Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:22, 1 December 2015

Template:Vital article

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims? A1: Further information: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not § Misplaced Pages is not censored, and Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam. Misplaced Pages is not bound by any religious prohibitions, and it is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Misplaced Pages is not censored for the sake of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Misplaced Pages because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer.) Misplaced Pages does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. Q2: Aren't the images of Muhammad false? A2: No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th- to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See Depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad. Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Misplaced Pages to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history. These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted. None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Misplaced Pages, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people. Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Misplaced Pages settings? A3: If you do not wish to view Muhammad images, you can hide the depictions in this article from your personal account by following these steps: Sign in or create an account Click on this link to modify your personal CSS stylesheet (if no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page) Click the edit button, and add the following line: .page-Muhammad .depiction {display: none;} Click Publish changes or Publish page to save the preference Please note that this will not hide the images for other users, or from yourself if you log out of your account. Alternatives: If you do not have an account, and do not wish to register an account, you can disable all images on Misplaced Pages by going to the mobile version of the website (en.m.wikipedia.org), then going to "settings" and choosing "images off". You may also block a list of specified images, following the format of this example. Experienced JavaScript programmers can hide depictions of Muhammad on the desktop site using Greasemonkey or a similar tool. Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad? A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus. Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article? A5: Further information: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles § Muhammad Misplaced Pages's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Misplaced Pages is required to maintain. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Q6: Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam? A6: While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a Misplaced Pages biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Misplaced Pages cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region. The word "founder" is used in that context, and not intended to imply that Muhammad invented the religion he introduced to Arabia. Q7: Why does it look like the article is biased toward secular or "Western" references? A7: Further information: Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view Accusations of bias toward Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Misplaced Pages are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion. In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Misplaced Pages. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG). Q8: Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user? A8: Persistent disruption of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts, while still allowing edits by more experienced users who are familiar with Misplaced Pages's editorial policies and guidelines. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, so long as the original authors (Misplaced Pages contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license. Q9: Can censorship be employed on Misplaced Pages? A9: No. The official policy is that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Q10: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile? A10: This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period; therefore, there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia. Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is as young as eleven years old, or any age inside of a marriage. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha for further information. References C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp.34–35

	Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 7, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 8, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 30, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted July 5, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 2, 2010 Good article reassessment Kept May 14, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

A news item involving Muhammad was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 September 2012.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, and June 8, 2006.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Saudi Arabia Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Medieval / Early Muslim This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Noam Cohen (February 5, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Islam Entry Is Criticized". New York Times. Torsten Kleinz (February 6, 2008). "Misplaced Pages: Streit um Mohammed-Bilder (german)". Heise. Fox News (February 6, 2008). "Muslims Protest Misplaced Pages Images of Muhammad". Fox News. Caroline Davies (February 17, 2008). "Misplaced Pages defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet". The Observer. Inquirer Newsdesk (February 11, 2008). "Misplaced Pages faces wrath of Islam". The Inquirer. K.C. Jones (February 7, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad". InformationWeek. "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.

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

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 Muhammad images 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.

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.

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, 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, 28, 29, 30, 31, Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Images Arbitration Images Aribitration Remedies Arbitration related RfC

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The opening paragraph

..is horribly clunky. I know it's been discussed umpteen times before, but neverthless I've had a WP:BOLD go and tried to do something with it with this edit. The problems with the existing text are:

1. 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.
2. 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... DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job. Now the lede is better and more balanced than the previous version. Khestwol (talk) 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). DeCausa (talk) 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.--31.218.175.248 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not writing from Muslim POV is in accordance with WP:NPOV and is not "anti-Muslim". --NeilN 17:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

1. 1 Writing from "non-Muslim" POV is not in accordance WP:NPOV. #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".--31.218.152.222 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --NeilN 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't dare.--31.218.152.110 (talk) 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.169.79.46 (talk)

No, he didn't present a neutral opening or a neutral article. The opening and the article are not written in accordance with WP:NPOV.--31.218.152.110 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You've made that point (repeatedly and tediously) and failed to gain any consensus. Time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 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 WP:NPOV. However, you clearly are not going to face any problem for this violation of WP:NPOV since wikipedia is systemically biased toward your side and most admins here will be at your side. This is what i think has been clear enough in my comments here.--31.218.154.95 (talk) 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.Trinacrialucente (talk) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 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?Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Respect the belief of the religion

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.

