As the EI quotes directly from the Qur'an, Tafseer, Ahadeeth etc, it can arguably be counted as a secondary source https://en.wikipedia.org/Secondary_source . And I have confirmed TWO (not one, but TWO) cited sources do not support the phrase (NONE the cited ahadeeth NOR the "Watt" citation of the EI mention the word "puberty"/pubescent/menstrual etc). The other poster said he was going to scan his copy that he claims DOES mention it (and if it does it will be the only copy in existence) but so far all we see is a bunch of double-talk and then crickets chirping. I don't know how many times we have to restate this; none of the original sources will cite Aisha having reached the age of puberty. We can speculate whether or not she reached puberty based on her age (which we have established cannot be 100% verified either given the contradicting ahadeeth) and other descriptions, which is exactly what <b>MANY</b> secondary sources do. So, if you or anyone else wants to keep the word "puberty" in that description you are opening yourself up to any number of secondary sources which argue she did <b>NOT</b> reach the age of puberty. Then we get to argue over which secondary sources are acceptable (yet another endless topic which will never be resolved/reach consensus). Does this spell it out for you yet? Would you rather have it stated very specifically in the article "some historians/authors speculate Aisha had not reached puberty by the time Mohammed took her into his house."? At this point I am seriously fine either way and can add at least 5 sources (again arguable as reliable/unreliable as your secondary apologist sources there now). ] (]) 22:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: Yes, like I've said repeatedly, I think discussing opposing scholarly views on this point is the right way to go (and, yes, there will probably be some debate about RS). There is already some discussion of this kind in the footnotes, and this article needs much more of it. No competent modern historian would base a biography of Muhammad on a mechanical reading of the hadith literature, so the general Misplaced Pages policy against trying to interpret primary sources directly is especially well justified here. ] (]) 22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Not sure what you mean by "mechanical reading". But if you are implying there are/will be differing views on hadith interpretation then that falls into the "obvious" category, since this has been the case long before wikipedia came along.] (]) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::: There is nothing "obvious" in the hadith as far as history goes. Many historians reject them altogether as unreliable and work only with the sira and maghazi. Those who use them will carefully analyze whether they would have been interest to fabricate or distort the facts in the course of transmission, whether some things that weren't expressed explicitly would have been understood by contemporaries, and many other issues. That's what historians are paid to do and we shouldn't try it at home. P.S. I didn't use the word "obvious" in the same way as you, but I'll let this stand as a comment on mechanical reading. ] (]) 23:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' What a strange idea to just delete it. It's a always a prominent topic in any bios of the historical Muhammad. ] (]) 21:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
::No, it's definitely not a strange idea. It's irrelevant to discuss Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age on the page about The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم), yes, we can mention Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم)'s age at the time of marriage to Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا). That would be relevant. ] (]) 17:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I've given a rationale for my position. You've just said "]". No one cares or has any interest whatsoever in whether you like it. ] (]) 23:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::::{{re|DeCausa}} And i was giving a rationale about why not to include it, there is nothing about like/dislike here. ] (]) 13:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' not censored we are. Although I must agree that this paragraph is problematic. @], ], ] Why don't we structure the paragraph like this "Sources disagree about the age of Hazrat Aisha(RA). According to sources she may have been six(REF), seven(REF), or nine(REF) when she was betrothed to Hazrat Muhammad (SAW). Sources also disagree about her age at the consummation of marriage, with reports ranging from ten(REF), eleven(REF), twelve(REF) to nineteen years (REF). The majority of modern scholarly sources agree that she had reached puberty either before her betrothal(REF, REF, REF, REF, REF, REF) or before her marriage.(REF, REF, REF, REF, REF, REF)" ] (]) 03:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:: No objection in principle, but we do need REF REF REF. ] (]) 04:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::@] I'll wait for ] and ] to give their input then edit my comment to include refs so that we can form a consensus. ok with you I hope. Regards ] (]) 05:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Not that you are asking but i would agree with this format as well, if we can just include all disagreements on age but my preferred position would be to completely remove it. ] (]) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::yeah...no. The "majority of modern sources do NOT "agree that she had reached puberty". Once again, you are making things up that are not there. You mention the word puberty, then you open yourself to the opposing view as well. This will not be a one-sided forum for apologists. Of course if you can cite just one of those "like a hundred hadeeth(sp) or scan that EI page from "Watt" that mentions it, then we can all go home. Or are you finally going to simply admit you are wrong?] (]) 05:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::::@] you clearly seem to be unable to get a point therefore I will not interact with you. You have been presented like 10 Reliable sources which agree with puberty even EI and Watt say she was 12 and mature. Therefore my question has been directed towards editors who wish to form a consensus instead of editors who want to disrupt. ] (]) 05:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Totally agree with ], sources were presented to ] over and over again by different editors and were ignored by him. It's like a broken tape record now. ] (]) 17:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:::nope, everyone else save a few of your likeminded travelers got my point (doesn't mean they agree...but if you read through the comments, they definitely get it). I don't care if you interact with me or not. Doesn't make your voice/opinion any more valid or important.] (]) 05:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Broadly, I think Freeatlast's proposal is ok subject to the following. (1) The REFS need to be filled in and they need to be secondary ] that are not ] (2) of course, no "Hazrat", "RA" etc, (3) why is there even any mention of whether she reached puberty? It has no bearing. We're addressing a 21st century global readership not ]. It's primitive and irrelevant - the only notable point is her age. ] (]) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::::: I think the issues of age and puberty go together, because their prominence is in large part due to the exploitation of modern assumptions about nubile age by anti-Islam polemics. Additional discussion is needed to put them in context. Here are some other bits I found: 1) "Little attention was paid to the age difference between bride and groom. Such marriages were common in the seventh century and, for that matter, in biblical times." ] (from a general history that seems like RS); 2) "The couple had concluded the marriage contract when Aisha was only six but had waited to consummate the marriage until she reached physical maturity." ] (from a book by Jonathan Brown, who seems like a respected historian on the subject); 3) "Aisha did not consummate her marriage to Muhammad until after reaching puberty, which is when every girl in Arabia without exception became eligible for marriage." ] (from an essay by Reza Aslan, who like Armstrong, is only borderline reliable, I think). I'm not sure if there's acceptance of the opposite view outside of polemical literature, but those are the only books I'm seeing it in so far. ] (]) 00:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Regardless of what some people may say or write puberty is still irrelevent. The FAQ already talks about Muhammad's age at the time of marriage, as multiple times people would try to insert negative OR into the article. ] (]) 12:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::: That doesn't make sense to me. How is it that a little girl's age at consummation of marriage is relevant but her physical readiness for it is not? Unless someone shows that there's mainstream acceptance of the view that she ''hadn't'' reached puberty, I would suggest making the phrasing in the main text along the lines of Brown's #2 quote above and putting the debate about the age of consummation and other quotes from sources into a footnote, so we don't have to go through this again. ] (]) 13:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: We don't even mention puberty status on Aishas' article. What would be the purpose of displaying information, that is not about the article's subject, that isn't even considered important enough to make the main article body? This is seriously a tempest in a teacup. ] (]) 14:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose removal''' This seems to be a typical ] removal. The paragraph is well-sourced and directly relevant to the subject. So a definite no to removing it, and a temporary no changing it, but the latter could be discussed and reevaluated ''after'' references are presented and discussed. ] (]) 18:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:*Agree with this. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - Including it is not relevant. Why aren't the ages of other wives included? It was a non-issue throughout most of history, however, Western orientalists and Islamophobes are utilizing it to propagate their anti-Islamic doctrines. It is entirely based on Western-normative concepts of morality and it neglects the praise and veneration that the wives of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ have had towards him. It is totally biased. ] (]) 02:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015 - Rationale and Discussion ==

{{edit semi-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Suggest some changes to the Non-Muslim views.
In a nutshell, there's no description of contemporary Christian views of Islam, and no section on secular views at all. Both of these are

Currently there are some odd features:
1) Christian views only incorporate Historical christian views. Insofar as historical views are relevant so are contemporary views.

2) Christian views don't have any sort of summation or introductory sentence.
Would suggest a general summarisation at the top that "Christians generally do not believe Muhammed was a genuine prophet; their assessments of his moral character differ with theological conservatives generally asserting that Muhammed had poor moral character, while liberals assert that he was genuine." or similar. I'd suggest subsuming the fellows in 3) as the citation for the second half of the sentence and perhaps some high profile case of a theological conservative as a link for the former. Franklin Graham is the most recent high profile one that springs to mind. (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/franklin.graham.muslims.who.kill.christians.are.emulating.muhammed/49817.htm)

3) Christian views appear to focus on academics with views that are highly unusual in a) Christianity or b) academia (and are not representative of their own body of works to boot). As the paragraph is the only one describing 20th century Christians it does a poor job of representing 20th century Christian thought.

William Montgomery Watt regarded the Koran as divinely inspired which is highly uncommon in Christianity. while Richard Bell made his name with his thesis that Muhammed took elements from Christianity. (http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=islam.)
I can't find much out about Welch except that he is a retired professor and a secondary source listing him as a proponent of Bell and noting that this stance is rare. (http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0661 )

As per 2), these do represent some liberal Christian strands of thought but are quite misleading when presented as the only modern Christian thought, as it implies an orthodoxy which doesn't exist.

4) Where are the secular views of Muhammed? They are entirely absent. This state of affairs simply shouldn't continue. A descriptive outline of the various takes on him would be useful. My impression is that the summary in 2) with the word "theological" swapped for "political" would be accurate. New Athesists are highly critical of Muhammed and the Koran. I recall some rather strident atheist critiques, and other liberal defences of him.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/christopher-hitchens-on-the-koran-mohammed-and-islam.66177/
9 mins onward would, I suggest, be representative of New Atheist opinions on Muhammed.

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
::] '''Not done:''' please establish a ] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::: It seems too much to get every modern view of Muhammad, maybe couple sentences on how he is viewed negatively or something. ] (]) 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: I don't see a point in mentioning criticism of him in the article as anybody who believes in his prophet-hood cannot be critical of him and most people who do not believe in his prophet-hood has some kind of criticism of him in their mind. It's the universal truth, most people who are not ] has some kind of negative view about him otherwise there is nothing barring them to enter ]. If you want to mention criticism, you can just simply add this sentence, "Most ], ], ], ], ] and ] etc. have been critical of him historically." and that should be good enough. Summed it up for you! ] (]) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::::: That's rather trite. It is entirely reasonable that a reader might want to know *why* many people don't like Muhammed when others revere him, even if you ren't interested. Agree that it shouldn't be too long as per Alexis's comment. By the same logic it would be spurious having criticisms of Jesus, or for that matter, most historical figures of any ideological importance.

:::::A good overview article ought to summarise its main points succintly and provide a link to another article for detail. Agree there is no need for a lengthy exposition - maybe a compromise such as: "Most ], ], ], ], ] and ] do not believe that Muhammed was a genuine prophet. Many of them are critical of hs conduct, particularly vis-a-vis his motivations and conduct with regards to warfare and women." Which would be a fairly accurate and entirely succinct way of summarising it, with no implied judgement for or against said criticisms.

:::::My criticism of this article, to summarise above more succinctly, is fivefold:
:::::# It's ludicrous to lump in historical figures such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Napoleon in any section entitled "Christian views on anything". Can we just agree on that right now? I mean, its Voltaire!
:::::# Secular views are missing entirely.
:::::# Christian views shouldn't be entitled historical Christian views, it should just be Christian views as modern views are as relevant as historical views.
:::::# The Christian views section as its written with only one nonrepresentative implies that the modern Christian view of Muhammed is basically positive when it shoud describe it as either split or basically negative with dissenting liberal views. This is caused by selective citation of some rather unusual academics who are not very credible as being representative of academia or Christians as a whole.
:::::# The criticism section is noninformative and fails to succinctly summarise the main criticisms of Muhammed, as per discussion above.

:::::# Does anyone disagree with the above criticisms, if so which?

:::: ] (]) 06:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

::::: Sure, that section is poorly organized. The content is basically: 1) medieval Christian views; 2) positive Western views; 3) views from other religions; 4) criticism of all kinds. The main cause of imbalance comes from the fact that all of these except #2 are treated in separate articles. So, #4 is represented by the lead from that article, which happens to be very brief. ] (]) 06:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015 - Lengthy verbatim suggestion ==

{{edit semi-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
{{collapse top|''very'' long post}}
<!-- Begin request -->

Historical Christian views
See also: Medieval Christian views on Muhammad

The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a false prophet. Another Greek source for Muhammad is Theophanes, a 9th-century writer. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.

According to Hossein Nasr, the earliest European literature often refers to Muhammad unfavorably. A few learned circles of Middle Ages Europe – primarily Latin-literate scholars – had access to fairly extensive biographical material about Muhammad. They interpreted the biography through a Christian religious filter; one that viewed Muhammad as a person who seduced the Saracens into his submission under religious guise. Popular European literature of the time portrayed Muhammad as though he were worshipped by Muslims, similar to an idol or a heathen god.

In later ages, Muhammad came to be seen as a schismatic: Brunetto Latini's 13th century Li livres dou tresor represents him as a former monk and cardinal, and Dante's Divine Comedy (Inferno, Canto 28), written in the early 1300s, puts Muhammad and his son-in-law, Ali, in Hell "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again." Cultural critic and author Edward Said wrote in Orientalism regarding Dante's depiction of Muhammad:

Empirical data about the Orient...count for very little; ... What ... Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is ... to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are ... only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him).

However, Ibn Warraq has challenged Said's assessment of Dante's work as seriously flawed, writing: "Said does not come across as a careful reader of Dante and his masterpiece, The Divine Comedy". Warraq argues first that Said is oblivious to the allegorical content of The Divine Comedy; second, that Said ignores the historical context of Dante's work (i.e., Dante and some of his contemporaries believed that Muhammad was a schismatic Christian who intended to usurp the Pope, thus a heretic); and third that Said misinterprets Dante's placing of three notable Muslims (Avicenna and Averroes and Saladin) in the outer circle of hell: "these illustrious Muslims were included precisely because of Dante's reverence for all that was best in the non-Christian world, and their exclusion from salvation, inevitable under Christian doctrine, saddened him and put a great strain on his mind".

