Talk:Muhammad/Archive 23

message: You've said "Has nothing to do with Hindu scriptures as such". But your original write-up had these lines "In a variety of other points of view, some translated the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad".
The views of orthodox Hindus are to be represented
Fine. Which views? and by whom? Could we be a bit more clearer? 
1.This is what the user Paul B said in this thread:
The problem is undue weight. These are extremely obscure opinions, not in any way representative of Hinduism. By listing these very obscure opinions as the views of Hindu "scholars" we create the idea that these are standard or at least common views in Hinduism, which they are not. Frankly, if we were to have a genuinely accurate account of Hindu views of Muhammad it would include a lots of very negative opinions, similar to those listed in the Christian section.
2. You have linked to the Gaudiya Vaishnavism article, but it does not say anything about Islam or Mohammed. 
3. You do not even look at references provided where it is clearly obvious how Hinduism and Mohammed are connected.
Hmmmm...which references can we take seriously? Let's re-examine these claims once again:
1. Mohammed is none but Lord Kalki himself.Siddiq Hussain who has stated this is the founder of a semi Hindu-Islamic cult called "Deendar Anjuman". Going by that yardstick we can take what cults like the raelians said and include that in mainstream religious views.
2. Here's another vague write-up from the article:
Mohammad is sometimes linked to the passage of the Rig Veda declaring that Narashams rishi will arrive as the "last divine messenger" (antim deva duta), who shall "dispel all darkness" and "conquer death"
The obvious question no matter what references you may cite would be: How? 
So these "authors" are actually admitting that the Vedas predicted Mohammed like say 2000 or 3000 years ago? How many Muslims would admit that? for that matter, how many Hindus or Christians or any religious creed would accept that?
In fact, one could take any passage from any religious book, twist it completely and prove just about anything.
If it's "point of view" of various representatives then:
1. Consider the "Mecca is a Vedic Shrine" as an alternative viewpoint of "Hindu views of Islam.
2. Consider another "viewpoint" by the Audarya fellowship which says that the Jews were actually the "Yadu" people of Dwaraka. (The author maybe trying to draw similarity to the words "Yudah (Judah)" and "Yadu (Yadava)"). Here for example:http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/184144-jewish-origins.html
3. There is an external link in the Star of David of David article which claims that "As an archetypal symbol for the sacred union of the opposite energies, it is the "yin-yang" of western civilization. Formed by the intertwining of the "fire" and "water" triangles (the male "blade" and the female "chalice")..."
Why not include the above within the main "Star of David" article itself?
If the above views can be incorporated within their respective articles, then we could also include the "Mohammed in Hinduism" views also! Obviously, there are thousands of viewpoints to any single topic. But with all respect and seriousness, would you be able to include all of them?freewit (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, POV (point of view): 

message: but all Hindus leaders are not only notable but also their views are to be considered.
Who? Could we have atleast some names of these Hindu leaders?
The section on Hindu views is required
Fine. Understood. Include the "Mecca was once a Vedic shrine" article. If you feel that's idiotic, then consider adding what Swami Vivekananda said about Islam:
1. "The Mohammedan religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in Koran,"Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans"
Obviously, many muslims and others would object...But you've simply said "Swami Vivekananda, on the other hand, would often question validity of the revelation without renunciation and would portray Mohammed's life and teachings in a non-exclusive manner"
What does that mean? Could we perhaps have that in more simpler English so that laymen and other "scholars" out here would understand......
In a contrast to him some Hindus would illustrate that Manu and Noah were actually one and the same person and "people of Noah" could have been Indians,[187] and would even translate the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad
And here we go (once again!)with the "last prophet" crap! Agni and Mohammed???? Some Hindus also hold that "Mecca was a Vedic Shrine and Shiva worship was prominent and others held the view that the Aryans were remnants of the Atlantean race". Ah that sounds very scholary! Some Hindus...others.....???
By the way, please double check the spelling of "Gandi", it's supposed to be "Gandhi" and should link directly to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhiand not to Gandi
About some of the references you've cited (we've already discussed some of them "ad nauseum" times!) :
# 183:^ Haque, Zeyaul. "A Hindu view of Islam, The Milli Gazette, Vol. 2 No. 1
Zeyaul Haque has also said "The Vedas, which predate the prophet (pbuh) by several centuries, predict his birth, writes Dr. Upadhyay.".
Beautiful! We should have a separate sub-section saying that the Vedas are the "super scriptures" of the world! Amazing! Astounding! By the way, they also predict the arrival of Abraham, Noah, Jesus, Mohammed et al!
# 187 and 188
Sikand (2004) p. 138 and Sikand (2004) p. 140
I'm assuming that it's the same Yoginder Singh Sikand guy? Let's look at another "gem" of an article which he has written here:http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-sikand230204.htm
He has made a huge mess and has "assumed" that some of the "punishments" mentioned in the "Manusmriti" against the lower castes has actually been followed strictly by the Upper Class.
The Wiki article about [Manu smriti] very clearly points out that there are lots of interpolations and the "The Bhagavad Gita contradicts many statements in Manu Smriti, including the fixture of one's Varana at birth, and has always been accorded a higher authority by the people in daily life."
So how can we exactly "cite" this guy as a valid reference?
And another point to ponder here: All these references are only the "positive" aspects of Mohammed (that too most of them are fringe views).In other words, they simply "glorify" Mohammed without taking into account the negative aspects. So much for neutrality!
What's the point in adding the tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (October 2008)" and simply rewriting the "Mohammed in Hinduism" write-up? If it's disputed, remove it and replace/rewrite it once the issue is resolved. freewit (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again:)...... 

message: Wikipedia rightly states that Muhammad (pbuh) was a merchant, but it fails to mention that he was also a Shepherd for most of his young life. I was going to edit and add, but I guess its better to discuss first, anyone else think its a relevant point???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrainTC (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to his [Muhammad] early life a little? 

message: * The Holy Qur'an, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
Abdullah Yusuf Ali
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about adding that link? 

message: what are the several other religions that acknowledge Muhammad as an agent of divine action, please?  thanks.--74.56.12.36 (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  several other religions 

message: well  Asalamo Alaikum to  all Muslim  well  its the duty of all muslim to say PBUH wehn u listen or read the our Beloved Holy Prophet Name well i also request  to the this web site to also add  these 4 words  with the name of Muhammad(PBUH)
WELL ITS A HUMBLE request to please  replace the name and write like this Muhammad(PBUH)
God WILL    bless u  and   that will be thanks from  all  the muslims of the world to u so please replace this name  and write new like this Muhammad(PBUH)
And  one more request is to please please finish  this small cartoon  which is really rude  and its not good to make the mock of others religion    whatever ur religion but respect the other religion  so pleae please please  finish this  from the web site u can understand it a request  from all over the worlds mislims  God Bless u  olease please do it  for humanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.96.75.147 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for your suggestion, however Wikipedia policy is not to include honorifics as part of the article content.  The usage of PBUH is stated in the lead, identifying the reverence to which Muhammad's name is held within the Muslim faith.  To do more than that would violate our neutral point of view policy. Resolute 00:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about adding that link? 

message: It's customary in Islami     erature to use Salawat after the name of prophet Mohhamad . I want to ask can we use it - with  limited usage - in the articles that deal with the religious aspects of the prophet Mohhamad (only in the begining of the article I mean) ?Like this : "Muhammad" or like this "Muhammad<noinclude>Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the in line [[salawat]] be used here ? 

