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.

The "recognition" of Muhammad in the Sikh faith

[edit]

The statement "Muhammad is honored in Sikhism as a divine messenger" lacks a proper citation. Additionally, it is misleading and false because while Muhammad is indeed recognized as the central religious figure for the Muslims, his divinity in the Islamic canon is not equivalent to his treatment in the Sikh canon.

In other words, while Muhammad is honored as a messenger of God in Islam, this view is simply not shared in Sikhi. Moreover, the role of God's "messenger" or "representative" in Sikhi is performed by the Guru and since Muhammad is not recognized as equivalent to any of the Sikh Gurus, the statement is therefore false.

In effect, I propose removing this statement or at the very least, adding a "citation needed" at the end of the sentence to let the reader know of the disputed nature of this claim.

Also in the "Other religions" subsection under the "Legacy" section, the statement "Muhammad Sahib is honored by Sikhs as one of the divine messengers sent to mankind, along with Moses, Jesus and others." is also misleading. While this statement does cite pages 1-2 from Sikhism Today by Sikh scholar Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, it has seemingly neglected the entire context of the passage. I have pasted the following excerpt from the same pages that note the entire context below:

"Sikhs can accept that the central figures of other faiths, such as Krishna, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, were messengers of God with a divine mission. However, they do not accept the authority of any of the scriptures from other religions, looking instead for enlightenment and guidance from the Guru, which is manifested in the Guru Granth Sahib (GGS), the holy book of the Sikhs. Sikhs also do not believe that God takes a human form and hence reject the idea of, for example, the divinity of Jesus Christ or the gods or avatars of Hinduism. The word Sikh is derived from the Sanskrit word Shishya, which means a ‘disciple’ or ‘learner’. This embodies the mindset of Sikhs, who are on a continual quest towards enlightenment." (Jhutti-Johal, J. (2011). Sikhism today. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 1–2)

While some works of Muhammad (like certain concepts from the Quran) are indeed honored and revered in the Sikh faith as references to God's own will, it's still false that Muhammad himself is "honored" in the Sikh faith.

For these reasons, I propose that these misleading statements be removed to avoid confusing readers about how Muhammad is viewed in the Sikh faith. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "citation needed" template to the statement. If nobody can back it up, we can delete it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the lead section is to provide an overview of the article body, and that sentence attempted to provide an overview of what the article says about Sikhism later on. I looked at that part, checked the source, made a revision, and then revised the sentece in the lead. Muhammad is viewed with respect or even reverence by a couple of Sikh leaders including the founder, that's all. A citation isn't needed for a summary overview sentence because the citations are already in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Muhammad is viewed with respect or even reverence by a couple of Sikh leaders including the founder, that's all."
This statement in itself is misleading because Sikh theology admits faith to only God and rejects intermediary figures like "prophets", "angels", etc. as creations from man so while certain passages from religious texts and writings may praise the wisdom in works commonly attributed to Muhammad, this praise should not be equated to reverence.
Even the cited excerpt uses the word "can" to imply that Sikhs have the option to view such figures, who are indeed outside of the direct religious canon, with "respect" but it would be misleading to state that all Sikhs "revere" these figures. It's an admittedly nuanced difference but this is important because I'm not a fan of this mischaracterization.
"Sikhs can accept that the central figures of other faiths, such as Krishna, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, were messengers of God with a divine mission." (Sikhism Today, Page 1).
In any case, I looked over your changes and while it certainly reads better, there are some issues worth addressing:
"Muhammad Sahib is honored by Sikhs as one of the divine messengers sent to mankind, along with Moses, Jesus and others.[393] Guru Granth Sahib, the holiest book of Sikhism, states that a true Muslim who follows the faith of Muhammad would put aside the "delusion of death and life."[394] The founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, is specifically said to have praised Muhammad as a source of divine experience having a personal influence on his life, as stated in the janamsakhi of Bhai Bala.[395]"
This line would imply that the Sikh views Abrahamic figures like Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, etc. as "divine messengers" which is incorrect. A more apt interpretation would be that the Sikh views these as figures who performed actions in the name of God and that's it. The phrase "divine messengers" is giving me considerable pause because most (if not all) Sikhs do not infact view any Abrahamic figures with any sense of divinity. The role of divine figures is uniquely reserved for the Gurus alone.
A more apt edit might look something like this:
"In Sikhi, serveral of the Gurus viewed Muhammad as a man of God. This can be seen in several historical Sikh texts, such as the JanamSakhi of Bhai Bala, where it is written that Guru Nanak Dev praised Muhammad's connection with God. Similarly, in the Bachittar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh notes that Muhammad was known as a man of great faith in God. Lastly, the Guru Granth Sahib uses Muhammad as well as quotes from the Quran to reference to God's strength, stating in Raag Majh that a true Muslim is one who is merciful to all beings and one who would put aside the delusion of life and death to accept God's will." AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my previous comment, I would also add that the statement in the fourth paragraph of the page:
"...Muhammad has received praise in Sikhism as an inspirational figure..." ought to be changed to
"...Muhammad has received praise in Sikhi for his faith in God...".
The term "inspirational figure" is not an accurate reflection as to how Muhammad is viewed in the Sikh ethos. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2025