After the Reformation, Muhammad was often portrayed in a similar way. Guillaume Postel was among the first to present a more positive view of Muhammad. Boulainvilliers described Muhammad as a gifted political leader and a just lawmaker. Gottfried Leibniz praised Muhammad because "he did not deviate from the natural religion". Thomas Carlyle in his book Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1840) describes Muhammad as " silent great soul; one of those who cannot but be in earnest". Carlyle's interpretation has been widely cited by Muslim scholars as a demonstration that Western scholarship validates Muhammad's status as a great man in history.Henri, Count of Boulainvilliers (1658–1722), wrote Vie de Mahomed which was published posthumously in 1730. He presents the Prophet as a divinely inspired messenger whom God employed to confound the bickering Oriental Christians, to liberate the Orient from the despotic rule of the Romans and Persians, and to spread the knowledge of the unity of God from India to Spain. Voltaire had both a positive and negative opinion on Muhammad: in his play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète he vilifies the Prophet as a symbol of fanaticism, and in a published essay in 1748 he calls him "a sublime and hearty charlatan", but in his historical survey Essai sur les mœurs , he presents Muhammad as legislator and a conqueror and calls him an "enthusiast", not an imposter. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Social Contract (1762), brushing aside hostile legends of Muhammad as a trickster and impostor, presents him as a sage legislator who wisely fused religious and political powers. Emmanuel Pastoret published in 1787 his Zoroaster, Confucius and Muhammad, in which he presents the lives of these three "great men," "the greatest legislators of the universe," and compares their careers as religious reformers and lawgivers. He defends the Prophet, too often calumniated as an impostor. In fact, the Quran proffers "the most sublime truths of cult and morals"; it defines the unity of God with an "admirable concision." The common accusations of the Prophet's immorality are unfounded: on the contrary, his law enjoins sobriety, generosity, and compassion on his followers: the "legislator of Arabia" was "a great man." Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam, and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man.

According to William Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell, recent writers generally dismiss the idea that Muhammad deliberately deceived his followers, arguing that Muhammad "was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith" and Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship for his cause, with what seemed to be no rational basis for hope, shows his sincerity. Watt says that sincerity does not directly imply correctness: In contemporary terms, Muhammad might have mistaken his subconscious for divine revelation. Watt and Bernard Lewis argue that viewing Muhammad as a self-seeking impostor makes it impossible to understand Islam's development. Alford T. Welch holds that Muhammad was able to be so influential and successful because of his firm belief in his vocation.
Other religious views
See also: Judaism's views on Muhammad

Bahá'ís venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith.

Criticism
Main article: Criticism of Muhammad

Muhammad has been criticized ever since he claimed prophethood. He was attacked by non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism. In modern times, criticism has also dealt with Muhammad's sincerity in claiming to be a prophet, his morality, warfare, and his marriages.

CHANGE TO

Christian views
Christians generally do not consider Muhammad to have been a prophet. Historically, most Christian writers considered Muhammad as self-serving, violent or a deliberate spreader of a false revelation. In modern times some Christians, particularly theological liberals, have regarded Muhammed as genuine, usually but not universally while asserting that the Quran was not a revelation from God. Many theological conservatives and apologists in contrast, consider Muhammed to have been violent and self-serving.

See also: Medieval Christian views on Muhammad

The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a false prophet. Another Greek source for Muhammad is Theophanes, a 9th-century writer. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.

According to Hossein Nasr, the earliest European literature often refers to Muhammad unfavorably. A few learned circles of Middle Ages Europe – primarily Latin-literate scholars – had access to fairly extensive biographical material about Muhammad. They interpreted the biography through a Christian religious filter; one that viewed Muhammad as a person who seduced the Saracens into his submission under religious guise. Popular European literature of the time portrayed Muhammad as though he were worshipped by Muslims, similar to an idol or a heathen god.

In later ages, Muhammad came to be seen as a schismatic: Brunetto Latini's 13th century Li livres dou tresor represents him as a former monk and cardinal, and Dante's Divine Comedy (Inferno, Canto 28), written in the early 1300s, puts Muhammad and his son-in-law, Ali, in Hell "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again." Cultural critic and author Edward Said wrote in Orientalism regarding Dante's depiction of Muhammad:

Empirical data about the Orient...count for very little; ... What ... Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is ... to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are ... only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him).

However, Ibn Warraq has challenged Said's assessment of Dante's work as seriously flawed, writing: "Said does not come across as a careful reader of Dante and his masterpiece, The Divine Comedy". Warraq argues first that Said is oblivious to the allegorical content of The Divine Comedy; second, that Said ignores the historical context of Dante's work (i.e., Dante and some of his contemporaries believed that Muhammad was a schismatic Christian who intended to usurp the Pope, thus a heretic); and third that Said misinterprets Dante's placing of three notable Muslims (Avicenna and Averroes and Saladin) in the outer circle of hell: "these illustrious Muslims were included precisely because of Dante's reverence for all that was best in the non-Christian world, and their exclusion from salvation, inevitable under Christian doctrine, saddened him and put a great strain on his mind".

After the Reformation, Muhammad was often portrayed in a similar way. Guillaume Postel was among the first to present a more positive view of Muhammad. Boulainvilliers described Muhammad as a gifted political leader and a just lawmaker. Gottfried Leibniz praised Muhammad because "he did not deviate from the natural religion". Thomas Carlyle in his book Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1840) describes Muhammad as " silent great soul; one of those who cannot but be in earnest". Carlyle's interpretation has been widely cited by Muslim scholars as a demonstration that Western scholarship validates Muhammad's status as a great man in history.Henri, Count of Boulainvilliers (1658–1722), wrote Vie de Mahomed which was published posthumously in 1730. He presents the Prophet as a divinely inspired messenger whom God employed to confound the bickering Oriental Christians, to liberate the Orient from the despotic rule of the Romans and Persians, and to spread the knowledge of the unity of God from India to Spain.



Secular views of Islam:
Voltaire had both a positive and negative opinion on Muhammad: in his play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète he vilifies the Prophet as a symbol of fanaticism, and in a published essay in 1748 he calls him "a sublime and hearty charlatan", but in his historical survey Essai sur les mœurs , he presents Muhammad as legislator and a conqueror and calls him an "enthusiast", not an imposter. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Social Contract (1762), brushing aside hostile legends of Muhammad as a trickster and impostor, presents him as a sage legislator who wisely fused religious and political powers. Emmanuel Pastoret published in 1787 his Zoroaster, Confucius and Muhammad, in which he presents the lives of these three "great men," "the greatest legislators of the universe," and compares their careers as religious reformers and lawgivers. He defends the Prophet, too often calumniated as an impostor. In fact, the Quran proffers "the most sublime truths of cult and morals"; it defines the unity of God with an "admirable concision." The common accusations of the Prophet's immorality are unfounded: on the contrary, his law enjoins sobriety, generosity, and compassion on his followers: the "legislator of Arabia" was "a great man." Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam, and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man. New Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens consider the Quran to be a fabricated work and Muhammad of poor moral character


Other religious views
Judaism's views on Muhammad
Very few texts in Judaism refer to or take note of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad (Mukhammad). Some of them deny Muhammad's declaration of receiving divine revelations and call him a "false prophet", while other texts acknowledge him as being a true prophet sent by God. In the Middle Ages, it was common for Jewish writers to claim that Muhammad was a ha-meshuggah ("the madman"), a term of contempt frequently used in the Bible for those who believe themselves to be prophets. [CITE: Norman A. Stillman (1979). The Jews of Arab lands: a history and source book. Jewish Publication Society. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-8276-0198-7. Retrieved 26 December 2011.;
Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism By Ibn Warraq Page 255;
The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History page 21; Links as per "Judaism's views on Muhammad" page.

Baha'i views
Bahá'ís venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith.

Criticism
Main article: Criticism of Muhammad

Muhammad has been criticized ever since he claimed prophethood. He was attacked by non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism. In modern times, criticism has also dealt with Muhammad's sincerity in claiming to be a prophet, his ownership of slaves, his treatment of prisoners, his torture and killing of Kenana ibn al-Rabi, his marriages (particularly of Aisha and Zaynab bint Jahsh), that he was a religious syncretist, his psychological and medical condition, and his warfare and methods therein.

<!-- End request -->
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
] (]) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please establish a ] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Muhammad|answered=Yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Undo the last edit of Tivanir2. Obviously a bad-faith edit against the consensus of the discussion above.--] (]) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks to ] for undoing it.--] (]) 15:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

== The thing that should actually be disputed ==

The thing that should actually be disputed is "the narration that Mrs. Ayesha married the Prophet Muhammad at the age of 9". The authenticity of this narration has been widely questioned by modern Muslim scholars and Imams alike. This narration was mainly narrated by one person only (called Hisham ibn Urwah) and is inconsistent with other narrations found in the Muslim books of history and tradition.

Reasons for considering that narration unauthentic and unreliable:<br>
Point 1. All Muslim scholars of history and tradition stated that Ayesha was 10 years younger than her sister Asma, and that Asma was born 27 years Before Hegira. Per ], 27-10=17. This obviously shows that Mrs Ayesha was born 17 years Before Hegira and her age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet was 18 years old.
* Examples of sources stating that Asma was born 27 years before the Migration of the Prophet.<br>
#'''Original text:''' كَانَ لِأَسْمَاءَ يَوْمَ مَاتَتْ مِائَةُ سَنَةٍ '''وُلِدَتْ قَبْلَ التَّارِيخِ بِسَبْعٍ وَعِشْرِينَ سَنَةً'''، وَقَبْلَ مَبْعَثِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِسَبْعَ عَشْرَةَ سَنَةً، <br>
'''English translation:''' When Asma died she was 100 year old. '''She was born 27 years Before Hegira''', and 17 years before the Prophet – Peace and Blessing of God be upon him – received his first revelation.<br>
'''Source:''' ], al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr. Volume 24. Page 77.

#'''Original text:''' وكانت لأسماء يوم ماتت مائة سنة ، '''ولدت قبل التاريخ بسبع وعشرين سنة''' . وولدت أسماء لأبي بكر وسنه إحدى وعشرون سنة .<br>
'''English translation:''' And Asma was 100 years old at the time of her death. '''She was born 27 years Before Hegira''' . Asma was born for Abu Bakr when he was 21 years old.<br>
'''Source:''' Majma al-Zawa'id, ]. Volume 9. Page 260.

* Examples of sources stating that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha
#'''Original text:''' وكانت هي وأختها عائشة وأبوها أبو بكر الصديق، وجدها أبو عتيق، وابنها عبد الله، وزوجها الزبير صحابيين رضي الله عنهم. وقد شهدت اليرموك مع ابنها وزوجها، '''وهي أكبر من أختها عائشة بعشر سنين'''<br>
'''English translation:''' She, her sister Aisha, her father Abu Bakr, her grandfather Abu Atiq, her son Abdullah, and her husband al-Zubair were Companions - God bless them -. She participated in the Battle of Yarmouk with her son and her husband, and '''she is ten years older than her sister Aisha.'''<br>
'''Source:''' ], the Beginning and the End. Volume 8. Page 345.<ref></ref>

#'''Original text:''' قال ابن أبي الزناد: '''وكانت أكبر من عائشة بعشر سنين'''.<br>
'''English translation:''' Ibn Abi al-Zinad narrated: and '''she (Asma) was ten years older than Aisha'''.<br>
'''Source: ''']. History of Damascus. Volume 69. Page 8.

Per ], 27-10=17. This obviously shows that Mrs Ayesha was born 17 years before the Hegira and her age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet was 18 years old.--] (]) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Point 2. ] states in his ] that Mrs Ayesha "converted to Islam when she was little girl" together with her father Abu Bakr and her sister Asma and lists them among the earliest converts. Stating that Ayesha "converted to Islam when she was little girl" instead of saying that "she was born in Islam" means that she was definitely born before 610 and that her age at the time of her marriage can't be less than 18 years old.

: You may have a point, but the way to incorporate it into the article is via reliable secondary sources, per ]. In the article on Aisha there's a discussion of a view that her youth may have been exaggerated by early Muslim historians to exclude doubts about her virginity. ] (]) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

: ]. Find a group of reliable secondary sources that state what you are trying to put together and then we can go through it. ] (]) 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I actually think this would be an appropriate and legitimate discussion (keyword) in the article. You will never reach a consensus, because a) 1200 years of Muslim scholars have not and b) as I mentioned above, there are conflicting versions in SAHIH narrations of the hadith. So, if we are to accept the ahadeeth as a primary source (i.e. a first-hand account of the events from the people in question) then these accounts contradict themselves. There is no reason why we could not write "according to XXX Aisha was XXX when she married, while YYY states she was YYY". That is completely valid. But NOWHERE...repeat <b>NOWHERE</b>...does any reliable source say she had reached puberty. This is all conjecture and apologetics/speculation based on a preconceived notion "working backwards". I really wish certain people had not been so obstinate at the beginning of this discussion, inventing information that was not there. ] (]) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Trinacrialucente}} You were given reliable sources (both primary and secondary) which say that she had reached puberty. Read the quotation from the book of ] that I gave you above.--] (]) 10:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Tivanir2}} the policy that applies here is not ]. Actually, the policy that applies here is ] which says that "Routine calculations do not count as original research". Given that the sources say precisely that "Asma was 10 years older than Aisha" and that "Asma was born 27 years before Hegira", stating that Aisha was born 17 years Before Hegira and married the Prophet at the age of 18 can't be considered as synthesis or original research. Read ] which is very clear on that point.
:{{Ping|Eperoton}} here are some of the secondary sources by modern Muslim scholars and Imams alike:
* {{quote|This dates refers to the early days of Islam. For it is known that Aisha’s sister Asma, who was born in 595, was 15 when she became a Muslim. This indicates the year 610, when the Prophet started to receive the revelation and this then shows that Aisha was at least 5, 6 or 7 that day and that she was at least 17 or 18 when she married the Prophet in Medina.|Aisha: The Wife, The Companion, The Scholar. Reşit Haylamaz. ISBN 978-1-59784-266-2. Published by Tughra Books in 2012. p. 203.<ref>https://books.google.ae/books?id=8YZlAwAAQBAJ&hl=ar&source=gbs_navlinks_s</ref>}}
* {{quote|CONCLUSION: In light of the above discussion, there can be absolutely no doubt that any narration stating that Ayesha was 6-9 years old at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad, is inaccurate. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that Ayesha was 19-21 years old at the time of her marriage.|Prophet Muhammad’s Wife Ayesha: Her Age at the Time of Marriage. An article by Prof. ].<ref>http://www.understandingislam.org/Prophet%20Muhammad's%20Wife%20Ayesha-Her%20Age.htm</ref>}}
* {{quote|We can say that ‘Aisha was at least 19 when she got married according to the sources we have.|Nabulsi Encyclopedia. Orientalists or liars. An article by Dr. ].<ref>http://www.muhammad-pbuh.com/en/?p=231</ref>}}
* {{quote|Furthermore, since her sister Asma, ten years older, was 100 when she died, and since it is a matter of record that Asma died more than seventy-two years after Aisha's wedding, a calculation based on those numbers put her age at the time of her consummation at greater than seventeen.|Muslim, Christian, and Jew: Finding a Path to Peace Our Faiths Can Share. ISBN 978-0-9813882-0-5. David Liepert. ‏Page 262.<ref>https://books.google.ae/books?id=lRPZkqwU0NYC&pg=PA262&dq=%22Furthermore,+since+her+sister+Asma,+ten+years+older,+was+100+when+she+died,+and+since+it+is+a+matter+of+record+that+Asma+died+more+than+seventy-two+years+after+Aisha%27s+wedding,+a+calculation+based+on+those+numbers+puts+her+age+at+the+time+of%22&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje9s2p8LzJAhWHWBoKHXZgCGEQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Furthermore%2C%20since%20her%20sister%20Asma%2C%20ten%20years%20older%2C%20was%20100%20when%20she%20died%2C%20and%20since%20it%20is%20a%20matter%20of%20record%20that%20Asma%20died%20more%20than%20seventy-two%20years%20after%20Aisha%27s%20wedding%2C%20a%20calculation%20based%20on%20those%20numbers%20puts%20her%20age%20at%20the%20time%20of%22&f=false</ref>}}
* {{quote|Aisha might have been twelve or thirteen at the time of marriage (and older at its consummation).|Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past. ]. Columbia University Press 1996. ISBN 978-0231079990. 197-198, n. 4.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Gender-Islamic-Past-Spellberg/dp/0231079990</ref>}}
* {{quote|On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.|"Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. ]. University of Texas Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏<ref>https://books.google.ae/books?id=nGKMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA126&dq=%22On+the+other+hand,+however,+Muslims+who+calculate+%27Ayesha%27s+age+based+on+details+of+her+sister+Asma%27s+age,+about+whom+more+is+known,+as+well+as+on+details+of+the+Hijra+%28the+Prophet%27s+migration+from+Mecca+to+Madina%29,+maintain+that+she+was+over+thirteen+and+perhaps+between+seventeen+and+nineteen%22+%22%22&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP6enm7rzJAhVCQhQKHXCEAy4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22On%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20however%2C%20Muslims%20who%20calculate%20%27Ayesha%27s%20age%20based%20on%20details%20of%20her%20sister%20Asma%27s%20age%2C%20about%20whom%20more%20is%20known%2C%20as%20well%20as%20on%20details%20of%20the%20Hijra%20%28the%20Prophet%27s%20migration%20from%20Mecca%20to%20Madina%29%2C%20maintain%20that%20she%20was%20over%20thirteen%20and%20perhaps%20between%20seventeen%20and%20nineteen%22%20%22%22&f=false</ref>}}