message: An Edit is requested. I made a recent study on Muhammad's father. I found an interesting discovery.. According to Ibn-Hashim and Ibn Ishaq (Historians) Muhammad's Father and Grandfather married 2 different women in the same day. Abdullah married Amina and Abdul-Muttalib married Hala. According to records Muhammad's father died a few months after marriying Amina, Records also show that Hamza (Son of Abdul-Muttalib and Hala) was 4 years older than Muhammad. Which means that Muhammad was born more than 3 years after his father's death since Abdullah and his father married in the same day.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inreet (talk • contribs) 09:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Achieving "established" status is simple: your account simply has to exist for four days, and you have to have made 10 edits.  That's it.  You can read Wikipedia:User access levels for more info on this.  However, I would go to Talk:Muhammad/Images and post there before editing any images on this page, since this is such a controversial topic.  Also, in the future, you should ask questions like this on your own talk page, using the  template.   is for requesting specific edits to this article.  Thanks, and happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit requested 

message: Some links are broken, but I am not sure whether these links are intended to be included in this article or not.
Can anyone help?
Thanks.
--Minjokherald (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clean-up 

message: Books detailing the descent from Muhammed of US Presidentsroduce . And other Western leaders, in Europe,
Mid East and Americas.
*Obama Descent from Muhammed's  
*Muhammed's US Presidents
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.176.63 (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget Obama's connection to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Genes get redistributed so much that there will be very large numbers of people related to any historical figure. Even if this book is accurate (it certainly isn't good enough for the article) then it's not surprising. Hut 8.5 15:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I must disagree.  Obama is categorically not related to the Easter Bunny.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Presidents Descended from Muhammed 

message: Unfortunately the FAQ doesn't have its own talk page, so I'm raising this here.
User:Amatulic has twice reverted in a set of various provocative image links on this template for the purpose of illustrating that Wikipedia is not censored. That Wikipedia is not censored does not imply that prominently linking that which may be provocative is automatically okay. I believe this list of images should be removed from the FAQ again; relevant information is found on the linked WP:CENSOR, but there's no need to shove it into people's faces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with referring to examples of other images. My only quibble is that there are too many examples. A "such as... X, Y, and Z" seems sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Since the images in question are linked, rater than displayed, this complaint is wholly without merit, IMO.  Being offended by linked images is just...silly. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ images 

message: The article uses these two in various places. Perhaps it is more accurate to say 'Yathrib (now called Medina)' once and for all at it's first mention and then use 'Yathrib' afterwards. Thoughts ? MP (talk•contribs) 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yathrib vs Medina 

message:  Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you.
: Done. MP (talk•contribs) 19:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please... 

message: A new section should be added to discuss the theme of Muhammad and Terrorism.  There are many academic sources and whilst the debate might be heated it should be addressed in Wikipedia.  --82.35.58.145 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll pass, thanks.  A simple google search of mohammed and terrorism turns up blogs, forums, and highly partisan riffraff. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What does Muhammad have to do with terrorism? He didn't kill blow people up. He only fought those who attacked him. He acted in self defence. Read the article please. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at that— we have an article on Islamic terrorism. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad and Terrorism 

message: I guess we need to write the facts that a lot of non-muslim authors wrote great words about Prophet Muhammad. It will be fair to mention those words too (not only criticism). See for example this article in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100) Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.95.85 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: To save time, post any questions about images at Talk:Muhammad/images. If you post them here, they will get moved there OR DELETED. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: This is probably too much to ask, but for muslims, the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is usually followed by saying or writing "Peace and Blessings be upon him (PBUH)," as I have just demonstrated. Perhaps this should be added where the Prophet's (PBUH) name is mentioned? Thoughts? Cheese1125 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The established protocol is not to use blessings afterwards. Cf. Wikipedia:MOSISLAM. Ogress smash! 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: There is a reason individual's might choose to use PBUH, but that reason would not apply to an encyclopedia.  Rklawton (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBUH? 

message: On the section of Isra and Mi'raj under the thumbnail of Masjid al-Aqsa, the caption reads 'The Al-Aqsa Mosque, the site from which Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven.'. This is technically not correct, as it is from the Dome of the Rock, which is adjacent to the al-Aqsa Mosque, and part of the same compound as al-Aqsa that Muslims believe he ascended to heaven. If someone could change the caption and picture please. M2k41 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isra and Mi'raj 

message: We need to add "highway robber"(or a similar word) too, he hijacked a number of caravans and plundered them. T.R. 87.59.76.74 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brigand? Rklawton (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No we don't. RaseaC (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general..." 

message: Before making an edit I wanted to clear this. I think that Muhammad's full name (as it is usually given) should be present, for reference. It would appear thus: Abu-l-Qāsim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh (Arabic: ابو القاسم محمد بن عبدالله).
:I don't think there's a problem with mentioning this in the beginning of the article.  Frotz (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  That's not the name used in the Arabic version of this article.  Rklawton (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: Please note: regarding the artist's 16th-century depiction of Muhammad and his companions advancing on Mecca, I observe the following.  Muhammad's face is blurred out with white (to match the white cloth on his head).  The pic file is "Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg".  Picture should be reverted back to a previous version of the picture if possible.
Wimfort (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad's face is blurred out in pic  Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg 

