DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
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?

This section is for mobile-device users who do not see the normal talk page header. This section should not have any comments, so that it stays on this talk page and does not get archived.

MASS CONFUSION (need to be corrected)

[edit]
When the OP makes their point on the basis of "I know for a fact..." we should all know that this is going nowhere. Time to retire this. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From Verse 6 of Chapter Al-Ahzab on the Quran, mentioned is the Prophet who is known to have a wife and children. There is a confusion with the history of Muhammad and the Prophet. I know for a fact that the prophet is a different person and as mentioned in Quran Muhammad is the SEAL of prophets not THE PROPHET who is mentioned on chapter Al Ahzab. This history is very misleading and needs to be reflected upon and fixed immediately. 141.168.128.95 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And he is born in modern times not in the past but has capabilities to travel through time in spirit. 141.168.128.95 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you rather the article say? Do any reliable sources agree with you on this? Qifzer (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only stating that there is a mass confusion, the Quran doesn’t mention Muhammad as the Prophet often but only states him as the seal of Prophets and a messenger. His story is divinely protected as his a happening in the modern 21st century world. 49.184.102.24 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Quran in English only states Muhammad as the O Muhammad parts in the book.
there’s a one official source which is Quran and it states the truth but people have confused themselves with prophet and the Muhammad who is a seal, consider the verse. Muhammad is the SEAL of prophets. Meaning he is the SEAL not the prophet necessarily. 49.184.102.24 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked for reliable sources that agree with you. Scholarly sources, not your own interpretation of the Quran. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Quran a reliable source ? Because I have one to proof,
Holy Quran 33:30
------------------
يَا نِسَاءَ النَّبِيِّ مَن يَأْتِ مِنكُنَّ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُّبَيِّنَةٍ يُضَاعَفْ لَهَا الْعَذَابُ ضِعْفَيْنِ ۚ وَكَانَ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرًا
O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality - for her the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy.
and then it states soon after that Muhammad should take for himself a wife out of them because he is and was SINGLE.
Holy Quran 33:51
------------------
۞ تُرْجِي مَن تَشَاءُ مِنْهُنَّ وَتُؤْوِي إِلَيْكَ مَن تَشَاءُ ۖ وَمَنِ ابْتَغَيْتَ مِمَّنْ عَزَلْتَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكَ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَن تَقَرَّ أَعْيُنُهُنَّ وَلَا يَحْزَنَّ وَيَرْضَيْنَ بِمَا آتَيْتَهُنَّ كُلُّهُنَّ ۚ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَلِيمًا
You, [O Muhammad], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated - there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them - all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing. 49.199.252.165 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I repeat again, you were asked scholarly sources, not your own interpretation of the Quran. The Quran is a primary source. We cannot quote a passage and provide an interpretation of it without citing a reliable secondary source. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I’m providing official primary source of the Quran . What would be a secondary source ? 49.199.65.254 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source would be scholarly interpretation as opposed to relying on our personal opinions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I am presenting the primary source and the content of it clearly explains my point that o Prohphet and Muhammad is different 141.168.128.95 (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're making a point and you claim your point is supported by the Quran, then that is your interpretation. Propose the text you want the article to say, supported by a citation to a scholarly source, not to a primary source. We are not going to cite the Quran to support assertions about religious beliefs. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to religious texts / mythological writings / things of that nature, we can't use primary sources, as there is inherently a level of interpretation there. We need to use indepdendent, academic, reliable sources. — Czello (music) 06:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to be done when it’s a topic where millions are oblivious towards in ignorance because they have not fully read or analyze the initial primary text in scripture? 141.168.128.95 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, we rely on what academics and scholars have written. We don't rely on the primary source. We as editors are of course free to read the primary source, but we are not permitted to interpret it in a Wikipedia article, we must cite reliable secondary sources, and that isn't negotiable. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The whole discussion of Satanic Verses under this page is intentionally misleading and Islamophobic

[edit]

Under the heading "Migration to Abyssinia and the incident of Satanic Verses", it is wrongfully stated that Satan inspired Prophet (S.A.W) with verses and made him recite them. The story of the Satanic Verses is not found in the most authentic sources and is widely rejected by mainstream Islamic scholars since the earliest times. By consensus of earliest to the most modern scholars of Islam, this idea is considered weak and inauthentic because they contradict core Islamic beliefs about the prophet's infallibility and the Quran's divine protection. This page stated only one side of the story propagated by Islamophobic sites on the internet, while ignoring the mainstream view of Islamic scholars.

In truth, the so called Satanic verses story has been given light by some modern notorious bigots and Islamophobes like Salman Rushdie and Shahab Ahmed. This story is only present in very few histroical accounts and some collections of hadith which are considered weak or fabricated by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike. That is the reason, there is no authentic narration from Imam Bukhari's compilation on this matter (whose is the most authentic book on Hadith in Islam). Furthermore, all the celebrated scholars of Islam like Ibn-Kathir, Al-Albani, Imam Razi unanimously rejected the idea stating that the story was used by some people only to undermine the Quran's authority. But does this page tell you that? No.

Wikipedia claims to be a neutral place. A neutral source should state both sides of a narrative. Instead, what we got is the biased account of one or two Islamophobes who willfully cherrypicked a fabricated story and ignited the debate just to undermine the authority of Quran and the truthfulness of the true Prophet of Islam (S.A.W), instead of giving the true Orthodox views of Islam and all Islamic scholars who clearly state the Prophet's (S.A.W) integrity was absolute, and could not compromised as by such an event.

