Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Prophet

message: *The Prophet or The Holy Prophet in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad" — appropriate action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad"; in first references to Muhammad in an article in which confusion with other Muhammads is plausible, render Muhammad, or possibly "the Islamic prophet Muhammad".
:Disagree. Just using "prophet" as a descriptor does not imply that the individual is speaking truth, just that he/she is "prophesying". Unless you're going to remove "prophet" from Wikipedia entirely, leave uncapped usages in Islamic articles. Zora 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree, because there are millions of Muhammads. --Juan Muslim 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: disagree, as per above. --Striver 01:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the policy as stated; acceptance of Muhammad as a prophet (unqualified: implicitly, a truthful prophet) is a point-of-view, and one that, as a Christian, I cannot share.  Now, *I* could live with an article calling Muhammad a false prophet, but I rather think we all agree that that would fail NPOV — thus, the argument cuts both ways!  The context in which he is accepted as a prophet must be given in order to call him such (see, for instance, Ezekiel, who is called "a prophet in the Hebrew Bible").  For the record, I would oppose any attempt to permit references to Jesus Christ as "the Lord" in Wikipedia articles.  See Names and titles of Jesus for a good example of how this should be handled.  Wooster 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I presume you'll soon express opposition to Moses being considered a prophet in his article. Also, the use of the word "saint" in "Saint Thomas, etc. Bernard Lewis uses the phrase "Prophet Muhammad", as does secular programs like those on PBS. I see nothing POV in saying "The prophet Muhammad". His Excellency... 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I propose that every article that has mention of Muhammad be allowed and even encouraged to mention his prophethood by qualification, i.e Islamic prophet X, Muslim prophet X. This is important for the first mention of him in any article as important contextual information in reference to him. I forsee the argument that oh everyone one knows who he is, that's bung and an assumption. I have no objection to dissuading honorifics but I think it is being carried too far by some editors to expunge the a very relevant word in relation to him even when it is used not as a honorific but as a contextual and informative descriptor. Take a peep at [:Portal:Saints] and notice the usage of Saint and Pope across the page on various articles. I beleive it is POV pushing to remove the word Prophet from before Muhammad when being designated a prophet doesn't imply a fact merely a claim to divine guidance. Anyrate I will limit my press for appropriate contextual mention being allowable.--Tigeroo 14:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophet Muhammad 

message: What about when he is clearly addresed in his role as a prophet? Surely it must be as NPOV to say "the pope decreeded" as saying "the prophet decreeded". --Striver 01:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect according to The American Heritage Dictionary (Dell ed. 2001): "PROPHET: a person who speaks by or as if by divine inspiration" Editorius commented. --Striver 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, as I (and many others) have said before, using the word "prophet" implies, in our current diction, only a true prophet.  As Jesus is not referred to as Jesus Christ, I do not believe that Muhammad should be referred to as the Prophet Muhammad.  However, Popes, as I have stated, have no impact whatsoever on this debate.  They are not religious figures, porphets, or deities - they are religious leaders as well as political leaders elected by humans. Srose (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were is the evidence that concludes in "using the word "prophet" implies, in our current diction, only a true prophet"? --Striver 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I go to Mass and there is a sermon or reading about Moses, Elijah, Abraham, etc., they are referred to as "prophet", not "true prophet".  Anyway, my only point in this section was that Popes are religious leaders, not religious figures: they are elected by humans to lead humans and their position is largely political: they are the 'emperors' of Vatican City, not prophets or Messiahs or anything like that.  My sole point here is that Popes have no impact whatsoever on this debate.  You may have a point with the double standard of "The Virgin Mary", but not with "Pope". Srose (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i could agree with you on that. --Striver 15:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Role as a prophet