message: dear sir,
iread about muhammed ,
but at firstly in article tells prophet muhammed is the founder of islam.
it is not correct, he came in sixth century only.
befor that came number of prophets.
adam was the first man and first prophet.since his period have ther islam .
so how we can consider prophet muhammed is the founder of religion.
actually islam is compleeted by muhammed.
he is the last prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.31.125 (talk • contribs) 
:Prior to Muhammad's preaching, there was not a religion called "Islam".  That makes him the founder.  Frotz (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is generally accepted that Islam originated with Muhammad, devout muslims believe Adam was the first prophet and thus the origin of Islam. Coradon (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added on 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: "Islam" is a built-in POV-push then. We should stop calling the religion "Islam" and start calling it "Mohammedism". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: No, the English meaning of Islam is the religion founded on the teachings of Muhammad. Just as Christianity is the religion founded on the teachings of Jesus. 'Islam' means in Arabic that very same thing. The meaning of the word 'islam' in Arabic isnt piety but generally translated as the act of submission. Yes, Muhammad wasn't the founder of piety, he was the founder of Islam. Mohammedism is a made up word first used in a time where Islam was presented in Western academia as the teachings of a mad man, or a renegade cardinal of the Catholic Church. I think we have moved beyond that time. Unless of course you would like to name Christianity Jesusism. Nableezy (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that "Islam" meant "submission (to God)", and you've confirmed that. Calling Christianity "Jesusism" would be fine by me, because giving it the name "Christ" is also a built-in POV-push. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting you should say that, as the Arabic for Christianity (المسيحية) takes its name from the word for Messiah, pretty much meaning literally 'Messiahism'. Guess Christianity has been pretty successful in pushing that POV. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: This article is not about the Islamic view of Muhammad, that article exists at Islamic views of Muhammad. Nableezy (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Id rather not, this page is meant to be used discussing the article, not general discussions on Muhammad, Islam, or religion. There are any number of forums on the internet for that, and by choice I have not joined them, precisely for this reason. Nableezy (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The religion known to us as Islam did not exist before Mohammad came along. He is the founder of that religion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Is that supposed to make sense? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it makes a lot of sense.  Let me rephrase it.  When is your father your father?  Is it when he tells you he's your father - or sometime before?  Of course, I don't think it applies to Islam.  Muslims believe two things above all else:  there is one God and his name is God, and Mohammad is his messenger.  Therefore Muslims could not have existed or practiced Islam *before* the messenger.  This does not deny the fact that there were previous prophets and many people who learned from them and worshiped God.  However, none of these people believed Mohammad was his messenger (he hadn't been born yet), and so they didn't practice Islam - where faith that Mohammad was God's messenger is required.  Rklawton (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding what the anon is saying. He is saying that Islam existed from the time of Adam and was perfected by Muhammad, not created by Muhammad. Of course, that is Islamic theology and really doesn't bear much on the article saying Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From a Muslim's point of view, that makes a lot of sense.  I agree that Mohammad would not have considered himself to be a founder at all.  He thought of himself as the messenger and was often referred to as such during his lifetime.  Indeed, Mohammad built on a foundation of monotheism and his earliest conflicts were against its corruption with idol worship, so he saw his work as a continuation of previous prophets' works.  So, let's put our brains together and sort out a way of expressing this relationship.  For starters, I think we can agree that he didn't "create" a religion from the ground up.  As a result, the term "founder" isn't strictly accurate.  I'm open to other ideas - with the obvious caveat that the description reflect the world view rather than a particular religion's view.  Rklawton (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the language now is fine, but if we really have to get super accurate I would say the best wording would be 'whose teachings the religion of Islam was founded on' but that is passive, dont know what wiki says on that. But I think founder is fine. Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much how I feel.  However, given the concerns expressed above, I see no reason why we can't strive for "super accuracy".  I'm not sure about your proposed wording, though, and "founder" isn't so far off as to make this a crisis of any sort. "Islam's last prophet" might work.  Rklawton (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually not all of us believe in God and Wikipedia is written from a secular (or at least neutral perspective).  As for Jesus, I think most Christians would consider him the founder of of Christianity.  The historicity of early Christianity is not as clear as that of Islam and as such it would be non neutral to claim that Jesus was in fact the founder of the religion (even though that is the belief of most Christians).  Jesus the man certainly did not write the bible, no one claims this, the new testament was written by numerous authors after his death. --Leivick (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: These comments should be for improving this encyclopedia which is intended for all people whether they believe in god or not. --Leivick (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I do understand what you're saying. The point is that the literal "submission to God", as a religious concept, has allegedly been around ever since God created man just so man could submit to Him, apparently. And that the religion called "Islam" did not exist until Muhammad and his disciples founded it. Let me ask you this: Is the word "islam" different from "Islam"? That is, as a normal word vs. as the name of a religion? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Arabic or English? Arabic does not have case, Islam == islam in Arabic. In English there is no word islam as far as I know, but Islam is defined (by Princeton WordNet) as "the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran" which also contains this tidbit: "the term Muhammadanism is offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad, founded their religion" Definition. Nableezy (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  to tell a seeriouse mistak with respectively 

message: Impnoon (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As this page discusses in great depth, that's against the encyclopedia's standards. Check Wikipedia:MOSISLAM... or read the rest of the page. Ogress smash! 06:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: And if it did, it would say "suffixed", not "prefixed". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name "Muhammad" 

message: was the full name of the Prophet. So it should be corrected in the article accordingly(Ilaila (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the section above, please explain why the Arabic version of this article uses only "محمد بن عبد الله".  Surely that Wiki's editors are familiar with this person.  Rklawton (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At least that's the article name.  The full name at the top of the article is "Mohammed bin Abdullah bin Abdul-Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd Manaf" with "Mohammed bin Abdullah" (as we have it here) in bold.  Rklawton (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib AlQorashi 

message: The initial section of this page indicates that Muhammad received his revelation in the cave during the month of Ramadan. Just a nitpick, but at the time this event happened there was not yet a month of Ramadan. In other pages it notes that Ramadan is the 9th month ot the Islamic calendar, and in fact this calendar did not yet exist at the noted time. Perhaps this line should be edited so that the 'error' of time be repaired. --Dumarest (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but did Ramadan as such exist??? --Dumarest (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a month called Ramadan, but not yet an Islamic calendar. Kabad (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, appreciate the information. --Dumarest (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The initial revelation date 

message: I have deleted the text which explained that Guru Nanak of the sikhs viewed Prophet Muhammad as an agent of the hindu supreme god, Brahman. This was an incorrect statement and was wrongly misquoted from a source. I have searched through Nanaks texts and work using computer software and there is no mentioning of the prophet. 
The only slight reference is this hymn:
Shalok, First Mehl:
musalamaan kehaavan musakal jaa hoe thaa musalamaan kehaavai
It is difficult to be called a Muslim; if one is truly a Muslim, then he may be called one.
aval aoul dheen kar mithaa masakal maanaa maal musaavai
First, let him savor the religion of the Prophet as sweet; then, let his pride of his possessions be scraped away.
hoe musalim dheen muhaanai maran jeevan kaa bharam chukaavai
Becoming a true Muslim, a disciple of the faith of Mohammed, let him put aside the delusion of death and life.
rab kee rajaae mannae sir oupar karathaa mannae aap gavaavai
As he submits to God's Will, and surrenders to the Creator, he is rid of selfishness and conceit.
tho naanak sarab jeeaa miharanmath hoe th musalamaan kehaavai
And when, O Nanak, he is merciful to all beings, only then shall he be called a Muslim.
(Page 141 of Guru Granth Sahib)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anishadasoar (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's the original quote that was misquoted?  Rklawton (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Religious views 

message: The only reason the abbreviations B.C. and A.D. are not in this article is because those abbreviations refer to Jesus Christ, on whom the entire world's dating system is set up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leibstandarte (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the entire world, see Islamic calendar, Hebrew calendar, Korean calendar, etc, etc.  Dawn Bard (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Era 

message: Several weeks ago, following a request at WP:RAF, I created an abuse filter rule (#131) that prohibited non-admins from removing images of Muhammad from this page or images of Mormon garments from pages related to that issue.  Both of these issues reflect long-standing patterns of image removal for ideological grounds that are against existing consensus.
Recently a possible exploit in the code was pointed out at ANI leading to a hasty patch last night, and a new bug this morning.  Hopefully all of the technical issues are now sorted.
However one person disputed the very idea of such a filter, saying that removing such images is "not abuse", that having such a filter is "unwiki", etc.  So, I agreed to seek further consensus.  Do people agree that it makes sense to have a filter that would prevent non-admins from removing the images of Muhammad from this article?
Specifically, the filter as currently written is such that only administrators can add or remove the following images:
*:Image:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg
*:Image:Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg
*:Image:Maome.jpg
*:Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg
*:Image:Gagarin PropovedMagometGRM.jpg
*:Image:Mormon garments.jpg 
*:Image:Garment.jpg
*:Image:Mormon woman's temple clothing circa 1870s.jpeg
to these specific pages:
*Muhammad
*Temple garment (related to the Mormon issues)
*Endowment (Latter Day Saints) 
Obviously there is a conflation of Muhammad and Mormon imagery in the filter, which is related to providing a relatively simple implementation.  I assume that Mormon temple garb will never actually show up here and vice versa.  It is possible that additional images/articles might be added in the future if there are other areas with similar problems.  The message Mediawiki:Abusefilter-warning-protectedimage will be shown to any non-admin that tries to remove these images (or add additional copies of them, which prevents flooding the page with images that only an admin could remove).
So, do people here think it is a good idea to protect the Muhammad images from non-admin removal?  Dragons flight (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. It works. I tried a test removal of an image, and the filter kicked in as it should. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Protection Filter 