Therefore, we advice the writers and ediotors of this page to either remove this narrative about the Satanic Verses, or add the correct information and views of Islamic scholars about this matter for all people to see and be rightfully informed. If you claim to be neutral, prove that you are one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmadAli01 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Shahab Ahmed had a significant impact on the field of Islamic studies and can be trusted for his statement that this story is one that often comes up. [1] While it's not impossible that the page should be expanded with other orthodox Muslim views to give a fuller picture or add theological perspectives, it shouldn't be done at the expense of reliable historians. Salman Rushdie, an award winning fiction writer who memorably had to go into hiding after the publication of his novel inspired a fatwa against him, is not mentioned or cited anywhere in the article. Your proposal is a nonstarter because you are questioning apparently reliable sources and accusing them of thought crimes instead of objectively and dispassionately suggesting changes to the article, i.e. WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY. You may try again if you wish; start with the WP:RS and what they say (WP:V). Andre🚐 02:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pertaining to your subjective and flat statement "[Shahab Ahmed] can be trusted for his statement ...", an unfounded statement indeed. The authentic commentators and experts on Quran and Hadith that I quoted, whose works were incontestable in field of Islamic studies and research, and unanimously accepted as authentic by like 99% of Muslims have a different view. But instead of them, you choose to accept eccentric individuals like Shahab Ahmed, someone totally disagreed and despised by Muslim, and non-Muslim, scholars (and loved by Islamophobes).
Wikipedia is a domain that is supposed to be and should be neutral, which means it must provide the most authentic and widely accepted information on any matter (stated in it's policy). What you have done is not only not mentioning the authentic opinion, even worse you have thrown in an unfounded idea from an unreliable individual himself that is bigoted and also been refuted many times. Yet you choose to ignore it.
Words like "[Shahab Ahmed] can be trusted for his statement ..." should be the last coming from you. Wikipedia is a place for objective and unprejudiced information, not for the editors personal beliefs and opinions. Crying out the statement "Shahab Ahmed can be trusted, Shahab Ahmed can be trusted" won't make it true. Instead what you should have done is provide some authentic sources, even a single one, that says that individuals like Shahab Ahmed and Salman Rushdie are trusted source of Islamic information, which of course you can't. I can give you hundred sources who refuted them.
Here's my advice to you.
1. Include the authentic opinion of Islamic scholars by name, on the matter of Satanic Verses, or remove the whole paragraph altogether.
2. If you still decide to obstinately cling to your biased edits, remove the page altogether so the people can have a wiki page that provides neutral authentic information on the Holy Prophet (S.A.W). For your personal opinions you can go to some Islamophobic website (there are plenty), wikipedia isn't for that.
Reply only if you have a true answer to my critiques. Rather just edit the misleading information before coming back to me. AhmadAli01 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You fundamentally misunderstand the policy. Your religion doesnt have to approve of a scholar. Reliable sources do not mean well liked sources. Fact is that Shahab Ahmed and Rushdie are reliable sources. ~2025-32663-25 (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really following this discussion, but some of the positions here on reliable sources are getting weird, including both of those shared above. Shahab Ahmed is a scholar whose views are reliable in so far as they appear in academic publishing. Salman Rushdie is a popular author whose opinions on academic topics are irrelevant and whose only role on a page like this might be in an "In popular culture" section. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi iskander323. You got that right. Even when we quoted literally "hundreds" of sources that are outright against the factuality of Satanic verses story, and are hundreds times more renowned, reliable, authentic and attributable than characters like Shahab Ahmed, they just choose to "ignore" those sources like they don't even exist. Even when we tell them "fine.. don't omit Shahab Ahmed's opinion on the matter, but also give the other side of the story (the authentic one)" the response still remains the same. This guy even started personally attacking our religion Islam. Bravo 👏 AhmadAli01 (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic bias = bad
Anti Islamic Shahab Ahmed bias = okay? Larsarath (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the part concerning Shahab Ahmed to make sure the statement is clearly attributed to him, following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which says interpretive claims should be credited to their sources. Selenne (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated, but the problem isn't solved still.
See, the place in the page where the paragraph is located, the text is following the sequence of events and the actions taken by the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) in the propagation of Islam. But ignoring the bigger picture, there's found an at-length paragraph about Satanic Verses, and that too only one individual's biased opinion, is illogical (unless intentionally put there to mislead). The subject of the text isn't some debate on whether the story of Satanic Verses is true or false, which means that this paragraph shouldn't be here in the first place.
Secondly, If there should be a debate about Satanic Verses, logic claims that the most agreed upon information should be provided. If not, both popular and less accepted opinions can be given. But giving only the least popular opinion, which is prejudiced and also has been refuted by Islamic scholars many times, should never be the case.
From where I'm standing (or by any third person's POV), it appears that this biased information is put there, and popular opinion omitted, to intentionally mislead people. So please either cite the correct information, or remove the paragraph altogether. Thanks AhmadAli01 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. As a Muslim myself, I also do NOT personally agree with the content about this “Satanic Verses". However, per Wikipedia’s policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V, we are required to include information from reliable/published academic sources, EVEN IF the interpretation is controversial as long as it is properly attributed.
To be honest, this issue is one of the main reasons I have been editing "fewer" Islamic related pages lately, since policies in Wikipedia often require us to retain material we might personally "disagree" with, as long as it is verifiable and attributed. Selenne (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, sorry for the late reply.
I fully understand your position and so I have procured the reliable/published authentic academic sources, with in-depth research, as you required, so you could place them here in this page with source reference with ease. I have added the information down below. What's interesting to note in this is that the reliable sources who accept the Satanic verses incident were NOT EVEN 5% compared to the sources who rejected them, both early and modern alike. In fact, Tabari and Shahab Ahmed were the only ones who were in favor of the incident's historicity, and I found hundreds of those who regarded this story as mere fabirication and illogical.
These infos are even present in the wiki page “Satanic Verses”. Here is the detailed gathered information that you required to correct the details regarding Satanic verses story in this page.
---------------------------------
• Objections to the Satanic verses incident were raised as early as the fourth Islamic century, such as in the work of an-Nahhās and continued to be raised throughout later generations by scholars such as Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1157), Fakhr ad-Din Razi (1220) as well as al-Qurtubi (1285). The most comprehensive argument presented against the factuality of the incident came in Qadi Iyad's ash-Shifa'. The Satanic verses incident was discounted on two main bases. The first was that the incident contradicted the doctrine of isma', divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes. The second was that the descriptions of the chain of transmission extant since that period are not complete and sound/authentic (sahih).[1]
• Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi commenting in his Tafsir al-Kabir stated that the story is an outright fabrication, citing supporting arguments from the Qur'an, Sunnah and reason. He then reported that the preeminent Muhaddith Ibn Khuzaymah said: "it is an invention of the heretics" when once asked about it. Al-Razi also recorded that al-Bayhaqi stated that the narration of the story was unreliable because its narrators were of questionable integrity.
• Al-Shawkani stated that nothing from this story is authentic nor is it proven except for its lack of authenticity and falsehood because it contradicts the Book of Allah. He then cites other scholars who also deemed it to be inauthentic, such Al-Bazzar, Al-Bayhaqi, and Ibn Khuzaymah.[2]
• Due to its controversial nature, the tradition of the Satanic Verses never made it into any of the canonical hadith compilations.[3]
• Ibn Kathir rejected the narration, saying that the core of the story is from the authentic narration, but the Satanic verses story is disconnected and its chain of transmission is not authentic."[4] This was a reference to the narration recorded by some scholars who mentioned the recitation of the current verses of Chapter 53 and the prostration of the Muslims and the disbelievers upon their recitation, but not the intervention of Satan.[5]
• Ibn Hazm considered the story to be fabricated, saying: the hadith which includes the phrase about deities’ intercession is an absolute lie. It is neither valid in terms of transmission nor worthy of being engaged with.
• Others have suggested that the story may have been fabricated for theological reasons.[7]
• Shahab Ahmed states that "Reports of the Satanic verses incident were recorded by many compilers of a major biography of Muhammad including 'Urwah b. al-Zubayr (23–94) and Ibn Ishaq (85–151).[8]: 257  Alford T. Welch, however, argues that this rationale alone is insufficient. Sean Anthony has proposed that an early tradition attributed to ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr about the mass conversion and prostration of the Meccans but which does not mention the satanic verses was at a later stage connected with Q. 53:19-20, Q. 22:52 and Q. 17:73-74.[10]: 241–245.
• Scholars such as Shahab Ahmed hold that the report was in Ibn Ishaq, while Alford T. Welch holds the report has not been presumably present in the Ibn Ishaq.[3]
• Shahab Ahmed states that reports of the Satanic verses incident was recorded by Tabari. One related tradition appearing in Tabarī's tafsīr[18] and attributed to Urwah ibn Zubayr (d. 713), preserves the basic narrative but with no mention of satanic temptation. The earliest biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (761–767), which is lost but his collection of traditions survives mainly in two sources: Ibn Hisham (833) and al-Tabari (915). The story appears in al-Tabari, who includes Ibn Ishaq in the chain of transmission, he commented sternly, was either bogus, or irrelevant, or sacrilegious.[11]
• Shahab Ahmed himself noted that the Quran is at pains to deny that the source of Muhammad's inspiration is a shaytan (Q. 81:19–20, 25) because for his immediate audience, the sources for the two categories of inspired individuals in society, poets and soothsayers, were shaytans and jinn, respectively, whereas Muhammad was a prophet.[8]: 295
• Burton, in his rejection of the authenticity of the story, sided with Leone Caetani, who wrote that the story was to be rejected not only on the basis of isnad, but because if these hadiths even had a degree of historical basis, Muhammad's reported conduct on this occasion would have given the lie to the whole of his previous prophetic activity.[12]
• Ernst concluded that the Satanic Verses likely never existed as part of the Qurʾan since the surah is heavily focused on rejection of polytheism, which makes the inclusion of the Satanic Verses quote unrealistic. Its absence from the canonical hadith collections supports his claim.[13]
• Rodinson writes that this story contradicts Muhammad’s message. Enabling the three goddesses to intercede for sinners and save them from eternal damnation diminished the threat of the Last Judgment. Further, it diminished Muhammad's own authority by giving the priests of Uzza, Manat, and Allat the ability to pronounce oracles. [14]
• Haykal points out the many inconsistencies in the many forms and versions of the story and argues that the contextual flow of Surah 'al Najm' does not allow at all the inclusion of such verses as the story claims. Haykal quotes Muhammad Abduh who pointed out that the "Arabs have nowhere described their gods in such terms as 'al gharaniq' (as in the alleged verses). Neither in their poetry nor in their speeches or traditions. Lastly, Haykal argues that the story is inconsistent with Muhammad's personal life and is completely against the spirit of the Islamic message.[15]
• Aqa Mahdi Puya has said that these fake verses were shouted out by the Meccans to make it appear that it was Muhammad who had spoken them.[16][17]
• One related tradition appearing in Tabarī's tafsīr[18] and attributed to Urwah ibn Zubayr (d. 713), preserves the basic narrative but with no mention of satanic temptation. Muhammad is persecuted by the Meccans after attacking their idols, during which time a group of Muslims seeks refuge in Abyssinia. After the cessation of this first round of persecution (fitna) they return home, but soon a second round begins. No compelling reason is provided for the caesura of persecution, though, unlike in the incident of the Satanic Verses, where it is the (temporary) fruit of Muhammad's accommodation to Meccan polytheism.[19]
• John notes from the earliest tafsīr texts that the idea seems to have been universally rejected by at least the 13th century, and most modern Muslims likewise see the tradition as problematic, in the sense that it is viewed as profoundly heretical because, by allowing for the intercession of the three pagan female deities, they eroded the authority and omnipotence of Allah. But they also hold damaging implications in regard to the revelation as a whole, for Muhammad's revelation appears to have been based on his desire to soften the threat to the deities of the people."[20]
• Many modern Muslim scholars have also rejected the Satanic verses story. Arguments for rejection are found in Muhammad Abduh's article "Masʾalat al-gharānīq wa-tafsīr al-āyāt", Muhammad Husayn Haykal's Hayat Muhammad (1933), Sayyid Qutb's Fi Zilal al-Quran (1965), Abul Ala Maududi's Tafhim-ul-Quran (1972) and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani's Nasb al-majānīq li-nasf al-gharānīq.[1]
References:
1. Ahmed, Shahab (2008), "Satanic Verses", in Dammen McAuliffe, Jane (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, Georgetown University, Washington DC: Brill (published 14 August 2008)
2. Shawkānī, al- (2007). Fath al-Qadīr. Dār al-Maʿrifah. pp. 969–970.
3. Rubin, Uri (1997), The eye of the beholder: the life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims: a textual analysis, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press (published 1995), p. 161, ISBN 0-87850-110-X
4. Ibn Kathir. Tafsir Ibn Kathir Archive.org. The Interpretation of Ibn Kathir. Darussalam
5. Rubin, Uri (1997), The eye of the beholder: the life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims: a textual analysis, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press (published 1995), p. 161
6. Ibn, Hazm. Al Fasl fi Al Ahwa wa Al Nihal (in Arabic). pp. 2/311. Full text: Islamweb.net
7. Hoyland, Robert (March 2007). "Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions". History Compass. 5 (2): 581–602. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00395.x. ISSN 1478-0542.
8. Ahmed, Shahab (2017). Before Orthodoxy: The satanic verses in early Islam. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-04742-6.
9. Buhl, F.; Welch, A.T. (1993). "Muḥammad". Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). Brill. p. 365. ISBN 978-90-04-09419-2.
10. Anthony, Sean (2019). "The Satanic Verses in Early Shiʿite Literature: A Minority Report on Shahab Ahmed's Before Orthodoxy". Shii Studies Review. 3 (1–2): 215–252. doi:10.1163/24682470-12340043. S2CID 181905314. Retrieved 16 August 2022.
11. Holland, Tom (2012). In the Shadow of the Sword. Doubleday. p. 42. ISBN 978-0385531368.
12. Quoted by I.R Netton in "Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer" (1996) p. 86, Routledge
13. Ernst, Carl W. (2011). How to read the Qur'an: a new guide, with select translations. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3516-6.
14. Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed. Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1961, pp. 107–108.
15. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Hayat Muhammad, 9th edition (Cairo, Maktaba an-Nahda al-Misriya, 1964, pp. 164–167)
16. Puya, Aqa Mahdi. (2008), Aqa Mahdi Puya view, Satanic Verses (PDF), Mahdi Puya, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2021
17. "Multilingual Quran". www.al-islam.org. Archived from the original on 25 December 2008. Retrieved 12 December 2009.
18. Tafsir, Vol. IX
19. Rubin, pp. 157–158
20. John D. Erickson (1998), Islam and Postcolonial Narrative, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press AhmadAli01 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, it is clear from the above information that number of reports in favor of Satanic verses’ factuality is negligible compared to the sources that reject it. These include prominent Muslim and non-Muslim figures. Muslim figures like al-Razi, Bayhaqi, Ibn Kathir, al-Shawkani, al-Albani and others are studied today in the West and Muslim world alike. So please do the justice to every reader that comes to reads this page about Islam and correct the paragraph to prevent them from being misled and from getting utterly false and biased information against Islam that it currently contains. May God be pleased with you.
Here I have summarized all the information into one paragraph for you to easily put in. This new paragraph has to stand in place of the current paragraph “According to the scholar Shahab Ahmed, the Satanic Verses incident was reported…” .:
"Most classical and modern scholars, beginning as early as the fourth Islamic century, have rejected the authenticity of the so-called Satanic Verses incident, citing its incomplete and unauthentic chain of transmission and contradiction with the doctrine of the Prophet’s infallibility (ʿismah).[401] Prominent theologians and exegetes such as al-Razi, Ibn Khuzaymah, al-Bayhaqi, al-Qurtubi, and Qadi Iyad dismissed it as outright fabrication and inconsistent with Qur’anic monotheism.[401][402] Later scholars, including Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hazm, and al-Shawkani also dismissed the report as inauthentic or corrupted.[403][404][402] While historians like Shahab Ahmed and al-Tabari noted that early biographers may have transmitted versions of the account,[405] many concluded that its details were later embellishments. That could be the reason that the tradition of the Satanic Verses never made it into any of the canonical hadith compilations.[406] Modern western and Muslim scholars alike—including Burton, Ernst, Rodinson, al-Albani, Haykal, Qutb—argued that the idea contradicts both Muhammad’s monotheistic message and the thematic structure of Surah al-Najm. [407][408][409][401][410] By the thirteenth century, the narrative was largely rejected within mainstream Islamic thought and remains universally regarded by modern Muslim scholarship as fictitious and theologically untenable.[411]"
Here are the references for this paragraph (numbered according to the page):
401. Ahmed, Shahab (2008), "Satanic Verses", in Dammen McAuliffe, Jane (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, Georgetown University, Washington DC: Brill (published 14 August 2008)
402. Shawkānī, al- (2007). Fath al-Qadīr. Dār al-Maʿrifah. pp. 969–970.
403. Ibn Kathir. Tafsir Ibn Kathir Archive.org. The Interpretation of Ibn Kathir. Darussalam
404. Ibn, Hazm. Al Fasl fi Al Ahwa wa Al Nihal (in Arabic). pp. 2/311. Full text: Islamweb.net
405.  Holland, Tom (2012). In the Shadow of the Sword. Doubleday. p. 42. ISBN 978-0385531368.
406. Rubin, Uri (1997), The eye of the beholder: the life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims: a textual analysis, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press (published 1995), p. 161, ISBN 0-87850-110-X
407. Quoted by I.R Netton in "Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer" (1996) p. 86, Routledge
408. Ernst, Carl W. (2011). How to read the Qur'an: a new guide, with select translations. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3516-6.
409. Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed. Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1961, pp. 107–108.
410. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Hayat Muhammad, 9th edition (Cairo, Maktaba an-Nahda al-Misriya, 1964, pp. 164–167)
411. John D. Erickson (1998), Islam and Postcolonial Narrative, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press AhmadAli01 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thoroughly verified your sources? I mean, is the content you gave really mentioned in them? I haven’t had time to verify it myself since I have been quite busy lately. If everything is confirmed, I’ll be glad to add it to the content. Selenne (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse, I wouldn't have given them to you if they weren't verified. Being a scholar of science and research myself. Besides, all of these sources have already been quoted and cited in the Wikipedia page "Satanic Verses". You are free to recheck them yourself if you like, but for me they are confirmed and verified. AhmadAli01 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added your content but removed some, keeping the "important parts" so it stays concise and fits "Featured Article standards". Feel free to make further edits or add anything you think is needed. Selenne (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, great work as an editor. I understand that not everything I quoted and cited could be added, so we can work with this too. One more suggestion. The previous paragraph that starts with "Along with many other, Tabari recorded that ...". The "many others" were of an opinion against the Satanic verses, as already shown by the next paragraph that we edited. So these words are not in line here. The paragraph should just start with "Tabari recorded that ...". Please see if this could be fixed too. AhmadAli01 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just removed that part (“along with many others”) as you suggested. Selenne (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone reverted all the changes we made. Looks like someone is allergic to reason! AhmadAli01 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just seen it. Instances like this are common on Wikipedia, especially with religiously sensitive topics. Selenne (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the story mentioned in a lot of Islamic sources as well? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of Satan having spoken to the Prophet (saw) since it directly contradicts the Quran and is purely a third party critique based on earlier church warnings of future religions. It has no basis in Islam or authentic ahadith. Larsarath (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the story does appear in several early Islamic historical/biographical sources, "though" with varying chains of narration and levels of authenticity. However, many Muslim scholars throughout history have "rejected" the story's reliability, which is why it remains a disputed report "rather than" an accepted event in Islamic belief. Selenne (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this because it solely reflects the Muslim point of view. The original text as recently edited gives a fair summary of the position. By the way, saying it can't be true because it conflicts with Islamic teaching is entirely circular and meaningless. That only works of you believe that teaching is "the truth". That is not how Wiipedia works. DeCausa (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. My edit isn’t meant to promote a religious view, but to summarize the dominant position within Islamic scholarship which is relevant to the topic. I agree that the Western academic perspective should also be included for balance, but I think the section should give due weight to the mainstream Muslim scholarly view. Selenne (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Selenne, your edit is greatly appreciated, as it reflects both views now. Before it was not only obstinately biased and prejudiced, but it deliberately omitted the mainstream opinion completely. It was also contrary to the works, studies and researches published by celebrated Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike like Burton, Ernst, Robinson, Haykal, al-Albani, Ibn-Kathir, al-Shawkani, Qutb and many more that I quoted and cited. The new edit you did reflects both views, and also puts forward the true information about the fabricated story of Satanic verses for the world to see, just like it should be. Respect and regards. AhmadAli01 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Please feel free to make any further improvements or suggestions. Collaboration is always appreciated. Since I’m not always online, I might not be able to respond right away, but I fully support constructive edits that help improve the page. Selenne (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reverted again by another longstanding editor. You do not have consensus to reinstate it again and should not do so per WP:ONUS. The original wording gave due weight to the religious point of view. "Islamic scholarship" is a religious point of view and it should not be presented as the "dominant position". DeCausa (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dominant position is clearly stated in hundreds of scholarly articles I provided, authored by prominent Muslim and NON-MUSLIM scholars alike, with source links and citations. Yet you claim they are not dominant position. Have you any proof? Bcz I just quoted scholars across millenia, both Muslim and Western, who overwhelmingly stated the dominant position to be against the Satanic verses story. If you still proclaim it to be other wise, provide proof. (Personal attack removed)
Even you, as a "longstanding editor", has no authority to bend the truth and mislead people from true information and bend the truth to your own narrative.You may go to some Islamophobic websites, Wikipedia isn't for that. The policy is strict against such individuals who try to push POVs. A guy got banned from Wikipedia last year specifically for this very reason.
Since you claimed that your original wording gave "due weight", then answer this.
• Your original paragraph proposes that Historian Alfred T. Welch was in favour of Satanic verses, and referenced (Buhl and Welch 1993). While the same source also quotes that Welch proclaimed that the report about Satanic verses is NOT present in early sources like Ibn Ishaq as the claimers say. Welch also stated that the chain of transmission is weak about the story, and that the rationale behind the story is insufficient. Where's this side of the story in your original paragraph?? Yet you claim it gives due weight.
• Your original text claims "By the 20th century, Muslim scholars unanimously rejected this incident." whereas Erickson (1998) states that it was actually 13th century when Muslims unanimously rejected the incident.
(Reference: John D. Erickson (1998), Islam and Postcolonial Narrative, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
• Your original wording claims "most European biographers of Muhammad have historically recognized the veracity of this incident of satanic verses on the basis of the criterion of embarrassment." Where's the proof for that, where's the references and sources. Just empty claims don't make something true. You can't site the sources because there isn't any reputable Western sources who verified the historicity of the so called Satanic verses. I cited many Western scholars who state that the Satanic verses story is an absolute lie.
• The original text cited only one problematic source (Shahab Ahmed) again and again for every assertion, whereas I cited practically hundreds (see my answer above, in the other reply) both MUSLIM and NON-MUSLIM scholars SEPARATELY for each statement.
(Personal attack removed)
Since you claimed the Islamic scholars (who are experts in their field) have only "religious point of view", here are some among many of the NON-MUSLIM scholars that have the opinion that story of Satanic verses is a mere fabrication.
• Burton, in his rejection of the authenticity of the story, sided with Leone Caetani, who wrote that the story was to be rejected not only on the basis of isnad, but because if these hadiths even had a degree of historical basis, Muhammad's reported conduct on this occasion would have given the lie to the whole of his previous prophetic activity.
(Quoted by I.R Netton in "Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer" (1996) p. 86, Routledge)
(Reference: Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed. Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1961, pp. 107–108)
• Erickson notes from the earliest tafsīr texts that the idea seems to have been universally rejected by at least the 13th century, and most modern Muslims likewise see the tradition as problematic, in the sense that it is viewed as profoundly heretical because, by allowing for the intercession of the three pagan female deities, they eroded the authority and omnipotence of Allah. But they also hold damaging implications in regard to the revelation as a whole, for Muhammad's revelation appears to have been based on his desire to soften the threat to the deities of the people."
(Reference: John D. Erickson (1998), Islam and Postcolonial Narrative, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
(Personal attack removed) AhmadAli01 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice the pattern with those who push the "Satanic Verses" narrative, they have a biased anti-Islam point of view. These aren't secular scholars, you know. Larsarath (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the so-called Satanic Verses incident was reported en masse and documented by nearly all of the major biographers of Muhammad during Islam's first two centuries I don't think this fact needs to be attributed. It is pretty much a known fact, and there are other sources in the Satanic Verses article itself. Even modern-day scholars that doubt the historicity of the narrative generally agree that the early biographers of Muhammad wrote about the supposed incident. Andre🚐 20:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already gave you an answer up there and asked you to prove your points which you couldn't. Now you start another head. The Talk section is for Wikipedia users to suggest changes to article pages and make them better. Please stop wasting users' time if you can't solve a problem, let other editors do the job. AhmadAli01 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no, I'm referring to the statement about Muhammad's biographers. Andre🚐 21:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> the most authentic sources
This article uses WIKIPEDIA:RS. What do you believe to be "the most authentic sources", and can you cite them for us, User:AhmadAli01 (peace be upon you)? - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 11:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OmegaAOL. Of course. I have also cited the sources up there in other replies again and again. I will cite those sources and information again for you, considered authentic and are attributable. All of these are also found in Wikipedia page "Satanic Verses", where also it's clearly visible that the authentic and standard opinion is overwhelmingly against the Satanic verses story's factuality (like hundred against two (literally just Tabari and Shahab Ahmed)). But the current paragraph in the article "According to the scholar Shahab Ahmed, the so-called Satanic Verses incident... " only tells the nonstandard, biased opinion and purports it as standard, without even alluring to the true standard opinion Western and Muslim scholars have. Please see the sources and references below and include the fair necessary changes in the article to give readers the actual unbiased opinion on the matter, if you have power as an editor. Thanks
---------------------
• Objections to the Satanic verses incident were raised as early as the fourth Islamic century, such as in the work of an-Nahhās and continued to be raised throughout later generations by scholars such as Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1157), Fakhr ad-Din Razi (1220) as well as al-Qurtubi (1285). The most comprehensive argument presented against the factuality of the incident came in Qadi Iyad's ash-Shifa'. The Satanic verses incident was discounted on two main bases. The first was that the incident contradicted the doctrine of isma', divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes. The second was that the descriptions of the chain of transmission extant since that period are not complete and sound/authentic (sahih).[1]
References:
1. Ahmed, Shahab (2008), "Satanic Verses", in Dammen McAuliffe, Jane (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, Georgetown University, Washington DC: Brill (published 14 August 2008)
2. Shawkānī, al- (2007). Fath al-Qadīr. Dār al-Maʿrifah. pp. 969–970.
3. Rubin, Uri (1997), The eye of the beholder: the life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims: a textual analysis, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press (published 1995), p. 161, ISBN 0-87850-110-X
4. Ibn Kathir. Tafsir Ibn Kathir Archive.org. The Interpretation of Ibn Kathir. Darussalam
5. Rubin, Uri (1997), The eye of the beholder: the life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims: a textual analysis, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press (published 1995), p. 161
6. Ibn, Hazm. Al Fasl fi Al Ahwa wa Al Nihal (in Arabic). pp. 2/311. Full text: Islamweb.net
7. Hoyland, Robert (March 2007). "Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions". History Compass. 5 (2): 581–602. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00395.x. ISSN 1478-0542.
8. Ahmed, Shahab (2017). Before Orthodoxy: The satanic verses in early Islam. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-04742-6.
9. Buhl, F.; Welch, A.T. (1993). "Muḥammad". Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). Brill. p. 365. ISBN 978-90-04-09419-2.
10. Anthony, Sean (2019). "The Satanic Verses in Early Shiʿite Literature: A Minority Report on Shahab Ahmed's Before Orthodoxy". Shii Studies Review. 3 (1–2): 215–252. doi:10.1163/24682470-12340043. S2CID 181905314. Retrieved 16 August 2022.
11. Holland, Tom (2012). In the Shadow of the Sword. Doubleday. p. 42. ISBN 978-0385531368.
12. Quoted by I.R Netton in "Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer" (1996) p. 86, Routledge
13. Ernst, Carl W. (2011). How to read the Qur'an: a new guide, with select translations. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3516-6.
14. Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed. Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1961, pp. 107–108.
15. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Hayat Muhammad, 9th edition (Cairo, Maktaba an-Nahda al-Misriya, 1964, pp. 164–167)
16. Puya, Aqa Mahdi. (2008), Aqa Mahdi Puya view, Satanic Verses (PDF), Mahdi Puya, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2021
17. "Multilingual Quran". www.al-islam.org. Archived from the original on 25 December 2008. Retrieved 12 December 2009.
18. Tafsir, Vol. IX
19. Rubin, pp. 157–158
20. John D. Erickson (1998), Islam and Postcolonial Narrative, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
AhmadAli01 (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Objections to the Satanic verses incident were raised as early as the fourth Islamic century, such as in the work of an-Nahhās and continued to be raised throughout later generations by scholars such as Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1157), Fakhr ad-Din Razi (1220) as well as al-Qurtubi (1285). The most comprehensive argument presented against the factuality of the incident came in Qadi Iyad's ash-Shifa'. The Satanic verses incident was discounted on two main bases. The first was that the incident contradicted the doctrine of isma', divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes. The second was that the descriptions of the chain of transmission extant since that period are not complete and sound/authentic (sahih).[1]
• Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi commenting in his Tafsir al-Kabir stated that the story is an outright fabrication, citing supporting arguments from the Qur'an, Sunnah and reason. He then reported that the preeminent Muhaddith Ibn Khuzaymah said: "it is an invention of the heretics" when once asked about it. Al-Razi also recorded that al-Bayhaqi stated that the narration of the story was unreliable because its narrators were of questionable integrity.
• Al-Shawkani stated that nothing from this story is authentic nor is it proven except for its lack of authenticity and falsehood because it contradicts the Book of Allah. He then cites other scholars who also deemed it to be inauthentic, such Al-Bazzar, Al-Bayhaqi, and Ibn Khuzaymah.[2]
• Due to its controversial nature, the tradition of the Satanic Verses never made it into any of the canonical hadith compilations.[3]
• Ibn Kathir rejected the narration, saying that the core of the story is from the authentic narration, but the Satanic verses story is disconnected and its chain of transmission is not authentic."[4] This was a reference to the narration recorded by some scholars who mentioned the recitation of the current verses of Chapter 53 and the prostration of the Muslims and the disbelievers upon their recitation, but not the intervention of Satan.[5]
• Ibn Hazm considered the story to be fabricated, saying: the hadith which includes the phrase about deities’ intercession is an absolute lie. It is neither valid in terms of transmission nor worthy of being engaged with.
• Others have suggested that the story may have been fabricated for theological reasons.[7]
• Shahab Ahmed states that "Reports of the Satanic verses incident were recorded by many compilers of a major biography of Muhammad including 'Urwah b. al-Zubayr (23–94) and Ibn Ishaq (85–151).[8]: 257  Alford T. Welch, however, argues that this rationale alone is insufficient. Sean Anthony has proposed that an early tradition attributed to ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr about the mass conversion and prostration of the Meccans but which does not mention the satanic verses was at a later stage connected with Q. 53:19-20, Q. 22:52 and Q. 17:73-74.[10]: 241–245.
• Scholars such as Shahab Ahmed hold that the report was in Ibn Ishaq, while Alford T. Welch holds the report has not been presumably present in the Ibn Ishaq.[3]
• Shahab Ahmed states that reports of the Satanic verses incident was recorded by Tabari. One related tradition appearing in Tabarī's tafsīr[18] and attributed to Urwah ibn Zubayr (d. 713), preserves the basic narrative but with no mention of satanic temptation. The earliest biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (761–767), which is lost but his collection of traditions survives mainly in two sources: Ibn Hisham (833) and al-Tabari (915). The story appears in al-Tabari, who includes Ibn Ishaq in the chain of transmission, he commented sternly, was either bogus, or irrelevant, or sacrilegious.[11]
• Shahab Ahmed himself noted that the Quran is at pains to deny that the source of Muhammad's inspiration is a shaytan (Q. 81:19–20, 25) because for his immediate audience, the sources for the two categories of inspired individuals in society, poets and soothsayers, were shaytans and jinn, respectively, whereas Muhammad was a prophet.[8]: 295
• Burton, in his rejection of the authenticity of the story, sided with Leone Caetani, who wrote that the story was to be rejected not only on the basis of isnad, but because if these hadiths even had a degree of historical basis, Muhammad's reported conduct on this occasion would have given the lie to the whole of his previous prophetic activity.[12]
• Ernst concluded that the Satanic Verses likely never existed as part of the Qurʾan since the surah is heavily focused on rejection of polytheism, which makes the inclusion of the Satanic Verses quote unrealistic. Its absence from the canonical hadith collections supports his claim.[13]
• Rodinson writes that this story contradicts Muhammad’s message. Enabling the three goddesses to intercede for sinners and save them from eternal damnation diminished the threat of the Last Judgment. Further, it diminished Muhammad's own authority by giving the priests of Uzza, Manat, and Allat the ability to pronounce oracles. [14]
• Haykal points out the many inconsistencies in the many forms and versions of the story and argues that the contextual flow of Surah 'al Najm' does not allow at all the inclusion of such verses as the story claims. Haykal quotes Muhammad Abduh who pointed out that the "Arabs have nowhere described their gods in such terms as 'al gharaniq' (as in the alleged verses). Neither in their poetry nor in their speeches or traditions. Lastly, Haykal argues that the story is inconsistent with Muhammad's personal life and is completely against the spirit of the Islamic message.[15]
• Aqa Mahdi Puya has said that these fake verses were shouted out by the Meccans to make it appear that it was Muhammad who had spoken them.[16][17]
• One related tradition appearing in Tabarī's tafsīr[18] and attributed to Urwah ibn Zubayr (d. 713), preserves the basic narrative but with no mention of satanic temptation. Muhammad is persecuted by the Meccans after attacking their idols, during which time a group of Muslims seeks refuge in Abyssinia. After the cessation of this first round of persecution (fitna) they return home, but soon a second round begins. No compelling reason is provided for the caesura of persecution, though, unlike in the incident of the Satanic Verses, where it is the (temporary) fruit of Muhammad's accommodation to Meccan polytheism.[19]
• John notes from the earliest tafsīr texts that the idea seems to have been universally rejected by at least the 13th century, and most modern Muslims likewise see the tradition as problematic, in the sense that it is viewed as profoundly heretical because, by allowing for the intercession of the three pagan female deities, they eroded the authority and omnipotence of Allah. But they also hold damaging implications in regard to the revelation as a whole, for Muhammad's revelation appears to have been based on his desire to soften the threat to the deities of the people."[20]
• Many modern Muslim scholars have also rejected the Satanic verses story. Arguments for rejection are found in Muhammad Abduh's article "Masʾalat al-gharānīq wa-tafsīr al-āyāt", Muhammad Husayn Haykal's Hayat Muhammad (1933), Sayyid Qutb's Fi Zilal al-Quran (1965), Abul Ala Maududi's Tafhim-ul-Quran (1972) and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani's Nasb al-majānīq li-nasf al-gharānīq.[1]
References:
1. Ahmed, Shahab (2008), "Satanic Verses", in Dammen McAuliffe, Jane (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, Georgetown University, Washington DC: Brill (published 14 August 2008)
2. Shawkānī, al- (2007). Fath al-Qadīr. Dār al-Maʿrifah. pp. 969–970.
3. Rubin, Uri (1997), The eye of the beholder: the life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims: a textual analysis, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press (published 1995), p. 161, ISBN 0-87850-110-X
4. Ibn Kathir. Tafsir Ibn Kathir Archive.org. The Interpretation of Ibn Kathir. Darussalam
5. Rubin, Uri (1997), The eye of the beholder: the life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims: a textual analysis, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press (published 1995), p. 161
6. Ibn, Hazm. Al Fasl fi Al Ahwa wa Al Nihal (in Arabic). pp. 2/311. Full text: Islamweb.net
7. Hoyland, Robert (March 2007). "Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions". History Compass. 5 (2): 581–602. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00395.x. ISSN 1478-0542.
8. Ahmed, Shahab (2017). Before Orthodoxy: The satanic verses in early Islam. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-04742-6.
9. Buhl, F.; Welch, A.T. (1993). "Muḥammad". Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 7 (2nd ed.). Brill. p. 365. ISBN 978-90-04-09419-2.
10. Anthony, Sean (2019). "The Satanic Verses in Early Shiʿite Literature: A Minority Report on Shahab Ahmed's Before Orthodoxy". Shii Studies Review. 3 (1–2): 215–252. doi:10.1163/24682470-12340043. S2CID 181905314. Retrieved 16 August 2022.
11. Holland, Tom (2012). In the Shadow of the Sword. Doubleday. p. 42. ISBN 978-0385531368.
12. Quoted by I.R Netton in "Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer" (1996) p. 86, Routledge
13. Ernst, Carl W. (2011). How to read the Qur'an: a new guide, with select translations. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3516-6.
14. Maxime Rodinson, Mohammed. Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1961, pp. 107–108.
15. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Hayat Muhammad, 9th edition (Cairo, Maktaba an-Nahda al-Misriya, 1964, pp. 164–167)
16. Puya, Aqa Mahdi. (2008), Aqa Mahdi Puya view, Satanic Verses (PDF), Mahdi Puya, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2021
17. "Multilingual Quran". www.al-islam.org. Archived from the original on 25 December 2008. Retrieved 12 December 2009.
18. Tafsir, Vol. IX
19. Rubin, pp. 157–158
20. John D. Erickson (1998), Islam and Postcolonial Narrative, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
AhmadAli01 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first reply had some glitch which missed the sources. So I have pasted them again in second reply. AhmadAli01 (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not purport it as standard. It quotes a reputable and respected author (Shahab Ahmed, p.b.u.h), but does not make a statement in Wikivoice. OmegaAOLtalk? 11:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting a policy-minded discussion below on the section containing this material. Before one even gets to the matter of sources, there are actually key matters of subject structure and weight to be discussed. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

removal of sourced material citing WP:COPYPASTE

[edit]

@Yujoong, you removed material last month [2] citing COPYPASTE. The removed material appears sound; can you elaborate on the rationale for removal? Andre🚐 22:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yujoong's edit summary requires explanation. Is she saying it was without attribution? There's obviously nothing wrong with cut and pasting within WP provided there is attribution. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have reverted those pieces back into the article for now as I don't see a valid rationale to remove them. Andre🚐 22:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I removed the contents added by NGC 628 is that I have often noticed his edits copying material directly from other articles. I also found instances where he inserted his "own" wording into copied content that was not present in the original sources. That’s why I immediately removed his copy-pasted material as I was uncertain whether it could be trusted as coming directly from the original sources. In addition, he sometimes adds editorial comments without proper attribution to his sources. Selenne (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see; that wasn't clear from the edit summaries, and you didn't specify the editor or the page. Can you explain where those parts were copied from? And we can fix that through making an edit with proper attribution. Andre🚐 00:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find it when I have time. I've been very busy recently and since that edit was made a few months ago, I can’t quite remember which page it was. I’ll update you once I find it. Selenne (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]
  • Ibrahim, Ayman S.. Muhammad's Military Expeditions: A Critical Reading in Original Muslim Sources. United States, Oxford University Press, 2024.

Bookku (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this something like a Template:Refideas or something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar purpose. Many times ongoing writing focus in some other topic but I come across some relevant sources for some other article. May be I would have read a page or two only bit not in deep. So rather than adding to RefIdeas or Further reading I prefer to add plainly to article talk pages.
This helps me to find back refs from my edit summaries later. And allows other too to discuss the source if they find any points. Bookku (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Respect for Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW

[edit]

As wikipedia mentions Alexander as Alexander the great, we demand that the greatest leader should be addressed with utmost love and respect i.e Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW ~2025-35254-28 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the FAQ you had to scroll past to post this. And what do you mean by "we"? Shared accounts are not allowed. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 02:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanuil Oh come on I don't agree with the person's proposition but you know very well that "we" here isn't referring to shared accounts. OmegaAOLtalk? 12:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why were they using it? Sumanuil. (talk to me) 20:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the anon was pretending/presuming to speak for a multitude, without realizing that (a) he/she is in no position to demand anything, and (b) editors here speak only for themselves personally.
Furthermore, this was a drive-by complaint that could have been safely reverted without wasting time on a response that the OP would likely never see. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Next time I'll just do that. But people have complained before when I did. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 22:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting drive-by comments, I admit, was never established as a practice on this talk page. The practice has been established on other talk pages and it's even mentioned in their FAQ pages, such as Talk:Adam's Bridge/FAQ and Talk:Ahmadiyya/FAQ. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be added? Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to it, if properly worded.
Additional observations: Those two FAQs I linked have only one kind of drive-by question that plagues the talk pages, so it makes sense in those places. We have several questions. However, I noticed that also Talk:Murder of George Floyd/FAQ also has several questions as well as a notice that drive-bys will be removed.
For this talk page, I'd say the top three drive-by comments relate to images, honorifics, and the characterization of Muhammad as "founder" of Islam. That last one has generated discussion where the OP actually engages with us, but usually it's a drive-by. I'll propose a change in a new section below. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted

[edit]

why did you revert my edit @Sumanuil and @AndreJustAndre? Can you explain what's wrong with them? Kpop777 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #6? You can also find a previous discussion or 2 at [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've reverted your other bold changes. It's puzzling why you think that's a better image. Aesthetically it's not but more importantly you claim it's a "common" representation but without evidence. Referencing Christianity in that way also feels inappropriate so prominently i.e. it gives a sense of Othering. Also, why change "According to Islam" to "Most Muslims believe". It's unexplained. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What if I put "According to Islam, he is the last prophet of God, other prophets came before him, and he was a restorer of an unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other figures also in Christianity". If you mention all these figures who are most commonly known in Christianity without mentioning Muslims believe Muhammad is the restorer of an unaltered original monotheistic faith (they believe Christianity was corrupted and that it was originally Islam and that Jesus was a prophet) then the page is confusing, that extra detail should be added. We can keep "He was the founder of Islam" and the old image, this is the only thing that's actually bothering me about the page, and I've been wanting to change it for months, so I made my account a few months ago and I hit 500 edits today. Kpop777 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you click through the link I made to Othering? Your suggestion messages your presumption that they are "most commonly known in Christianity". Are they? That's only true from a/your particular perspective. Each of those names links through to the article on them "in Islam", so I don't really see what the confusion is. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity is still the largest religion so yeah they're mostly known in Christianity. If you have a problem with that how about we remove the "other figures also in Christianity" part. I really wanna mention how Muslims believe "he was a restorer of an unaltered original monotheistic religion of [listed figures]". Kpop777 (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are other povs in the world besides Islamic and Christian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my other messages. how about we remove the "other figures also in Christianity" part. I really wanna mention how Muslims believe "he was a restorer of an unaltered original monotheistic religion of [listed figures]". Kpop777 (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is what I want the first paragraph to look like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKpop777%2Fsandbox#. Can you accept? Kpop777 (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is already covered: "...was divinely inspired to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam...". DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes but why can't it mention that he is the last prophet in Islam, how Muslims believe other prophets came before him, and that they believe he was a restorer of an unaltered original monotheistic religion of [Names].it clears things up. Saying "Founder of Islam" then saying "According to Islam he was divinely inspired by other prophets in Islam" is confusing. It's not confusing if we mention how Muslims believe other prophets came before him. It confused me when I first read it because the page said he's the "founder of Islam". My edit shouldn't be controversial, adding extra detail to a page to clear things isn't bad Kpop777 (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. See MOS:LEADCLUTTER. The opening shouldn't be overloaded and brevity and concision is very important at that point in the article. It should't attempt to answer every question. I seem to remember that the opening did have that sort of wording at some point - it may have been removed. You would be advised to check the Talk page archive. You have to remember that this article has had a long history of controversy. There have been many many debates and many many versions of the opening. It would be as well to be familiar with the history before dabbling in changes to a consensus version which has taken years to develop. DeCausa (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the stuff I wanna add was previously on this page in 2012-2013, and someone removed them in 2014. Ever since this page hasn't been good in my opinion. Just because this version of the page has "taken years to develop" doesn't mean anything, Wikipedia articles change. The changes I wanna make previously existed and those "took years to develop" from the early 2000s until 2014, and I don't think adding a sentence clearing something up counts as lead clutter. Can we just add it and if someone removes it at some point in the future, we'll keep having discussions whether that's in a few minutes, few hours, a few weeks or months. Can you accept my version? Did you see my sandbox, my version doesn't look that bad https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKpop777%2Fsandbox# Kpop777 (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's clunky. I think the current version is better. But others can comment. DeCausa (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not an improvement. Andre🚐 19:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it clunky? It's just adding or changing a sentence. Why is this edit controversial?? You haven't actually given me reasons why the information shouldn't be added Kpop777 (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered. WP:IDHT Andre🚐 03:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2025

[edit]
~2025-36639-25 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I've created the Muhammad (SM)Muhammad (SM) redirect which is what the original unanswered template data appears to have requested. Left guide (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new practice for this talk page and new FAQ

[edit]

There are a number of topics on Wikipedia in which article talk pages are plagued by the same questions over and over, to the point where the community of regulars monitoring those pages have decided "enough!" and now revert any drive-by comment that is already addressed in the FAQ for that talk page. Examples:

I suggest we do the same here, because our typical response is always "read the FAQ" and the person who made the comment never returns to engage in discussion anyway.

So here's my proposal for the FAQ:

Q11: Why was my request or comment removed?

Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests that are already covered in this FAQ document will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:Reliable sources, WP:PBUH, and WP:UNDUE. Obviously AI-generated requests will also be removed.

I am unsure which policies and guidelines would be most appropriate to reference. I chose the three I linked above because the most frequent drive-by comments we get are about honorifics and Muhammand being characterized as the founder of Islam. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vey sympathetic to the thinking behind this proposal. I have a few concerns though. I wasn't aware that other pages had introduced this and am slightly surprised in a way. It feels slightly contrary to some WP basics eg WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. I guess I might not have got used to the idea that these "drive-bys" can just be reverted rather than responded to with a dismissal. Some might not be good faith but I suspect most are. Is it always disruptive in good faith to raisw one of these questions? My other question is should this not be introduced by some relatively weighty process such as an RfC rather (potentially) 4 or 5 editors n this thread. Lastly, turning to specifics, I think Q7 (on sources) is particularly tricky to treat in this manner. For me, that's something that should be revisted from time to time as a check against systemic bias. Or at least, there is no harm in doing so. But just to be clear, if the consensus in this thread was to adopt this approach then I'm happy with it.DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Adam's Bridge, I was involved in that, and I wrote that FAQ question. The disruption was from incessant WP:RM proposals, where the losing side would post a new proposal soon after the previous one closed while adding no new arguments. A moratorium was imposed on new proposals and any drive-by complaint about the article name would be summarily deleted. That page has only one FAQ question though.
The George Floyd articles (there are many of them, it seems like one for each state where there was a protest) have a FAQ about as extensive as the Muhammad FAQ. I just came across that yesterday and was surprised that the disruption on those pages was enough to add a "delete without comment" condition to the FAQ.
In the case of this Muhammad talk page, the wording of the FAQ answer should make it clear that we wouldn't delete a thoughtful request that shows an understanding of past discussions and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We get those occasionally. Those aren't drive-bys even if past consensus has been established; the requester hangs around to engage in discussion. But I think we can all agree that emotional requests like "You're being disrespectful if you don't add SAW or PBUH to Muhammad's name" isn't going to go anywhere and the requester would never return to see any reply, so it's a wasted effort replying.
Similarly, a request to revisit something in the FAQ that explores reasoning that hasn't been discussed before would also receive consideration.
It's pretty easy to identify the drive-by posts. They are almost always written by an unconfirmed account with few or no other edits than the complaint, they make demands or accusations or pleadings, they don't reference any Wikipedia policy or guideline. My proposed wording above may seem unnecessarily harsh. I based it on what other talk pages say, as a starting point. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your third and fourth paragraphs are very helpful. I wonder if the FAQ could be added to with a similar clarification? DeCausa (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add that the section below this one, titled "Ibn Ishaq being the earliest sirah composer is a very outdated claim now" is likely a drive-by complaint, but it isn't something I'd be comfortable reverting, so I replied although I probably wasted my time doing so. Even if it's a drive-by comment and the OP never returns to read the replies, that unconstructive comment is definitely about a topic not covered in the FAQ. It probably deserves further discussion if the OP decides to remain engaged and offer new or better sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second proposal, accounting for the discussion above.

Q11: Why was my request or comment removed?

Requests that are already covered in this FAQ document will be removed without consideration, unless the request demonstrates an understanding of past discussions as well as relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (for example WP:Reliable sources, WP:PBUH, and WP:UNDUE), or unless the request explores new reasoning that hasn't been discussed previously. Unconstructive complaints or obviously AI-generated requests will also be removed.

~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Sumanuil. (talk to me) 21:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I guess. Should that be "may be removed"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"may be removed" is fine for the first sentence, but doesn't seem right for the last sentence. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds good to me.—Chowbok ☠ 07:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Ishaq being the earliest sirah composer is a very outdated claim now

[edit]

after the discovery and publishment of the earlier Sirahs of Wahb ibn Munabih and Musa ibn Uqba it's very wrong and embarrassing to still mention and cite this very outdated claim. But I don't think that the editors and reviewers of the Article/Page will acknowledge this because it will not only destroy the purpose of this part of the "biographal sources" page but also the entire works and efforts as well as the legitimacy of the Western Orientalists as a whole since they built entire Stories and Fortresses over this one very old false claim. ~2025-31350-48 (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a suggestion for improvement, then please make it, and cite reliable sources. You have done neither. All you have done is make assertions without evidence. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Another early historical source is the history of Muhammad's campaigns by al-Waqidi (d. 207 AH), and the work of Waqidi's secretary Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (d. 230 AH)" so there is a mention of this but no mention about Musa ibn Uqba's or Mamar ibn Rashid's or Muhammad ibn al-Sā'ib al-Kalbī's much earlier works?! As for your reply itself, all I have to say is that you can easily verfiy my claims by just searching for these figures Wikipedia pages. ~2025-38298-03 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CIRCULAR. What's written in other Wikipedia pages is irrelevant. The point being made to you is that for any assertion such as this to be taken seriously you need to cite secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria. You haven't done that so what you say won't be considered. If you want to be taken seriously you need to produce those sources, otherwise you're just wasting your time. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of evidence is on you, not anyone else. If you want to change something, then you must cite scholarly sources that verify the claims you want to make. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2025

[edit]

Change: However, recent Western secular scholarship has generally questioned the veracity of the Satanic Verses narrative.[132]

Edit: However, recent Western academic scholars have concluded that the episode is historically doubtful. Textual critics point out that the alleged lines praising al-Lāt, al-‘Uzzā and Manāt clash with the thematic thrust of Sūrat An-Najm, and that the traditions reporting the event travel in weak or problematic isnāds and appear in historiographical compilations that do not distinguish verified from popular material. Patricia Crone and G. R. Hawting have highlighted the textual and contextual difficulties; Carl W. Ernst and Nicolai Sinai favour reinterpretation of Quran chapter 53 that makes the insertion improbable; and Shahab Ahmed explains how early acceptance gave way to later rejection as Islamic orthodoxy developed. [source https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/abs/problems-in-sura-53/989999016F4B5D5AAE16BE4D338855CA] Redo001 (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, there is a dispute on its acceptance. Those who denied it didn't have any problems to solve and those who accepted it said that God removed the Satanic verses therefore preserving the Quran from the Devil and that the incident is a clear proof for the existence of abogration. ~2025-38592-90 (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. The proposed change is a bit too detailed for a section that has a purpose only to summarize a longer article. The citation for the sentence contains a quoted passage that should be explanation enough: "Western scholars subsequently divided into two camps, either affirming or denying the historicity of the [Satanic Verses] story. Nowadays, however, the denialist camp has won the day, as a steady stream of studies by the likes John Burton, Uri Rubin, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, Gerald Hawting, Nicolai Sinai, and Patricia Crone have all expressed profound reservations about the historicity of the story." ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2025

[edit]

Replace several instances of 'booty' with other words for treasure. It's not a bad word, but it could cause misunderstanding and is widely known as slang for the rear.. Iidazuki (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's used only four times, and "treasure" would connote riches, which isn't correct either. The context is closer to "spoils", "plunder", or "loot". Also, no reader would expect that an encyclopedia article is using the slang term. I wouldn't object to breaking the repetition of the word. Looting is exactly what Muhammad's men did, however, so "loot" might be the best word. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a spot-check of three sources that supported statements containing the word "booty"; one of them doesn't allow search-in-book on Google Books, but the two others feature the word "booty" many times each, which surprised me. I'm not super familiar with this subject area but considering that word's use in the reference material I'm thinking its usage in this article is probably not accidental. tony 18:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say loot, booty, spoils of war, and plunder are all interchangeable and any of those work. However, changing booty just because of the slang usage is silly. It's an AGF stretch to make the query worth discussing. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: I have set this edit request as answered as the request does not appear to be uncontroversial, as required by SUNS. If consensus is acheieved to make the change in question, you can unset the request as answered or an extended confirmed editor can make the change. IsCat (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2025

[edit]

Muhamud ﷺ is regarded as the last prophet of Islam. He did not invent the religion but conveyed and restored its teachings for his community. Yaminrahmann (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See #FAQ item 6. — Czello (music) 10:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

wrong information about death age please review and edit.

[edit]

The prophet muhammed was died when he has 63 years not 61 or 62 as you post please check and edit ~2025-42064-40 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base your claim? Do the math. He was born 570 CE, and died June 632 CE. That is 61-62 years, depending on whether he was born before or after June. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]