[edit]

Need to correct spelling of Kinana to Kenana Ng565 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ng565 Done, thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to edit and add source

[edit]

“Muhammad was born in Mecca to the aristocratic Banu Hashim clan of the Quraysh”. Muhammad’s birthplace being in Mecca is not considered historical fact. His birthplace is considered unknown by modern historical methods. Islamic religious texts citing Muhammad’s birthplace, although having religious significance to some, are not considered historically reliable. Please add “according to Islam” and cite relevant Islamic texts. Shikafish (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That you haven't cited any scholarship yourself bears pointing out. Did you check the secular, scholarly sources already plainly cited after the claim before posting this? Remsense 🌈 论 00:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I will direct us to some scholarship that backs up my point. I think Dr Joshua Little’s work is a good starting point. If you’re able to follow a link here, I’d suggest going to: https://islamicorigins.com/a-bibliography-on-the-origins-of-hadith/
and scroll down to “[@1:39:24] PART 1: Critical Scholarship” for a list of sources critiquing the historicity of Hadith in particular (of which is the basis of claims Muhammad was born in Mecca).
The following Wikipedia page presents some of views of modern historical scholars generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad
For a list of scholars or historians that specifically claim we cannot know that Muhammad was born in Mecca (based on the historical unreliability of Hadith and Sira): Patricia Crone, John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, Henri Lammens, Régis Blachère, John Burton, Wim Raven, Lawrence Conrad, Tom Holland and others.
Quotes from select scholars of historical unreliability of sources claiming Muhammad was born in Mecca:
Sira Literature: Early biographies (e.g., Ibn Ishaq as preserved by Ibn Hisham) narrate the Prophet's life in exclusivist terms.
"Scholars must always approach this material with 'skeptical caution rather than optimistic trust'" (Sean Anthony, Muhammad, 235).
Hadith Collections: Authenticated sayings of the Prophet often emphasize unique Islamic rites.
"There now prevails an almost universal Western skepticism on the reliability of all reports [Hadith]" (F.E. Peters Quest for Historical Muhammad, 302)

