Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nons3r (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 8 August 2014 (→‎Infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Pbneutral

Good articleMuhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
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
Current status: Good article

Error: The code letter muh-im for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Edit page title request

Please Edit the page title from Muhammad to Muhammad Paigambar. talk

Gharaneegh in the newly published secular scholarly sources

The current text only reflects a specific point of view and states it as a fact:

Muhammad, desperately hoping for an accommodation with his tribe, either from fear or in the hope of succeeding more readily in this way, pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah, and appealing for their intercession. Muhammad later retracted the verses at the behest of Gabriel, claiming that the verses were whispered by the devil himself.[72][82][n 5] This episode known as "The Story of the Cranes" (translation: قصة الغرانيق, transliteration: Qissat al Gharaneeq) is also known as "Satanic Verses". Some scholars argued against the historic authenticity of these verses on various grounds.[83] While this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims, strong objections to it were raised starting from the 10th century, on theological grounds. The objections continued on this point until rejection of these verses eventually became the only acceptable orthodox Muslim position.[84]

Below is an example of an academic source that does NOT agree with the above account of story:

Most European biographers of Muḥammad, on the other hand, accept it as historical on the assumption that it is inconceivable that later Muslims could have invented it (e.g., Watt, Mecca, 103). This reason, however, is in itself insufficient. The story in its present form (as related by al-Ṭabarī, al-Wāḳidī, and Ibn Saʿd) cannot be accepted as historical for a variety of reasons given in al-ḳurʾān , at 404. This does not rule out the possibility of some historical kernel behind the story.

"Muḥammad," Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs et al. Brill Online, 2014

I therefore propose to rewrite the section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2014

i want to complain about the content of the article. the file (Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.jpg) show a virtual photo for the prophet muhammed. In Islam it's prohibited to draw the photo of a prophet. please remove it very soon. --Sghaier mohamed (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Sghaier mohamed (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wikipedia is a secular site that does not abide by the rules of any religion. Plenty of people have brought it up before, see Talk:Muhammad/images, where you should have posted this to begin with. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

muhammed photo

Request was made, request was rejected, nothing more to be gained by continuing. Tarc (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(my english is a little bit bad) as you insist to not delete the photo of muhammad. there are alternatives solutions that can solve the probleme.

  • putting a tag that hide photo FIRST (without any advanced options) and show it when giving permission.
  • hidding the face of muhamed and the angel with photoshop.

it must be menthioned that this is an virtual photo because there is no real photo for the prophet Muhamed. --Sghaier mohamed (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the FAQ at the top of the page already explains how readers can hide the pictures if they want. DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've changed your post after I replied. Don't do that. Post a reply to my post instead. Although it doesn't alter what I've said: if you don't want to see the image you don't have to. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry decause, i had to because i don't know how to reply. seeing the picture is not the offensinve thing but it existance. i want to claim also to mention in the article that it's prohibited to show the picture of angels and prophets if it has a relation with content --Sghaier mohamed (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's prohibited in your religion, not for this website, not for everyone else. (Personal attack removed) Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The filled parameters seems to have expanded in recent months - not sure exactly when. Taking a fresh look at it, some seem highly dubious, and I've taken out the following, for the following reasons:

"Employer (as merchant:) Abu Talib · Khadija" - This doesn't seem like of sufficient significance to crowd a crowded infobox with.
"Notable work(s) Sunnah" - See Sunnah. It's not a "work" of which Muhammad was the author as such. It's a more diverse concept than that. Arguably the Qu'ran could go in - but that's a can of worms and I think it's best it's just left blank.
"Predecessor (as prophet:) Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus)" - That hardly seems NPOV!
"Opponents Polytheists" with Polytheists pipelinked to Arabian mythology. I think it's more complex than that with Jewish tribes and Christian converts playing a part plus general tribal opponents. Again, I think this is an unnecessary field in a crowded infobox.

DeCausa (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If its crowded it makes more sense to remove the list of wives which are found elsewhere. I have addressed your other concerns. Nons3r (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]