# Talk:Prophet's Mosque

The bottom picture forces the top one too far to the right... someone should fix this. Xoder 21:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tweaked, hopefully fixed. Please drop a note here if it gives anyone problems on their browser. Turnstep 02:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This must be one of the largest buildings in the world. Can someone add some statistics please? CalJW 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a very tourist friendly country, but is it open to non-Muslims?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.39.5 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 

Calling it Masjid al-Nabawi will totalley change the meaning of the article, it's true when removing al from a single arabic word the meaning won't change, but it's not the same for a combined noun and adjective. for example the word al-Nabawi in al-Masjid al-Nabawi is an adjective, but when changed to Masjid al-Nabawi it'll become a noun and that changes the meaning, until the al before masjed is put back. so I advice using al in both words, and that goes for similar articles as well. AshrafSS 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be something on the controversy in Islam around building over graves? I heard their prophet warned against it when he was dying.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia; please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. In any case, where did you learn of this information about graves and Muhammad's warning against building over them? Could I see a source? Thanks Jamutaq (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the newly created article Mohammed's tomb should be merged into this one as the tomb article would fit nicely into this one in terms of subject matter. MP   (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This page gives more info. about the mosque and it's history (one of the sources is WP itself, but there is another source) and this one provides some images of the mosque (have to check copyright though). MP   (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The image of the mosque ia "above" the words "other mosques throughout the world" in the history chapter. Can someone fix it?--217.132.167.148 09:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What is this picture on the page showing a pig???
Why is it saying Islam is dead???
Please remove it because i think it is vandalized thank u

There was an article called Muhammad's tomb, which was barely a stub. The only useful content in it was:

The sentence Outside of the Mosque a plaque reads "Inside here is bones and nothing more". I copied it here, but marked it as {{citation needed}}. Please check that it is correct.
The photo, which i put in the description section. Please check that it belongs here and add a caption.
Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro states that this mosque is the second holiest in Islam. Does that status not belong to the Dome of the Rock? Chesdovi (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. The Al-Aqsa mosque is the third holiest. MP (talk•contribs) 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
But there are reliable sources stating that this is so, see the info at Dome of the Rock I just readded. Chesdovi (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A little clarification is in order here. The Al-aqsa mosque is the third holiest mosque, but the actual Dome of the Rock is the second holiest place. The mosque must not be equated with the precise location of the dome. Hope this helps. MP (talk•contribs) 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! By the way, what is the 3rd holiest place? Chesdovi (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You're most welcome. I'm not sure what the third holiest place is. The Kaaba and the Dome of the Rock tend to be the ones most often discussed when considering 'holiness'. MP (talk•contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really MPatel. thestick (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of Hala Sultan Tekke and most likely, most other Muslims have never heard of it either. To state that it shares the status of the third holiest site of Islam with the Al-aqsa mosque is, at best, dubious. At the very least, it is not notable. However, see Holiest sites in Islam.. MP (talk•contribs) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is notable, but it lacks renown because Al Aqsa mosque has become the "3rd holiest" after it was used as a political pawn at the start of the 20th century. Nevertheless, Al Aqsa is still only third in "virtue". No religious book mentions holiness per-se. I think that Shia also view Najaf or Karbala as their third “holiest” sites. Chesdovi (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not notable. Also, some 1400 year old sources like the Hadith and Quran mention several important vitues about the Al-Aqsa mosque and some events related to that site. The "Hala Sultan Tekke" is mostly non-mainstream/dubious/locally revered as the third holiest. thestick (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize it's the proper thing to do in Islam but having "Peace Be Unto Him" after every instance of Muhammad's name is rather distracting and prevents the article from flowing well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.110.204.129 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), the honorific "Peace Be Upon Him" "should generally not be used in articles". --Stormie (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and it's also a violation of NPOV. Jamutaq (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Or was he not bodily assumed into heaven at the location of the Dome of the Rock? Could someone clarify this for me? Thanks.

According to the Muhammed article it was in Medina and is sourced from here. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 21:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I must have been confused. That was a very thorough article. If only that magazine could produce something so glowing and complementary about Christianity...

