Talk:Muhammad

Frequently asked questions, please read before posting

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

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

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

GA Reassessment

Muhammad

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: While instability is not in itself a reason to delist, poor quality sourcing is; the discussions on the talk page constitute, in my view, consensus that the sourcing has been degraded. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria It is not stable due to edit warring on the page....: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Moxy- 04:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Even excluding the wholesale rewriting the article has undergone recently, 2012 is a long time ago, and the article quality standards back then were arguably lower. I do not see a reason to maintain GA status given the current edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Overall structure of the article

Comparing this article to the article on Jesus, I think the structure of this article is deficient, separate from but related to the issues regarding the sourcing in the article discussed previously. It presents the account of Muhammad's life as is known through early biographies and hadith largely uncritically, when many contemporary scholars have questioned the reliability of these sources, particularly the hadith (see [1] [2] [3] [4]). I think the best way to fix this would be to put all of the biographic headings (i.e the contents of the subheadings "Meccan years". "Medinan years" and "Final years") under a new heading like "Biography according to traditional Islamic sources", and then a new section should be creating discussing what scholars consider knowable or probable about the "historical Muhammad". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As for sources discussing the "historical Muhammad" in detail, the 2010 book The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad is probably a good place to start. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these are comparable examples. There is a wealth of biographical information about Muhammad, certainly relative to Jesus, whose life is extremely tricky to piece back together. The above approach is also not as simple as it sounds. Islamic tradition is not uniform. There is not one narrative. And there are early Islamic sources that are functionally secondary in that they approach the life of Muhammad not just as a religious narrative, but analytically try to tease out the more genuine narratives from the various hadith. Modern scholarly accountings are similarly based on earlier accounts. The upshot of all this is that there is a spectrum of analysis, not some sort of clear-cut religious narrative and something else. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The things that are knowable or probable about Muhammad's life are more than the equivalent for Jesus, enough to give a basic biographical outline, probably enough to fill a Wikipedia article, but probably not a full book-length biography. I'll give you that. But there are stil huge problems with taking the accounts of the early sources at face value as this article currently does, as outlined in Robert Hoyland's 2007 paper Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It might be more preferable to do the historical criticism of facts as they are presented, as opposed to breaking it down into two sections like "According to Islamic sources" and "Historical criticism". It seems that the The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad also breaks down his life into the Meccan and Medinan years, so I would support keeping those two sections, at least. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered coming at this from the "Let's WP:GA it (again)!" direction? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the volume of scholarship, it really shouldn't be that hard to create a stable, authoritative GA biography. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course! Regarding his biography, it should only constitute a small fraction of this article. The The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad gives only 2-3 chapters (out of 14) to his biography. Thus, lets give only a basic outline here, and refer the reader to subarticles where it is covered in more detail. The rest of the article should be the role Muhammad's life (whether historical or imagined) has played in law, philosophy, personal piety, mysticism, history of the Middle East and European thought. There should also be a section on Muhammad in art (including 21st controversial drawings, but also including music, plays, architecture etc).

Once again, The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad is a good way for us to determine how much weight to give to each section of this article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be a mistake. As noted in the introduction, the Cambridge Companion "represent[s then-]current trends in the scholarly study of Muhammad’s life and legacy". Not for nothing does the introduction itself recap Muhammad's biography—that is not the focus of the work, and the three chapters which focus on his life focus on specific events, not a comprehensive biography. The Companion does not seek to be an encyclopedic reflection of the man, as this article must be. Still, it is a top-tier source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Handling material cited to Rodgers