message: For the present purpose, an epithet is taken to be a descriptive word or phrase applied in a primary nominal reference to a person. Its use may be ornamental or disambiguative, or temporal or spiritual; it may be used to reflect or, in some cases, to enhance a person’s esteem in a community; or it may be used to denote a particular person where multiple persons exist under the same or similar names.
In the specific case of reference material, our primary concern with the use of an epithet is referential clarity for purposes of avoiding ambiguity. That is, use of an epithet clarifies either the particular person intended or, where multiple, ambiguous senses exist in reference to a particular person, the particular sense in which the reference is made. There are three main circumstances in which, for purposes of referential clarity, use of an epithet would generally be viewed as legitimate:
(i) The name standing alone, without an epithet, would lead to substantial confusion as to the particular person intended; in such cases, the epithet is said to be necessary: for instance, it is common practice to distinguish “Suleiman the Magnicent” from, say, “Suleiman the Wise” through use of the respective epithets.
(ii) The name standing alone, though not necessarily confusing as to the person intended, is not the most common or familiar use; in such cases, the epithet may play an ornamental or descriptive role: for instance, in strictly historical terms, the reference to “Empress Catherine II of Russia” emphasizes her identity or rank, or when referring to the person before the events of 1774, whereafter she is most commonly referred to as “Catherine the Great”; however, it is most common to use the latter reference, and deviating from the most common practice would suggest, to the familiar reader, an emphasis on a particular aspect or sense of the person or office – or, possibly and more problematically, to the unfamiliar reader, an entirely unrelated person.
(iii) The name standing alone, without an epithet, would create confusion as to the intended emphasis; in such cases, the epithet plays a qualifying role where multiple senses exist: for instance, a world of difference exists between the references “Allah the Avenger” and “Allah the Compassionate”, though naturally these references denote the same divine personage.
In the particular case of Muhammad, there are many epithets in use, each associated with a specific emphasis, including: “Prophet Muhammad”, “Muhammad the Messenger”, “Muhammad the Refomer”, “Muhammad the Paladin”, “Apostle of God”, etc. In circumstances of multiple alternative and potentially ambiguous references, judicious use of an epithet for purposes of clarification would be appropriate.
However, where multiple senses exist, an attempt to standardize the use of a single epithet would tend to create confusion around the primary sense commonly intended. For instance, the term “Prophet Muhammad” would appear to refer to the person after the revelations of 610, and specifically as viewed by followers of his teachings. “Muhammad the Reformer”, by contrast, refers to the person in the early years of his role as social advocate, while “Muhammad the Paladin” refers to the comparatively short military career spanning 10 years of his later life. A similar rationale exists in the case of Jesus, where reference is made to “Jesus of Nazareth”, “Jesus Christ”, “The Messiah”, among others. These references, while they denote the same person, simultaneously signify biographical, historical, social and religious contexts in which the reference is to be understood. 
An epithet, then, has the potential to alter a reference, in both desirable and undesirable ways. Certainly, use of a particular epithet should be governed by the general rules of reference, in the sense of the following general principles:
(1) neutrality, 
(2) familiarity, 
(3) simplicity, 
(4) comprehensiveness, and 
(5) lack of ambiguity. 
Inevitably the five requirements are somewhat conflicting: for instance, the greater is a term's comprehensiveness, or the simpler and less qualified is the term, the greater is the corresponding potential for ambiguity. It seems to be very nearly impossible to offer a decisive guideline as to the weight that should be placed on each of these requirements.
Nonetheless, I would suggest that the simple reference – “Muhammad”, like the reference “Jesus” – would be sufficient in its primary context. What is lost in ambiguity is gained in neutrality, familiarity, simplicity and comprehensiveness.
Looksharp 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: great analysis. As for my conclusion: The analysis only makes is clear how complicated the mater is. From my perspective, it seems like taking a west-centric stance to deny Muhammad (pbuh) an ephitet due to claimed (sic) pov concerns, when no such conserns is expresed for figures such as "Empress Catherine II of Russia". Now, one could argue that "But she is not a religious figure!". So? Who cares, not everybody viewed her as a empress. Or "Great" for that mater. No, not even everybody consired Alexander as "The Great" either. Why this double standard between religious and non-religious figures? Why is this non-religious figures given outragous decorative Epithets, while Muhammad is denied a humble "prophet", even with the ungramatical uncapital "p"? This is not made any easier by the fact that Alexander claimed semi-divinehood, nothing compared to claiming to be a humble prophet. Now, i called this "double standard", to deny Muhammad the most basic epithet, arguing he is religious. As if it mattered, as if non-Muslim scholars have not rejected that argument, giving him epithets. I dare to call this hypocracy considering this: Virgin Mary, Blessed Virgin Mary (omg!), Pope Benedict XVI and Martyrs of Cordoba. Explain to me how this is not hypocracy. Peace. --Striver 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where were the pov-warriors when Saint Cyriacus and Saint James the Great were created? And even more important, where are they now? --Striver 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a consensus-seeker, can you tell? Perhaps we shouldn't be considering a style for Islam-related articles only? Wouldn't it be better to seek a universal style that could be applied to the key religious figures simultaneously? Surely there must be a single style of reference that would be appropriate to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (listed here, as the primary prophets of the Abrahamic religions, in chronological order)? Trying to find common ground in this way would impose a high degree of discipline on partisan points of view. According to this approach, someone might propose the reference "Jesus, Lord and Saviour of Us All", but such a person would then be required, by his or her own procedure, to accept the reference "Muhammud, Final Apostle of the One True God". Very soon, I think, people would settle on, simply, "Moses", "Jesus" and "Muhammad".  Looksharp 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need to bring this to a wider scope. I don't agree that we should limit this to religious figures, i don't see why we have "Alexander the Great". What was so "Great" about him? Why was the Mongol guy not equaly great? --Striver 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's say there were three Alexanders: one was a fool, one was a greater fool, and one was the greatest fool. Perhaps "Alexander the Great" means only the greatest among these three.  Looksharp 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is not pov?--Striver 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, make it "tall" instead. Looksharp 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Height can be agreed by all, Greatness is subjective.--Striver 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My primary point, earlier, is that "Alexander III, King of Macedon" is unfamiliar in comparison with "Alexander the Great"; many people wouldn't know that the reference is to the same person. Am I right in thinking that your primary objection is to the obscure social-historical process that ultimately led to the adoption of a titular privilege such as "Great" -- and not with the Wikipedia style itself, which should reflect common academic usage.  Looksharp 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question is: how comes that a qualifier or title is considered NPOV with regards to Alexander, Mary, the Pope, Saints and multiple other western-christians people, including a capital leter, while it is considerd POV even without a capital letter for the non-western non-christian Muhammad? Why is "Virgin" or "Great" NPOV, while "Prophet" is POV? --Striver 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I had a look at the article "Blessed Virgin Mary", and I agree with you: this is the worst sort of POV that I have seen - gut-wrenching stuff. I would like to see a uniform approach in the Manual of Style, starting with religious and political figures where POV issues are generally greatest. Looksharp 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epithet 

message: according to the MOS on capitalising, which is wiki guideline, the word prophet when speaking of Muhammad should be capitalised. similarly, if you look at the Encyclopedia of Islam, arguably the most scholarly (and neutral) resource we could use on wikipedia for information on islam, it always tends to use "Prophet" as opposed to prophet or anything else. almost all mainstream news agencies tend to do the same. i don't believe that prefixing the name Muhammad with Prophet is judgemental as to his status or not as a Prophet, it's simply the easiest way to direct the readers as to who is being talked about. i think a good suggestion would be for the use of "Prophet Muhammad" the first time Muhammad is mentioned, and then subsequently use 'Muhammad' if relevant. ITAQALLAH 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is against the rules of grammar to write "prophet Muhammad".--Striver 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prophet"