the reason that the pictures must be removed is that it is really not appropriate and should not be mocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpleabd (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2015 (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. Bitsdotlies (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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 . They were also painted in the Persian, Turkish and Mongolian Muslim cultures throughout the centuries. There is no need for them to be removed.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

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

The opening statement should be: "Muhammad is the central figure in Islam". The reason: both Muslims and non-Muslim agree on this historical and theological fact. 31.218.154.95 (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam Sailor 12:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If you said to me "bring me 100 sourcebooks to support your claim that Muhammad is considered by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike to be the central figure in Islam, I was going to do it; but, instead of that, you asked me to get consensus! With whom do you want me to get consensus?! With a group of anonymous internet guys who are mostly coming from the Western Christian world and who will love to propagate their anti-Muslim POVs everywhere they can. This is what I wanted to prove here; that wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It doesnt matter here what scholars say or agree upon. The only thing that matters here is "who belongs to the bigger cabal?"--31.218.154.95 (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, you are WP:NOTHERE. As with your other contributions on this page, you are so taken up with your blindly obsessive rantings that you haven't bothered to check how Misplaced Pages operates. It's very simple. You open a thread to say "I want XYZ changed" and here are my sources to support. Is anyone going to just take your word for it? Of course not. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Is what you're proposing so obvious, so lacking in subjectivity and so uniformly and unanimously backed by all reliable sources that it requires no opinion? Yeah, right. That's why we have WP:CONSENSUS. Once, you have consensus, then you post the edit request and not before. It's very simple and all spelled out in black and white. That you are incapable of following simple written directions is your problem. "This is what I wanted to prove here". Grow up. No one's interested in what you wanted to prove. This is the internet. Anything you've said has been said a million times before, and everyone lost interest about the 96,508th time. DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert

@User:DeCausa you reverted my recent change which I claimed was merely cosmetic. I did not see any problem with my edit, so can you please be kind enough to tell me what I got wrong? My edit changed the sentence " is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" to "is the founder of Islam" because muslims also consider him to be the founder of Islam and it is a historical fact documented in almost all histories that he founded Islam. Secondly I moved around three sentences and created a new sentence, this was done because in my opinion shorter sentences tend to be understood better. Thirdly I moved some citations and notes to end of sentence because they "look" better there. I am not sure in which of these changes I overstepped my bounds. Can we discuss this a little? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-involved comment) A "cosmetic change" would typically be a MOS change that does not involve any editing to the text and its meaning. Changing "is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" to "is the founder of Islam" is not a cosmetic change. And it is certainly not an edit that can be ticked off as a WP:MINOR edit. Best, -- Sam Sailor : 11:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But also the question of describing M. as the "founder of Islam" in Misplaced Pages's voice is highly controversial and has been argued umpteen times - check the archive. The current wording is a long debated compromise. Freeatlastchitchat, if you want to change the compromise, familiarise yourself with the previous arguments (and, no; muslims do not regard him as the founder and some editors in the past have argued that some non-muslims don't consider him that either) and post a proposal here. DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not check the archives, being a liberal does have some shortcomings as you don't get to know the hard stances of conservatives lol. I just thought that calling a person the "founder" of a religion was the "default" for all prophets, but there appears to be quite a can of worms. Anyway, I'll leave that be, but can't we move around the text a little so that the starting lines tell what the muslims consider him to be? Afterall he is considered a prophet by the muslims. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Founder of Islam?

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. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The phrase says "Muhammad is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" which is perfectly correct, and sourced. Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Birth date of Muhammad

Recently, and without any proper discussion, the birth date of Muhammad was changed from c. 570 to c. 29 August 570. In earlier discussions (see 11 June 2015 and especially 18 June 2012) it was noted that the exact date (or even the year) of Muhammad's birth, like that of Jesus Christ, cannot be established with any precision. The currently given date is pious fiction and is only one of several other dates which have been proposed in the past. AstroLynx (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite right, I changed it back as the sources used weren't WP:RS in any case. Jeppiz (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would keep the original "c." (circa) as not even the year is certain. AstroLynx (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As discussed here, there is scholarly debate on the year of his birth. There is debate on when the Year of the Elephant was and even whether he was in fact born in the Year of the Elephant. It's nothing to do with the conversion into the Gregorian or Julian calendars. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015

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

Bismilah Hir Rahman Nir Raheem

Thing is that kuffars, that I wish to add "Salaho Allahe Wasalam" becuase this is attached with his name.

And curse be upon that person who does not pay Salam to Him when his name is recited.