::Register an account so I can thank you on a well job done. ] (]) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::: That's fine, though we need to be careful about classifying sources according to ]. Author's religion is immaterial here. What matters is whether the publication has gone through mainstream academic peer review, in whatever country that may be (since this is an article about the historical figure of Muhammad, as opposed to ]). The book by Asma Barlas meets that requirement, but the rest look like they may come from faith-oriented publishers. Traditional Islamic scholarship can also be cited, but it should be attributed as such. ] (]) 15:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::Wp:Calc is for a single source making the claim. You fused half a dozen sources, hence Synth. ] (]) 12:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes...I for one am very aware of these newer apologist arguments that directly contradict the 10 other narrations of Sahih Bukhari (a first hand source, if we are to believe the Hadeeth collection/methodology) that say she was 9. ] (]) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Proposal for changes on Aisha's mariage ==

To follow up on my comments in the "Removal of paragraph" thread, let me flesh out a proposal, which seems reasonable based on sources presented so far. We can revise if someone presents RSs advocating a different view.
'''Main text:''' It is thought that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached physical maturity.(current refs, plus Brown ], Reza Aslan ]) '''Footnote:''' Such marriages were common in the seventh century. (A Concise History of the Middle East ]; Reza Aslan ]) The traditional view estimates that the marriage was consummated when Aisha was about nine.(refs) However, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.|(“Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. ]. University of Texax Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏<ref>https://books.google.ae/books?id=nGKMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA126</ref>}}</ref>) Denise Spellberg has reviewed Islamic literature on Aisha's virginity, age at marriage and age when the marriage was consummated and speculates that Aisha's youth might have been exaggerated to exclude any doubt about her virginity. (copied from ]) ] (]) 13:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' That would seem to violate ] by creating a false balance between a mainstream academic view and a minority view. (<small>saying that such marriages were common at the time would make sense for a 'normal' historical person. For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant. </small>)] (]) 14:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:: I'm not sure what you're objecting to. If it's UNDUE on age, we can emphasize that the traditional estimate is also the mainstream view among modern scholars. If it's the main text, please provide sources showing a mainstream academic view that she hadn't reached puberty. I initially conceded on removing the first statement in the footnote, but having reread your objection more carefully, I take that back. We're not writing for a person in direct contact with God. We're writing for Misplaced Pages users, not all of whom are familiar with 7th century nuptial customs, but all of whom have assumptions about nubile age based on their own environment. ] (]) 14:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:::This has got to be one of the most ridiculous "oppose" vote rationales I have come across. I wish there were emotes allowed so others could see my complete astonishment at this. "For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant." lol. Regards ] (]) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks for that ] violation, and for so blatantly misrepresenting my view. In case it really escaped you, I wrote "''That would seem to violate ] by creating a false balance between a mainstream academic view and a minority view.''". ] (]) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for that violation of common sense. What does this mean "For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant." Just explain this to me and we shall discuss other matters after that. ] (]) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I will create an RFC tonight and link to it here once completed. We have wasted many hours that could be used to improve the article over this. ] (]) 16:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Gladly, but first explain to me why it would be relevant to point out that marrying small kids was the custom at the time. My comment was a direct response to the suggested change, and the irrelevance of that claim. ] (]) 17:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::@] Because it actually WAS a custom lol. When the average age was 30 people were married off at the first sign of maturity, and children were not brought up in huggly cuddly life style of today, rather they grew up in a tough and rough environment which hardened/matured them mentally at an early age. Today the average age in some places is 50, 60 in others and even more in developed nations. So there is no need to marry early, and marrying early is viewed as a stigma. To create a balanced perspective it is necessary to add this footnote. Btw did you look at the FAQ given above the talkpage? there is a question specifically targeting this kind of POV mindset. Perhaps a perusal is in order? Regards ] (]) 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::: {{re|Jeppiz}} I have already explained that thrice in the preceding discussion. This point has gained prominence in modern times because modern assumptions on this issue have been systematically exploited by polemical literature. It's the job of historical writing to provide historical context in cases where the readers are likely to misinterpret raw data without it. ] (]) 17:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Eperoton}} By that logic the passage should go on to clarify that what Prophet Muhammad did was still ], seeing as how the "it was okay in the past" excuse has been systematically exploited by Islamic apologetic literature and because readers are likely to misinterpret the passage by thinking that having sex with children is acceptable if the prevailing culture at the time allows it. —] (]) 17:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Human10.0}} No, that must be some other logic. Historical texts provide historical context. They don't provide legal advice. ] (]) 23:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Eperoton}} Mentioning child sex abuse isn't equal to providing legal advice since no one is saying you have to mention how child sex abuse is illegal in most countries. I think we're both using the same logic by demanding unnecessary contextualization to counter polemical literature. Have you demanded such contextualization in wiki articles of other people who married and/or had sexual intercourse with minors? Why not demand it for every one of them as a preventive measure, so that nobody has the nerve to ever criticize any of them for their relationships with minors in the future. Personally I do not think people who read the current article will "misinterpret raw data" as I doubt most readers would think what Prophet Muhammad did was unusual for his time and since it is not a "misinterpretation" to think what he did was morally wrong. I feel that the text you're proposing specifically aims to morally justify Prophet Muhammad and Aisha's relationship (by acting as a request to practice moral relativism) than anything else.
::::::::::There's another issue: I do not see how saying that 'child marriages were common in the past' counters modern non-Muslim polemical literature since all such literature I've come across doesn't deny that child marriages were common in the past, rather it criticizes Prophet Muhammad on moral grounds for engaging in something that is immoral by objective moral standards even though he was/claimed to be a prophet and teacher of morals. If some piece of polemical literature has tried to deny the commonness of child marriages and sex with minors in the past, then I think we need to judge whether that piece and its denial is notable enough to warrant the text you're proposing before making any changes.—] (]) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{re|Human10.0}} Polemicists highlight Aisha's age on "objective moral" grounds? Please, don't make me laugh. That might pass for someone like Richard Dawkins, who would then go on to accuse biblical figures dear to most of those polemicists of "child sex abuse" in the next breath -- for instance, Isaac, who married Rebecca at an age variously estimated at 3, 10, or 14 years old by traditional commentators (]). Marrying off girls as soon as they reached puberty was considered the right and proper thing to do in many times and places from biblical times to Renaissance Italy, and yet only in this one case is this detail deemed notable, nay essential information. What a curious application of "objective moral standards". Let's not play games here. It's been systematically highlighted in order to misrepresent the founder of a world religion as a pervert to the casual reader of history (though I suppose pleading ignorance would be a plausible excuse for many of those writers). Now, you may well insist on judging figures from the past based on the moral standards of your time and place. That's your own right. But, as I'm sure you're aware, others have a different conception of ethical history, and that's why history texts provide ''historical'' context (and not any random contextualization) for potentially misleading details to let readers make an ''informed'' choice based on whatever their philosophical persuasion may be. Are you seriously arguing that pointing out the obviously different state of contemporary norms would serve an informative purpose in a history text? ] (]) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{re|Eperoton}}You don't think it is an objective moral standard to think having sex with children is immoral? Wow.
::::::::::::And yes, generally criticism of Prophet Muhammad's relationship with Aisha (by literature and lay people) relies on the objective moral standard that holds sex with children to be immoral, regardless of time period and other excuses. I have not seen non-Muslim polemic literature denying that child marriages were common in the past and accusing Muhammad for doing something strange for his time by marrying and deflowering Aisha nor are readers likely to misinterpret anything so I still see no reason for the proposed footnote, especially if your reason for providing one was to counter non-Muslim polemic literature and prevent any misinterpretation by readers.
::::::::::::I have already mentioned why people criticise Prophet Muhammad in particular instead of say, a painter from "Renaissance Italy" who married and/or had sex with a minor when I said " was/claimed to be a prophet and teacher of morals." If I must spell it out: Other people aren't criticised on moral grounds because they did not claim to be a source of timeless morals and a universal standard of moral conduct for others to emulate, unlike Prophet Muhammad. If those people claimed so then they would have been criticised on moral grounds too (actually religious personalities ''are'' often criticised on moral grounds).
::::::::::::It's very telling that you said "''in order to'' '''misrepresent''' ''the founder of a world religion as a pervert''." It seems you personally believe someone, or rather Prophet Muhammad specifically, having sex with a minor is not 'perverted.' I feel this is why you want to provide that proposed apologetic footnote: to influence others to think the same as you. It's also telling when you said "''Now, you may well insist on judging figures from the past based on the moral standards of your time and place''." It's clear from this that you are practicing moral relativism. I do not see any reason why this article needs to be presented in a way that pleases "others" who have a faulty "conception of ethical history." The last part of your reply makes it abundantly clear that your aim for providing a footnote is to prevent ''moral'' judgement of your prophet and to compel the reader to practice ''moral'' relativism in his specific case like you yourself are doing. I find it interesting that on this very page on one hand some (if not all) Muslim editors are trying to deny that Prophet Muhammad married a six-year-old and on the other hand the same (and additional) Muslim editors are also trying to justify the marriage by arguing that it was common at the time. I do not like this attempt to manipulate Misplaced Pages for apologetic purposes at all. —] (]) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::: It's clear that this group won't reach a consensus on the disputed points, so I will stop here unless there's an escalation of ]. ] (]) 14:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' I wanted to propose something along these lines myself but some editors may have taken a wrong view, just because I am a muslim. Anyway, strong support due to it being NPOV. Regards ] (]) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::Would you care to elaborate just how it would be NPOV? ] (]) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Because the mainstream view is that the marriage was consummated after maturity. No matter how many islmophobic sources you provide saying that she was not mature I will trump you with more sources that say she was. The vast, vast majority of sources agree on the fact that she was mature. Furthermore, she had already been engaged before so it is pretty clear she was mature(Yes you can check primary as well as secondary sources, they all agree that she had been engaged before). So NPOV is saying what the majority of Reliable sources agree upon. ] (]) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::: {{re|Jeppiz}} I believe the ball is in your court here. Multiple secondary sources have been presented to support one view on puberty. All I've heard for the other view so far are allusions to polemical websites. ] (]) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::I would like to point out the obvious relevance here: because in the Muslim world Muhammad is seen as the "perfect example of a human being"/without sin and the majority consensus among Muslim scholars up through last century was that Aisha was in fact 9 years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her, Shari'a law in MANY Muslim countries allows girls to be married at 9 years old; Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan to name but a few (reaching puberty or not has NO bearing in this decision...it is purely based on the age of Aisha in the ahadeeth). ] (]) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Trinacrialucente}} That is the very reason why we should include the opposing views that according to some sources, she was well over eighteen and according to some sources she reached the age of puberty before consummation of marriage so that we can dispel that stereotypical view that a ] girl can be married at 9 years of age no matter if she reached puberty or not. ] (]) 14:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Trinacrialucente}} I would like to point out that the consensus of Islamic scholars is still that she was 6 at the time of marriage and 9 at the time of intercourse. It's only a handful of contemporary writers and scholars (not necessarily Islamic scholars) who have tried to argue otherwise. Most of the arguments presented to portray Aisha as older than 9 are the arguments originally made by one guy (who I will not name lest people google him and parrot the remainder of his arguments on this page to push their POV) and those arguments, as well as apologetic arguments about Aisha's age made by other people, have already been categorically and comprehensively refuted by the Islamic scholar Shaykh Gibril Haddad (see and ). —] (]) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Human10.0}}Why are you bringing me into this conversation? I don't know how many times I have to mention this: I am not/nor was I ever disputing Aisha's age at the time she was engaged nor her marriage consummated. I've stated this at least three times already. I don't care what "most Muslim scholars" agree on this subject, since a) you can find a "muslim scholar" to support any view on this topic and b) the ahadeeth are the closest anyone can come to actually believing one way or another...and as I said, there are differing accounts of her age IN the ahadeeth. So, as far as I or anyone who thinks rationally is concerned, the matter cannot ever be settled with 100% certainty for that reason alone. So, I guess I'll repeat this once more: my objection was the phrase "<b>until she had reached puberty</b> at the age of nine or ten years old" since there is NO PRIMARY SOURCE that mentions her reaching puberty. As far as I'm concerned, since there are people (i.e. Admins) who are obsessed with her age and want to keep it in the article even though there are differing accounts on it, then there is no reason EACH "age" attributed directly to her in the hadith should not be cited. I personally would also be fine with "some 'muslim scholars' calculate her age at...based on the hadith narration of..." whatever. I've heard it all. But what this encyclopedia can NOT do with ANY credibility is say ANYTHING about her reaching puberty, since NO primary source ever mentions this. Even if she got married at the age of 50, no one can guarantee she went through puberty (and yes...medically there have been women who lived well into old age without hitting puberty http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2083909/Shes-puberty-needed-bar-Woman-trapped-body-12-year-old-appeals-help-cure-rare-condition.html). The way I see it this conversation has crossed-over into the unscholarly and ridiculous, and unfortunately the one Admin involved is more interested in finger-wagging than actually being constructive or useful, so I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.] (]) 01:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Trinacrialucente}} Sorry but I think there's been a misunderstanding. I wasn't disputing the point you made, I agree with what you said. I just wanted to make a small correction, i.e., you said "the majority consensus among Muslim scholars up through last century was that Aisha was in fact 9 years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her" so I wanted to clarify that the consensus of Islamic scholars is '''still''' very much that she was 9 at the time of consummation (as explicitly stated in the ] ] of the ]). I am on your side of this debate. Regarding the thing you said about differing accounts of her age in ahadith, I highly doubt any of the ahadith that state she was older than 9 (or at best 10) are sahih/authentic. Was their grading (sahih, hasan, daif, etc.) mentioned when you came across them? I'm asking sincerely, this isn't me trying to be argumentative or anything. —] (]) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{re|Human10.0}} The following extract from Brill's EI3 gives a more accurate assessment of the traditional sources: <blockquote>ʿĀʾisha’s marriage to the Prophet was not consummated until approximately three years later, when she was either nine or ten years old, as the majority of sources report (Ibn Saʿd, 8:58–62; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, 8:139). However, according to the chronology of Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282) she would have been nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation (Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16), a chronology also supported by a report from Hishām b. ʿUrwa recorded by Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845; al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:61).</blockquote> This indicates that 10 or 12 years at the time of consummation can be supported by some of the early sources. <b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Wiqi55}} Thank you for providing that extract Wiqi55. It is interesting but an important point that is worth noting is that the extract does not make any reference to whether those claims of Ibn Khallikan (in his book) and Hisham bin Urwah (in Ibn Sa'd's ''Tabaqāt'') are reliable or not. It could be possible that their accounts of Aisha's age are considered unreliable by Islamic scholars; given how such accounts are in contradiction with canonical ahadith, I am already doubtful of their authenticity. And given that the ''Tabaqāt'' of Ibn Sa‘d (which is referenced in the extract) explicitly states at (8:217) that Aisha was six years of age at the time of marraige (''nikāh'') and nine at the time of consummation,<ref name=Haddadaam1/> I have an even stronger feeling that the account attributed to Hisham was unreliable. I would not use those two as sources to back up the claim about Aisha's age being 10 or 12 without confirming their reliability.
:::::::I'd actually like to see the alleged report by Hisham bin Urwah that states Aisha was nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation, and I would also like to see how Islamic scholars have graded that report, because all of the ahadith narrated by Hisham bin Urwah about Aisha's age at marriage and consummation in the ] explicitly state that she was six at the time of marriage to Muhammad and nine at the time of its consummation. Indeed Islamic apologists have tried to cast doubt on Hisham bin Urwah's reliabilty<ref name=Haddadaam2>{{cite web|author1=Shaykh Gibril Haddad|title=More on ‘Ā’isha’s Age at the Time of Her Marriage|url=https://www.abc.se/home/m9783/ir/d/aam2_e.pdf|accessdate=13 December 2015|date=December 2004}}</ref> specifically because most of the Kutub al-Sittah's ahadith that state Aisha was six at marriage and nine at its consummation have been narrated by Hisham bin Urwah (unfortunately for the apologists however, there are sahih ahadith in the Kutub al-Sittah and other books of ahadith that state she was six and nine yet do not have Hisham bin Urwah in their chain of narrators).
:::::::I like the fact that your extract acknowledges that the majority of sources report that Aisha was six at the time of marriage and nine or ten at its consummation. Chronological calculations using ]'s ''Siyar a`lam al-nubala'' have concluded the same.<ref name=Haddadaam2 /> —] (]) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Human10.0}} We definitely need more details. However, the extract refers to Ibn Khallikan's "chronology", i.e., his arrangement and dating of events, rather than a specific report. <b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Wiqi55}} Honest question (I am not being argumentative, seriously asking): How do you know this? Have you read the book? What does it say that makes you believe that Ibn Khallikan's "chronology", means his arrangement and dating of events? —] (]) 18:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::@] yours is the most "off topic" comment in the entire talk page. congrats. Would you care to add something meaningful to the conversation or will these nonsensical tirades about Sharia law have to suffice? To be frank Sharia law has got diddly squat to do with this. The text under discussion(in this universe) is given at the start of the discussion. perhaps you will be kind enough to read it before commenting on it? Regards ] (]) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'd like to point out 1) you claimed there are "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she (Aisha) reached puberty." and of course there are none. 2) you claimed the citation was in the EI under "Watt" and that you would personally scan in the page as a reference...and of course you never did this because it's not there. 3) you then whined " I will not interact with you"...and yet here you are again addressing me directly. Why should we take ANYTHING you say seriously at this point? I know I don't. ] (]) 20:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::::The "Aisha was engaged to someone (i.e. Jubayr) before Muhammad" argument you're using to imply that Aisha was mature '''when she was married off to Muhammad''' was refuted by Shaykh Gibril Haddad a long time ago. The argument relies on a highly unreliable report with an "extremely weak" chain of narrators. Two of the narrators were declared “discarded” (''matrūk''), are considered to be liars and one of them even admitted to lying about this incident (among other things).<ref name=Haddadaam1/> Haddad has further stated: "''The reasoning that a betrothal to Jubayr would suggest anything about age is also faulty and shows ignorance of the fact that betrothal could take place from the cradle or even before birth.''<ref name=Haddadaam1>{{cite web|author1=Gibril Fouad Haddad|title=‘Ā’isha’s Age at the Time of Her Marriage|url=https://www.abc.se/home/m9783/ir/d/aam1_e.pdf|accessdate=9 December 2015|pages=1-2|date=November 2005}}</ref> To read a more detailed refutation of the argument, follow the citation provided.—] (]) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. It was primarily Western orientalists and modern day Islamophobes that have used this as a point of contention. It does not belong in this article. Aisha has also stated about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "his character is the Quran," and "his morals are the Quran."<ref>{{citation|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=KgXdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA87|title=Spiritual Discourses|author=Hanif D. Sherali|page=87|publisher=AuthorHouse LLC|isbn=978-1-4918-5179-1|year=2014}}</ref>. Why is this not included? If we include all of the positive statements that Aisha had about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (which by the way is far more relevant to the household section) then the whole article would be too large to be deemed as reasonable for WP standards. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? Why is there so much focus on one wife? Clearly the age of Aisha when she got married is of no significance to the section. It is an attempt to divert and to promote an anti-Islamic agenda. This belongs in the criticisms article, not here, and it is already there. ] (]) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the ] article? ==
The following paragraph from the Muhammad article is in dispute. "Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old. She was therefore a virgin at marriage. A small number of modern Muslim writers have estimated her age between 12 and 24."

