DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Muhammad

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former good articleMuhammad was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 2, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
May 14, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
September 10, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 19, 2012.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, June 8, 2006, and June 8, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article


Frequently asked questions, please read before posting

[edit]

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for answers to these frequently-asked questions (you need to tap "Read as wiki page" to see the relevant text):

  1. Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
  2. Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
  3. How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
  4. Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
  5. Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
  6. Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
  7. Why does it look like the article is biased towards secular or "Western" references?
  8. Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
  9. Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
  10. Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?
  11. Why was my request or comment removed?

Migration to Abyssinia reboot

[edit]

Without engaging in the sourcing debate above, there are several more immediate and pertinent questions raised by the Migration to Abyssinia section. The first is a central question of due weight. This section is 600 words or 4.4% of the page. Is this appropriate, and is it commensurate with the level of coverage in relevant sources on the subject, including other tertiary sources. In the case of Britannica, the verdict appears to be no. The Encyclopedia dedicates no space to the sub-topic at the scale of a top-level summary of the master topic here. That might beg the question of why it represents 4.4% of the topic here. Does it represent nearly 5% of the most important information on the topic? I suspect the answer is probably not. Next, Migration to Abyssinia is its own page and is linked, so this section should really only be a balanced top-level summary of the child, which ... is it? In its current form, apparently not. If the Satanic Verses material represents an episode in the broader Migration to Abyssinia arc, then the Satanic Verses page is a direct child of that one, not this one. If that is the case, we would first expect to see a summary of the grandchild topic on Migration to Abyssinia and then an extremely brief mention, perhaps a sentence on the grandchild topic, here. Instead, what we appear to have is both an overemphasis on the child topic and an even more extreme overemphasis on the child of that topic again all on this page. This is not the proper weighting or structuring of the material. If Satanic Verses is indeed a sub-topic/child of/episode in the arc of the Migration to Abyssinia then it should first be summarized there. And here, given the very brief overview of the subject, there should be a very brief summary of the child, summarizing agreed upon points of scholarly consensus, not giving space to individual views. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has responded, but I'm trimming this down. The Satanic Verses section has also been copied to the migration to Abyssinia child page. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW

[edit]

NPOV

[edit]

"Pagans who had not yet converted were very bitter about the advance of Islam."

This doesn't read like an encyclopedic article but rather as a hagiography. Rvosa (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What change to the text would you propose? It seems a clear way of stating their unhappiness about the spread of the upstart religion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd improve it by removing the word "very", which is a meaningless intensifier. As Mark Twain is supposed to have said, every instance of "very" should be replaced with "damn" and then reviewed for whether the intensifier should remain. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed it, along with two other occurrences of "very". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the OP is referring more to the use of the word "pagan". Like "heathen" or "kafir" it can (but not always) give a derogatory tone. More generally, the article does recount his life as told, more or less, by the traditional Muslim narrative (with the odd additional gloss here and there). The Jesus article makes it clearer that the account is based on the Christian sources with frequent referencing of the source ("Luke says", "According to the Synoptics.." etc). It's more difficult to do that with this article because the volume of information and detail is so much greater. Stylistically it could be quite repetitive. Not sure what the solution is but having just read over a chunk of the article I think it doesn't quite hit the right encyclopaedic tone anymore (and perhaps it never did). DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Pagan", in the specific historical, descriptive and academically understood context here, just means polytheist or non-monotheist, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Where to post questions and propose edit changes on the page ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-19602-0: Right here. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you in advance:) ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Depends a bit on what type of questions, but if it's about improving this WP-article, this is the place. Check if some of your questions have answers at Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if you wonder why this [1] was removed, it was because it's not a question or as far as could be told about improving this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not really ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the page promoting a revisionist view rather than a Balanced academic view?

[edit]

