Talk:Muhammad

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
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?

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.

Why infobox native name bold?

[edit]

Idk why but the native name in the infobox is in bold, though the Nobold template is used? Could we somehow fix this? Nurken (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a couple things and couldn't get it to work, anyone more technically proficient than me (i.e. almost anyone else) want to take a look? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MASS CONFUSION (need to be corrected)

[edit]

From Verse 6 of Chapter Al-Ahzab on the Quran, mentioned is the Prophet who is known to have a wife and children. There is a confusion with the history of Muhammad and the Prophet. I know for a fact that the prophet is a different person and as mentioned in Quran Muhammad is the SEAL of prophets not THE PROPHET who is mentioned on chapter Al Ahzab. This history is very misleading and needs to be reflected upon and fixed immediately. 141.168.128.95 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And he is born in modern times not in the past but has capabilities to travel through time in spirit. 141.168.128.95 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you rather the article say? Do any reliable sources agree with you on this? Qifzer (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only stating that there is a mass confusion, the Quran doesn’t mention Muhammad as the Prophet often but only states him as the seal of Prophets and a messenger. His story is divinely protected as his a happening in the modern 21st century world. 49.184.102.24 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Quran in English only states Muhammad as the O Muhammad parts in the book.
there’s a one official source which is Quran and it states the truth but people have confused themselves with prophet and the Muhammad who is a seal, consider the verse. Muhammad is the SEAL of prophets. Meaning he is the SEAL not the prophet necessarily. 49.184.102.24 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked for reliable sources that agree with you. Scholarly sources, not your own interpretation of the Quran. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Quran a reliable source ? Because I have one to proof,
Holy Quran 33:30
------------------
يَا نِسَاءَ النَّبِيِّ مَن يَأْتِ مِنكُنَّ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُّبَيِّنَةٍ يُضَاعَفْ لَهَا الْعَذَابُ ضِعْفَيْنِ ۚ وَكَانَ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرًا
O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality - for her the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy.
and then it states soon after that Muhammad should take for himself a wife out of them because he is and was SINGLE.
Holy Quran 33:51
------------------
۞ تُرْجِي مَن تَشَاءُ مِنْهُنَّ وَتُؤْوِي إِلَيْكَ مَن تَشَاءُ ۖ وَمَنِ ابْتَغَيْتَ مِمَّنْ عَزَلْتَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكَ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَن تَقَرَّ أَعْيُنُهُنَّ وَلَا يَحْزَنَّ وَيَرْضَيْنَ بِمَا آتَيْتَهُنَّ كُلُّهُنَّ ۚ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَلِيمًا
You, [O Muhammad], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated - there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them - all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing. 49.199.252.165 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I repeat again, you were asked scholarly sources, not your own interpretation of the Quran. The Quran is a primary source. We cannot quote a passage and provide an interpretation of it without citing a reliable secondary source. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I’m providing official primary source of the Quran . What would be a secondary source ? 49.199.65.254 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source would be scholarly interpretation as opposed to relying on our personal opinions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I am presenting the primary source and the content of it clearly explains my point that o Prohphet and Muhammad is different 141.168.128.95 (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're making a point and you claim your point is supported by the Quran, then that is your interpretation. Propose the text you want the article to say, supported by a citation to a scholarly source, not to a primary source. We are not going to cite the Quran to support assertions about religious beliefs. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to religious texts / mythological writings / things of that nature, we can't use primary sources, as there is inherently a level of interpretation there. We need to use indepdendent, academic, reliable sources. — Czello (music) 06:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of Polygyny?

[edit]

"Muhammad received revelation allowing Muslim men to have up to four wives each, marking the beginning of polygyny in Islam"

But polygyny in Islam itself state that polygyny existed before islam? 2A02:A03F:AC7C:9E01:B899:51EC:E4D6:3555 (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But did polygyny in Islam exist before the revelation? DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could be mistaken but is there any evidence that only monogamy was allowed in islam before? I could not find anything. 2A02:A03F:AC7C:9E01:39E8:9F55:834:9115 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, polygyny in Islam didn't exist before the revelation because no religion known as "Islam" existed before the revelation.
Throughout history, new religions have adapted to the cultural norms and practices of the day. Such is probably the case here, with the revelations "permitting" that which was already common practice. Similar things happen with holidays, such as the Christian holidays of Easter and Christmas being adapted to seasonal celebrations that already existed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The revelation in question (as linked) in the text quoted by the OP is An-Nisa, not "the revelation" in general. So what my question was addressing was whether it was known what the position on polygony before An-Nisa (but after Muhammad began preaching). The OP has misread the article text as saying the revelation marked the beginning of polygony among the Arabs that converted to Islam. Whereas it actually refers to An-Nisa being the beginning of polygyny in Islamic teaching. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this article is highly biased and doesn't match Wikipedias supposed neutrality