And curse be upon those who hold the salam against him.

Remember dear wikipedia, this non-sense of not adding Salaho Allahe Wasalam in not going to last long, so give up now. Waleedi123 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sheriff (report) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't make changes to articles based on threats and insults. Lankiveil 12:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC).

I don't see any threat in this edit request. He is just expressing his wish as a Muslim and basically saying that this unnecessary ban is not going to last, Misplaced Pages 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 non-Muslims 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. Sheriff (report) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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. Bitsdotlies (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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. 78.95.25.186 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Bitsdotlies (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede changes 22/10/15

I have changed the sequence of some text in the lede.8

• I moved the phrase " is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" so that it is now preceded by the muslim view of the subject. My reasoning is that he is considered a Holy Personage by the muslims, therefore, what the muslims think about him should be at the beginning.
• Secondly I moved the sentence " By the time of his death, he had united Arabia into a single Muslim polity and had ensured that his teachings and practice together with the Quran, which Muslims believe was revealed to him by God, formed the basis of Islamic religious belief." to the paragraph which discusses his death. My reasoning is that events look good in chronological order, therefore this should be given at the its proper place.

If you disagree please be kind enough to point out my error.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of those edits, the reasonsing seems sound to me. Jeppiz (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's an archived discussion about what, exactly, makes Muhammad notable. The consensus then, as I recall, was that the lead section should state what he did that makes him notable, and that merely being revered isn't sufficient. There was agreement that being the "founder" of Islam is significant, but recognizing that calling him the founder misrepresents the Muslim view, something else was needed. Unifying Arabia into a single polity under the religion he introduced to the area — that is the single significant thing about him. Burying that important fact way down in the 3rd or 4th paragraph unbalances the lead, in my view. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion(which may be wrong) being considered a prophet by every third person on the planet is "what, exactly, makes Muhammad notable". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, the 2/3 of the world who don't think of him that way would carry more weight. Putting the Muslim view in the lead sentence doesn't follow the WP:LEAD guideline. The lead section should serve as an overview of the article. This should be particularly true for the lead sentence. The bulk of the article is about Muhammad's life and accomplishments, not about what Muslims think of him, therefore the lead sentence should also be about his life and accomplishments.

Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Need for consistency: Founding of Islam and the two subsections in that section contain the past discussion about this. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a poor discussion and consensus can change. It's clear that being either the "founder of Islam" or the "the last prophet of Islam" depending on your perspective is obviously way more significant than "unifying Arabia into a single polity". It's difficult to fathom how anyone could think otherwise. However, debating which of the two former perspectives comes first is rather lame. If we have to, and of the two, I think the non-Muslim view is by a rather crude force of numbers more predominant and would err towards that, but I don't have a strong view one way or the other. Just so long as "uniting Arabia into a single polity" comes a clear third. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I support the changes done by FreeatlastChitchat. Sheriff (report) 23:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not, because the lead no longer complies with WP:LEAD in placing undue emphasis on a Muslim POV. Unifying an entire country under one religion that he founded is the single most significant thing about him. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Amatulić. This is a historical biography, and we should be giving higher priority to what he did (united a country, founded a religion) before we discuss the dogmatic interpretation of what he did. Resolute 13:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulić that the lead now completely fails NPOV. However, I disagree that uniting Arabia is his primary achievement. To my mind, the founding of Islam has had a major impact on the world over the last 1500 years. It's difficult to see how that can be surpassed. The uniting of Arabia lasted only a generation. When the centre of the Muslim world moved to Damascus, (then Baghdad) Arabia soon became peripheral and slipped back to the traditional patchwork of conflicting tribal territories albeit still nominally remaining within the caliphate. A generation after Muhammad, Arabia could not be described as "united". How can such a passing achievement compare to the founding of Islam?

