Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. The FAQ below addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

edit

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Why should the images of Muhammad not be removed? A1: The most important issues raised seem to be (1) the historical accuracy with which the images depict Muhammad, and (2) the feelings the images invoke in those Muslims who believe images of their prophet are forbidden; the following paragraphs deal with these issues. Q2: Might the images offend Muslims? A2: Further information: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer Yes, it might offend Muslims. Wikipedia recognizes that among many groups of Muslims, the depiction of Muhammad and other prophets is forbidden, and that some Muslims are offended when this prohibition is violated. (The prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities; for example, the Shi'a do not strictly prohibit these images. For a detailed discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam.) However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that is equally offensive to other religionists, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibitions on images of prophets is to prevent the images from becoming objects of worship as a form of idolatry, where the image becomes more important than the subject it represents. However, Wikipedia uses the images of Muhammad as examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context. Therefore, there might be less concern that the presence of the images on the articles will result in the practice of idolatry among Muslims. Q3: Aren't the images false? A3: It is not claimed that they are accurate depictions of Muhammad: the artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th to 17th century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad. Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Jesus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. photographs) exist, it is a longstanding tradition on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, as long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history. It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to factually represent the face of Muhammad; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted. As an analogy, Jesus has been presented in a multitude of ways, most of which reflect a certain artistic or popular style, such as in a style germane to Byzantine, Coptic or Renaissance art. None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are - i.e. artistic renditions of said people. Q4: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings? A4: See also: Wikipedia:How to set your browser to not see images If you do not wish to view the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don't have to see them, without affecting other users. This is done by modifying your CSS (Cascading Style Sheet) page, which is individual to each user. To do this: Sign in or create an account Click on this link to modify your monobook.css page If no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page Add the following line to your css page: body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;} This will permanently hide the images on the article for you as long as you are logged in. Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article? A5: Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad It is recommended to remove all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precedes or follows Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the Islamic prophet Muhammad is the recommended form. Q6: Why does it look like the article on Muhammad is strongly biased towards Western references? A6: Further information: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Accusations of bias towards Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Wikipedia are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion. In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Wikipedia. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are clearly preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG). Users wishing to participate in an online encyclopedia with a Muslim point of view might want to take a look at other projects such as MuslimWiki, whose article on Muhammad is written according to certain Islamic rules. Q7: Why can't I edit this article as an anonymous user? A7: Persistent vandalism of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally, unless the article is protected more heavily, see below. Although sad, it's truly necessary, and may remain for a very long time. In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, as long as the original authors are also credited. Q8: Is censorship employed on Wikipedia? A8: Simply put, no. Wikipedia is not censored. Here are some examples provided on Wikipedia: Click on show to view the contents of this section Content that can be considered blasphemous Further information: Freedom of speech versus blasphemy Piss Christ Jesus Dress Up Jesus with erection Images that can be considered racist Image:Antisemiticroths.jpg Image:Golliwogg1.jpg Image:Nazi_Anti-Semitic_Propaganda_by_David_Shankbone.jpg Images that can be considered gruesome Image:Deadconfederate.jpg Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg Image:Mass_Grave_Bergen_Belsen_May_1945.jpg Image:Streptococcus_pneumoniae_meningitis,_gross_pathology_33_lores.jpg (autopsy of human brain) Image:Coronary_artery_bypass_surgery_Image_657B-PH.jpg Image:Caesarian.jpg Image:Modern_primitive.jpg Image:Prisoners_whipped.jpg Image:Guardia-battenti.jpg Image:Bound_foot.jpg Image:CannibalHolocaustimpale.jpg Images that can be considered pornographic Image:BannerCarrierLeft.jpg Image:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png Image:Vulva_description.jpg (and its source image, too) Image:Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg Image:Intimpiercing_Frau_aeussere.jpg Image:Fellatio_22.JPG Image:Amazon-variant-sex-position.jpg Image:Édouard-Henri_Avril_(18).jpg Image:Édouard-Henri_Avril_(13).jpg Q9: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile? A9: This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period, therefore there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia. Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is nine years old. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is best not dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha for further information.

Wikipedia is not censored Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.

This is a controversial historical topic that may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

	Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 7, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 8, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 30, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted July 5, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography (Rated GA-Class) BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WPBiographybiography articles Biography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Core  This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. WikiProject Islam (Rated GA-Class, Top-importance) IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Islam portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Arab world (Rated GA-Class) Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab World on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-Class, Top-importance) Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Middle Ages portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated GA-Class) This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, and June 8, 2006.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

• Noam Cohen (February 5, 2008). "Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin.    • Torsten Kleinz (February 6, 2008). "Wikipedia: Streit um Mohammed-Bilder (german)". Heise. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/103052.    • Fox News (February 6, 2008). "Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad". Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328966,00.html.    • Caroline Davies (February 17, 2008). "Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet". The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/17/wikipedia.islam?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews.    • Inquirer Newsdesk (February 11, 2008). "Wikipedia faces wrath of Islam". The Inquirer. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/02/11/wikipedia-faces-wrath-islam.    • K.C. Jones (February 7, 2008). "Wikipedia Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad". InformationWeek. http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206106192.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 3 days are automatically moved. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived. An archive index is available here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Image archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive Index

[edit] References for the beginnings of armed conflict

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)

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)

[edit] Muhammad (pbuh) Founder of Islam... This is incorrect

Muhammad (pbuh) is not the founder of Islam but the last and final Messenger, to understand this please note that Islam in short means - to aquire peace by submitting your will to Almighty God, and that Islam is not a religion but a way of life or law or obligation which all the Prophets of Almighty God followed. --Yasin K (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"To acquire peace by submitting your will to Almighty God" is one way to define a religion. Many followers of different religions, including Christianity, think of their faith as a way of life.

If Muhammad isn't the founder of Islam, then who?

Constructive suggestions on improving the article are always welcome. Theological interpretations are not constructive here; this is a biography, not an article about Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a way of life which assumes the existence of a god is, by definition, a religion. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A biography should by nature depict the truth, again Islam was not founded but perfected through Muhammad (pbuh), you cant create submission to God you have to apply submission to God. This is logic and not a whismical theological interpretation --Yasin K (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The the first person to practice submitting their will to almighty God was the first man Adam (pbuh) --Yasin K (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Justice is not done to Islam if refered to as a religion. The word 'religion' limits Islam. In reality Islam should encompass the followers life (followers should eat, sleep, wash, do business, go toliet...etc. according to Gods law and Muhammads [pbuh] teachings) therefore a way of life is correct.

note - my text is very unlikely to change anything on such a controversial page but bear witness I attempted to enlighten those who guard it. --Yasin K (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and we try to enlighten you. As you insist on knowing the WP:TRUTH, I don't think we will come very far. However, please do not insert comments in the middle of other comments as you have been doing.Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to filter 131?

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)

It was disabled by Prodego (talk · contribs) 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Article written by a non-muslim

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)

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)

It was written by hundreds of people of all religious denominations, including those who are Muslim. Resolute 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with Peter, they have done a good job in keeping the article unbiased Kangxi emperor6868 (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe time to push to make it featured? Dragons flight (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Not yet, I can see some room for improvements in this article. I am more than happy to contribute both directly and indirectly to help this article reach into a featured article status. Kangxi emperor6868 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This may come as a shock, but our penguin article was also mostly written by non-penguins. --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Regarding the FA, do anyone of you knows the current status of this article and whether it is affiliated with any of the WikiProjects? Regards Kangxi Emperor (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)