[edit]

Take for example this line: "After enduring a year of unrelenting thefts and terror attacks from the Muslims following the siege, the people of Taif, known as the Banu Thaqif, finally reached a tipping point and acknowledged that embracing Islam was the most sensible path for them.[297][298][299]"

The phrase “unrelenting thefts and terror attacks” is highly loaded and modern-sounding. Classical Islamic sources describe raids and skirmishes typical of 7th-century Arabian warfare, not “terrorism” as understood today. These actions were part of the conflict and resistance rather than organized “terror attacks.” So, describing the Muslim military campaigns as “terror attacks” reflects a modern, politically charged interpretation rather than a neutral historical term.

The conversion is historically accepted but likely resulted from a mix of military pressure, political realities, and social negotiation. It’s not universally framed as simply “the most sensible path,” but as a pragmatic choice amid changing power dynamics.

I suggest reviewing the language used in this article. 2001:8F8:153D:275C:D831:EC3:E5F8:57DD (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that describing the attacks as "terror" attacks is making a judgement. I've changed it to just "attacks", as that seems a more neutral way of describing them.—Chowbok ☠ 22:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What wording did the sources use here? Cortador (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If one reads the talk archives, there was a user who was topic-banned from Islam for POV-pushing last year and used some seriously contested sources on this article. The three footnotes you mention are Rodgers, Rodinson, and Gabriel, which are author names central to the disputes; there are still remnants of the POV editing in the article. I did some overhauls in portions of the article a while ago, but didn't get to all of it. If possible, one idea would be to propose a change to the narration supported by a better source. Left guide (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the page stats as of today, 32.6% of this article is still attributable to that particular editor, who is also credited with being second on number of edits to the page. It's a complex thing to unpick all that. Not sure what the answer is. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a consensus that the Rodgers source should not be cited. It's a fringe source that makes extraordinary claims that are not supported by other sources, in spite of being published by a university press. The multiple discussions we had on it prompted me to write the WP:UPRESS essay, in which lists other unreliable sources published by university presses. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Our point of reference ought to be sources that accord with the outlook of modern Muslim scholarship on the Prophet, including figures such as Fazlur Rahman, Tariq Ramadan, Mubarakpuri, Ahmad Barakat, and others. Not the writings of modern Christian or atheist authors such as Rodinson and Watt, nor publications from Western universities that do not acknowledge Islam as a true religion revealed by God. Although they may cite authentic hadiths and the Prophet’s sīrah, they fail to recognise that even hadiths regarded as sahih (most reliable) may still be open to error. For example, the reports concerning the Prophet marrying Aisha at the age of six and consummating the marriage at nine have been rigorously re-examined and dismissed by many contemporary Muslim scholars. Māshā’ Allāh. KhalidbinYusuf (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your views are wholly contrary to Wikipedia's WP:Reliable sources policy. If you want to read a hagiography of Muhammad, there are plenty of Muslim websites where you can do so. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a secular encyclopedia. It is secular because favoring no particular religion results in greater reliability. Therefore, we prefer secular sources if possible. Regarding the age of Aisha, the consummation at 9 years old was accepted by Muslims for centuries, and only recently revisionist views have arisen in response to manufactured modern moral outrage. This is covered thoroughly in Aisha; perhaps you should read it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with Watt? And what Wikipedia policy or guideline requires a publication to acknowledge Islam as a true religion revealed by God in order to qualify as a reliable source? Left guide (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that many so‑called “authentic” hadiths cited by Western non‑Muslim “historians” are the very ones often quoted by Islamophobes to attack Islam. Yet many hadiths once deemed genuine by past scholars, when re‑examined by modern Islamic scholars, have been shown to be weak or fabricated. If your own mother were insulted on the basis of accusations later proven false, would you accept it? That is how we feel when you insult our beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. KhalidbinYusuf (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that many modern Western scholars do not seem "concerned" about whether the hadiths they cite are authentic or not. What’s even more disappointing is that their works are treated as the only “reliable sources” here in Wikipedia. Because of this, I’ve recently stopped editing Islamic articles there, since the truly authentic hadiths—found only in primary sources—are not accepted as references. Selenne (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then suggest some improvements that cite better scholarly sources. Airing complaints is not constructive. One possible improvement would be to remove any claims cited to Rodgers, Rodinson, and Gabriel, starting with Rodgers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I have already read part of that book by Rodgers published by the University Press of Florida.