message: i think there should be a cause of death of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. i mean, what was the illness actually.--Kashi. (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of Death 

message: I don't know how to cite it, but I think it should be mentioned that when the Prophet (pbuh) arrived in Medina for the first time, the children sang the Nasheed Ta'la al Badru 'Alayna.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.145.182 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should this be mentioned? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it relevant? The song is part of the story of Muhammad and is still sung today by Muslims in remembrance of his arrival in Medina. It's not strictly part of the plot, but is a interesting detail I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.61.113 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is verifiably recorded by historians, you should be able to come up with a citation. Post it here and someone will add it in. However, if instead this event is a legend that grew around the Prophet, then it doesn't really belong in a biography article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ta'la al Badru 'Alayna 

message: this isn't about the regular "remove teh images" complaints, so I am posting it on the main talkpage.
It appears there has been a recent addition of an image to the long-standing consensus on image selection.
The Russian painting of "Muhammad preaching" is the first modern, western (well, Eastern European) depiction of Muhammad to appear here, and to be fair to those told to "seek consensus" when trying to remove images, we should also require that consensus on talk is first established before we add such an image. 
I think the image is perfectly arguable within the "western perception" section, but we need to take care. Dante's depiction of M with his entrails hanging out has a much longer pedigree in western tradition than a Russian Romanticist painting, but I do not necessarily think it would be helpful or a good idea to add such an image here. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russan painting 

message: Propose to change this to Orientalist views. Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: why? Was Martin Luther an orientalist? Or would you want to exclude western views of Muhammad other than within Orientalism from the section? --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  European and Western views 

message: What is stated under the header of Reform is subjective and does not belong into a biography. Furthermore, the content insults common sense and is indecent. Islam codified and sanctioned slavery. How this institutionalization was a betterment in the case of slavery is not understandable. Also, it is argued that the situation of the poor was advanced. Again, subjective. Furthermore, Mohammad himself enslaved countless people. How is this conduct reconcilable with the distorted picture of someone who rejects hierarchy?
This section should be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 2009-06-26
:Perhaps you should read the article more carefully. There is no "Reform" header. There is one called "Reforms" and that happens to be a summary of another article, Early reforms under Islam. If you have a problem with that article, take it up on the talk page there. The paragraph as is, is well supported by the cited sources, and adequately summarizes the larger article.
:If you have verifiable, reliable, and neutral sources that support your claims, then kindly present alternative text, with proper sourcing. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section does seem rather unbalanced to me also, although not quite as bad as that. Indeed there might be several views on whether Mohammed's policies were beneficial or not.  I don't think it is a defence to say that it is a summary of another article, tho; if the material is POV, then the section should be reduced radically in size and little more than the link left.  Roger Pearse (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform 

message: "... however is contrarily regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet ..."
'however is contrarily' should be removed. The page about Moses declares him as prophet. It should be the same here as everything important about prophethood of Moses (plus more) can be verifiably attributed to Mohammad, too (miracles, etc.). Why discrimination? Is it a Christian/Jewish Wikipedia? Or is it anti-Muslim?
:Last time I checked, Muhammad is considered a prophet only within Islam and Bahá'í.  None of the other religions consider him a prophet unless you give Crowley's teachings any merit. Frotz (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the original creater of this sub-section, but the argument does bring up an important point: If the article is about Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), the most respectable figure in the religion of Islam (and not recognized so well by any other major religion), wouldn't it only be appropriate to re-arrange the first paragraph so as to a)  First mention that Muslims regard him (pbuh) as a Messenger and Prophet of Allah (s.w.t), and then follow it up with the fact that b) Non-Muslims however think of him (pbuh) as the founder of Islam.(?) The fact that the arrangement is otherwise, does give rise to a concern with regards to the neutrality of the article. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The more important fact is that he founded a religion, not that the religion he founded considers him a prophet.  Your suggestion puts the cart before the horse and has a non-neutral point of view, which is why it will not be implemented.  Frotz (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that is exactly what I was talking about. Non-Muslims quite like yourself consider him (pbuh) as the founder of Islam, although Islam -by means of the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadith- tells us what the truth is and how erroneous the Non-Muslim verdict is. Yes, I'm a Muslim, and that's what I believe in; hope you see the point I've raised in my previous post now. 59.160.74.254 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how presenting the Muslim point of view at the expense of neutrality fulfils WP:POV.  Frotz (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (Been busy so couldn't reply sooner.) Well, it does not fulfill WP:POV since it basically is NOT a POViewpoint but a fact that Islam believes in. Do you think you've got strong points to support your view of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) as a 'founder'? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I meant to refer to WP:NPOV.  Nowhere but Islamic dogma is it stated that Muhammad was a reformer of some already-existing religion.  Furthermore, there is no historical, traditional, or legendary record for the existance of Islam prior to Muhammad's ministry.  That is, unless you count Judaism and Christanity as "Islam" prior to such reform, which I've heard from nobody except Muslim thinkers.  We cannot present Islamic dogma as a neutral point-of-view.  Frotz (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-Muslim attempt to explain the Koran as originating in Christian litterature is described here.  St.Trond (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does that article contradict what I said?  Frotz (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: "is contrarily" is terrible, I agree.  But see my comment below on the whole first paragraph, which is horrible to read. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Apparently' non-scientific anti-Muslim POV rhetoric 

message: One word in this section can give a terrible and false impression on the Prophet (peace be upon him) . That word is 'concubine'- such an act outside marriage is outlawed in islam; so to clear this issue and to get a more truthful and rounded look please go onto this link :)  :
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1147955887938&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE
Because like i was you are probably a little confused :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.177.211 (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  His earliest and most respected biographers are clear on this point.  She wasn't that old.  Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 'Wives and Children ' section 

message: :I'm glad to see that wikipedia has enforced its no-censore policy even in the most controversial topics like this one. This really suprised me as i thought that this was not something wikipedia enforced.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way to go Wikipedia!!! 

message: The hadith which says that Jesus will be buried next to  Mohammad's tomb although more than one all are Da'if (weak) many muslim scholar said this:
*Muhammad al-Bukhari in The Great History  vol 1 page 292
*Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in Fath al-Bari 7/66
* Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani said this in selselat al ahadeeth al daifa number (6962)
see also this and this which are a discusion in a specialized forum in hadith
this is an answer on a question about these hadith in www.islamQA.com
I Know all these sources are [Arabic] but I'll try to find an english one
I request the sentence "Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus" to be removed--Moda yahia (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohammad's tomb and Jesus 