I have removed the picture prominently showing a smiling pilgrim with Al-Masjid al-Nabawi in the background. This is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia as the image is of low quality and the focus is clearly upon the person and not the subject of the article. DO NOT replace this picture with out at least discussing the issues I have raised—Wikipedia is not a depository for tourist pictures. Xargon666x6 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with this statement. 198.7.235.73 (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tombstone_of_Umar_%28r.a%29_by_mohammad_adil_rais.JPG is identified in this article as the tomb of Muhammad, but the picture's caption says it's the tomb of Umar...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC) 

With all due respect, I will like to say that the editors and writers of this article should put Peace be upon him(shortly PBUH in parenthesis when referring to the holy prophet) or they can use a much easier form which is (S.A.W), abbreviation of the transliteration 'Sallalaahu Alaihi Wasallam' after his beloved name. Eg. Prophet Muhammad(S.A.W) or (PBUH).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.133.252 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 

I'd say that would be against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also, Muhammad isn't holy nor a prophit to everyone, just like Jesus isn't holy nor a prophit to everyone. No offense intended, just want to help clear up some possible misunderstandings. Jamutaq (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see a floor plan of the Mosque detailing the era of the different expansions. --Error (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Masjid al-Haram which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 12:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

After quite an extensive search on the web I couldn't find the official website of the mosque, is there any? Moughera (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The 5th Nizam of Hyderabad, Afzal Uddaula, built more than thirty buildings around Masjid Al-Haram and Masjid An-Nabawi for pilgrims visiting these holy places for Hajj.Nenetarun (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Umbrellas for the Piazza of the Prophet’s Holy Mosque, Madinah, SA.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Umbrellas for the Piazza of the Prophet’s Holy Mosque, Madinah, SA.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

After reading the article it highly concerned me that every time the name of Prophet Muhammad was mentioned it only mentions the name, not the Prophet or PBUH or SAW. Now I saw arguments stating that He is not honoured to everyone so it's not mandatory to say the titles. I would like to state that whether other religious leaders or honourable person are not mentioned with titles we, muslims take this as a serious note and say Prophet before the name Muhammad(SAW). If you can't show minimal respect towards Him in an article related to Him and in such a big platform where many muslim may visit,,, then don't need to write anything about Him and His life.It's not any radical or irrational comment, I am just expressing my grief that how people wish cultures, outlooks and behaviours to be fixed and same. Our Prophet is special to us, just like our parents.So if you want to talk about my parents I expect you to honour them, and that's what we also want for our Prophet. 103.81.199.66 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it hurts me to see the name of our beloved prophet mentioned without adding PBUH. We respect Jesus and Maria in the same way. 86.3.26.173 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the article currently has some sourcing issues that could potentially justify a review of its GA status. I've tried to tag all of these inline. In particular, the "Ottoman period" section is partly unsourced and the last few sections on "Mihrabs", "Minbars", and "Minarets" cite what looks like a non-scholarly religious website ([1]). I don't suspect the information is wrong, but we should cite a more reliable source per WP:RS. 
I don't have time to fix all of this myself, but I'm hopeful it can be resolved without necessarily doing a GA review. If anyone knows of additional references that could be cited, for example, mentioning them here might already make it easier. R Prazeres (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This section has been poorly-sourced from the start, with names and citations added haphazardly over time and not entirely in line with WP:RS. As I mentioned above, this threatens the article's GA status. Aside from that, I'm not sure that such a section is reasonable or WP:DUE to begin with: the mosque has existed for some 1400 years and it has had Islamic officials of one designation or another running it this entire time, so why would we include a list of only some of the recent names? This raises WP:RECENTISM issues in addition to general quality issues. The names of past imams do not tell us anything about the mosque, unless there is something notable about those imams in particular, in which case they could be mentioned, with reliable citations, in the history section instead.
Given these issues, I propose that we remove the section altogether. I'd like to get other editors' opinions on this. R Prazeres (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

PS: Note that a similar problem can be raised with Masjid al-Haram, although it is not a GA article. R Prazeres (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s super unfair to not credit our beloved Imam’s who led in Nabawi and have whole playlists of their taraweeh in nabawi and tons of videos of salah etc. All I did was add Khalid al Ghamidi in 2010 and 2013 which he lead tarawih and tahajjud, and it seemed to have gotten removed along with many other Imam’s. So if anyone has the means of someone resolving this by either removing the list completely or adding all the names back please do so as it’s only fair to give proper credit to our Imam’s. Kai7176 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to pay tribute to individuals, it's an encyclopedia that reports the content of reliable sources. That being said, if this list is awkward or badly incomplete, as I imagine it must be, I would indeed prefer to remove it altogether. I'm not confident that it belongs here to begin with: it's common for current heads of institutions to be named in an infobox, but a whole section attempting to list all past and current staff is uncommon, probably WP:UNDUE, and probably unfeasible given the mosque's fourteen centuries of history. And as mentioned, it's constantly subject to uncited additions and changes. If such a list is useful, it might be better moved to its own list article. (Note that the equivalent section at Masjid al-Haram has all the same problems... it might benefit from similar consideration.) R Prazeres (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
PS: I see that the list article suggestion has just been implemented by Inu06 and material has been transferred to List of Imams of the Two Holy Mosques. This looks to me like a significant improvement overall. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)