The first problem is that this is a publication from a country that often wages war against Muslim nations, labels Muslims as terrorists, and supports Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. I therefore propose that any book published by American universities and their allies be excluded from articles about Islam, since their motives from the outset are clearly not good.
The second problem is that the book cites hadiths and the Islamic sīrah to support its claims, but did the author consult Muslim scholars first about the context? Are the “authentic” hadiths they cite truly authentic? Even then, those hadiths are only the ones recognized by Sunni Muslims, not necessarily by other denominations such as the Ahmadiyya or Shia.
I recommend a complete overhaul of all Islamic articles: removing non‑Muslim sources and narratives, replacing them with sources from modern Muslim scholars and Islamic websites, and ensuring they are written by genuine Muslims. Since this is an article about the Prophet of Islam, it is only proper that it be written by Muslims. KhalidbinYusuf (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of your arguments are invalid and anathema to the purpose of Wikipedia. We use reliable sources, period. Muslim sources can be unreliable too, and would be non-neutral. Secular (non-religious) sources are less likely to have a stake in the topic, they have no conflict of interest, they approach the topic with historical and not religious interest, and therefore would be more trusted to write neutrally about this subject. If you think non-Muslim sources in general should be removed from Islamic topics, then get a consensus on WP:RSN that they are unreliable and should be removed. This page is off-topic for such discussions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Looks like the user has taken up your RSN proposal offer at WP:RSN#Reforming the Sources of Islamic Articles, in case you or anyone else watching this page is interested. Left guide (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here from RSN, I feel like that was a little like telling the user where they may find the beans to stuff up their nose and a venue to do so in, but I do see Anachronist has already provided the only advice that can be provided anyway. If the editor wants to write a Muslim-written Muslim encyclopedia, well, I think that might be quite interesting reading, but said encyclopedia would not be Wikipedia, which has all articles written by wikipedia editors.
Wiki software is free though, and one can do what one wishes with it. In fact, there seems to be two whole Wikia/Fandom wikis about Islam. I'm sure one of them would welcome articles about all aspects of Islam written by Genuine Muslims, and if not, it would seem easy enough to start another one, either there or on another Wikifarm.
Otherwise, find "better scholarly sources and put them in", as Anachronist mentions, is the only valid advice editing here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rodgers is problematic as has been discussed ad nauseum in recent archives. But we shouldn't be using that to make blanket characterizations across a trait not inherently tied to reliability such as "Western" or "Christian/atheist author" or "American university" sources because of one bad apple, or at least there is no project-wide consensus to treat sources in arbitrary sets that way. Left guide (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that Wikipedia prefers independent sources for the reasons given in the WP:IS summary:

Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because these sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy.

Left guide (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

[edit]

Muhammad is not the founder of islam. Muhammad is simply the last prophet of islam. Islam existed way before Muhammad. Islam existed since Allah created the world. And Adam is the first prophet, Muhammad is the last. 102.218.28.123 (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This gives disproprtionate weight to the Muslim POV rather than a more objective reading of history. — Czello (music) 11:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In English, the word Islam specifically refers to Muhammad and his followers and does not include any of his predecessors. He is thus, by definition, the founder of Islam. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

historically attested spelling in English

[edit]

The most historically attested spelling in English texts, Moham(m)ed, is used multiple times in the article, but the intro does not mention it, except for a note linked from the intro itself Ulisse0 (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the WP:LEAD should, the current note for other spellings is a good solution. In this article, "Muhammad" should be used outside quotes and titles of works that use different spellings, so I just "corrected" a couple. There is also the Muhammad (name) article. If you want to argue that we have the wrong WP:COMMONNAME, that's a different discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]