message: Muhammed ended slavery. And  said that people are equal in front of god, and that no believer should deal with people by the type of race or color.
One of Muhammed's best companions (Sahabi) Bilal was a black male.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjebara2 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of that is true, but most is not. Muhammad did not abolish slavery, though he and his family did free a great number of slaves. And the slavery permitted by Muhammad was not based on race, but rather specific circumstances were necessary to be taken into slavery. But Muhammad did not "end slavery" nableezy - 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, he owned a slave or two himself.  Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You recall correctly, but generally speaking to free a slave you have to first own a slave, so I thought that was implied in my response. nableezy - 03:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: muhammed s.a.w. was not the founder of islam, infact islam was there since the first day man stepped foot on this earth. muhammed s.a.w restored the religion. in islam there are 4 books revealed by allah. tawrat{torah] which was revealed to moses, zabur'[psalms] this was revealed to dawud [david],injil[new testament] this was revealed to isaa [jesus] and the last and final revelation from god is the quran which was revealed to muhammed s.a.w. *note that the first three revelations were for particular people and for a particular time period e.g. jesus was sent for the children of israel,also *note that the first three revelations were corrupted and the text was changed to suit the people themselves. people used to worship idols,the sun and even fire and Out of his mercy allah sent the last prophet muhammed s.a.w to guide the people to the straight path and stop worshipping idols and the final revelation was sent not just for the muslims or arab's but for the whole mankind  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.230.97 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  founder of religion misconception 

message: I think it best we don't take sides in this issue. Instead of saying he is the founder of the religion, which muslims undoubtedly reject, we could simply take that part out and state objectively that he is regarded by muslims as messenger and prophet of God. Claiming he is the founder doesn't fall under neutral point of view. Let's not forget that there are also many non-muslims who don't believe he is the founder. ~ Madesinasia (talk), 30 July 2009 (UTC)
:Stating that Muhammad was the founder of Islam is a simple exercise in logic -- where is it written there was a religion called "Islam" prior to Muhammad's ministry?  Who are these non-Muslims who don't believe he founded Islam?  If you're talking about what Abraham and Melchizedek practiced, that wasn't Islam.  Frotz (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple exercise in logic would have lead to a more neutral statement, one w/o bias.  As for your citation of Abraham and Melchizedek, you didn't bother to state from which perspective, I assume you know there are over a billion people who think otherwise. More importantly, it's irrelevant. The entire purpose of this article was to educate people on Muhammad. Using sources. Your logic isn't a source.Madesinasia (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are these non-Muslims who don't believe Muhammad founded Islam?  Frotz (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. , Young India (23 September 1924) Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.29, "My Jail experiences", p.133. Speakoutfreely (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading "Founder of religion" 

message: I appreciate the way Wikipedia is supporting free discussion and its neutral points of view as you always say.
BUT , when we come to religion , I think we should better listen to those who have faith in this religion rather than ignoring them.
I don't want to say repeated words about forbidden images nor about the criticism of our prophet Mohamed (PBUH).
But you know this is real , Our religion , ISLAM , forbids any pictures , images or even imaginary paintings of prophets , angels & of course GOD .
Prophets are distinguished people , they are unlike anybody else . We should show the utmost respect when we talk about them.
Wikipedia is now almost the only reliable source to get info , so why don't you tell everybody that religion is a RED LINE and prophets are far from being ordinary people and far from being criticized , only if ............
YOU ARE GIVING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW
thanks for reading my note , DR. A.M.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amino158 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your religious restrictions simply do not jibe with Wikipedia policy; editing here is a privilege granted, not a right demanded. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: To quote User:Resolute from here (which is where this conversation should have been posted in the first place as it plainly says so at the top to do), out of respect for Muslims who do not wish to see the images we offer a means of hiding images on your browser, as described in the FAQ at the very top of this page. Ultimately, it comes down to individual right to choose, and it is up to you to honor your beliefs. It is not up to us to honor them for you. -  ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here  16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't believe this comment is helpful and it doesn't address the question at all. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: pointing out the hypocritical nature of the question is irrelevant? WookieInHeat (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia's practices, I believe so. I've learned that whenever someone doesn't address points directly it turns out to be just a waste of time and resources. That said, I believe both you and Amino are new users and I must believe that he didn't mean that Islam is neutral or anything of that kind —that would not make any sense since neutrality is not an attribute for religions. I believe that he is asking about removing the pictures because he believes keeping them is not neutral. I don't agree with him but at least I got what he meant and answered his question directly (as others have done as well). So you have to forgive him of his choice of words to say the least. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, Islam forbids pictures of Jesus as well. This is widely known but you'd probably have to dig lil' deeper into what muslims object to. The same applies to his mother, Mary, who is considered by Muslims to be the best woman in history (click the link for references). And finally, angels fall under the same bracket. AFAIK, one of the main reasons is to avoid (opening the doors of) idol worship, venerating images created that muslims consider neither accurate nor holy.Speakoutfreely (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree profoundly with the arguments that we should "draw a red line" at religion and that we should treat "prophets as different from other people". I respect everybody's right to believe in their own religion, but nobody, whatever religion they profess, should have the right to impose their own religious restrictions on other people.Jeppiz (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is a prophet? If the prophet is recognized by being allowed to talk directly to God, then most Christians are prophets. How do you introduce a prophet without simultaneously introducing an idol?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  To my own question: According to hadith 21257 in Musnad there has been 124 000 prophets and Muslims got the last one. St.Trond (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Jeppiz, the thing is that not every Muslim believes depiction is forbidden. It is a matter of interpretation. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  08:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''A neutral islamic point of view !'' 

message: The following sentence has an incorrect link:
"Although the Muslim army had the best of the early encounters, indiscipline on the part of strategically placed archers led to a Muslim defeat, with 75 Muslims killed including Hamza, Muhammad's uncle and one of the best known martyrs in the Muslim tradition."In the "Life" section, under the bold title "Conflict with Mecca," in the second paragraph. The current link sends the reader to the article about the Arabic letter Hamza. This is incorrect, because the sentence clearly speaks of Hamza the companion and uncle of the Prophet(pbuh). The correct link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_ibn_%E2%80%98Abd_al-Muttalib--208.75.21.90 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thank you for the correction. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link!!! 

message: hi,
I am Asif Ashraf, I think that the picture on this article are no appropriate and I need to change them. I will place new pictures where they do not want to show Muhammad's(PBUH) face. Its a highly disputive matter among muslims to draw a picture or shape of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). So I fear it hurts us muslims on wikipedia too.
I agree with the written content anyhow. I will not make changes to other written content which is not related to those some images.
Please grant me permissions to edit this article.
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsifAshraf (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need to make some changes to article name "Muhammad" 

message: Its Forbidden in Islam to draw pictures of any living being. Seeing pictures charectirizing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in a site like Wikipedia I was really astonished. I would urge you to remove the pictures immediately as this practice was/is/will never be supported by people like me who practice Islam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Surkhru (talk • contribs) 
:Hello, please see the notice at the top of this page and the image FAQ. As the proposed change (to remove images) isn't non-controversial, I'll have to decline this editsemiprotected request. There is an ongoing discussion about the images at #A_neutral_islamic_point_of_view_.21; you are welcome to participate in it. —SpaceFlight89  12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) 

message: Edward Gibbon in his book decline and fall of the roman empiresays that Mohammed despised the pomp of royalty.
Thomas carlyle in his book on heroes and hero worship describes  Mohammed as  a great silent soul ,one of who cannot but be earnest .
I would like to add these statements under the level2 header European and Western views in the article Your view please --Notedgrant (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  11:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou I'll try to be bold or wiki bold ;) --Notedgrant (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You need full citations for both of those... and preferably from academic secondary sources that found their quotes about Muhammad relevant to discuss... but at least full citations of the books in question rather than what you put. gren グレン 04:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou Gren .I've provided complete citations regarding Mohammed from those books How do I find academic secondary sources Please    revert my changes if you find them inappropriate --Notedgrant (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  European and Western views 

