Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMuhammad was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 2, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
May 14, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
September 10, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 19, 2012.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, June 8, 2006, and June 8, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article


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):

  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?
  11. Why was my request or comment removed?

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@~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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"What we can discuss instead"... oh really? So you determine what can and cannot be discussed?—Chowbok ☠ 00:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think something like the infobox of the Ali article (a calligraphic representation followed by a depiction) may be worth discussing in an RfC. If there were consensus for that, then a discussion on which specific depiction may be worth infobox can take place. Though there are unlikely to be depictions of Muhammad that are as iconic as those of Ali, since Shia Muslims have a long and robust tradition of depicting Ali but the same is not true of Muhammad. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Shia Muslims have no issue with depictions of Muhammad like Sunnis have, so there's probably something iconic. However, I fully expect that any discussion about which non-calligraphic depiction of Muhammad is most suitable would be an endless debate with no resolution. That's why we ended up with the calligraphic depiction the last time we went through this. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Probably for the same reason why Trump will make a shitpost portraying himself as Jesus but not as Muhammad. ~2026-27390-96 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commons FP

[edit]
c. 18th century portrait of Muhammad riding the buraq steed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Is there another appropriate place that doesn't already have an image? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UnpetitproleX: You can add it to the article, the opposition against images of Mohammed here isn't due to any serious Wikipedia policy debate but rather just a lot of IP accounts, who presumably find this article from the several news articles on "Wikipedia's refusal to remove Mohammed images" or some popular Muslim Facebook group, spamming the same crap for the last 20 years instead of reading the FAQ. OmegaAOLtalk? 15:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2026

[edit]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tabatabai, Sayyid Muhammad Hossein (1975). Shi'ite Islam. State University of New York Press. pp. 172–175.
  2. ^ Momen, Moojan (1985). An Introduction to Shi'i Islam. Yale University Press. pp. 147–150.
  3. ^ Brown, Jonathan A.C. (2009). Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. OneWorld Publications. pp. 175–185. ISBN 9781851686636.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ 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:

  1. 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.
  2.  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.
  3.  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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
it's mentioned in the article. ~2026-21315-97 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the conversation, not the article. Refrain from making unnecessary comments. Muneebfr (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Just marking the edit request closed for the backlog while discussion continues here. InfernoHues (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"God's Messenger (ﷺ)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect God's Messenger (ﷺ) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 5 § The character ﷺ until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2026

[edit]

Muhammad saw is not founder of Islam. care to remove it thanks. ~2026-28365-99 (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #6. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PBUH or SAW

[edit]

Shouldn't we add PBUH or SAW out of respect for Muslim readers? ~2026-28900-03 (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Sigmaist and I find that acronym highly offensive. Please cease using it out of respect to me. ~2026-29379-29 (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. — Czello (music) 20:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remove pictures about Prophet S.A.W

[edit]

wikipedia must remove all pictures picturing Prophet peace be upon him.Islam dont allow to make a picture of any prophet rather the leader and the seal of all prophets.Actually Islam prohibits to make a picture of anyone.This is the rule.Also for the Prophet pbuh its also a the blasphamy.As the picture is not upto the status of the Prophet s.a.w. Secodnly whenever you mention Prophet s.a.w with name , wikipedia must mention Prophet /Hazrat for reverence and with the name s.a.w/pbuh i.e peace be upon him must be written. ~2026-30215-31 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, see the FAQ at the top of this page and also see WP:PBUH. Wikipedia is not obliged to follow Islamic rules, and even then these rules are applied inconsistently across Islam. — Czello (music) 07:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a drive-by anonymous complaint that could have been reverted on sight. See FAQ #11. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2026

[edit]

Muhammad did not found islam he is just a prophet ~2026-30537-06 (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2026 (2)

[edit]

During his infancy, he was cared for by his mother, but later, according to the custom of the Arabs, he was sent to the desert to be nursed and raised by Halima al-Sa'diyya, where he would grow in a pure linguistic and natural environment. While living in the desert, an extraordinary event took place. As he was playing with other children, an angel came to him, and his chest was opened in a manner beyond human understanding. His heart was purified and then returned. The children who were with him became frightened and informed Halima. After this incident, she became concerned for his safety and eventually returned him to his mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khadija Uznain (talk • contribs) 07:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, this has some coverage at Muhammad_in_Islam#Biography. Also, you have not made any request. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=1357139056"