The dispute ranges on whether the statement about Aisha reaching puberty is ], whether the paragraph itself is ], or if a footnote should be included to say that young marriages during the 600s was normal.(UTC)

The discussion and additional sources can be found on this talk page in sections: 1) ], 2) ], 3) ], 4) ]. The discussion most relevant to the questions below can be found in #2 and #4. ] (]) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

'''Alternative paragraph proposed by ]:'''<br>
'''Main text:''' It is thought that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached physical maturity.(current refs, plus Jonathan Brown ], Reza Aslan ]) '''Footnote:''' Such marriages were common in the seventh century. (A Concise History of the Middle East ]; Reza Aslan ]) The traditional view estimates that the marriage was consummated when Aisha was about nine.(refs) However, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.|(“Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texas Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏<ref>https://books.google.ae/books?id=nGKMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA126</ref>}}</ref>) Denise Spellberg has reviewed Islamic literature on Aisha's virginity, age at marriage and age when the marriage was consummated and speculates that Aisha's youth might have been exaggerated to exclude any doubt about her virginity.(Spellberg, Denise (1994). Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231079990):
* '''Strong support.''' More precise paragraph providing a genuine representation of academic and peer-reviewed reliable sources. I should inform here that the book of ] has been by . The book of ] has been considered the best overview of 'A'isha's life and legacy within Sunni Islam.--] (]) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Strong support.'''. Seems the most NPOV text proposed till now. Side note: @] I am bolding up the other statements below so that they are clear. I hope you won't mind. Feel free to revert me without ping. Regards ] (]) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Obvious oppose''' Saying we should X and just puttings "refs" after it is not serious, and only goes to show that the whole purpose is to '''first''' construct an argument, then cherrypicks refs. That's not how wikipedia works, nor how any serious writing works. One starts with the refs, then the arguments, not the other way around. ] (]) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:: I would normally refrain from debate here, but since this is a misrepresentation of preceding discussion, I feel compelled to comment. Cherrypicking means selecting some of the relevant sources and dismissing others. After repeated invitations to provide RSs for views not reflected in this proposal, none have been produced. The invitation is still open. Feel free to cite the sources contradicting the statements on puberty and 7th century customs here. ] (]) 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I think restructuring of what we currently have would be a better option. ] (]) 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' Not detailing the evidence for the traditional viewpoint, which holds that Aisha was 9 years old when Muhammad consummated their marriage, yet devoting such a sizable quantity of text with such depth of detail to the arguments that assert she was older than 9 seems like an attempt at giving ] weight to idea that she was older than 9. What the article currently says is sufficient. —] (]) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Human10.0. ] (]) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The traditional viewpoint that you refer to, {{ping|Human10.0}}, is essentially nothing more than the repetition of a Hadith in which Aisha estimates her age to be 9. One has to remember that knowing one's age was an exception, and not the rule in 7th century Arabia (actually the world). Academics even disagree the year Prophet Muhammad was born, and yet we are to take Aisha's estimate of her age as precise?'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 10:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::{{re|Peaceworld111}}
::*The relevant ahadith do not “estimate” Aisha’s age; in the ahadith Aisha herself explicitly states that she was nine years old (there is not even a hint of estimation).
::*There is no evidence to suggest that knowing one’s actual age was an impossibility in 7th century Arabia. On the contrary, the custom of counting years was prevalent among Arabs and their neighbors.<ref name=EncHistnonWest>{{cite web|author1=Helaine Selin|title=Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Westen Cultures|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|pages=171-3|date=2013}}</ref> Even before the advent of Islam and the eventual adoption of the Islamic calendar, the Arabs possessed a pre-Islamic lunar calendar (composed of 12 months a year)<ref name=EncHistnonWest /> that was not significantly different from the Islamic one<ref>Mahmud Effendi (1858), as discussed in Sherrard Beaumont Burnaby, ''Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan calendars'' (London: 1901), pp. 460–470.</ref> and that pre-Islamic calendar played a significant role in their culture (e.g., it was agreed upon that fighting and raiding was forbidden certain months,<ref name=EncHistnonWest /> called the ''haram'' months, and the Arabs are said to have generally respected this rule). In addition, the Arabs participated in a ] each year.<ref>{{cite book|last=Peters|first=Francis E|title=Muhammad and the Origins of Islam|location=Albany, New York (1994)|ISBN=0791418758}}</ref> So when keeping track of time played such an important role in their culture and daily lives, it is highly unlikely that keeping tabs on their age in years or months was difficult for the Arabs of the 7th century.
::*Muhammad’s year of birth is widely accepted to be 570 AD. To my knowledge, even the few contemporary academics that currently doubt that date estimate his year of birth to be 568 or 569 AD (i.e. the difference is of only one or at best, two years). This does not at all necessarily imply that Aisha’s age is similarly disputable. And to the best of my knowledge, this dispute is over his year of birth according to the Gregorian calendar. Aisha’s age of nine as recorded in ahadith is not according to the Gregorian calendar so I do not see how a dispute over Muhammad’s age in the Gregorain calendar can possibly be used to argue that Aisha’s age cannot be definitively stated either.
::*I am unsure of what you are implying when you say that the traditional view is “nothing more than" the repetition of ahadith. Are Islamic viewpoints not suppose to reflect or be based on one of the most reliable sources on Islam?
::*Whatever anyone’s personal opinion on the traditional viewpoint, it has to be given more weight than any minor views as per ]. —] (]) 17:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Human10.0}} People estimate all the time without saying "estimate" or hinting towards estimation. You are conflating: I never denied the existence of a form of calender that recognized years and months. The fact that references to age exist (as in the case of Aisha) is because there was a time-keeping system in place. I am well aware that that the recognition of months, such as the ''forbidden months'', the annual observance of festivals such as ], and the recognition of notable events, such as the ], were all prevalent in Arab societies. But this is not equivalent to remembering one's date/year of birth. In fact, the year 570 is said to be the date of Prophet Muhammad's birth, not because he said so, not because any one of his companion's said so, but because he was born roughly during the period of the ]. That's how the ages of notable individual 7th century Arabs are calculated and this is the approach of some scholars towards the age of Aisha.'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 20:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Peaceworld111}} You are merely making an assumption. How do you know Aisha was 'estimating' her age when she explicitly said she was six years old at marriage and nine years old at the time of its consummation? "People estimate all the time" is not at all evidence that Aisha herself was estimating. I am willing to concede that the presence of a reliable time-keeping system does not forego (though it certainly does decrease) the possibility of somebody not remembering their precise age but there is no evidence in the case of Aisha to suggest that she could not have known her precise age and had to estimate it. If there is any direct evidence to suggest so then you need to show it. In the absence of such evidence your assertion is just an assumption and any further argument over this is pointless.
:::::I do not see any relevance to the discussion of Muhammad's Gregorian year of birth since the dispute (raised by a few contemporary academics) isn't whether Muhammad was born in what the Arabs called the "Year of the Elephant" but whether the Year of the Elephant conforms to 570 AD or 569 AD or 568 AD on the Gregorian calendar. The consensus is that Muhammad was born in the Year of the Elephant (not "roughly during the period of the Year of the Elephant") and that this corresponds to the year 570 AD on the Gregorian calendar. —] (]) 13:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::The fact that the Hadith does not align with what some scholars say, her age being estimated at 12-24, as briefly mentioned in ], on reasons based on incidents before and after her marriage, clearly shows there is some issue, possibly a transmission error or an estimate. I think it's somewhat naive to assume that her suggested age is necessarily accurate regardless. Even till this day, disconnected villagers in some third world countries have no clue when asked the exact day/year of birth. Perhaps, I can go look around some sources that do discuss the relevance of birth dates, in medieval or historical Arab societies. But I have a different opinion regarding this, and I think Xtremedood's suggestion is the most sensible one, that is to remove the entire paragraph. I see no other reason for adding the age of marriage, particularly when there is debate on her actual age. It's relevance only comes under Islamophobic circles and belongs to ] article.'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Peaceworld111}} That was my proposal as well at ]! ] | ] | 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' There is enough false justification for child marriage around that campaign groups such as "girls not brides" have to cope with without adding this. Muslims refer to the "prophet Muhammad" and not to the "historical figure Muhammad" and, as such, the sentence "Such marriages were common in the seventh century" is pure apologetics. However I have a similar problem with the sentence "She was therefore a virgin at marriage." Even in a society in which trust might not exist, I do not think that this is not a valid reason to take a child from a more typical experience of childhood. A key issue here is age and the current text presents a rounded view of relevant views. ]] 09:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
'''The statement that she had reached puberty is ] concern for this article.'''
* '''Agree.''' The issues of consummation age and puberty go together, because modern assumptions about nubile age have been systematically exploited by anti-Islam polemics. ] (]) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Strongly support.''' As per the rationale I have provided in the four discussions (links in the RFC text above) Marriage and puberty go hand in hand. In an age where puberty was the sign of being "fit" for marriage the world over this a Due concern. ] (]) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this isn't an article about Aisha. Since it doesn't impact The articles subject this is pointless extra fluff. ] (]) 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Agree.''' & '''Strongly support.''' The statement is well-sourced and directly relevant to the statement about the marriage.--] (]) 16:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Strongly oppose.''' Any statement about puberty is irrelevant to this biography about Muhammad, and relies on personal interpretations and opinions of Misplaced Pages editors. There is no policy based argument to support its inclusion. ~] <small>(])</small> 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Of what relevance is that she reached puberty to a bipgraphy of Muhammad? No one has provided a satisfactory answer? ] (]) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Amatulic|DeCausa}} I would add to that: Of what relevance is her age of marriage?'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 10:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Unless there is direct reference made within the Quran as to whether Aisha had reached puberty, this is pure ]. The main article ] contains no mention of puberty. All we know is that Aisha was young and that Muhammed followed a teaching with its own moral principles. ]] 09:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