message: The opening paragraph has a logical and grammatical mistake when one sentence reads that Muslims consider Muhammad, "the last and the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40."  The issue is the “as taught by the Qur’an” pericope.  Books don't "teach" strictly speaking or even logically speaking.  That a book can "teach" anything is the major fallacy of Protestantism to wit: that the book "teaches" something and we folk simply ascent to said teaching. Nay, people have teachings and they may derive said teaching from their own interpretation of books and then may stumble into the fallacious claim the book teaches something, but in actuality, the individual, not the book, has a “teaching”.  They who make such a claim such as that a book teaches “x” are often correct actually - the logical hermeneutic of the book is coextensive or at least consistent with the teaching of the interpreter [the person], but nonetheless, books don't teach, people do.  As such, I am modifying the opening paragraph in the slightest, but much more accurate, way to read “consistent with” as opposed to “as taught by”.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.113.169 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: this my humble requst to you to please change the name Muhammad by Muhammad (sallal laho alehi wa sallam) or Muhammad (BPBUH)
:Please see this link, which is in fact listed in the FAQ at the top of this page, for the explanation of why we will not do that. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  please change name 

message: Please correct the following comment in the section "Other religious traditions":
Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, viewed Muhammad as an agent of the Hindu supreme being Brahman.[185]
to:
Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, viewed Muhammad as another agent of the supreme Creator, Brahma.[185]
"Brahman" is a person of a religious Hindu caste; Brahma is God, the Creator. Using "another" implies that Sikhism also respects the leaders of many other religious faiths as agents of God too.
--202.58.165.238 (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed brahman to Brahma--NotedGrant Talk 12:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guru Nanak's view of Muhammad 

message: The word "islām" in the lead should link to S-L-M#Islam_.22Piety.2C_Faith.22. It is presently capitalized incorrectly so the link does not point to the right section. 151.203.246.40 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thanks. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: Strikes me as odd that there isn't a list of his 99 names (such as can be found here http://itgateway.tripod.com/html/nameofprophet.htm) or an article dealing with the historical process of his aquiring of these names and their uses in worship/caligraphy
:Actually there is. Peter Deer (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of Muhammed 

message: I removed this from the 'See Also' section. It does not help the article, and there is already a link to 'Depictions'. Unflavoured (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon link 

message: " The title "Muhammad" (meaning revered and praiseworthy) is used for "Jesus" on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem c. 692 CE.   "
This fringe view addition is also completely irrelevant in this article, which is not about Jesus, but about Muhammad, the founder of Islam. I am not removing it from the section non-Arab sources, but I hope someone else will, if they agree. Antipastor (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Jesus for relevant discussion, including reference that discards the theory, I am removing this. Antipastor (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainstream reading of the Dome of the Rock is that Jesus is referred to as "Muhammad". You cannot find any modern, serious source that claims anything else. They may disagree http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199605/the.dome.of.the.rock.htm on why it was written, but not on that the title "Muhammad" is used for Jesus.St.Trond (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "muhammad"  used for Jesus claim 

message: For the refrences [83] and [84] it must be mentiond (and cited) from which source Lewis and Watt get the information.  This is because an important "claim" is made in that part of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.20.31 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why must it be mentioned? How far must sources be back-tracked? What is there about that claim that suggest the Lewis and Watt sources are not reliable? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for the beginnings of armed conflict 

message: I refer to this archived discussion:
Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22#Image Protection Filter
Special:AbuseFilter/131 was created to prevent people from moving/removing/replacing specific images in the Muhammad article. It also allows the article to go unprotected, allowing people to edit it, while surgically protecting a tiny piece of it.
This filter was working well in the past, but recently we have seen several instances of images being deleted. What happened? Are there now images in the article that the filter doesn't cover, or has the filter been disabled? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was disabled by  on 28 September 2009 with the reasoning: "People tend to watch controversial images, so this shouldn't be needed. Rarely triggered too. Disabled. -Prodego" You should invite him here to discuss his reasoning. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. So because images are watched and the filter is not triggered often enough (defined by whom?), the filter is disabled to allow continued disruption of the page? That strikes me as a weak rationale for disabling it. The whole point of the filter was to allow legitimate edits by anyone without having to protect the page. Yes, I'd like to see this discussed further. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only possible to run so many filters. As people add more and more filters, if older and less useful ones aren't removed, the system will become overloaded, and none of them will work. Since the images that filter 131 watched are controversial, they are watched by a lot of people, and despite the controversy, aren't removed that frequently. Because of that I disabled 131 since it didn't seem to be an efficient use of a filter and could easily be dealt with without one. The fact is in 5 months it only had around 70 hits. Prodego talk 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to filter 131? 

message: This Article looks like it was written by a Non-Muslim  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.252.112 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a good thing.  All articles should be written from a neutral point of view.  It shouldn't favor one side or the other.  A non-Muslim would probably have less biases.  If the articles aren't neutral, then it damages Wikipedia's credibility.  Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It was written by hundreds of people of all religious denominations, including those who are Muslim. Resolute 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You phrased it better than I did.  What I was trying to impart was that we wouldn't want it to sound overly biased (either for or against).  Just like we wouldn't want the Jesus (alayhi salam) article to read something like "OMG, Jesus is your Lord and Savior, if you don't accept Him right now, you'll burn in Hell!"  I meant to say something along the lines of "since you don't think it was written by a Muslim, then that would seem to imply that it doesn't lean overly towards being in favor of the article's subject."  Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny thing about it is it's pretty clearly written mostly by Muslims, but the tone and POV is kept neutral. That's why it's a good article, it contains the information that Muslims can contribute on the subject but presents it with a neutral tone. We're very fortunate to have some very excellent regular contributors to this article that keep it in good shape. Peter Deer (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Maybe time to push to make it featured?  Dragons flight (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that bringing this article up to FA standards (and keeping it there) would be extremely challenging but very worthwhile. I'm willing to support the effort. Doc  Tropics 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: In fact, we've thwarted attempts by penguins to edit the article, they come off as intensely pro-penguin for some reason. MisterTin (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, the top of the page lists WikiProject Biography (Rated GA-Class), WikiProject Islam (Rated GA-Class), WikiProject Arab world (Rated GA-Class), WikiProject Middle Ages(Rated GA-Class), and the Military history WikiProject (Rated GA-Class).  So there's a decent amount to choose from.  Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 15:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I will look dumb after I got the answer. Thanks anyway. Btw wow, all of them are rated GA class, just one more step to go. Kangxi Emperor (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking to contact one of them, my guess would be either Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam would be the ones to contact, But that last step from GA to FA can be a big one. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam instead, and yes, I agree with you, so let's keep on editing. Kangxi Emperor (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article written by a non-muslim 

message: I agree that this section is almost complete dreck and needs to go.  However, I think a "Notable opinions" section might be interesting.  That is, what have some of the most respected personalities in history published regarding their opinion of Muhammad.  We might logically divide these opinions by century or simply place them in chronological sequence.  Fascinating candidates might include Shaw (as already in the section in question) Jefferson, Churchill, Lincoln, Einstein, and so on - assuming they have expressed an opinion at all. Rklawton (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Childish partialism. Why has it been removed?Thelonerex (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it was wildly unbalanced POV with no real place in an encyclopedic article. Unless of course you wish to include the opinions of those who considered him a pedophile and a madman? Doc  Tropics 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the eyes of scholars 