In September I made this bold edit which lasted a month until is was changed to the current version last week. To my mind, my edit is a reasonable compromise which maintains NPOV, gives due prominence to his most notable achievement whilst at the same time being informative as to the muslim point of view (...if I say so myself!) Before I made that edit, the opening of the lead effectively read "Muhammad, from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." which is frankly pitiful (see above thread Talk:Muhammad#Opening paragraph). DeCausa (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No "reliable citation representative of all non-Muslims" is given to support the claim of Decausa that Prophet Muhammad is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam. The views of non-Muslims are variable.--Ciphers00 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article has a cited reliable source for that statement. Also, it's not my "claim". That statement and the cited source was reviewed by editors and included in the article several years ago. I don't believe that I was even one of the editors that participated in the discussion at that time (although I could be wrong about that). I've also reverted you: you reverted because you said the "my" version didn't have consensus. Read WP:EDITCONSENSUS. The "current" version is deemed to have consensus support and any change needs to show consensus support. It's the version of 22 October that needs to show consensus support not the prior version. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The source of your statement is, first of all, void of any citation or reference. This lowers its reliability per WP:RS. Secondly, it can't be described as representative of all non-Muslim views since its author didn't make any citations or references to prove her claims.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition, your newly introduced version of the lead is very bad and inappropriate. There is obviously no consensus support for it.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The variable non-Muslim views (whatever they are) should not be given a weight greater than the Muslim ones.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You're confused. The source has been reviewed already and consensus accepts it as reliable. It's been cited innthe article for several years. The "newly introduced version" isn't a newly introduced version. The version you prefer is the newly introduced version. As already explained to you, unless there is consensus to change, the previous version remains. There is no consensus to change. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not confused. Your version of the lede is still relatively new, and there is no obvious consensus support for it here on the talk page. Since multiple editors have shown their disapproval of it, it can't be considered as a consensus version. This is point one: your version is not a consensus version.
Point 2: you said that . Can you add a reference to a thorough discussion or a RFC which resulted in what you are claiming to be a consensus that "the source in question" is reliable.
Point 3: The source of your statement is, as I said above, void of any citation or reference; which means that it doesn't fit the criteria for reliable secondary sources. You need to find a "comparative study" of "the religious views of non-Muslims" which was closed with the conclusion that the general view of non-Muslims revolve around considering the Prophet Muhammad to be the founder of Islam. This comparative study should have been carried out by "reliable scholar" and should be based on citations and references instead of personal opinions.
Point 4: I want you to explain the reasons or the motivations behind changing the lede the way you did. In particular, I want you to explain why you think that the lede should be started with the sentence: "is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" instead of the sentence: "considered by Muslims to have been the last prophet".--Ciphers00 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Point 1: it's not new, see WP:EDITCONSENSUS and the 'Opening paragraph' thread on this page. Point 2: It's been discussed muotiple times in mulgiple threads. The source has been innthe article at least three years. Beyond that, you'll have to do your own research. Point 3. It's not a serious proposition that non-Muslims generaly do not regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam. I'm nog going to debate whether the sky is blue. Point 4: The muslim view is a religious view and a matter of faith. Per WP:NPOV, it's more appropraite for the preponderant neutral secular view to come first.DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

For 1st point: The 'Opening paragraph' thread, 'Founder of Islam?' thread, 'Lede changes 22/10/15' thread show quite the opposite of what you are trying to prove. You couldn't achieve consensus in any of these threads and at least five more editors disapproved your changes. WP:EDITCONSENSUS says that reaching consensus occurs either through discussion or through editing. You didn't achieve consensus through discussion as shown in the above threads and you didn't achieve consensus through editing since your edits were changed by both Freeatlastchitchat and me.
For 2nd point: You didn't cite any previous discussion concerning the reliability of the source in question! unless you add a reference to such a discussion, I will consider that there hasn't been such a discussion at all. "" is not a good argument since you yourself have already changed a lede which has been in the article for such a long time and said that it wasn't nonsense.
For 3rd point: bring a "reliable secondary source" to attest your statement. As far as I know, many non-Muslims don't consider the Prophet Muhammad to be the founder of Islam.
For 4th point: Your neutrality is fake. If you are promoting secularism, then why don't you say that Jesus was a son of adultery (secular people are not supposed to believe in virgin births). The issue here is that you are promoting your personal religious views, not neutrality. (note: I won't respond again to this person. Discussion with him is a waste of time).--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ciphers00, you need to read WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. And you're perfectly free not to discuss with people here, and that means that you leave the article. You have no right to decide with whom you interact at article talk pagess, and you have no right to edit by ignoring talk pages but you can of course pick which articles you don't edit. For the factual matter, there seems to be no support for your version while both FreeatlastChitchat and I have, broadly speaking, supported DeCausa's version. Jeppiz (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that I don't want to discuss with people here! What I said is that I am not going to respond to "User:Decausa" again. Why would I waste my time in a discussion with an WP:IDHT editor who is showing bias towards a non-Muslim view instead of being neutral ! he went further astray when he called his personal un-Muslim view "".
Concerning your comment Jeppiz, you need to consider that none of the versions is mine. You said that in spite of the fact that none of the versions is mine. That version was Freeatalastchitchat's version not my version.--Ciphers00 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