'''The statement that she had reached puberty is ] concern for this article:'''
* '''Agree.''' This article isn't about Aisha, and irrelevant details like this definitely fall into ] territory. The bit about "until she reached puberty" is a recent addition unsupported by anything except editorial opinion. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Agree''' the puberty statement in question isn't about the article subject, and doesn't even get mentioned on Aishas' page. ] (]) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Disagree.''' The issues of consummation age and puberty go together, because modern assumptions about nubile age have been systematically exploited by anti-Islam polemics. ] (]) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*:That is just an opinion, and dealing with anti-Islam polemics is out of scope for this biography article. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Disagree.''' This seems to be a typical ]. The statement is well-sourced and directly relevant to the statement about the marriage.--] (]) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*:Personal interpretations of primary sources are not relevant to this article; take it to ] instead. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*::The statement that Aisha had reached physical maturity is NOT a personal interpretation of primary sources. It is a direct representation of primary sources that is supported by mainstream reliable secondary sources.--] (]) 03:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Strongly Disagree.''' The detail about puberty puts everything in a neutral light, and not mentioning it is basically "mentioning" the Islamophobic propaganda albeit through omission. Regards ] (]) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Agree''' No convincing case has been made for the statement. ] (]) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Agree''' I am also unsure of the statement's veracity, especially in light of this that says only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam and this that says Aisha's dolls were with her when she was sent to live with Muhammad permanently at the age of nine —] (]) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
::The text of the first hadith you linked to '''does NOT''' say that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". This statement is NOT in the original text of the hadith. The person (seems to be a wahabi) who translated the hadith from Arabic to English added this unoriginal false statement between two brackets. In other words, this English translation of the hadith is forged.--] (]) 03:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::: @] So you are basically bringing your own OR and POV into this discussion. Where exactly in the '''Arabic''' text does this phrase appear that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". I am sure you will be able to point out the exact phrase as you seem to be able to read eastern languages as per your user page. Let us see now how you defend this misrepresentation, feel free to make an excuse to save face. Regards ] (]) 05:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::::@] I just stated a reason for why I have doubts about the veracity of the puberty claim. Your belligerent attitude is not appreciated. I thought it was abundantly clear that the statement "''The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty''" is an explanation of the hadith taken from ] because the English text explicitly mentions that it is quoting "''Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13.''" I see why you are concerned though; if I had written "this explanation of this sahih hadith that says only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam", it would have been clumsier but more accurate. That being said I strongly disagree with your attempt to pass off that statement as a misinterpretation. It is an explanation of the hadith from Fath al-Bari, which is the most authoritative exegesis of ]. The belief that only prepubertal children can possess dolls in Islam is shared by the ], ] and ] schools of jurisprudence:
::<blockquote>We have already explained that it is ] to make images and statues (question no. 7222) and that it is haraam to buy and sell them (question no. 49676). But if these images and dolls are toys for children, the ] indicates that they are permissible. In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and I had female friends who would play with me…” ; ], 2440. ] said: '''This hadeeth indicates that it is permissible to have images of girls (i.e., dolls) and toys for girls to play with. This is an exception from the general meaning of the prohibition on having images. This was stated by ‘Iyaad and was narrated from the majority.''' They permitted the sale of dolls to girls so as to teach them from a young age how to take care of their homes and children. '''Ibn Hibbaan stated that it is permissible for young girls to play with toys.'''<ref>{{cite web|title=He is asking about dolls and three-dimensional toys, and whether that affects his fast|url=http://islamqa.info/en/49844|accessdate=6 December 2015|quote=We have already explained that it is haraam to make images and statues (question no. 7222) and that it is haraam to buy and sell them (question no. 49676). But if these images and dolls are toys for children, the Sunnah indicates that they are permissible. In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and I had female friends who would play with me…” al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440. Ibn Hajar said: This hadeeth indicates that it is permissible to have images of girls (i.e., dolls) and toys for girls to play with. This is an exception from the general meaning of the prohibition on having images. This was stated by ‘Iyaad and was narrated from the majority. They permitted the sale of dolls to girls so as to teach them from a young age how to take care of their homes and children. Ibn Hibbaan stated that it is permissible for young girls to play with toys…}}</ref></blockquote>
::<blockquote>Most of the scholars have exempted the making of girls’ toys from the prohibition on making images and statues. This is the view of the Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis.<ref>{{cite web|title=Exemption of (baby) dolls from the ruling on haraam images|url=http://islamqa.info/en/9473|accessdate=6 December 2015|quote=Most of the scholars have exempted the making of girls’ toys from the prohibition on making images and statues. This is the view of the Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis.}}</ref></blockquote> ]s also believe that only young children are allowed to play with dolls but they stress that the dolls should not have a detailed human-like or animal-like appearance and should not have a head, otherwise even children aren't allowed to play with them:
::<blockquote>In a Hadith recorded by Imam al-Bukhari in his ], the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The most severely punished on the day of ] will be those who make (animate) pictures.” (Sahih al-Bukhari) Therefore, if the dolls are fully structured, meaning they have the head with the eyes, ears, mouth, etc, then it will be impermissible to acquire them, give them as a gift or for small children to play with them. However, if the dolls do not have a head, meaning they do not have eyes, ears, nose and mouth which make them incomplete, then it will be permissible to make them and give them to small children.<ref>{{cite web|title=Is it permissible for small children to play with dolls and is it permissible to give dolls as gifts?|url=http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8290|accessdate=6 December 2015|quote=In a Hadith recorded by Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The most severely punished on the day of Qiyamah will be those who make (animate) pictures.” (Sahih al-Bukhari) Therefore, if the dolls are fully structured, meaning they have the head with the eyes, ears, mouth, etc, then it will be impermissible to acquire them, give them as a gift or for small children to play with them. However, if the dolls do not have a head, meaning they do not have eyes, ears, nose and mouth which make them incomplete, then it will be permissible to make them and give them to small children.}}</ref></blockquote> I hope that this matter is settled now and that you do not try to needlessly argue with me any further. —] (]) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::@]The statement is not "false." It is an explanation of the hadith found in ], please look it up to believe for yourself. The translator is not a Wahhabi/Salafi, that translation was provided by USC-MSA, i.e., the Muslim Students Association at University of Southern California, . Even if the translation was provided by a Wahhabi, I do not see how that does not automatically makes it false. Anyways, USC-MSA's translations of hadith books are reliable, not "forged", and are extensively used on Misplaced Pages. In the hadith translation you are disputing, all they did was is that they added a clarification from Fath al-Bari to the hadith's English translation and made it sufficiently clear that the text in brackets is not part of the hadith's literal translation but is an authentic explanation. —] (]) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:::@] None of those narrations point out that ]'s marriage to The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) was consummated when she used to play with dolls in front of him. It only says she used to play with dolls in front of him and her friends used to come and play with her. The narrations does not specify the location of the playground in any manner. It could have been her father (رضی الله عنہ)'s house as The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) was a dear friend to him. You are just making your own POV conclusions from these narrations. ] (]) 14:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::@] states: "'Aishah said: ''The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and '''consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls'''.''" ] is one of the ], the hadith is ] (authentic) and it is clear. I hope its settled now that "Aisha's marriage to the Holy Prophet was consummated when she used to play with dolls." —] (]) 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

:::@] so basically you admit that you lied about the sourcing and the text is not a part of '''hadith'''. That is what I wanted to hear ty for that. Admitting ones error is the first step to recovery. Regards ] (]) 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Seriously? You're going to accuse others of "lying" and talk about "admitting ones error is the first step to recovery" when at best you made several BLATANT errors (if we are to take you at your word) and at worst bold face lies? Oh, man this is hypocrisy at its finest.] (]) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
::::@] I did not admit to "lying" since I didn't lie, I admitted to making a slight unintentional error in phrasing that seems to be important to you (even though whether a hadith's Arabic said it or Fath al-Bari explained it does not change the fact that only prepubertal children, like Aisha at the time, are allowed to play with dolls in Islam as additionally evidenced by the consensuses of schools of ]). I did not purposely make the error in phrasing so please stop pretending like you "caught" me or something. That's childish. "irst step to recovery"? Sheesh, did you hear that in a TV show? This isn't even the right context to use that phrase in. Anyways, do not patronise me and do not downplay how you were wrong and/or lied about the authenticity of the statement (i.e., that only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam) by calling it a "misinterpretation." Since you appear to have a Muslim background and are active on Islam-related parts of Misplaced Pages, I doubt that you did not figure out that the statement was from Fath al-Bari and doubt that you don't know what that book is and how authoritative statements from it are.—] (]) 21:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::@] yes you made an "error". why thank you so much for admitting that again. That is all I wanted you to admit to be frank, that you had "made an error". Ty. Regards ] (]) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::You're purposely not getting the point, I see. I guess I'll just summarise for anyone else reading this thread that I did not make an "error" when I stated only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam (this is evident from my earlier comments) and that ] ''did'' make an error, or simply lied, when he denied that fact. Since all the points that could have been made have been made, I won't be wasting my time by coming back to this thread again.—] (]) 15:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::@]Quite true. I was the one who "lied" when he caught you misrepresenting and misinterpreting a primary source. Very bad of me. I was the one who showed you that not a '''single''' word in the entire hadith you quoted says that only children should play with dolls, even though you were vehement in stating this. Again, very bad of me to point out your error. Would you like an apology from me in the written form or only a verbal one? I will ask you again what I asked earlier. '''Where in the hadith is it written that only children should play dolls'''. Feel free to quote the exact text. Regards ] (]) 15:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Human10.0}} Thanks for showing us your scandalous dishonesty in citing primary sources. The hadith you cited in the beginning surely doesn't say that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". That statement doesn't exist in the original text of the hadith. Given that you claimed in your original post that the hadith says that statement when in fact it doesn't, I won't be surprised if someone reported you for dishonesty or at least for incompetence.--] (]) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Citing Fath al-Bari (which is neither a book of history nor a book of tradition, but a book of commentary written in 1372-1449 CE) for that statement is actually a false citation. I checked "Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13." and there the author Ibn Hajr Asqalani was actually representing various opinions of various persons on whether dolls are considered prohibited images or not and discussing them. In his course of this discussion, he mentions one opinion of one person suggesting that playing with dolls is allowed only for those who haven't reached puberty, <big>but he the author Ibn Hajr Asqalani himself says that this opinion is unlikely</big>. He Ibn Hajr himself affirms on that same page that Aisha played with dolls when she was adult. He Ibn Hajr cites which says that after the return of Prophet Muhammad from the battle of Tabouk (took place in 9 AH) or from the Battle of Khaybar (took place in 7 AH), he found Aisha playing with dolls. Ibn Hajr concludes that Aisha was definitely adult at that time. This is because if you consider the age of Aisha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet Muhammad in 1 AH to be 9 or 10, then her age at the time of the battle of Khaybar was 15 or 16 and at the time of the battle of Tabouk was 17 or 18. This clearly shows that playing with dolls is not prohibited in Islam at all (even adults can play with them). This applies in modern times on watching cartoons and animation movies. They are not considered in Islam to be prohibited images at all and Muslims all over the world watch them (even adult Muslims). The only exception is the extremist group of the "Wahabis" who are neither orthodox nor mainstream.--] (]) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Your claim that "the English translation is provided by USC-MSA, i.e., the Muslim Students Association at University of Southern California" and that "USC-MSA's translations of hadith books are reliable" is actually also indicative of your dishonesty or incompetence. USC-MSA has NO RULE AT ALL in that translation just as sunnah.com also has NO RULE AT ALL in that translation. All what these websites do is that they give an online access to the translation of Sahih Bukhari that was carried out by ]. Muhammad Muhsin Khan has no relation at all with USC-MSA and according to , his field of specialty is medicine. This means that he is not qualified in fields of religion or history.--] (]) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Finally, I also want to add my notice that ] is a Wahabi website run by Wahabi Sheikhs (meaning that it is not reliable secondary source and that it doesn't represent mainstream Sunni Muslims).--] (]) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' per Amatulic. ] (])