The last two centuries of critical scholarship on islamic origins has exposed a legion of problems with the Islamic literary sources thereon, above all in the Hadith corpus. (Joshua Little, Prospects) - goes on to list 21 problems.
Tafsir and Early Muslim Historiographies: Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn al-Athir, and others wrote commentaries on the Qur'an histories which highlight conflicts with non-Muslims.
"Tafsir is less a historical record that stretches back (parallel to the Qur'än itself) to the time of the Qur 'än's origins, and more the product of individual scholars (of a later time] and the (much later) context in which they worked." (Gabriel Reynolds, The Qur'än and Its Biblical Subtext, 228)
The claim in the “Muhammad” Wikipedia page regarding sira “Many scholars accept these early biographies as authentic” cites Nigosian, Solomon A. (2004). “many” scholars is not consensus, as there are “many” scholars that take the opposite view. In fact the consensus by modern scholarship looks to be that the sources suggesting Muhammad was born in Mecca are not reliable from a historical standpoint.
If Wikipedia is claiming this as historical fact then surely modern secular scholarship must be cited relating to this specific claim being historical fact? And in this case as I’ve hopefully shown above, it is not considered historical fact that Mohammed was born in Mecca, therefore there should be a rewording in the Wikipedia article. Shikafish (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting this all together, to be clear I came into this appreciating the nature of your concern – i.e. that the only sources we have for information about Muhammad's early life are the Quran, sunnah and hadith. I am in total agreement that the nature of these sources fundamentally requires scholars attempting to extract data about historical events from them to exercise a particular degree of care and skepticism.
In short, while the above is certainly true, what that scrutiny should entail depends on the particular claims being evaluated. From what I understand, no scholars I've read on this have expressed reasons for concern regarding this particular claim. Some characterize Mecca as merely the "probable" birthplace of Muhammad, but I haven't come across any arguing that the issues inherent to the tradition should lead us to conclude he was likely born elsewhere – either because the sources likely didn't have access to that information in the first place, or that they had clear incentives to establish Mecca as his birthplace over another location.
Something like according to tradition is a level of qualification I haven't seen in sources, never mind it being consensus. It would thus likely mislead readers concerning the degree of doubt scholars have about this. It's possible we could insert a "probably", possibly with a footnote, but I doubt even that could possibly be a better representation of our sources atm. Remsense 🌈 论 16:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2025

[edit]

dear editor 

please add "Sallallahu alaihi wasallam" (صلى الله عليه وسلم) after the name of Muhammad (SAW). 103.55.146.170 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoldRomean (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Q5 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Wikipedia does not use honorifics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of name

[edit]

Please add Holy Prophet Muhammad PBUH with His name instead of just Muhammad, because a greatest lawgiver should be treated with intense respect. 39.43.147.98 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, please see WP:PBUH — Czello (music) 18:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in lead

[edit]

The current lead has a sentence with poor wording, to the extent that it becomes wrong. It says "He is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets in Islam". I assume that what is meant, and what it should say, is "Muslims believe him to be the Seal of the Prophets". These do not mean the same. The former mean that everyone, regardless of religious views, would believe him to be the Seal of the Prophets in Islam. This is wrong for everyone; non-Muslims do not believe it, and Muslims believe him to be the Seal of the Prophets (not just in Islam but overall). I suggest changing the sentence. Jeppiz (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”Muslims believe…” is certainly better/clearer. Having said that, I think it’s overstated to interpret the current wording as you have. I think it’s reasonably clear that what’s meant is “In Islam, he is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets“ DeCausa (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of changing it thusly. But the previous sentence starts with "According to Islam". I think the current text is clear. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Jeppiz, having just re-read it I take back what I said. I think you're right. I'll change it. DeCausa (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

نصرمحمدمحمدالنمشه100سعوديتحويل دولية{{DEFAULTSORT:رقم الحواله <sup>2025/7/12</sup>}}{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—185.80.44.239 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try again? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2025

[edit]

In the "External links" section, please consider adding:

Note: I am the author of this blog post and I understand this may be considered a conflict of interest. The post is a respectful, non-promotional reflection intended to complement readers' understanding. I leave it to editors' discretion whether it fits the article’s external link criteria. Tahirdot (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahirdot Welcome, and thanks for asking. Per WP:NOBLOGS, no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 31 July 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]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2025

[edit]

I request that the phrase "ﷺ" (Peace Be Upon Him) or "PHUB" be added after the name "Muhammad" wherever appropriate, especially in general mentions throughout the article, to reflect respect as is common in Islamic writing.

Additionally, I suggest that in certain headlines or specific sections, the word "Prophet" be added before "Muhammad" (e.g., "Prophet Muhammad ﷺ") for clarity and respect, particularly when discussing religious or biographical content.

Thank you. 2409:40C2:D:4CC9:61E9:E80E:5DDB:4AB1 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See FAQ 5. —C.Fred (talk) 12:39, 3 August 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]