Hello there,

I am not arguing the historicity of the events themselves, but I believe the page fails to adhere to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) rule in several places, and it could benefit from a more balanced academic perspective. I am asking for a revision of the historical "facts" the article presents, and for a broader range of sources to be used, as well as references to other related pages. There are many scholarly opinions mentioned, but for example, when you quote John Burton and explain his view in detail, and then briefly mention that Karen Armstrong believes that, thanks to the early biographies, we know more about Muhammad than we do about the founders of almost all other major religions, this is not neutral. This gives too much weight to one opinion while passing over others. This is also repeated elsewhere in the article. The page also contains false information. It claims that the earliest sirah is Ibn Ishaq. This is not accurate; Ibn Ishaq’s sirah is not the "earliest known" or "earliest surviving." There are earlier sirahs, such as Musa ibn ʿUqbah, which survives in its entirety, along with others that didn’t survive fully. This should be corrected. In the hadith section, we find claims like: "Hadiths were compiled several generations after his death by Muslims.""The hadiths generally present an idealized view of Muhammad."a) This isn't true, simply put. b) This shows a misunderstanding of what a hadith is. For example, the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih is one of the oldest surviving books of hadith, and it was not written generations later. Hammam was alive at the same time as many of the companions of Muhammad. The claim that the hadiths "idealize" Muhammad is not encyclopedic information; it’s a conclusion with no solid evidence to back it. There are many sahih (authentic) and not sahih (inauthentic) hadiths that do not provide an "idealized view" of Muhammad. For example, here’s a sahih hadith: "Umm Salamah reported the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying: 'I am only a human being, and you bring your disputes to me, some perhaps being more eloquent in their plea than others, so that I give judgement on their behalf according to what I hear from them. Therefore, whatever I decide for anyone which by right belongs to his brother, he must not take anything, for I am granting him only a portion of Hell.'" {Source: https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3583} Additionally, the article claims: "These sources, distrusted by Quranist scholars, are also viewed with suspicion by Western researchers. Western scholars widely believe that there was widespread fabrication of hadith during the early centuries of Islam to support certain theological and legal positions." This shows a lack of understanding of hadith science. Hadith science was specifically designed to detect fabrication. It seems the author of this article overlooked the earlier statement: "Hadiths were classified by Islamic scholars according to their reliability." Furthermore, it’s not just based on the isnad (chain of narrators); they also analyzed the matn (content of the report). This important point is missing. "Although the 'dominant paradigm' of Western scholars is to find their reliability questionable, some have-with caution-regarded them as accurate historical sources. Scholars such as Wilferd Madelung, on the other hand, do not reject the hadiths compiled in later periods, but evaluate them in their historical context. In other words, according to him, they contained clues not from the life of Muhammad, but from the mentality of the period in which they were written." Scholars like Jonathan A.C. Brown, G.H.A. Juynboll, and David A. King generally affirm that collections like Bukhari are authentic, and they accept many hadiths as historically authentic. Now, regarding the following statement: "Sometime later in his life, Muhammad proposed marriage to his cousin and first love, Fakhitah bint Abi Talib. But likely owing to his poverty, his proposal was rejected by her father, Abu Talib, who chose a more illustrious suitor." Let me make this clear: The idea that Muhammad proposed to her before Islam is not backed by authentic hadiths. Additionally, the idea that he was rejected because of poverty is purely speculative, based on the personal opinion of the source and is not backed by any evidence. It’s strange (and ironic) how this article expresses that even sahih reports are inauthentic, yet uses inauthentic sources to support this claim. "Muhammad's demeanor during his moments of inspiration frequently led to allegations from his contemporaries that he was under the influence of a jinn, a soothsayer, or a magician, suggesting that his experiences during these events bore resemblance to those associated with such figures widely recognized in ancient Arabia." Allegations don’t prove something is false. There are always enemies and allegations made against everyone; Nikola Tesla was accused of madness and mystical behavior, Nelson Mandela was accused of corruption, etc. I am not asking for these allegations to be deleted as a possible conclusion, but a more neutral view would be to mention that the Quran responded to these allegations. "Due to the complexity of the experience, Muhammad was initially reluctant to tell others about his revelations; at first, he confided in only a few select family members and friends. According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet. She was followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zayd. As word of Muhammad's revelations continued to spread throughout the rest of his family, they became increasingly divided on the matter, with the youth and women generally believing in him, while most of the men in the elder generations were staunchly opposed." This claim is problematic. It wasn’t due to the complexity of the situation; it was a command in the Quran to start by telling his close relatives. Additionally, it wasn’t that the "men in the elder generations" were all "staunchly opposed." Many, like Abu Talib (though he didn’t believe), protected him, and Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad’s uncle) did believe in him. On the other hand, figures like Abu Lahab were indeed opposed, but this is an oversimplification. The situation was more nuanced. This message is already getting too long, and I am tired, but I hope I was able to convey my point. (There are still many more examples of inaccuracies in the page. I alone am unable to record them all, this is just pointing out what I was able to collect, and I hope revision Neutrality, nuance, diverse opinions and encyclopedic information are introduced into the page.) (Note: When quoting Islamic sources [which I believe the article should do more often] please quote the more authentic sources over others.) [I may not be able to continue conversations about this for a while since I am busy in life] ~2026-91750-2 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To effectively argue your points, you need to cite reliable sources, like the article does. Your own views about what is true, what is history, what is a simplification, what is problematic, don't mean anything here. You have to (a) cite reliable scholarly sources (not the Quran or Hadith) and (b) explain what you think is wrong with the sources cited in the article. If you are claiming that the article has engaged in WP:FALSEBALANCE, you need to prove that with an analysis of sources, not hand-waving arguments about Muslim tradition. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, traditional views are never accurate or reliable. Historical revisionism reflects "new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation as they come to light. The process of historical revision is a common, necessary, and usually uncontroversial process which develops and refines the historical record to make it more complete and accurate." "Traditionalist" historians should be disregarded. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with OP and you. Historical revisionism has been and continues to be important; however, it is also subject to "current" ideologies.
For example compare Abraham or Jesus wiki articles to Muhammad. There is definite selective citations, with other sources being described as discriminatory and dismissed. ~2026-14805-43 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the OP all you want. So far it's all hand-waving with no scholarly sources. The article cannot be changed unless such sources are brought into the discussion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]