'''The entire paragraph is ] concern for this article:'''
'''The entire paragraph is ] concern for this article:'''
* '''Disagree.''' The paragraph was fine for years before someone came along to add a disruptive statement to make a point about something. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' almost every major source talking about Muhammad's life talks about Aisha and mentions age. ] (]) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Disagree.''' This is a prominent topic in biographies of Muhammad. ] (]) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Disagree.'''. Please refer to my above comments for rationale. ] (]) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' as per all users above. ] (]) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' Like user Tivanir2 said, almost all major sources talking about Muhammad's life discuss his marriage to Aisha and mention her age. —] (]) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' The article of ] doesn't make mention of the age of ] at the time she became pregnant with him, which is according to traditional sources 12-14 years. Why then should this article about the Prophet Muhammad mention anything about the age of Aisha. The article about Muhammad on the Arabic wikipedia doesn't mention anything at all about the age of Aisha.--] (]) 03:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' again, per Amatulic. ] (]) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' - This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? This is just pandering to Islamophobic tendencies. ] (]) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As per Xtremedood, I see no reason to add at what age the marriage took place.'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
'''Footnote should exist about the marriage age during the 6th and 7th centuries:'''
* '''Does no harm''' to include words from the FAQ in a footnote, although such a footnote, if included, need not mention puberty either. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' this is already covered in the FAQ (under the isn't he a pedophile question that used to be pushed by POV warriors and socks) and goes into marriage customs. ] (]) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Agree.''' It is the job of historical writing to provide historical context for readers when they are likely to misinterpret raw data. ] (]) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Strong support.''' Information should be provided in context. This is the correct context. Do I dare point out that even the TP FAQ mentions this prominently? So why would it be undue in the article? Regards ] (]) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 22:32, 3 December 2015
* '''Oppose''' Why "should" it? The only purpose seems to be whitewashing, no factual reasoning has been provided. ] (]) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' It seems like a request for the reader to practice moral relativism. Do all other articles about people who married minors point out that marrying minors was common in the past? Why is it even necessary to point this out? —] (]) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
* '''Strongly support.''' It is valuable also to compare the Age of Aisha with the age of Mary because of the similarities between the two figures. If Aisha was that "child bride" at the age of 10, then Mary was that "child pregnant" at the age of 12. If Mary became miraculously pregnant, then Aisha became miraculously mature. This comparison can also be added to the FAQ. --] (]) 03:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' Heavy handed and unnecessary contextualising for a POV purpose. Covered by the FAQ. ] (]) 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
A note so no one is surprised. I left an open invitation on jimbos' talk page with a link to the conversation. Unsure if there is anywhere I can post a general invitation to participate that would reach a wide audience. If anyone has suggestions let me know. As a reminder this isn't canvassing as I have no idea who is going to show up, since a ton of people visit his talk page. ] (]) 23:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Also a note on wp: pump. ] (]) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
===A different suggestion===
:::{{ping|Eperoton}}You still don't seem to get it: if the Sahih ahadeeth are to be believed/taken as the narrations of the parties involved then they are "primary sources"...you don't need secondary or tertiary speculations which are </b>based on the ahadeeth anyway.</b> Knowing that there are sources which can AND WILL attest to either side of the propaganda machine, in order to avoid any "can of worms" on EITHER side of the apologist spectrum I would propose the following:
<b>Main text<b>: "The ] give several differing accounts concerning Aisha's age at the time of her betrothal and marriage to Muhammed, which have lead to lengthy discussions on the matter by a number of scholars."
Done. Full stop. Cite the ahadeeth AND whoever you want after that. It lets the reader go to any/all sources to see what they have to say and infer whatever they want about her puberty/virginity/consummation whatever without putting polemics into the article. I can't overstate, for your own sake, less is more here.] (]) 03:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::: While we disagree on points of substance and policy, I have no objection to a generic statement that leaves discussion of age and related matters to a footnote. ] (]) 05:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::VERY wise decision. I invite you to make the edits...and be sure not to sneak anything in or as per the dissent above, I guarantee there will be issues.] (]) 18:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Update: I just made the textual change per above, but ask that you add back any/all/as many source citations as you wish based on our discussion/clarifications. This way it will show we have done this as a collaborative effort. As an FYI, I am actually impressed that we arrived at a conclusion here, given the amount of editors, strong personalities and subject matter. We'll see how long it lasts.] (]) 21:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::: I'm not sure anyone else has seen this appendage to the RfC. I agreed to your proposal in principle, but I don't entirely agree with your wording -- ironically, because I think you're right about the literal text of the hadith (it's their interpretation and assessment that's under dispute). I would write more vaguely "the primary sources suggest". However, I suspect that's a moot point, as I'm skeptical this group will arrive at any sort of consensus on this topic. ] (]) 22:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the suggested change. I also find it strange to include it in an ongoing RfC that has not finished. I don't get the reasoning for removing a large part (especially as several users explicitly has opposed the removal) that is very well sourced. ] (]) 22:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''This proposed change will not give due weight to the majority traditional view. The current article correctly notes that ony a "small number of modern Muslim writers" have estimated Aisha's age to be more than 9. Changing the whole text and eliminating any hint as to what is the traditional view just to accommodate the view of a few writers is not justified in my opinion. If various ahadith are cited to support various viewpoints, then their grading (i.e. whether they're sahih, hasan, daif, etc.) will need to be mentioned to show which hadith is more reliable. Obviously any sources that use daif (weak) or unreliable ahadith to promote their viewpoint will assert that the ahadith they are using are not daif or unreliable. I feel the resultant text will just be a confusing piece of text that will cause more disagreement. —] (]) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

===A Different Proposition===

This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. It was primarily Western orientalists and modern day Islamophobes that have used this as a point of contention. It does not belong in this article. Aisha has also stated about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "his character is the Quran," and "his morals are the Quran."<ref>{{citation|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=KgXdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA87|title=Spiritual Discourses|author=Hanif D. Sherali|page=87|publisher=AuthorHouse LLC|isbn=978-1-4918-5179-1|year=2014}}</ref>. Why is this not included? If we include all of the positive statements that Aisha had about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (which by the way is far more relevant to the household section) then the whole article would be too large to be deemed as reasonable for WP standards. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? Why is there so much focus on one wife? Clearly the age of Aisha when she got married is of no significance to the section. It is an attempt to divert and to promote an anti-Islamic agenda. This belongs in the criticisms article, not here, and it is already there. I propose that the whole paragraph to not be included. Otherwise, then all of the positive statements from the wives about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and other ages of the wives of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ should be included. ] (]) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:To add, the inclusion of the paragraph is indicative of a bias towards Western conceptions of morality. It totally neglects the moral systems of other civilizations, that do not rely on man made standards (i.e. age of marriage is 18), such as puberty being the permissible age of marriage, which according to other forms of morality is governed by nature or what God brings about through naturally occurring processes (i.e. puberty). It is a moral issue brought up by proponents of Western conceptions of morality, and therefore it belongs in the criticism article and not here. Since WP claims to adhere to a policy of neutrality ], the Western conception of morality should not be given precedence here. ] (]) 02:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::There is also a hadith which is attributed to Aisha, which indicates that she had never seen the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ naked. This hadith has been deemed as authentic by Sufi sources. Here is the hadith "''It was narrated from a freed slave of Aishah that Aishah said: "I never looked at or I never saw the private part of the Messenger of Allah (saw).'"''"<ref>{{cite|url=http://ahadith.co.uk/permalink-hadith-9295|title=Sunan Ibn Majah, Chapter name: The Chapters on Marriage|}}</ref> So clearly things are more complicated than they appear and by simply including this passage, it neglects the complexities involved in the situation and is overtly biased and limited. ] (]) 03:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::That hadith from Sunan Ibn Majah is not sahih, <ref>{{cite book|title=Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1922|url=http://sunnah.com/urn/1262410|chapter=The Chapters on Marriage (كتاب النكاح)|quote=It was narrated from a freed slave of 'Aishah that 'Aishah said: “I never looked at or I never saw the private part of the Messenger of Allah.” Grade: Da'if}}</ref> (i.e., ], inauthentic, or in other words it is totally unreliable). Not only that, it is contradicted by actually ] ahadith from the same book, and the other ], that explicitly state that Prophet Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha , that he used to have sexual intercourse with at a time when he had nine wives (keep in mind that Aisha was the third female he married), that he and Aisha used to perform ''] janabat'' (the ritual bath after sexual intercourse) , etc. It is disingenuous of you to ignore the abundance of sahih ahadith that make clear the nature of Prophet Muhammad's relationship with Aisha and instead try to pass off a rejected, daif hadith as a reliable one. —] (]) 17:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Reorganisation of Non Muslim views of Muhammed section, item 19 above. ==

Hi, I'd like to establish as consensus that the Non Muslim views of Muhammed sections are a mess, please feel free to comment at section 19 above.
] (]) 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

== Bahai views ==

A user has added a section on Muhammad in Bahai, it seems well-sourced and in line with, for example, the sections on Jesus in Islam and Jesus in Bahai faith in the article on Jesus. As Muhammad is a major prophet in the Bahai faith, it's hard to understand how it would be undue. As no valid reason has been given for its removal (apart from harassing the user who added it) I'm restoring the section. ] (]) 15:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:I think the section's too long currently, and needs to be cut down to say a couple of paragraphs. As it stands it's the longest section of the non-Muslim views, and looks to almost equal the length of the Muslim section. Having less than 5m adherents makes that WP:UNDUE I think. ] (]) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

::I think we have to take both perspectives into account, that Prophet Muhammad is a major prophet in the Bahai Faith and that on the other hand, the Faith is small. So a middle ground between the current and the previous version is appropriate. I propose to keep the first paragraph and part of the third paragraph, both of which seem to be introductory. As for the rest, a new page should be created:

{{quote|] believe in Muhammad as a prophet of Allah, and in the Qur’an as the word of Allah. They venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "]", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of ], the founder of the ].<ref>{{cite book |last = Smith |first = P. |year = 1999 |title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith |publisher = Oneworld Publications |location = Oxford, UK |isbn = 1-85168-184-1 |page = 251}}</ref> Nevertheless, Muhammad is taken to be one of the most important messengers of Allah not least because ], a central figure in the Baha'i faith, is believed to have been both a descendant of Muhammad through ], and to have been someone whose coming was foretold by Muhammad. ], the son and successor of Baha'u'llah, wrote that 'His Holiness the Prophet Muhammad made a covenant concerning His Holiness the Bab and the Bab was the One promised by Muhammad, for Muhammad gave the tidings of His coming.’<ref>{{Cite book|title = The Baha'i Revelation: A selection from the Baha'i Holy Writings and talks by Abdu'l-Baha|last = Baha|first = Abdu'l|publisher = Baha'i Publishing Trust|year = 1970|isbn = |location = London|pages = 183}}</ref>

In the Baha’i faith Muhammad is regarded as one of the class of 'independent Prophets' – that is, those prophets 'who are followed' and who 'establish a new religion and make new creatures of men'. They also 'change the general morals, promote new customs and rules, renew the cycle and the law.'<ref>{{Cite book|title = Some Answered Questions|last = Clifford|first = Laura|publisher = Baha'i Publishing Trust|year = 1937|isbn = |location = New York|pages = 156}}</ref> Along with Muhammad, ], ], ], ] and ] are classed among the ‘independent Prophets’.&nbsp;The Baha'i faith teaches the unity and the oneness of all the prophets of Allah. As such, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are believed to have proclaimed the same message at different times. It is only due to the 'difference in their station and mission' that their 'words and utterances' ever 'appear to diverge and differ.'<ref>{{Cite book|title = The Baha'i Revelation: A selection from the Baha'i Holy Writings and talks by Abdu'l-Baha|last = Baha|first = Abdu'l|publisher = Baha'i Publishing Trust|year = 1970|isbn = |location = London|pages = 46-47, 236}}</ref>}}

::Thanks.'''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 18:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

::: This ties in with the discussion whose pointer is given in the immediately preceding talk section. The whole non-Muslim views section is a mess. For the Bahai addition, I think the added text should be put into its own article and summarized here. I'm not sure if post-medieval Western views about Muhammad which aren't "criticism" merit their own article at this point, but they should be labeled as such, if only to avoid implying that Voltaire was a Christian. The last paragraph is a yet different topic because it summarizes (relatively) current scholarly views. I'm adding some subsection titles to reflect this. ] (]) 18:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

::::] mentions the name only twice compared to 88 in ]– by this measure, any addition will be undue here. That information should first go into ] or a fork, and only summarised here as pointed above. --<span class="nowrap">]]]</span> 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

::::I agree with Peaceworld111, Eperoton and Fauzan that the Baha'i section should go into its own spinoff article, leaving a summary + hatnote on this page. It is well-sourced and is almost as big as the separate ] article. The Muhammad article is already a whopping 162 kb and if it is possible to spin out some parts, then yes please! - ] (]) 12:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::As we see that no other changes are being allowed in the page without consensus then why this long piece of text was added without consensus? ] (]) 15:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Per discussion above, I'm creating a new article with the text added by ] ] (]) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
----
{{reflist-talk}}

== Founder of Islam ==

I suggest to the lead because:

#The prior text is contentious.
#It's based on just one trivial source by a random author who is not even notable and does not know much about ] or The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) to have any say about the topic, she also cannot speak on behalf of all ].

At the minimum, i would at least like to see a couple more sources describing that "he is considered "Founder of Islam" by almost all non-Muslims." ] (]) 13:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' The current text neutrally describes both the Muslim POV and the non-Muslim POV. The text you are proposing portrays the Muslim POV as fact and is obviously not neutral. Providing more sources to back up the 'founder of Islam' claim wouldn't hurt though a single source is still sufficient. —] (]) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

:That single source is trivial and from a non-notable author, a one liner in some random author's book should not define the lead of such a significant article.