'Such a Huge deal about a simple change of wording'. I would like to withdraw my change and if any admin can hide that portion of history I'd be very happy. I never intended to contend my change, I just wanted the opinion of other editors about changing the lede, simple as that, and I never said that DeCausa's version was wrong, I just moved his text around a little. Seeing that an edit war is not far away, I'd like to withdraw my changes. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite a discussion. As there are so many arguments about consensus, let me just add that I support DeCausa's version, which seem well-sourced and satisfied WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

All images of the Prophet Muhammad is forger Prophet Muhammad no painted

All images of the Prophet Muhammad is forger Prophet Muhammad no painted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdoadawy92 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Abdoadawy92: So? Images of most ancient historical figures weren't painted by the subjects themselves, or even painted while they were alive. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2015 (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. Tivanir2 (talk) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good so far,,, ~Amatulić (talk) 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. Resolute 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 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. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work guys. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 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? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Bunching" of citations

User:Antrangelos 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 here. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa 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? Antrangelos (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a problem: WP:INTEGRITY. 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. DeCausa (talk) 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.51.227 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's covered in the Sources section where there is clear link tk the Historicity article. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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. 190.178.35.137 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor 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 here), rather than of strong disagreement from one or two billion people. Even a small change might help, for example (links, Arabic, translations etc omitted)

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

Muhammad is a central figure in Islam, seen by many non-believers as its founder, but by most Muslims as its last prophet, sent ...

NebY (talk) 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..." DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is better - I was quietly fretting about the blandness of "central figure". NebY (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If Prophet Muhammad was not the "founder of Islam", why is the entire article on Islam about his teachings? The lede of the article Islam 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.--Peaceworld 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? DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Peaceworld111's reasoning above would seem to be in tune with Ahmadi thinking. Different readers may include the Ahmadis among "most non-believers" or among the remainder of "almost all Muslims". NebY (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@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.--Peaceworld 22:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly not a mainstream Muslim view, in which all the Prophets and messengers in Islam preached Islam and not some other "version" of the "primordial faith". DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015

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

References

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/muhammad_1.shtml

86.98.137.229 (talk) 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. Jeppiz (talk) 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 NebY'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. Sheriff (report) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :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. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

All of these sources (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 111) cannot be verified for their content. Sheriff (report) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 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, ONUS to provide proper and accessible sources is on the party which is trying to include something controversial in the article. Sheriff (report) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sherrif, there is no obligation to make them "accessible" they just need to exist. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. They just need to be published and reliable per WP:SOURCE. 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. DeCausa (talk) 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 on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.4.92.44 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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 WP:AGF. Jeppiz (talk) 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 Wp:NPOV and Wp:TRUTH policies. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Request new style for the view of picture

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.

@Alexis Ivanov and Tivanir2: How does a fake depiction of Gabriel delivering verses to a fake depiction of The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) 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. Sheriff (report) 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One more question, do we have sources to confirm that these depictions are as they are described like for example "painting of Gabriel" 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. Sheriff (report) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (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. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See Jami' al-tawarikh with numerous links. AstroLynx (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

These drawings are WP:UNDUE 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.--5.107.104.74 (talk) 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. Resolute 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? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of the Throne Verse

What is the Throne Verse doing under Muhammad#Establishment of a new polity? It seems awkwardly placed at best, perhaps even irrelevant to the article. Delete maybe? - HyperGaruda (talk) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 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? Tivanir2 (talk) 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 22:39-40, this the earliest verses to command Muhammad to fight. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Aisha "reaching age of puberty"

@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.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

@Trinacrialucente: Your edit description suggested that it was based on your interpretation of primary sources, which runs afoul of WP:PRIMARY and falls under WP:OR. 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 WP:RS. Eperoton (talk) 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.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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 FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 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/ Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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 Puberty article will let you cool your jets. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 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: puberty. Since there are "like a hundred" you shouldn't have any problem.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I think you are taking FreeatlastChitchat'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. Sheriff (report) 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 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. Sheriff (report) 15:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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?Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: These secondary reliable sources agree that she had reached puberty. 1, 2, 3, 4. So your Original Research is kinda not welcome. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I'm not going to discuss primary sources here, because we can't base our edits on them per WP:PRIMARY. 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). Eperoton (talk) 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. @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.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: If you write a book that meets the criteria of WP:RS, 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 WP:DR first. Eperoton (talk) 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.Trinacrialucente (talk) 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. --NeilN 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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?Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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. --NeilN 05:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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 FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 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. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I see that user:FreeatlastChitchat 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 user:Trinacrialucente, 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:

Original text: قَالَ الدَّاوُدِيُّ وكانت عائشة قد شبت شباباً حسناً رضي الله عنها
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 Imam Dawudi in the context about the age of Mrs. Ayesha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet.