message: Please refrain from adding unknown sources which are clearly islamophobic in nature and stop adding ridiculous edits to this article find a source which is not biased or is clearly biased Errormeek (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarosh and sources 

message: Firstly, I would really like to express my admiration to what are you doing guys. Returning to the article of Prophet Mohamed, I am fully aware of the Western perceptions about Prophet Mohamed and I this is what you reflect in the article. Let me quot from the article: 
"The biographical knowledge about Muhammad in the learned, Latin circles of the Middle Ages in Europe, was precise to some extent and a good amount of concrete data about his life was known. Learned European circles of the time interpreted the data in such a way that Muhammad was viewed as a charlatan driven by ambition and eagerness for power"
So, we have three channels or types of European perception about Muhammad that are mentioned in the article which are:
1- the biographical knowledge (which is described as precise to some extent)
2- a good amount of concrete data about his life 
3- the interpretations of this data (that Muhammad was viewed as a charlatan...)
It is not a puzzle. I think when we say that the (biographical knowledge) is precise, we are saying that their interpretations should be precise, to some extent, as well. 
I admire Ludwig's suggestion of putting "though" before the interpretation but it may convey somewhat reversed biased (for Islamic opinion). Anyhow, any statement of praising or disapproving a citation in debatable issues would appear as self-judgment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkifaee (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the phrase remarkably prices 

message: In Addition, when we say that some precise knowledge led to specific interpretations, we point out that these interpretations are precise in a way or another. Fadel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkifaee (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise Knowledge Leading to Negative Perceptions 

message: Moved to Talk:Muhammad/images#Russian painting of Muhammad. - Altenmann >t 22:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian painting of Muhammad. 

message: Hi everyone,
In the beginning f the section "Life" there is a photo of the Mosque of the Prophet with this description: 
"Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in Medina, Saudi Arabia, is the site of Muhammad's tomb."
There is a historical consensus that Prophet Muhammad built this Mosque during his lifetime; the place sacredness has nothing to do with Prophet Muhammad's tomb (despite the tomb's social significance in the area). The tomb was OUTSIDE the Mosque, until expansions for the Mosque built-area did include the grave inside it. As Prophet Muhammad was buried in his wife's house, which was adjacent to the Mosque building at that time. Saying that it's the sight of Muhammad's tomb may lead to wrong assumptions that it was built due to Muhammad's tomb presence in the area. 
I ask for proper corrections to be made as soon as possible. Such as (The Mosque of the Prophet, one of the three most sacred Mosques in Islam)
Spiritmind (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site of Muhammad's tomb 

message: Under the paragraph "wives and children" it states that Prophet Muhammed PBUH married zaynab bint jahsh, however the article places it in context that would imply it was because she appealed to the prophet, while the real reason the prophet married her was after he received the stated verse from Sura al-Ahzab (33:37), and it was upon god's order, to inform the people that zaid is not to be treated as a son of muhammed (PBUH), as the people of quraish treated adopted sons as real sons, claiming that they should be called after the adopted father and also receive inheritance as real sons or daughters.
His marriage of her was to inform the people zaid was not to be treated as a real son of him, as its forbidden in islam for a man to marry his son's wife, whether after his death or after they divorceXm1332 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives and children 

message: REQUESTED CHANGE....
Kindly remove the Pictures where Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has been depicted by any art work or photographic work...because this is against the sanctity of Muslims as a whole and we all respect each others religion.
:Sorry, no. Read this for the explanation why. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Edit request" 

message: Great article but after the following sentence things become a little confusing. There is some poor English there and some sentences I don't really understand.
Zaynab bint Jahsh wife of Zayd ibn Harithah's wife, in Pre Islamic Arabia adoption was common and Zayd was given to him as a slave by his wife Khadija. Muhammad freed him and took him to Kaaba in Mecca and declared Zayd his son  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.29.36 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives and children 

message: How does one determine which sources are "garbage" sources?--达伟 (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I apologize for the use of that term.  It wasn't appropriate.  Second, you can read more about reliable sources here.  Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add that I was going to revert 达伟's edit but RklawtonNableezy beat me to it. Aside from the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I would have reverted due to content. The section is about names in the Qur'an but 达伟 added material about Hebrew and the Bible, which seemed irrelevant to that section. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Song_of_Songs#Name_of_Muhammad for problems with it in any case... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, AnonMoos.--达伟 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, I didn't revert 达伟's edits or include the inappropriate edit summary.  However, I wanted to respond to his/her question, and felt an apology would be a good way to begin.  Rklawton (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. I noticed the reversion, then your apology, and connected them in my head. I corrected my comment above. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Just curious...is there a reason we should limit the transliterations given for comparison in the footnote to French, German, Icelandic? Perhaps because (in the case of the former two), they would have been influential on English-language usage? What about Latin, Dutch, Greek, etc?--达伟 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any particular reason.  Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to display the broad diversity of transcriptions, where they diverge, focused on languages most relevant to an English-speaking audience (in general order of distance).--达伟 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliterations 

message: Al'Uzza was the major deity who was worshipped in the Ka'aba before Muhammed was born.
I see that my question about Muhammed being from the African Abysinnian clan of Korites who migrated into Arabia before the Arabs was removed. 
The religion of what was renamed Islam i.e,the Book of Kore, the  Ka’aba and all of its major tenets were extant thousands of years before Mohammad’s birth and ultimate seizure of around hte 6th century A.D.  Al-Uzza was the principle African water deity worshiped there, along with the ancestral founding matriarchal clans which included the Korites. The Korites are the same African clan that Abraham descends. There is a small minority of them still left in Somali. The rest who were not killed crossed the Sudan and spread into West and Central Africa. They can trace their ancestral lineages to pre-Mohammed Islam. They still practice ancestral reverence and Al'Uzza still takes spiritual possession of them.  The links that were posted were accused of containing a virus. According to the owner, it is block to prevent visitors from copying the site. Nonetheless it was deemed "unreliable."  Fair enough, I will quote another “unreliable source” which verifies both the site’s and my own research:
At Mohammed’s birth (traditionally 570 A.D.), Mecca was a prosperous transfer point on the ancient spice route between India and a religious center to which the pagan Arab tribes made worship at the city's numerous shrines. Of these the most triangular edifice called the Kaaba (Cube), containing various idols and, in one corner, a black meteorite that had streaked out one night in the forgotten past. Mohammed was born from the family of the Koreish, the dominant tribe in Mecca. He had ample opportunity to observe current religious practices,  were custodians of the Kaaba and concessionaires to the pilgrims who came to visit the shrines. 
A series of armed encounters between his supporters and the Meccans led to an intercity war. It ended in 630 when  Mohammed entered Mecca in triumph and destroyed the idols in the Kaaba, leaving only the Black Stone.   page 101. 
-The World’s Great Religions. Time Incorporated. New York. 1957
What is this conspiracy of censorship and silence to not tell the real history that this religion existed thousands of years before Mohammed? What is the problem with denying Mohammed’s African heritage? Islam is a beautiful and ancient religion. However, to write its ancient founders out of existence to justify a mythical story is the worst form of deception--74.229.102.208 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, the website was unreliable.  Next, we do not publish original research - not yours, not anyones.  One might call it a conspiracy, others would just call it one of Wikipedia's pillars (fundamental rules).  Finally, the one source that you do cite above doesn't add anything new to our articles on Islam.  Now - this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article on Muhammad.  If you wish to participate appropriately, you are welcome to edit here.  Rklawton (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The Time quote doesn't support these assertions.  It does support what's already in related articles.  Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Al-‘Uzzá]] 