:He is regarded as The Holy Prophet by more than 1 billion people, if other 6 billion consider him "Founder of Islam", i should be able to (at the minimum) see 10 notable non-Muslim authors if not Muslim authors describing him such as, i mean come on just 10 authors out of 6 billion people. Do you take it as a challenge? ] (]) 20:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:: I'm surprised that you consider this statement to be contentious. It strikes me as one of those observations that are too widely accepted to prompt most authors to state it explicitly. For example, all academic history books I've seen start the history of Islam with Muhammad and not with biblical history. It's just how the word Islam is used outside of Islamic doctrine. Since ABC-CLIO is a ] publisher, I don't see the sourcing as problematic unless one can show that the statement is indeed contentious by providing a contradictory ]. We can't use ] to challenge a reliable source. ] (]) 20:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, Armstrong (who I don't think is trivial) is unusual in actually stating that it is a position only of non-Muslims. Reliable secondary sources normally state, without qualification that it is limited to non-muslims, that he is the founder.<ref name="Peterson2007">{{cite book|author=Daniel C. Peterson|title=Muhammad, Prophet of God|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=9zpbEj0xA_sC&pg=PA32|date=26 February 2007|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=978-0-8028-0754-0|pages=32–33}}</ref><ref name="Zeitlin2007">{{cite book|author=Irving M. Zeitlin|title=The Historical Muhammad|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_ScS1MjUzdYC&pg=PA1|date=14 May 2007|publisher=Polity|isbn=978-0-7456-3998-7|page=1}}</ref><ref name="Hallaq2009">{{cite book|author=Wael B. Hallaq|title=Sharī'a: Theory, Practice, Transformations|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=IbOtAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA27|date=16 April 2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-107-39412-4|page=27}}</ref> Therefore, tertiary sources, normally just reflect this and simply state that he is the founder of Islam. ] (]) 20:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' as per ]. We have a good, neutral NPOV text, so the proposal to replace it with a strong POV version is a non-starter. ] (]) 21:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

'''Support/Wording Change''' - Not all non-Muslims regard Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the founder. For example, the 14th century Chinese emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, wrote in his ] in regards to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "Since the creation of the universe God had already appointed his great faith-preaching man." Since it is not the view of all non-Muslims, the statement can't refer to all non-Muslims as having this view. Similarly, ], states "''It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.''" in , which sees Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a "one of the great messengers". ] (]) 00:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

:Neither author brings up any instance of a group, even on the small scale of believing what they said. Those are essentially personal opinions of the author's and would make the wording change to almost universally instead of a definitive statement. Definitive statements aren't the best anyways so I would support that change, but most people talk in books about Christianity and Judaism explicitly rejecting him as a prophet. Most non abrahamic faiths give even less thought as they view all the religious figures from abrahamic faiths as regular people. ] (]) 01:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::You are missing the point. By saying that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ "is seen by non-believers as its founder" you are saying that all non-Muslims believe this, which is not the case. You can't simply make definitive statements on the beliefs on all 5 billion+ non-Muslims in the world. ] (]) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:::You obviously didn't read my statement as I explicitly stated I wanted to stay away from the absolute statement. ] (]) 14:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::::While we discuss the complete removal of "Founder of Islam" reference, i suggest that we should at least immediately change the wording from "almost all non-believers" to "some non-believers" as it is clear that "almost all" is not a fact in this matter. ] | ] | 14:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::Ridiculous. To base "some non-believers" on two obscure quotes isn't going to fly. Reliable sources consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam. Almost all those who have a belief in Islam, as part of that belief, don't consider him the founder. That's what the opening should reflect - and it does. No change necessary. ] (]) 20:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

::::: The criterion for change should be similar to the counterpart statement that follows. There are sources for the alternative views among Muslims, so the statement is qualified. So far, I have not seen a source about non-Muslims who don't view Muhammad as the founder of Islam. There are obviously non-Muslims who admire him, but that's not the subject of this discussion. In fact, it's not about the figure of Muhammad, but rather about usage of the word Islam. The sources needed to modify the statement would show non-Muslims consistently using the term Islam to refer to some general form of the Abrahamic tradition, e.g. by identifying Abraham as a Muslim. ] (]) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

'''Proposal''': in fact, how about following the example of the article on ], and using the wording "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam, seen by almost all Muslims..." The observation that non-believers regard him as the founder of Islam doesn't provide encyclopedic value. Then we wouldn't have to split hairs about the meaning of "founder" and "Islam". It would also avoid placing the words "Prophet of Islam" at the outset, which seems like an odd opening for a history text. ] (]) 17:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:Nope, he ﷺ is not just the "central figure of Islam", he ﷺ is a lot more than that to ]. ] | ] | 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
::I think "central figure" works better than "founder". ] (]) 23:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Khadija's age ==

I noticed that some reliable sources avoid stating "40 years old" as fact, but include other accounts as well. A common view is 28 years old at the time of marriage. For example,. Should we avoid stating 40 as fact and mention the possibility that she was younger? <b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 08:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:Again, this is a non-issue. I am not sure why we are indulging in non-issues here, we should go with what most sources state definitively and that is 40 years old or leave the age question alone. I checked your source and it doesn't even say that she was 28 or I am looking at the wrong page? ] | ] | 09:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
:: The linked sources say 40 or 28. Some of the primary sources, such as ], mention two accounts (40 or 28). Furthermore, medieval Muslim historians discussed this issue at length, giving a range of 25 to 45, with 40 and 28 more commonly held. Recently, the possibility of her being younger than 40 is preferred by many notable historians, including ] (''Muhammad'', p.12) and ], who considered 28 to be more sound. I guess the issue here is why should we ignore this debate and mention 40 as fact? If you mean by "leaving the age question alone" that we should omit her age, then that would be OK too. <b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 16:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

== Ta'if section ==

I don't think it technically qualifies as early life. Any suggestions on where this addition should go? ] (]) 14:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

== Semi protected edit request on 7 January 2015 ==

Add Category:Self-declared messiahs.

He is, after all, a self-declared vehicle of salvation] (]) 23:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

:You have a source for that? As far as I know, he didn't declare himself a messiah. Others who followed him considered him a prophet. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

::Done. Thanks.--] (]) 04:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

:::Again, where is the evidence? Just because an anonymous IP address says something, doesn't make it so. ~] <small>(])</small> 09:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

:Actually, any person with knowledge of the basic tenets of Islam knows that the Prophet Muhammad is considered in Islam to be the "Redeemer". The Quran says about Muhammad: "and We haven't sent you expect as a Mercy to the worlds." And the Prophet Muhammad says about himself: "'''I am the lord of the children of Adam''', and this is no boast. I will be the first one for whom the earth will be split open on the Day of Resurrection, and this is no boast. '''I will be the first to intercede and the first whose intercession will be accepted''', and this is no boast. The banner of praise will be in my hand on the Day of Resurrection, and this is no boast." There are actually a lot of Quranic verses and Ahadeeth affirming this fundemental belief in the Islamic theology. You can find many of them in the Arabic Misplaced Pages's article about the Prophet Muhammad.--] (]) 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

:: Any claims made in the article have to be supported by citations of reliable sources. Please consult the policies ] and ] for details. I doubt that you'll find a RS stating that Muhammad declared himself to be a messiah because that Judeo-Christian notion was not taken up directly by early Islamic theology, as is illustrated by the uncertainty regarding the meaning of the Arabic equivalent ''masih'' in early Islamic writings. The closest Islamic equivalent is the Mahdi. ] (]) 21:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

:::I am sorry, but you are mistaken here. The concept that "Muhammad is sent by God to the worlds as the long awaited Savior" is essential and fundamental in the Islamic theology. I just quoted a Quranic verse in order to make it clear that this belief is fundemental and I am pretty sure that I can find plenty of secondary sources for it. Read, for example, this book: . By Ali Ünal.--] (]) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

:::: Per WP policy, you need to supply a reliable non-primary source which explicitly says that Muhammad declared himself to be a '''messiah''' (not just some other words that you are interpreting to that effect), with a page citation or quote. If it's not in English, it should be accompanied by an English translation of the supporting passage. Please consult the relevant policies: ], ] (in particular ] and ]), and ]. ] (]) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::Are you denying that Muhammad declared himself to be the "long awaited Savior" or what?--] (]) 22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::: I'm trying to explain what you need to do in order to make an edit compliant with WP policies. If you don't try to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and follow them, this discussion is not going to make any headway. ] (]) 22:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::::You didn't answer my question. I have read these policies and I am good with them. Have you read my question?--] (]) 23:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Here is an additional secondary source: . By Omar Mahmoud.--] (]) 23:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

::::::::: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer your question because it's not relevant to the discussion. I've done my best to explain what needs to be done if you'd like to get consensus for your proposed edit and now I will bow out of this exchange pending further developments in that direction. ] (]) 23:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: Looking for sources is the right step, but a book published by a vanity press is not a RS and note that the statement needing support is that Muhammad declared '''himself''' to be a messiah. ] (]) 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::The word "messiah" means "One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a '''savior''' or liberator." as per , Are you denying that "Muhammad declared '''himself''' to the long awaited savior or liberator of mankind"?--] (]) 23:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

::::::::::: Denial doesn't enter into the picture. I'm waiting for sourcing. Messiah is a technical religious term and should be sourced as "messiah". It is also used figuratively in various senses (e.g., Merriam-Webster gives "a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause"), but figurative usage shouldn't be confused with theological terminology. ] (]) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::What does your phrase "denial doesn't enter into the picture" mean? I am not a native speaker of English, so I couldn't understand what excatly you mean! Are you denying that "Muhammad declared himself to be the long awaited savior or liberator of mankind" or not?--] (]) 00:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::If you don't want to answer that question, then you may want to answer this question: "are you denying that Muhammad declared himself to the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies?"--] (]) 00:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::You may also like to watch in which Ahmad Deedat argues that Isaiah 7:14, which is one of the most famous messianic prophecies Christians claim it was fulfilled by Jesus, was fulfilled by Muhammad.--] (]) 00:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
It means that his opinion about what Muhammad said about himself, your opinion, or mine, are irrelevant. He neither denies nor agrees, therefore the question need not be answered, because ]. All that matters is what independent reliable sources say, and none have been forthcoming in this conversation. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:While the Prophet Muhammad didn't address himself with the word "messiah" itself, he did indeed declared himself to be the "fulfillment of the messianic prophecies", and "the redeemer of the faithful". That is why I was asking him these two questions.--] (]) 01:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::This is a reliable source written (in Arabic) by an an academic scholar (reputable in the Arabic world) "doctor in comparative religion": . By Munqidh as-Saqqar. Here is an article about the author of the book on the Arabic Misplaced Pages: ]--] (]) 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::: Muhammad declared himself to be the "fulfillment of the messianic prophecies"? I wasn't aware that phrase even existed in classical Arabic. Please provide a RS for that, and sourcing doesn't mean giving just a book title, but rather a specific page and upon request (please) a quote. ] (]) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::::Read the book of ] (a reliable academic Doctor in comparative religion) . The whole book is actually a source for this topic, but I will give you some quotations from inside the book. In page 5 he writes: "Jews and Christians acknowledge the existence of these prophecies and affirm that they indicate the coming of "the final prophet" or "the great prophet"; however, they still insist that he is a man who is a descendant from the children of Israel. The Christians claim that he is Jesus son of Mary, while The Jews are still expecting him. We aim here to prove that he, the expected prophet, is Muhammad and not any of the previous prophets peace be them all." In page 7, he writes: "In this research, we will name the coming prophet as "the expected prophet", or '''the expected messiah''', following the celebrated studies of Dr. Ahmad Hejazy al-Saqqa, who has amazingly researched this subject, and because the term used by the Jews to indicate the promised prophet." In page 9, he writes: "The holy Scriptures '''call the coming prophet''' by many names, such as the King or the Prophet, the Mesia, '''and the Messiah, which means the "Savior", all these names are titles given to the coming prophet''', and they also give a description of this great prophet. However, the title "the Messiah" is the most famous title, and that is because of the importance of the title for the Jews." Then in the rest of his book, the author comes accross the messianic prophecies one by one and exlplains why they were all fulfilled by Muhammad whom he considers to be that expected messiah and not by Jesus or anyone else. There is a specific chapter titled "Did Jesus claim that he is the expected Messiah" in page 27. The author closes that chapter with the conclusion note that Jesus never claimed to be the expected messiah and that he doesn't even fit these prophecies. This chapter is followed by another chapter titled "Did Muhammad call himself the expected prophet". In this chapter, the author shows that Muhammad, unlike Jesus, declared himself to be that expected prophet and fulfilled the messianic prophecies. He says in the beginning of this chapter: " We have seen that Jesus didn't claim that he was the expected prophet. Did Muhammad inform us that he was the promised prophet as the previous prophets stated? The prophecies of the coming of Muhammad, which we find in the books of the prophets, are one of many important issues emphasized by the Quran and the traditions of Muhammad. '''The Quran mentions that every prophet reminded his people about the coming prophet. These prophets had vowed that when Muhammad comes, they would all believe in him''': And , when God took the covenant of the prophets, , "Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you believe in him and support him." said, "Have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?" They said, "We have acknowledged it." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." (Quran 3:81)." You may continue reading this chapter and the whole book from the link I gave to you. The author discusses the messianic prophecies one by one, citing the Quran and the hadiths, and proving that they were all fulfilled by Muhammad (not a single one was fulfilled by Jesus) --] (]) 18:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::As you're new, you may not be aware of ], but I recommend reading it. The question posed here was whether Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, and in response we get a long argument of Muslim apologetics. Don't get me wrong, there are topics where a PhD holding Muslim apologetic could be a reliable source, so I'm not objecting to the source as such, but I find the thinly veiled excuse for preaching a clear ] violation as most of it is beside the topic and nothing of it addressed whether Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. ] (]) 19:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::Do us a favor and stay away from topics you aren't familiar with. Till now, you are the one violating ]. I provided sources and quotations. You provided your personal opinions.--] (]) 19:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Listen, you do not need to like other users, but you '''do''' need to respect them. You're repeatedly telling users who disagree with you to stay away. You have absolutely no right to do so (see ]). You're just back from a block for your disruptive behavior, and you're already back to behaving badly. Misplaced Pages is for everybody, you have absolutely no right to tell other users to stay away or to behave disrespectfully towards others. As for the actual topic, every user in this discussion has told you very clearly that you need to present sources ''saying that Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the Messiah'', not sources you chose to ''interpret as Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the Messiah''. ] (]) 20:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I am not going to feed you.--] (]) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: The page ] states "Self-declared messiahs are people who have proclaimed themselves as a figure of divine salvation. Some have collected a following, while others have remained largely alone."
::::::::You have been provided with Mo's own words stating that he was "a figure of divine salvation", but you're jamming your fingers in your ears.] (]) 21:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Eperoton}} waiting your response to the quotations I provided for you from the sourcebook above.--] (]) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::{{re|Religions Explorer}} As {{u|Jeppiz}} has noted, your quotations skipped over the part about "declaring himself". More generally, books on theology (some of them anyway) would be considered RSs for the article ]. However, this article is about the historical Muhammad and RSs for it are writings by mainstream academic historians. One immediately sees from your summary of the book that the author is not a mainstream historian, and this is confirmed by the Arabic WP which identifies him as an Islamic "evangelist" (داعية). On the other hand, as 142.105.159.60 points out above, the definition of the category is so vague as to include even figures unconnected with the Abrahamic tradition (which seems odd, but I'll let others worry about that). You may in fact be able to find RSs whose phrasing is close enough to that definition to convince other editors here, but that still remains to be accomplished. ] (]) 00:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

== Muhammad selling slaves ==

For freeatlastchitchat who has proven himself wrong on this board more times than we can count at this point:

Mohammed selling slaves is located here: http://sunnah.com/nasai/21
a man freed six slaves of his when he was dying, and he did not have any wealth apart from them. News of that reached the Prophet and he was angry about that. He said: "I was thinking of not offering the funeral prapyer for him." Then he called the slaves and divided them into three groups. He cast lost among them, then freed two and left four as slaves.
Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
Reference : Sunan an-Nasa'i 1958
In-book reference : Book 21, Hadith 142
English translation : Vol. 3, Book 21, Hadith 1960
] (]) 04:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:Highly laughable. Perhaps you do not understand English? Just where is it written that he sold slaves? You do know what the meaning of selling slaves is? right? ] (]) 04:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
::You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit. Dividing the slaves up and casting lots to see who gets them is the same as selling/barter. They are a commodity in this example. Selling does not mean money changes hands, especially when you don't live in a cash economy. Are you going to now tell us you can find 100 examples in the ahadeeth to say Mohammed only dealt in credit cards now? ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Ok where does it say that he "bartered them"? Casting lots to see who gets the slaves is ''''NOT SELLING them or bartering them''''. use a dictionary. Is this the only evidence you have? You are just abusing primary sources, nothing else. ] (]) 04:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
::::Of course not. From SAHIH Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 351: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/034-sbt.php#003.034.351
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:

A man decided that a slave of his would be manumitted after his death and later on he was in need of money, so the Prophet took the slave and said, "Who will buy this slave from me?" Nu'aim bin 'Abdullah bought him for such and such price and the Prophet gave him the slave.