Now that the ANI has been resolved, I think it's a good time to aim for a consensus on what to do with material cited to Rodgers. If I was to start purging it from the article, would there be any objections? And if so, what would be the ideal course of action instead? Left guide (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The RfC isn't closed. The in my opinion wrong topic ban on Kaalakaa is closed but to start as you say "purge" the article isn't the right way to improve the quality. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ip says: Why isn't it the right way to improve the article quality? And what alternative course of action do you suggest instead? Discussions both on this talk page and the last two archives show a consensus that Rodgers is largely unsuitable for this article on WP:NPOV grounds. Left guide (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would use the primary sources as per wp:weight. They tell more or less the same story as Rodgers. Of course in a properly attributed and balanced way. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense and/or reveals no understanding of WP policy. WP:WEIGHT is essentially about giving due prominence "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in [reliable] sources". That is inherently about reflecting the interpretation of secondary sources. The point of WP:PRIMARY is to exclude the use of primary sources in interpretation. They can be used only for the narrow purpose of say that in "Primary Source Y it says X", nothing more. Whether it is NPOV that that should be said at all is a question of WP:WEIGHT defined by the secondary sources. DeCausa (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources don't count towards WP:WEIGHT, and discussions on this talk page have demonstrated that Rodgers doesn't count either. Left guide (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove this "Following the Battle of Badr, Muhammad revealed his intention to expel the Jews from the land." under section "Conflicts With Jewish Tribes". This is attributed to Rodgers only and apparently primary sources. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Neutralhappy: Looks like that particular statement was tagged in May as {{dubious}} by Iskandar323 paired with a small discussion above. Are there high-quality secondary sources that talk about this? If not, I agree that it seems best to remove it for failing to satisfy WP:WEIGHT, since it's now been challenged multiple times. Left guide (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Removed Left guide (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've also reset a couple of relatively Rodgers-heavy sections (namely "Battle of the Trench" and "Conquest of Mecca") to their May 2023 status quo versions. Left guide (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

And now more of the same with the "Beginning of armed conflict" section. Left guide (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. I'm glad someone has the energy to properly survey the changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Iskandar323! Your encouragement is encouraging. :) Left guide (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Richard A. Gabriel

To piggyback off of Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources where the original post said I have no doubt that there are plenty of other sources of this ilk that have found their way onto the page, I noticed that this book was absent in the status quo May 2023 version but has since entered the article with dozens of citations, frequently bundling or supplementing suspect sources like Rodgers and Glubb; it may have slipped under the radar as it appears to be undiscussed on the talk page and archives. How reliable and WP:DUE is Richard A. Gabriel for this article? Is he in the top tiers of the global Muhammad scholarship community? Or are we dealing with another Rodgers-level author? For what it's worth, it's also a military-focused book published by a university press, and the end of the Google Books description says Richard A. Gabriel challenges existing scholarship on Muhammad's place in history and offers a viewpoint not previously attempted. which makes me wonder if it's a WP:FRINGE point-of-view. pinging eligible participants from the "suspect sources" discussion @Iskandar323, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Anachronist, and DeCausa: Left guide (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A few reviews:[5][6][7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, has anyone made a list of biographies etc that are WP-good sources for this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't, but this review provides the list of scholars considered competent up to 2009. Rodinson is notably on there, but again, this is a decade-and-a-half-old list and works from the 60s are pushing the limits anyway. On Gabriel (and Rodgers), if they have specific, meaningful input on matters of a strictly military nature, and they agree between themselves, then they can have at it. The problem for me was always the extension of the interpretation of these very niche specialists (whose specialism is tightly confined to military history) to political, sociocultural and religious observations that there are in no position to make, as non-Arabist, non-specialist historians (i.e.: not of the Middle Eastern specialty variety), whose entire corpuses of works consist of hopping about history rather eclectically to focus on the famous past military leaders of history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, we can use {{refideas}} to make such a list atop this talk page. I currently have access to a version of this book by Karen Armstrong, which recent source discussions both here and at RSN appear to show as one of the top Muhammad biographies. Left guide (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

Moved to Talk:Muhammad/images

 – Left guide (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024

FAQ No. 6
make Muhammad Prophet Muhammad Expenderous (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)  Not done: Per Q5. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Abraha's expedition

Presently the following is present in the article:

Islamic tradition states that Muhammad's birth year coincided with Yemeni King Abraha's unsuccessful attempt to conquer Mecca.[49] Recent studies, however, challenge this notion, as other evidence suggests that the expedition, if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth.[1][50][51][52][53][47] Later Muslim scholars presumably linked Abraha's renowned name to the narrative of Muhammad's birth to elucidate the unclear passage about "the men of elephants" in Quran 105:1–5.[50][54] The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity deems the tale of Abraha's war elephant expedition as a myth.[51]

1) "Myth" has multiple meanings. Which meaning is intended here? One is "supernatural" and the other is "false". Such ambiguous words should be replaced with unambiguous words.

2) Can unsuccessful expedition transpire substantially? The incident is about an expedition which failed to achieve its mission. Can such a failed attempt transpire anything "substantially" in the part where it failed? The sentence seems to be illogical.

3) This Wikipedia article says:

The Quran, however, provides minimal assistance for Muhammad's chronological biography; most Quranic verses do not provide significant historical context and timeline.[19][20] Almost none of Muhammad's companions are mentioned by name in the Quran, hence not providing sufficient information for a concise biography.[18]

So it seems confusing to say "unclear" here specifically.

4) I read this. This is the first citation given to show that the Abraha's expedition has not taken place. But this source does not say Abraha's expedition did not take place. But it discusses the year it happened.

5) There is no need of saying in the article it is a myth because it is already known it is a miraculous thing that birds killing elephants.

6) This appears to be unwanted, disruptive edit.

7) This says about likelihood. So should the sentence contain "likelily" even if it is kept in the present form.

8) What about removing the term "unclear" before the term "passage"?

9) Atleast rewriting seems to be necessary.

10) Kindly write about the remaining sources.

So remove:

"Recent studies, however, challenge this notion, as other evidence suggests that the expedition, if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth.[1][50][51][52][53][47]

remove:

The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity deems the tale of Abraha's war elephant expedition as a myth.[51]

Neutralhappy (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Myth: "an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts:". MOS:MYTH has a little guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

11) Does the term "studies" in the said part mean just writings or study papers or archeological evidence or mathematical calculations or something else? When we see or read the term "studies" the first meaning that comes to our mind is "archeological discovery". So it should be replaced with the better term "archeological discovery" if it so. If it is not archeological discovery, it should replaced be with "writings", "academic writings", "publications", "study papers", "analysis", or the like. Thus this part in the current form is confusing, and thus not in the best form. Removal is an option to solve the problem.

12) The two sentences I proposed for deletion in the part are non-biographical information. Hence there is no significant problem with its removal.

13) If it corrected it should be similar to one like "though the year of the expedition does not likely coincide with the Muhammad's year of birth." This is not necessary because it contains "Islamic tradition states".

14) There was a different but better 1 July 2023 version of this current apparent bad faith edit. That would be better than the present one. Note this edit has added the term "Islamic" and the edit did not say the expedition did not take place though several citations were added. It is important and intresting to note that the citations added to say the expedition took place but it must have taken place earlier than the year of birth of Muhammad. The citations used to say this are:

• Conrad, 1987
• Reynolds, 2023 p. 16
• Peters, 2010 p. 61
• Muesse, 2018 p.213
• Buhl&Welch, 1993 p. 361

The same citations, except that of Johnson, are used to say the seemingly illogical thing of failed attempt transpiring substantially. These are the present sources used to say this seemingly illogical thing and create a notion that the expedition did not take place:

• Conrad, 1987
• Reynolds, 2023 p. 16
• Johnson, 2015 p. 286
• Peters, 2010 p. 61
• Muesse, 2018 p. 213
• Buhl&Welch, 1993 p. 361

15) Use of the term "evidence" in the present version also seems to be misleading since they likely refer to tradion. Overall the edit is of poor quality.

16) The same editor who was later banned from editing on topics related to Islam reworded their own edit but this time giving the opposite notion that the expedition never took place, besides making the article saying the seemingly illogical thing of failed attempt transpiring substantially.

17) Because it contains the seemingly illogical thing of a failed thing transpiring substantially, there needs at least a "clarify" tag.

18) Overall the part in the present form could be said to be illogical, disruptive, unwanted, confusing and not directly biographical.

19) Using the term "myth" to refer to miraculous things is not needed because generally supernatural or miraculous things altogether are apparently considered not possible to happen, by many. Here it is a miraculous thing of the birds killing the elephants. So remove the part saying "myth". This also creates a notion that this use the word of "myth" is done after conducting a study on the subject whereas the source likely have used the term "myth" just because it is a miracle or a supernatural thing. Moreover there should be a clarification why they used it. If it is because of its supernatural or miraculous nature, it might be better to say either "since all supernatural things are myths" or "since it considers all supernatural things as myths" Neutralhappy (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

20) On 1 July 2023 itself, the same editor later added the citation of Johnson to say the expedition of Abraha took place. Again the same editor on 1 July 2023 changed the year "2023" to "2015" which is in the current version.

Going through this book (published: 13 September 2012) I found the following:

Thus it is important to distinguish, on the one hand, the campaign of 552, which allowed Abraha to reestablish his authority over almost all of inner Arabia, and on the other hand, the Battle of the Elephant, which happened later and could be the cause of the collapse of Himyarite domination over inner Arabia. This Battle of the Elephant could be dated between 555 and 565, probably closer to 565, toward the end of Abraha's reign.

I found in the 2015 book on page 285:

... Abraha's reign , probably around thirty years from 535 to 565 , is not easy to define with precision . Dated ... Abraha had two successors , two sons who did not reign very long . It is thus plausible that Abraha died a few years ...

This 2015 book, which is another edition of the book published on 13 September 2012, is the same book used in the article to say it is a myth and to say the illogical thing of a failed thing transpiring substantially and to create a notion that the expedition did not take place.

One option to solve all this problem is just to remove the two sentences I proposed for deletion. Neutralhappy (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I find most of what you have written in your WP:WALLOFTEXT rather incomprehensible. Most of your issues seem to come from a rather poor grasp of words in English such as "myth', "substantially" and studies. The two sentences you want to remove are fine and should stay. There is ample scholarship that doubts the Year of the Elephant ever occurred, or if it did it was prior to Muhammad's birth and not per Islamic tradition. And that's all the passage is saying and it's fine. I have no idea why you keep talking about "bad faith". DeCausa (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I said "apparent bad faith", not just "bad faith" edit. I would not like to further discuss these suggestions for edits. I leave it to other editors. I also leave to other editors to consider removing this illogical thing of a failed attempt transpiring something substantially. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, "if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth" means if it did happen it would have happened mostly before Muhammad's birth. It's not that difficult. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has got me wondering. Given that we have already presented the "Oxford Handbook's" view that it deems the expedition to be a myth, would it be possible, for WP:Balance purposes, to include the statement, "Although, some consider the historicity of a failed expedition to be completely plausible."

Maybe removing the word 'Although,' if needed, to avoid editorializing. StarkReport (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For that not to be WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE, those two views would have to be equally prominent in scholarship to be presented like that. Is that the case? DeCausa (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, according to my impression from reading the section, the overwhelming sources address the timing of the expedition. Only one source categorizes it as a myth, so perhaps in that case, the answer is yes. However, if multiple high-quality sources describe it as a myth, then it would be best not to include my proposed addition. StarkReport (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Didn't he die at the age of 63?

I think he died at 63 Aquarium670154 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aquarium670154 63 years of age according to one tradition according to the Hijri calendar; not according to the CE calendar. Infobox generally lists births and deaths according to the CE calendar. Khaatir (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)