message: I noticed that source 9 under "Verbal descriptions" states that: "He usually wore a shirt, trousers, a sheet thrown round the shoulders...". 
However, according to external link 3 titled "Bedouin of Arabia"  which is referred to in the article about Bedouins Bedouin, Bedouins used to wear long flowing robes not trousers as the article suggests. (refer to excerpt below). As Prophet Muhammad lived in this time period and was essentially a Bedouin, it makes sense that he'd dress as Bedouins did in long loose robes and not trousers. In fact, many of the citizens of countries in the Arabian Peninsula today still dress in a similar manner.
 The alternative source states that: 
[Bedouin traditionally wore loose flowing robes that covered them from head to foot as they knew from experience that the best protection from the fierce sunshine, wind and sand of the desert is to cover every part of their bodies.
Men wear a long cotton shirt (thawb) with a belt, covered by a flowing outer garment ('abay). In winter they may wear a waterproof coat of woven camel's hair. Their heads are covered by a large headcloth, the Keffiya, which can be white, red and white, or black and white in colour. The Keffiya is held in place by a double black cord known as the 'Agal, and it is used also to protect face and neck.]
196.221.194.139 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a few minutes to read the article and you'll see where this comes from.  Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of source 9/ verbal descriptions 

message: Many of the images here are unreferenced and/or poorly drawn.
Unreferenced:
* :File:Map of Arabia 600 AD.svg (the image this was based on cites "own work")
* :File:LocationAksumiteEmpire.png (no source)
* :File:Battle of Auhad.gif (taken from Islamic website which doesn't give sources either)
* :File:Muslim Conquest.PNG ("own work")
Image cleanup: 
* :File:LocationAksumiteEmpire.png (very small using an old indicator style, should/could be brought into line with other maps in article)
* :File:Battle of Auhad.gif (small, not fully clear what it's representing)
* :File:Trench.jpeg (small bitmap, unclear what it's representing, original source could hopefully provide us a better vision)
* :File:Muslim Conquest.PNG (base map is fine, fill and lines on it were done in paint and need to be fixed)
Licensing: 
* :File:Badr campaign.svg (questionable fair use... sure, it uses the data points but it's also the same map and style... could be brought into line with other map styles)
--gren グレン 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Improvements 

message: The line "and put an end to the conitnuous grapevine that was going around." should read "and put an end to the continuous grapevine that was going around."
:Fixed, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Error 

message: Can I just say, that he is NOT the founder of the religion. It is Allahs religion and Muhammad ﷺ is the Messenger.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.166.219 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By all historical accounts, he is. Eik Corell (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term founder does not speak to who created or the truth of the religion.  It merely means that Islam, the historical phenomenon which came out of Hijaz during the time was founded by Muhammad.  It should be noncontroversial among Muslims to say that Muhammad brought Islam to the Hijaz in the 600s. gren グレン 18:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Founder"?? 

message: Can you please make the article explai more why Muhammad connected his new religion to Judaism rather than just making up a new religion from scratch?  If he was trying to convert the Jewish people it would makes sense to make some of their Tanakh cannon in his new religion, but the article says that he was trying to convert polytheists.  Is it because he was related to Abraham?  Was he raised in a non-Jewish, non-Muslim monotheist religion that also saw Abraham as a profit?  If so, what was that religion called?  Does it have something to do with "the original monotheism of Abraham" that is mentioned in the article about Mecca?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.9.119 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  connection with Judaism and other pre-Islamic monotheistic religions 

message: Kindly remove all the pictures and cartoons(if any) depicting Prophet Muhammad PBUH since it is unlawful in Islam to draw the image of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. Moreover, such practice is considered as blasphemy against the holiest figure in Islam, Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
Waiting for a positive response.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyedMuhammadShahbaz (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unlikely that the images will not be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Censored. There has been a lot of discussion on this at Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. You might be interested in Help:Options to not see an image. Also please be aware that no all Muslims think the same way as can be seen by reading Depictions of Muhammad. Caution, there are images there as well. Thanks. something lame from CBW 23:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not an Islamic site and is thus not subject to Islamic law. thx1138 (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of all the pics depicting Rasool Allah PBUH 

message: The first quote on this page from The Farewell Sermon is not present in the Wikipedia Article on The farewell Sermon, which contains the entire sermon. This surely suggests that something is wrong here. 69.172.72.38 (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Farewell sermon 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=332401359&oldid=332396561 should be undone, it does not display properly with most fonts.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the HTML entity code is more universal than a font-specific character, and should work better in most browsers and character sets. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On my Mac in both Firefox and Safari I can see the old one but not the new one, so I agree with 90.179.  --99.254.8.208 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad edit 

message: Wijdan, Ali (August 23–28, 1999). "From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of Prophet Muhammad's Portrayal from 13th century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th century Ottoman Art". Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Turkish Art (Utrecht, The Netherlands eds. M. Kiel, N. Landman, and H. Theunissen.) (7): 1–24. http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimbo Vales (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference not working 

message: The last part of "Wives and Children" is a story about Muhammad negotiating a marriage between two people. It is long, rambling, barely coherent and, most importantly, doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject of Muhammad's wives and children. It should be taken out or, at the VERY least, edited and re-written by someone with a firm grasp of the English language.
Castrostation (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, three of those paragraphs consisted of tangential analysis that rambled on and on with no sourcing, and I agree they added no value to the section. I have removed them accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wives and Children" needs edited! 

message: wherever the name of our holy prophet MUHAMMAD is written you must write (PBUH) in front like MUHAMMAD(PBUH).please do it thankz  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazzyraja (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concerns have been addressed in the archives and FAQ. Thanks, raseaCtalk to me 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. No we don't.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Must?  No.  Not even the Arabic version of this article does this.  Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have too.  As you say "our," not everyone that goes on Wikipedia follows Islam.  This is the first time I've ever heard about this too... Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article about this at Peace be upon him (Islam). Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia discourages using PBUH, as it is considered disrespectful. Jarkeld (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBUH 

message: Bernard Shaw(British philosopher):  “…Savior of Humanity…..if a man like him…assume the 	dictatorship…of world…would succeed in solving all problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Mohammed that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is being to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
 (The Genuine Islam).
Gandhi: “…not the sword that won a place for Islam..  	…rigid simplicity… his absolute trust in God…   			own mission..” (Young India)
Michael Hart: “…choice of Muhammad…the list… world's most influential persons…he was supremely successful…religious and secular levels." (The 100: A 	Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History).
Edward Gibbon and SimonOakely in " History of the Saracen Empire, 'London, 1870 "The greatest success of Mohammed's life was effected by sheer moral force" "It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserve our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engrave at Mecca and Medians preserved after the revolution of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African, and the Turkish proselytes of the Qur'an...the Mohametans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man."I believe in one God and Mohammed the Apostle of God" is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image if the Deity have never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reasons and religion."
A.S.Tritton in Islam, 1951 " The picture of Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other hand is quite false."  --Shkassem (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Famous Quotes About Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1tk6YVdiVY&feature=fvw  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewwankenobi (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So?  See Q9 of the FAQ. Resolute 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aisha was 6 when she was married and marriage was consummated when she was 9