I hope that was a good lesson for user:Trinacrialucente.--5.107.104.74 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: Our problem here is that we're speculating about some of the secondary sources, which are offline. WP:GOODFAITH 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 WP:UNDUE. The right approach would be to do a solid review of secondary literature, and if both positions have reasonable acceptance among authors of WP:RS, 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? Eperoton (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@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 FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 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?Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@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. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 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?Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@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. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 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.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

To determine if something is of use we would need consensus either as a group or on the RS 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. Strike that. Apparently the publisher is to say the least problematic so that would probably make it a no go right there. Tivanir2 (talk) 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. Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice: user:Trinacrialucente 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, user:FreeatlastChitchat 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 user:Trinacrialucente 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. @Trinacrialucente: Have you read the quotation that I provided above in my previous post here or are you just not willing to read it?!--5.107.112.147 (talk) 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 WP:RS and WP:UNDUE 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. Eperoton (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@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.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:27, 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 NeilN. What do you guys say about removing that paragraph in its entirety? Sheriff (report) 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The age of Aisha at the time of marriage is oft-discussed in biographies of Muhammad. --NeilN 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. Eperoton (talk) 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 IS 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.Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015

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

SeanusAurelius (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DeCausa (talk) 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. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 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 Muslim has some kind of negative view about him otherwise there is nothing barring them to enter Islam. If you want to mention criticism, you can just simply add this sentence, "Most Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans and atheists etc. have been critical of him historically." and that should be good enough. Summed it up for you! Sheriff (report) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015

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

   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).

   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.

CHANGE TO

   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).

SeanusAurelius (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

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

Undo the last edit of Tivanir2. Obviously a bad-faith edit against the consensus of the discussion above.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC) 5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to user:SheriffIsInTown for undoing it.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 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:
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 WP:CALC, 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.

• Examples of sources stating that Asma was born 27 years before the Migration of the Prophet.
  

1. Original text: كَانَ لِأَسْمَاءَ يَوْمَ مَاتَتْ مِائَةُ سَنَةٍ وُلِدَتْ قَبْلَ التَّارِيخِ بِسَبْعٍ وَعِشْرِينَ سَنَةً، وَقَبْلَ مَبْعَثِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِسَبْعَ عَشْرَةَ سَنَةً،
   

English translation: When Asma died she was 100 year old. She was born before 27 years Before Hegira, and 17 years before the Prophet – Peace and Blessing of God be upon him – received his first revelation.
Source: Al-Tabarani, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr. Volume 24. Page 77.

1. Original text: وكانت لأسماء يوم ماتت مائة سنة ، ولدت قبل التاريخ بسبع وعشرين سنة . وولدت أسماء لأبي بكر وسنه إحدى وعشرون سنة .
   

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.
Source: Majma al-Zawa'id, Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami. Volume 9. Page 260.

• Examples of sources stating that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha

1. 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
   

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.
Source: Ibn Kathir, the Beginning and the End. Volume 8. Page 345.

1. Original text: قال ابن أبي الزناد: وكانت أكبر من عائشة بعشر سنين.
   

English translation: Ibn Abi al-Zinad narrated: and she (Asma) was ten years older than Aisha.
Source: Ibn 'Asakir. History of Damascus. Volume 69. Page 8.

Per WP:CALC, 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.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point, but the way to incorporate it into the article is via reliable secondary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. 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. Eperoton (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Explanation of Sahih Muslim, by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207. Published in Beirut in 1392 AH by Dar Ihya al-Turath Al-Arabi.
2. Ibn Kathir, the Beginning and the End. Volume 8. Page 345.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (military) articles
• Low-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• GA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• GA-Class Arab world articles
• Top-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class Saudi Arabia articles
• Top-importance Saudi Arabia articles
• WikiProject Saudi Arabia articles
• GA-Class Middle Ages articles
• Top-importance Middle Ages articles
• GA-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles
• GA-Class early Muslim military history articles
• Early Muslim military history task force articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English