You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish?] (]) 04:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:Again, Abuse of Primary sources. You need to provide a Reliable secondary source. And stop your ad hom comments, or I will say soemthing harsh and you will feel sad. ] (]) 04:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:::LOL, rest assured there is nothing you can make me feel other than pity for you. And not sure what "abuse of primary sources" means other than you don't like to see the truth. But here's another from SAHIH Bukhari: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/046-sbt.php#003.046.711
Volume 3, Book 46, Number 711:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave <b>and sold him</b>. The slave died the same year.

really not sure how much clearer this needs to be.] (]) 04:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:''''Again, Abuse of Primary sources. You need to provide a Reliable secondary source. And stop your ad hom comments, or I will say something harsh and you will feel sad.''''] (]) 04:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

==Unexplained substantive changes to the lead by Religions Explorer==
Three times now, ] has made substantive changes to parts of the lead that have been the focus of much past discussion, without any edit summary explanation, and without any talk page explanation. Changes include, among other things, removal of the long-standing consensus based description of Muhammad being regarded as the "founder" of Islam (removed along with the cited source) and introducing a non-neutral term "Seal of the Prophets".

I see no consensus on this talk page for these changes. I will remind Religions Explorer of ], which hasn't been met. ~] <small>(])</small> 09:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
: I agree with ]. Given the extensive edit warring and personal attacks that Religions Explorer continues to engage in, I recommend no more time is wasted on this disruptive SPA and that any further policy violation be reported to ANI. ] (]) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

:: I don't have a strong opinion about the contested wording, but the new form of the first two sentences is simply bad English. ] (]) 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

:::The latest version seems to have lost some of the work done before Religions Explorer edited it. As Eporoton points out, it's bad English, opening the second sentence with a ]. Also, the bald and unqualified "widely regarded" has connotations of "regarded by all except maybe a fringe minority" or of a matter of taste (Misplaced Pages examples ), rather than of strong disagreement from one or two billion people. I'll restore the opening to its state as of , before Religion Explorer's first edit. ] (]) 17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
::::I have reverted to a version which I think is neutral. I have made some minor changes to grammar and asked for page protection. Perhaps you guys will be kind enough to discuss the changes going on instead of just implementing them. ] (]) 03:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

==A New Hope==
I'm more or less ok with the current version of the intro paragraph. I don't think there will be a version that satisfies a clear majority in the short term, so the controversies will continue. I do think the current version is at least substantially better than the one proposed by Neby, which is so hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair. The intro sentence should be crisp and to the point; it doesn't need to hash out the nuances and controversies surrounding Muhammad. That's what the rest of the article is for.<font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small></font> 05:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
:I have tried my best to keep it concise and free of POV, it is quite painful to go through a long drawn out discussion about the lede every time someone thinks that his POV is better than the consensus of wikipedia editors. My personal opinion is that we should let the notes and the links do the talking, they are there for a reason. Regards ] (]) 05:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

:By "the one proposed by Neby", do you mean the ones I proposed above at ] and {{u|DeCausa}} refined? ] (]) 15:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

::Yes. What "non-believers" think of Muhammad or Islam can come later in the article, to avoid clogging the lead paragraph. That version just pins the subject of the article under the microscope right away. It doesn't get the encyclopedic tone right.

::And of course there's no comparable statement for other religious figures. Try and imagine the following kind of opening for the article on Jesus: "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, who non-believers think was just another human being while Christians believe he was the Son of God." Now hopefully you understand the total insanity oozing all over the version you support.<font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small></font> 06:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

:::to be frank calling anyone "non-believers" is blatant POv, for everyone is a non believer. for atheists I am one of the non-believers and for me they are non-believers. So basically this is pure POV. Secondly I am not sure why there is so much hate going on about calling him the founder of Islam, can anyone point out any single source which says that "muslims do not consider him to be the founder of faith"? For when I googled the term "founder of Islam" I got lots of muslims authors in my search. So there is much hue and cry about nothing. ] (]) 06:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

:::{{reply to|UberCryxic}}I favour succinct openings too. It would also be good to have a fairly stable one. I watched this article for a while after seeing some of the conflict here spill over into abuse elsewhere, and I looked at the history. Opening with the "founder of Islam" statement without any qualification seemed to attract trouble and qualifying it with "generally regarded as" or "widely regarded as" didn't seem to improve matters, for good reason. So I suggested a couple of alternatives. I wouldn't care much whether "non-believer", "non-Muslim" or some other phrase was used. I am rather baffled by your calling my suggestions "hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair". I was seeking to remove bias and the sentence construction is still better than that of the current lead, with "whom" reaching unnaturally into the middle of the preceding clause for its antecedent.
:::You mention our article on ]. You'll notice that it isn't very similar to the current lead of this article. It carefully begins with a mainstream Christian view of Jesus. This article begins with a description of Muhammad as the founder of Islam, then into an Islamic view.
:::I do not "understand the total insanity oozing all over the version" that I proposed ("Muhammad is a central figure in Islam, seen by many non-believers as its founder, but by most Muslims as its last prophet, sent ..."). Could we have a calmer discussion? ] (]) 19:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It "seemed to attract trouble." So what? Lots of things attract trouble on Misplaced Pages; there are people who routinely object to the basic ideas in the articles on evolution, global warming, and a million others. That doesn't mean we stop from stating the obvious.


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024 ==
You nix your own point with the Jesus analogy. Why doesn't this article also begin with a 'mainstream' Islamic view on Muhammad? Why does your version begin by what 'non-believers' think of him?<font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small></font> 06:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
:Let me give my 2c. {{ping|FreeatlastChitchat}} The reason is because for Muslims, Muhammad is ''not'' the founder of Islam, who would be theoretically Abraham, or Adam - Islam professes to be the ''original monotheistic religion of Abraham'', so theoretically it ''cannot'' be Muhammad, per the Qur'an. The ''last prophet'' argument and the ''founder'' argument are solely made by ''kafirs'' (non-believers of Islam). Note how Islamic preachers often use the term ''reverts'' for its religious converts. I agree with {{ping|UberCryxic}}, the article should follow Jesus and have a mainstream Islamic introduction to Muhammad (PBUH). By the way, contrary to the article's declaration, ''even if it is sourced'', all Muslims, ''per Qur'an, have to believe that Muhammad is the last prophet'', otherwise they '''cannot''' be considered Muslims (unlike the Bible, the Qur'an is very clear on this and many other issues). The difference is that there is another word in Arabic which means ''messenger'', used in the Qur'an that doesn't denote law-bearing and is used by the Ahmadiyya to declare new so-called prophets. For more info, read the here: ]. --] (]) 07:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Muhammad's birth date is 571 so it should be changed to 571 from 570 ] (]) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] we have been over the prophethood bit long ago, please see the archives of talkpages here, at the Ahmadiyyah article and at the Prophethood (Ahmadiyya) article. There is a long standing consensus on that matter which cannot be changed by your views. so I will not even start to discuss it with you unless you have something new to add which has not been covered by previous discussions. As for your view that muslims do not consider him to be the founder of their faith just do a quick google search. ] , so do these guys , . Just , there are a lot of muslim writers. So I am not sure where this started from. now as I have given you sources as per ] it is '''your''' duty to provide reliable sources which say that he is '''not''' considered the founder by muslims, then we can compare them. ty for the opinion. Regards ] (]) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (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)
:::{{ping|FreeatlastChitchat}} These sources (included in the article): <ref name="espos12">Esposito (1998), p. 12.</ref><ref>Esposito (2002b), pp. 4–5.</ref><ref>{{cite book|last= Peters|first= F.E.|title= Islam: A Guide for Jews and Christians|year=2003|publisher= Princeton University Press|isbn=0-691-11553-2|page=9}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Esposito|first=John|title= Islam: The Straight Path (3rd ed.)|year=1998|publisher =Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-511234-4|pages=9, 12}}</ref> declare that ''he is continuing the religion of Abraham'', therefore he ''cannot'' be the founder of Islam if it is Abraham; please spare me your fallacies. The article is already contradictory. As for the Ahmadiyya, I don't care too much because they are not really mainstream Muslims, but it's just their views are not being respected in the article already. --] (]) 08:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
::::@] so you have no sources that state that "muslims do not consider him to be the founder of their faith". Your inference from the sources you quoted is ] and in the presence of ] supporting the fact that many muslims call him founder, such OR amounts to nothing. Perhaps you can try to find actual sources, otherwise, this isn't looking good for your case. ] (]) 08:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|FreeatlastChitchat}} You really succeed in avoiding logic, don't you. Here you go, smart ass: . --] (]) 08:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::@] , while clearly the fringe view has been brought to light. Ty man. Ty very much for this search you linked. Plus many of your 16 are non reliable self published books. NOT all, but many. ] (]) 08:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Qur'an 6:163 says that Muhammad was the first Muslim. In addition, . In addition, when the Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) was asked: "since when you have been a prophet?" he replied: "when Adam was between the soul and the body, I was a prophet".--] (]) 08:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::In response to the above possible sockpuppet IP, please don't quote hadiths as they're not sources. {{ping|FreeatlastChitchat}} You're so devoid of logic it's ridiculous. Your (35 search results for ''muhammad the founder of islam'' doesn't have 35 ones that ''prove'' he is the founder, as you already know. They are quotes by people such as ], a book about the pyramids, another about Jewish History and another about Bible Apologetics and another called Terror and Liberalism. I think you know nothing about Islam, seriously. is the correct search (9 results for ''muhammad is the founder of islam''). Notice the first source: '''From the Islamic point of view it is not correct to say that the Prophet Muhammad is the founder of Islam or that he was preaching a new faith.''' ( - Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century By Ivan Hrbek, UNESCO. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa). Try again. --] (]) 08:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:59, 20 December 2024

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:


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) 8,053 8,053
Biographical sources 340 11,226
Quran 2,622 2,622
Early biographies 3,772 3,772
Hadith 4,492 4,492
Meccan years 47 39,901
Early life 9,046 9,046
Beginnings of the Quran 6,719 6,719
Opposition in Mecca 4,788 4,788
Quraysh delegation to Yathrib 2,103 2,103
Migration to Abyssinia and the incident of Satanic Verses 5,537 5,537
Attempt to establish himself in Ta'if 3,996 3,996
Isra' and Mi'raj 2,909 2,909
Migration to Medina 4,756 4,756
Medinan years 47 30,121
Building the religious community in Medina 1,680 1,680
Constitution of Medina 1,610 1,610
Beginning of armed conflict 5,239 5,239
Conflicts with Jewish tribes 3,120 3,120
Meccan retaliation 3,038 3,038
Raid on the Banu Mustaliq 1,016 1,016
Battle of the Trench 3,693 3,693
Invasion of the Banu Qurayza 4,280 4,280
Incidents with the Banu Fazara 616 616
Treaty of Hudaybiyya 2,034 2,034
Invasion of Khaybar 3,748 3,748
Final years 17 9,403
Conquest of Mecca 3,830 3,830
Subduing the Hawazin and Thaqif and the expedition to Tabuk 3,583 3,583
Farewell pilgrimage 1,973 1,973
Death 1,717 1,717
Tomb 4,055 4,055
Succession 2,036 2,036
Household 4,571 4,571
Legacy 12 27,694
Islamic tradition 4,598 14,144
Appearance and depictions 9,546 9,546
Islamic social reforms 2,326 2,326
European appreciation 7,207 7,207
Criticism 1,273 1,273
Sufism 833 833
Other religions 1,899 1,899
See also 485 485
References 15 31,594
Notes 26 26
Citations 34 34
Sources 28,813 31,519
Encyclopaedia of Islam 2,706 2,706
External links 1,254 1,254
Total 172,110 172,110

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· WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost 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 ‥  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 ‥  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 ‥  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)

Unusual invisible comment above category section section

Right above the category section, there's an invisible comment that just says "killing against Banu Qurayza". I can't really figure out the context, and while the Banu Qurayza seems to be related to Muhammad, the comment feels very out of place. I was tempted to just remove, but I'm gonna post here just in case. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. Remsense ‥  03:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
ah okay thanks! cool signature btw! Gaismagorm (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi ! I saw, there was an unused religion parameter field just below the infobox. I filled that with Islam. Is it better, I am not sure as the infobox already displays establishing Islam in parameter known for. MSLQr (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
MSLQr, generally if such parameters are absent/unfilled, there's a good reason. — Remsense ‥  05:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason..? Reply when feel free. MSLQr (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
It’s from this diff. @Sharouser: care to explain why you made this edit? Northern Moonlight 06:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@Northern Moonlight actually it appears to be a comment explaining why they added one of the categories, I think it just loaded weird because I was using visual editor. It might be a good idea to add it back honestly. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense just pinging you since you are the one who removed the comment (please read the above reply). Gaismagorm (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for the comment to be there, which is why I removed it. Remsense ‥  23:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I guess. Eh I supposed it doesn't have to be there. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:21, 11 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)

Some garbled text in the Early biographies section

Looks like this got mangled by the 22:42, 2 November 2024 revision.

In the second paragraph where it reads "Recent studies have led year to distinguish", 'led' should be replaced by 'scholars'.

Just above this, there's an extraneous "Narratives of Islamic Origins". I think this is caused by a messed up citation.

Anyway, I don't have permission to edit this article, but I thought I'd point these out since the paragraph is pretty wonky as is. CrashTrack (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the erroneous word was "year" rather than "led".  Fixed. Left guide (talk) 11:14, 13 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)
Categories: