Talk:Muhammad
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad.
Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
A1:
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) Wikipedia 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. Also note that the prohibition of depicting Muhammad is not universal among Muslim communities; for example, the Farsi language article on Muhammad is maintained by Muslims and includes such images. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam.
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people.
Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia 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 the steps outlined at Help:Options to hide an image § Disable images on specific pages:
Please note that this will not hide the images for other users, or from yourself if you log out of your account. See Help:Options to hide an image, for the numerous other options available to hide images. Alternatives: If you do not have an account, and do not wish to register an account, you can disable all images on Wikipedia by going to the mobile version of the website (option to toggle at the bottom of any given page), then going to "settings" and choosing "images off". You may also block a list of specified images, following the format of the example at Talk:Muhammad/images/example css. 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:
Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia 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:
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 (Wikipedia contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license.
Q9: Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
A9: No. The official policy is that Wikipedia 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.[1] 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.
Q11: Why was my request or comment removed?
A11: Requests that are already covered in this FAQ document may be removed without consideration, unless the request demonstrates an understanding of past discussions as well as relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (for example WP:Reliable sources, WP:PBUH, and WP:UNDUE), or unless the request explores new reasoning that hasn't been discussed previously. Unconstructive complaints or obviously AI-generated requests will also be removed.
|
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Muhammad was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | IMPORTANT NOTICE: Prior community consensus has determined that some images of Muhammad are allowed in the Muhammad article. If you find images of Muhammad offensive, it is possible to Set your browser to not display images of Muhammad. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first. The FAQ addresses common points of discussion and represents prior consensus, including the use of images in the article and the inclusion of honorifics such as "peace be upon him". For further information, see the Arbitration remedy and prior community consensus. |
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequently asked questions, please read before posting
[edit]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):
- Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
- Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
- How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
- Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
- Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
- Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
- Why does it look like the article is biased towards secular or "Western" references?
- Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
- Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
- Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?
- Why was my request or comment removed?
Why is the page promoting a revisionist view rather than a Balanced academic view?
[edit]Hello there,
I am not arguing the historicity of the events themselves, but I believe the page fails to adhere to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) rule in several places, and it could benefit from a more balanced academic perspective. I am asking for a revision of the historical "facts" the article presents, and for a broader range of sources to be used, as well as references to other related pages. There are many scholarly opinions mentioned, but for example, when you quote John Burton and explain his view in detail, and then briefly mention that Karen Armstrong believes that, thanks to the early biographies, we know more about Muhammad than we do about the founders of almost all other major religions, this is not neutral. This gives too much weight to one opinion while passing over others. This is also repeated elsewhere in the article. The page also contains false information. It claims that the earliest sirah is Ibn Ishaq. This is not accurate; Ibn Ishaq’s sirah is not the "earliest known" or "earliest surviving." There are earlier sirahs, such as Musa ibn ʿUqbah, which survives in its entirety, along with others that didn’t survive fully. This should be corrected. In the hadith section, we find claims like: "Hadiths were compiled several generations after his death by Muslims.""The hadiths generally present an idealized view of Muhammad."a) This isn't true, simply put. b) This shows a misunderstanding of what a hadith is. For example, the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih is one of the oldest surviving books of hadith, and it was not written generations later. Hammam was alive at the same time as many of the companions of Muhammad. The claim that the hadiths "idealize" Muhammad is not encyclopedic information; it’s a conclusion with no solid evidence to back it. There are many sahih (authentic) and not sahih (inauthentic) hadiths that do not provide an "idealized view" of Muhammad. For example, here’s a sahih hadith: "Umm Salamah reported the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying: 'I am only a human being, and you bring your disputes to me, some perhaps being more eloquent in their plea than others, so that I give judgement on their behalf according to what I hear from them. Therefore, whatever I decide for anyone which by right belongs to his brother, he must not take anything, for I am granting him only a portion of Hell.'" {Source: https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3583} Additionally, the article claims: "These sources, distrusted by Quranist scholars, are also viewed with suspicion by Western researchers. Western scholars widely believe that there was widespread fabrication of hadith during the early centuries of Islam to support certain theological and legal positions." This shows a lack of understanding of hadith science. Hadith science was specifically designed to detect fabrication. It seems the author of this article overlooked the earlier statement: "Hadiths were classified by Islamic scholars according to their reliability." Furthermore, it’s not just based on the isnad (chain of narrators); they also analyzed the matn (content of the report). This important point is missing. "Although the 'dominant paradigm' of Western scholars is to find their reliability questionable, some have-with caution-regarded them as accurate historical sources. Scholars such as Wilferd Madelung, on the other hand, do not reject the hadiths compiled in later periods, but evaluate them in their historical context. In other words, according to him, they contained clues not from the life of Muhammad, but from the mentality of the period in which they were written." Scholars like Jonathan A.C. Brown, G.H.A. Juynboll, and David A. King generally affirm that collections like Bukhari are authentic, and they accept many hadiths as historically authentic. Now, regarding the following statement: "Sometime later in his life, Muhammad proposed marriage to his cousin and first love, Fakhitah bint Abi Talib. But likely owing to his poverty, his proposal was rejected by her father, Abu Talib, who chose a more illustrious suitor." Let me make this clear: The idea that Muhammad proposed to her before Islam is not backed by authentic hadiths. Additionally, the idea that he was rejected because of poverty is purely speculative, based on the personal opinion of the source and is not backed by any evidence. It’s strange (and ironic) how this article expresses that even sahih reports are inauthentic, yet uses inauthentic sources to support this claim. "Muhammad's demeanor during his moments of inspiration frequently led to allegations from his contemporaries that he was under the influence of a jinn, a soothsayer, or a magician, suggesting that his experiences during these events bore resemblance to those associated with such figures widely recognized in ancient Arabia." Allegations don’t prove something is false. There are always enemies and allegations made against everyone; Nikola Tesla was accused of madness and mystical behavior, Nelson Mandela was accused of corruption, etc. I am not asking for these allegations to be deleted as a possible conclusion, but a more neutral view would be to mention that the Quran responded to these allegations. "Due to the complexity of the experience, Muhammad was initially reluctant to tell others about his revelations; at first, he confided in only a few select family members and friends. According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet. She was followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zayd. As word of Muhammad's revelations continued to spread throughout the rest of his family, they became increasingly divided on the matter, with the youth and women generally believing in him, while most of the men in the elder generations were staunchly opposed." This claim is problematic. It wasn’t due to the complexity of the situation; it was a command in the Quran to start by telling his close relatives. Additionally, it wasn’t that the "men in the elder generations" were all "staunchly opposed." Many, like Abu Talib (though he didn’t believe), protected him, and Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad’s uncle) did believe in him. On the other hand, figures like Abu Lahab were indeed opposed, but this is an oversimplification. The situation was more nuanced. This message is already getting too long, and I am tired, but I hope I was able to convey my point. (There are still many more examples of inaccuracies in the page. I alone am unable to record them all, this is just pointing out what I was able to collect, and I hope revision Neutrality, nuance, diverse opinions and encyclopedic information are introduced into the page.) (Note: When quoting Islamic sources [which I believe the article should do more often] please quote the more authentic sources over others.) [I may not be able to continue conversations about this for a while since I am busy in life] ~2026-91750-2 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- To effectively argue your points, you need to cite reliable sources, like the article does. Your own views about what is true, what is history, what is a simplification, what is problematic, don't mean anything here. You have to (a) cite reliable scholarly sources (not the Quran or Hadith) and (b) explain what you think is wrong with the sources cited in the article. If you are claiming that the article has engaged in WP:FALSEBALANCE, you need to prove that with an analysis of sources, not hand-waving arguments about Muslim tradition. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- By definition, traditional views are never accurate or reliable. Historical revisionism reflects "new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation as they come to light. The process of historical revision is a common, necessary, and usually uncontroversial process which develops and refines the historical record to make it more complete and accurate." "Traditionalist" historians should be disregarded. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with OP and you. Historical revisionism has been and continues to be important; however, it is also subject to "current" ideologies.
- For example compare Abraham or Jesus wiki articles to Muhammad. There is definite selective citations, with other sources being described as discriminatory and dismissed. ~2026-14805-43 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with the OP all you want. So far it's all hand-waving with no scholarly sources. The article cannot be changed unless such sources are brought into the discussion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- By definition, traditional views are never accurate or reliable. Historical revisionism reflects "new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation as they come to light. The process of historical revision is a common, necessary, and usually uncontroversial process which develops and refines the historical record to make it more complete and accurate." "Traditionalist" historians should be disregarded. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Where it stands: what would be needed to get this page back up to GA?
[edit]A few years ago, this page was delisted from Good Article status due to edit warring and a declining quality of sourcing over the years. This is a real shame, since it is obviously one of our most important historical biographies. I was curious what people feel this article needs to make it back up to a higher level.
A few notes from myself
- Sourcing is inconsistently formatted (if we're using SFNs, all books and journal articles should be SFNs)
- A lot of crucial information on dates and the like are cited to Conrad 1987. Is this still the best source available on the subject?
- A large volume of sources is not necessarily helpful in all cases. We have a lot of older books and books published by smaller university presses, but it's such a large volume it seems difficult to manage and fact-check. Is there more we can do with a smaller number of higher-quality sources? Additionally, several sources we cite aren't used at all in the article. Many sources are cited only a single time;
- For instance, it seems strange to cite both the 1977 Cambridge History of Islam when the 2010 New Cambridge History of Islam exists. (We also hardly make use of it at all, which seems like a glaring oversight).
- Why are we citing 1960s and 1970s versions of the Encyclopedia of Islam when more modern versions exist?
- Why are we relying on Glubb 2001, an amateur historian writing in the 70s for a non-academic publisher, 27 times? This is less egregious, but we cite Watt's 1950s and 1960s works dozens of times; surely the scholarship has moved on by now.
- Gabriel 2007 is cited over a dozen times. Now, he is an academic, but he is not a specialist in the time period, as he writes popular histories about military strategy. This can't be the most authoritative source out there on this.
All of this is a common problem that plagues articles which are comprised of many distinct sections by different contributors; they just add cites from whatever they happen to have on them, which is often not the best for a quality article.
I think the most important thing we could to begin is prune sources which we don't need, and try to rely as much as we can on modern (since the 90s at least), authoritative (by specialists in the field, published by major university presses) books. I'd BEBOLD and do this myself, but I want to get feedback from anyone who may see this who knows a thing or two about the state of the academic field right now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Generalissima I had the exact same question. I think we should outline more of Muhammad's historical achievements instead of just his significance in Islam in the lead, and update a lot of the phrasing below because it clearly sounds ESL. UltraCobson (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why we should only rely on Western writers/sources only and exclude the thousands of biographies and history works written in the 21th century such as The Sealed Nectar let alone the other tens of thousands written in previous centuries. Should the sources always get Western approvals to be considered "Acadamic sources"?! ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-15517-17 Well, it's the ENGLISH Wikipedia. English-language sources are always more preferred to use than foreign ones, as shown by the article's FAQ. UltraCobson (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at page 17 of The sealed nectar [1], the author seems to take Biblical or Quranic text about Abraham as historical fact. This indicates that the author is not writing from a historians perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- According to this logic, 90%~ of History's historians aren't actually historians. Just because his work contains elements that you consider to be legendary does not nessascairly mean that it doesn't include any historical facts. ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why we should only rely on Western writers/sources only and exclude the thousands of biographies and history works written in the 21th century such as The Sealed Nectar let alone the other tens of thousands written in previous centuries. Should the sources always get Western approvals to be considered "Acadamic sources"?! ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Grammar Edit
[edit]In the section "Biographical Sources", subsection "Early Biographies", the second paragraph ends with:
"Karen Armstrong believes that —thanks to these early biographical efforts— more is known about Muhammad than almost about the founders of all the other major religions."
I believe the grammar would make more sense if it instead read:
Karen Armstrong believes that —thanks to these early biographical efforts— more is known about Muhammad than about the founders of almost all the other major religions. INSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Fixed. Good catch. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
the idea of Him being the founder of Islam
[edit]He IS NOT the founder of Islam. Islam started long before Him. rather than being the founder of Islam, he completed the revelation. saying that He was the founder of Islam offended Muslim around the world because that’s not what we believed ~2026-18027-46 (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- This article wasn't written to appease Muslims. Read Wikipedia:NPOV UltraCobson (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Why no picture of Muhammad?
[edit]Usually encyclopedias include a picture of the historical figure that is the subject of an article. I understand that this would offend some (but by no means all) Muslims, but Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED, and Wikipedia does not follow any religion WP:NPOV. I suggest we include a depiction of Muhammad. ~2026-17746-35 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Because no reliable historical portrait of him exists? What is the point of displaying a fantasy portrait that has no real bearing on what he actually looked like? The article has numerous depictions of him by various Islamic artists, but the intent is to depict scenes in his life rather than serve as portraits of him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Well, we do have some articles with WP:LEADIMAGE "fantasy portraits" like Arminius, Pontius Pilate, Jesus etc. Sometimes it's the way to go, but the calligraphy has well-debated consensus, so there's no reason to change. If someone wants to start a new rfc, they can, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images was some time ago. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Because no reliable historical portrait of him exists? What is the point of displaying a fantasy portrait that has no real bearing on what he actually looked like? The article has numerous depictions of him by various Islamic artists, but the intent is to depict scenes in his life rather than serve as portraits of him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- The top of the article shows a picture of the most common representation of Muhammad. So what if it's calligraphy? That is how he is most often depicted. I don't see the problem. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- There are several depictions of Muhammad in this article. See also Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, but this is the result of an unfortunate compromise from many years ago. At the time, just getting any pictures of Muhammad in the article was a huge battle. Now that that's been settled, we probably should revisit this last vestige of censorship.—Chowbok ☠ 22:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- The logic for including a calligraphic representation at the top is obvious and not "unfortunate"; it's the most common representation. I doubt that anyone would agree that any specific portrait of Muhammad (such as those shown in depictions of Muhammad) is deemed iconic enough to represent the topic. What we can discuss instead is whether we can have a depiction of Muhammad above the fold but not in the infobox. One of the compromises was to agree that any depiction of Muhammad shouldn't be visible unless the reader scrolls beyond the lead section. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- "What we can discuss instead"... oh really? So you determine what can and cannot be discussed?—Chowbok ☠ 00:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not at all. I'm proposing something that we can revisit that is more likely to involve a change in consensus than changing the lead image to a portrait. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- "What we can discuss instead"... oh really? So you determine what can and cannot be discussed?—Chowbok ☠ 00:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Consensus can change, but I don't think the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images outcome was particularly unfortunate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- The logic for including a calligraphic representation at the top is obvious and not "unfortunate"; it's the most common representation. I doubt that anyone would agree that any specific portrait of Muhammad (such as those shown in depictions of Muhammad) is deemed iconic enough to represent the topic. What we can discuss instead is whether we can have a depiction of Muhammad above the fold but not in the infobox. One of the compromises was to agree that any depiction of Muhammad shouldn't be visible unless the reader scrolls beyond the lead section. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would not oppose a new RfC on this topic. At the very least, the last RfC was in 2012, and one of the benefit of RfCs is that we can have longer discussions, with more detailed and nuanced choices, than is possible on a talk page. Cherrytxrt 📧 20:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Urwa ibn al-Zubayr's letters?!
[edit]I'm a bit surprised that there's no mention of these valuable letters in the biographical sources part of the article, not only because they come from a near-contemporary trustworthy source but also since it's written in the 7th century which clearly refutes the claim that there was no written sources in the first century of Islam as well as the claim that Muhammad's earliest historical source/biography is Ibn Ishaq's work. ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- If you provide a few good modern-ish academic sources that discuss these letters in the context of Muhammad's life/biography, and suggest what content should be added in what section in the article, other editors might get interested and take a look. If you're lucky, that might happen anyway, but likelihood increases if you do the groundwork yourself. Alternatively, you can WP:REGISTER and edit the article yourself after a while. An important question from the WP-pov is to what extent modern historians find him (Urwa ibn al-Zubayr?) trustworthy/interesting regarding biographical whatevers about Muhammad. Urwa_ibn_al-Zubayr#Assessment seems to go into that somewhat. Based on what I read there, it seems he should perhaps at least be mentioned at Historicity of Muhammad. I see he's mentioned in Historiography of early Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sean Anthony is known to have translated the letters and accepted it's authenticity in a recent work(Muhammad and the Empires of Faith: The Making of the Prophet of Islam). ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- [1], page 102 and forward, looks like an ok source to me. That book is actually cited more than once in the article already. What text do you suggest adding to this article, in what section, based on it? Page 103 seems pretty on-topic to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sean Anthony is known to have translated the letters and accepted it's authenticity in a recent work(Muhammad and the Empires of Faith: The Making of the Prophet of Islam). ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
References
- ^ Anthony, Sean (21 April 2020). Muhammad and the Empires of Faith: The Making of the Prophet of Islam. Univ of California Press. pp. 102–105. ISBN 978-0-520-97452-4.
- At very least a separate section of it mentioning it as an Islamic source alongside the Quran, Hadith and Sira in the Biographical sources section. Because the way this section is written gives an indication that there is no written Islamic sources before Ibn Ishaq or the Abbasid Caliphate's rise(~150 years after the Prophet's death). ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok. My knee-jerk reaction to that is that since no other author has a section under Muhammad#Biographical_sources, Urwa ibn al-Zubayr probably shouldn't either. Having him, Quran and Hadith on the same "level" is counter-intuitive to me. But I learned he existed today, other editors may have better informed opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't say that he himself should be mentioned along with the Quran and Hadith but rather his written letters as a separate biographical source alongside these in the Biographical sources section, if you find this hard for you then the least possible thing is a mention of his valuable letters in the Sira(Early biographies) part of the Biographical sources section especially since it's known that he was one of the main fathers of this literature who later Sira writers like Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq would heavily rely on. ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok. My knee-jerk reaction to that is that since no other author has a section under Muhammad#Biographical_sources, Urwa ibn al-Zubayr probably shouldn't either. Having him, Quran and Hadith on the same "level" is counter-intuitive to me. But I learned he existed today, other editors may have better informed opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- At very least a separate section of it mentioning it as an Islamic source alongside the Quran, Hadith and Sira in the Biographical sources section. Because the way this section is written gives an indication that there is no written Islamic sources before Ibn Ishaq or the Abbasid Caliphate's rise(~150 years after the Prophet's death). ~2026-15517-17 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Commons FP
[edit]
This devotional 18th century portrait of Muhammad, of possible late Mughal origin, was featured on commons recently, where I had nominated it in the Islamic art gallery. Ordinarily, when an image like this is featured, I add it to the relevant article. On this article, I am making a talk page post prior to doing so. I believe it would be appropriate in the Muhammad#Isra' and Mi'raj section or another appropriate place. I am not aware if there has been any prior discussion regarding this. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion on adding it to this article, but consider the Buraq and Depictions of Muhammad articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is there another appropriate place that doesn't already have an image? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2026
[edit] | It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Muhammad. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
REQUEST 1 — First revelation section
Location: Section "Beginnings of the Quran", after the paragraph ending "...Khadija thus told him to rejoice as she concluded it was not shayatin but an angel visiting him."
Change: Add the following paragraph:
"These accounts of the first revelation derive primarily from narrations transmitted through Aisha in Sahih al-Bukhari and related collections. Twelver Shia Muslim scholars have historically questioned several elements of this account on theological grounds, arguing that the description of Muhammad fearing for his sanity, requiring external validation from a Christian scholar, and contemplating suicide during the interruption of revelation is incompatible with the Shia doctrine of ismah (the full infallibility of prophets in all matters). In Twelver theology, the prophets are understood to be divinely prepared for their mission from before birth and cannot genuinely doubt the divine nature of their experience. Shia scholars have argued that these specific narrations reflect a later tradition inconsistent with the Quranic portrait of prophetic steadfastness.[1][2] Mainstream Sunni scholarship regards these narrations as authentically transmitted and argues that the Prophet's responses at the moment of first revelation reflect the overwhelming nature of the divine encounter rather than doubt about his mission.[3]"
Reason: The article currently presents the Sunni hadith account of the first revelation without acknowledging that Twelver Shia Islam (representing approximately 10–15% of Muslims globally) holds significant theological objections to specific elements of this account. The addition is neutrally framed, attributes all claims to their respective scholarly traditions, and provides sources from peer-reviewed academic publications.
REQUEST 2 — Aisha's age
Location: Section "Household", the sentence reading "According to classical sources, Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6–7 years old; the marriage was consummated later, when she was 9 years old and he was 53 years old."
Change X to Y: Change:
"According to classical sources, Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6–7 years old; the marriage was consummated later, when she was 9 years old and he was 53 years old."
To:
"According to narrations recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, transmitted primarily through Hisham ibn Urwah on the authority of his father Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6–7 years old and the marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old and he was 53 years old. This figure has been accepted by the majority of classical Sunni scholars and many Western academic historians. However, a body of revisionist scholarship (including work by Muslim scholars such as Maulana Muhammad Ali and Habib ur Rahman Kandhalvi, as well as several Western academics) has questioned the reliability of these specific narrations, noting that Hisham ibn Urwah transmitted them exclusively after relocating to Iraq late in his life, and that no Medinan scholar who had direct access to the same sources transmitted the same account.[4] Alternative chronological calculations based on Aisha's age relative to her sister Asma bint Abi Bakr and other biographical data have led some scholars to propose that she was significantly older at the time of marriage.[5]"
Reason: The current phrasing presents one contested chain of transmission as established fact without acknowledging the significant scholarly debate surrounding it. The Hisham ibn Urwah transmission problem is noted by mainstream Western scholars including Spellberg. The proposed wording maintains the traditional account while accurately representing the state of scholarly debate, consistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
REQUEST 3 — See also section (revised)
Location: See also section
Change: Add the following entry to the see also list:
Reason: The article covers Muhammad's life primarily through the lens of Sunni hadith sources. The existing Wikipedia article Muhammad in Islam covers theological perspectives on the Prophet's nature and mission including Shia theological positions, and serves readers seeking broader Islamic theological context beyond the biographical account in the main article.
Muneebfr (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
References
- ^ Tabatabai, Sayyid Muhammad Hossein (1975). Shi'ite Islam. State University of New York Press. pp. 172–175.
- ^ Momen, Moojan (1985). An Introduction to Shi'i Islam. Yale University Press. pp. 147–150.
- ^ Brown, Jonathan A.C. (2009). Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. OneWorld Publications. pp. 175–185. ISBN 9781851686636.
- ^ Spellberg, Denise A. (1996). Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr. Columbia University Press. pp. 39–40. ISBN 978-0-231-07999-0.
- ^ Ahmed, Leila (1992). Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. Yale University Press. pp. 48–52. ISBN 9780300049428.
Of these requests:
- Thinking about it. I or someone else would have to look further into this. I am not sure this is an appropriate place to go into detail about doctrinal differences.
Not done. Why on earth would we add lengthy explanations of revisionist scholarship to this biography article? This should be covered already in other articles, such as Aisha or Criticism of Muhammad.- Not done. Muhammad in Islam is already prominently linked; it's the first link under the Legacy section. Generally things already linked in the article body aren't linked again in "see also".
~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- for request 1, I feel as if it may be necessary, as both Shia and Sunni Islam have essentially completely different views of Muhammad's manner of receiving revelation, his companions, a few traces of his conduct, and even his status as a literate or illiterate person. These changes have to be reflected because they represent the views of a vast collection of sources and traditions that are parallel to Sunni sources, even if not as mainstream, they do represent the views of over 200 million people worldwide and over 1400 years of scholarship. Muneebfr (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- There's no way that Shias make 15% of the Muslim worldwide population, 10% at very best. And Aisha's age deserves more mention than Ghadir Khumm since it's not only mentioned in arguably the oldest written Muslim source(Urwa's letters) unlike Ghadir Khumm which is the first mention of is much more later(Musnad Ahmad), but also her young age is a massive blow to Shia Islam and the claim that Ali is more deserving of the Caliphate than Abu Bakr. ~2026-21315-97 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- The Shia Islam article cites several sources saying that Shia Muslims constitute an estimated 10-13% of the world's Muslim population. 15% isn't too far off. My reluctance to implement the requested change is rooted in a concern about whether this biography article should be delving into differences in doctrine, when the article is about Muhammad, not his wives or beliefs about him. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- Islam has different views within its own denominations. The key concern is that these denominations get their due representation, instead of framing it as "doctrinal differences", it needs to be understood as eg. "Muhammad's first revelation happened like this in one perspective, and like this in another", because Wikipedia maintains its need to be encylopaedic and neutral, not mentioning the contrasting/different perspective within Islam robs Wikipedia of that privilege. Muneebfr (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- This reply makes no sense in terms of the topic at hand. Not only is it a biased, one-dimensional response, it is completely misinformed. Ghadir Khumm hasn't even been mentioned in this conversation, I see no reason to refer to it here. Muneebfr (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- it's mentioned in the article. ~2026-21315-97 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I was talking about the conversation, not the article. Refrain from making unnecessary comments. Muneebfr (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- it's mentioned in the article. ~2026-21315-97 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- The Shia Islam article cites several sources saying that Shia Muslims constitute an estimated 10-13% of the world's Muslim population. 15% isn't too far off. My reluctance to implement the requested change is rooted in a concern about whether this biography article should be delving into differences in doctrine, when the article is about Muhammad, not his wives or beliefs about him. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- There's no way that Shias make 15% of the Muslim worldwide population, 10% at very best. And Aisha's age deserves more mention than Ghadir Khumm since it's not only mentioned in arguably the oldest written Muslim source(Urwa's letters) unlike Ghadir Khumm which is the first mention of is much more later(Musnad Ahmad), but also her young age is a massive blow to Shia Islam and the claim that Ali is more deserving of the Caliphate than Abu Bakr. ~2026-21315-97 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)