Talk:Muhammad: Difference between revisions

Muhammad Images RFC close

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images has been closed. The closing administrators (myself included) have published their determination of consensus atop the RfC. Discussion about the RfC or its close can take place at the relevant section of the administrators noticeboard. If anyone wishes to discuss the implications this decision will have on policy in general, a section has also been opened at the village pump. As always, discussion geared toward actually improving this article should take place right here. You are also free to ask questions directly of the closing administrators. Thank you for your patience. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am satisfied with these results in respect to policy, I am glad that the concerns regarding censorship for religious reasons and addition of excessive images has been addressed adequately without the need for a quota. Peter Deer (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For centuries, indeed more than a millennium, devout Muslims around the world have learned about their prophet’s life including both his deeds and the legacy he left behind without the use of a single figurative image depicting Muhammad. However, it would appear that we in the west are unable to do the same. What is more, we westerners place a higher value on figurative images that bare no resemblance to Muhammad, with virtually no intrinsic educational value at all, over respecting the sensibilities of more than a billion people with whom we share our planet who find such practice an anathema. It’s a sad sign of the times and our culture; one that will no doubt be remembered and reflected upon by countless people far and wide for years to come.

The inclusion of such images in the Wikipedia article says much more about us as westerners, and our (lack of) values, than it will ever reveal about Muhammad himself. Tolerance and respect have lost out today. I, for one, am ashamed and left with the only recourse of letting it show on the record. Veritycheck (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right. You've seen the Farsi article of course? Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Verity, your use of "we" and "our" is quite disingenuous, as your POV on this matter was found to be a distinct minority. At the end of the day, what I still find puzzling in all this is how all these professed sympathizers of Muslim sensibilities are generally the same type of Westerners who have been systematically stamping Christianity out of public spaces for the last 60-70 years, particularly in America. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Tarc, talk about pov! I support the use of images and although I'm not sure what you mean about stamping Christianity out of public spaces, I don't think religion of any sort belongs in official buildings. Please don't stereotype editors. And this debate should be over now, there's been a decision. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh lighten up, it is a general commentary on Western liberalism in general, not on any editors here. The famous separation of church and state has historically been applied quite unequally over the last few decades; one religion gets run out of a rail from public spaces (e.g. Nativity scenes on public squares, schools can't hold Christmas parties anymore, etc...), while the other sees some bend over backwards to make sure religious feelings aren't being bruised. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This general observation continues to seem off-topic (and sometimes seems to have entered the territory of the personal).Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you Tarc for your refreshing candor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(I don't know where to write this comment. Please consult with me before moving it to somewhere else.)

• Tarc ^contact said, "Verity, your use of "we" and "our" is quite disingenuous, as your POV on this matter was found to be a distinct minority" -  absolutely.

"The famous separation of church and state has historically been applied quite unequally over the last few decades" - couldn't agree more.  Brendon is here 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

He is only "their prophet" hardly seems the proper historical approach. More likely, the claim that in order to be tolerant, one must treat the matter as subject to religious prohibition, has struck most people as absurd logic. The claim of "western bias" is also odd in that multiple non-western cultures use figurative/narrative images to educate and such existed long before "western" culture was even a thought. (Also, in many ways, Islamic culture is Western). The imprecise "western" nomenclature appears to arise over confusion about what it means to (in the words of the Wikimedia Foundation Report) prepare articles for a modern, secular, pluralistic society, which is Wikipedia's intended audience. In the end, it seems to come down to a statement of "they don't educate me about his life because of religious prohibition." Fine, but so? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nicely put, Veritycheck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So, because we are of Western Origin, we are fallen and degenerate? This is seriously biased in statement Veritycheck. redORANGEblack (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have generally avoided this discussion because frankly I had better things to do. It went through Arbcom, they made a decision and for good or bad we are stuck with that. Lets not delve into the realm of East versus west and how everyone in Wikipedia hates the Muslim religion please. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not censured and we are not bound by the doctrines of a conservative religious faith who doesn't like showing a depiction of their [insert your favorite religious term here]. We all understand some do not like this but lets try and get along. Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A good close, a little short on the rationale, but good nonetheless... although based on how long it took you to reach a verdict, I am expecting you three to run for ArbCOM in the fall. ;-) ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• snerk* You should have seen our individual analyses, the three combined ran about 20 pages! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know I read through most of them. I was going to comment and then got sucked into the drama bubble myself and lost interest. No not likely to join Arbcom anytime soon, I don't think I would be very welcome there.:-) Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that this was the wrong result, but in the sense that the community got it wrong, not that the closers determined consensus incorrectly. I still don't think we should be including these images. But I won't restart the argument. At least we've got a result, and hopefully editors will stick to it for the time being and avoid further edit wars over the article. It would be nice to think so, anyway. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There were actually very few edit-wars; what there was was endless, endless pointless circular discussions on the talk page. So don't let's start that again. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the results either, but I do think this is a more or less accurate read of the consensus. I am happy that the calligraphy ended up in the lead and not an actual image of Mohammed... and I wasn't really expecting anything more this go around.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012

Please change "Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[8][9] he was orphaned at an early age and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib." to "Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[8][9] he was orphaned at birth and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib." because his father died before he was born.

Source: "In the Footsteps of the Prophet" by Tariq Ramadan. And other historical accounts 69.29.79.186 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

According to a sourced statement in the article his mother died when he was 6. "Orphaned" means both parents have died, not just one. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Invention of religion

I added a short paragraph to the article identifying Muhammad as one of only three historically known prime movers of a new religion because I think it's important to know about and discuss the issues of when, where and how new religious traditions arise. One, of many possible points of discussion might start with the traditions that both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were functionally illiterate, presumably to boost the authority of their "revelations," when their is some historical evidence that both men were quite literate.

Please do not revert my 06/13/12 edit without an explanation on this page. I'm looking forward to a spirited and intelligent discussion. Peace and blessing be upon you. Lahaun (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant speculation that is purely your own original research; not really worthy of use in an encyclopedia article, and really not even accurate. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And to answer the question, yes, I am quite able to count to 3. I'm sure others will be along to strip this junk from the article in the morning, I made my attempts. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lahaun, please do not add unsourced statements concerning your personal speculation on the similarity between the founders of Islam, Scientology or other religious movements. That is original research. If you can find reliable sources that make any statements of that nature, then that material could be considered for inclusion. At present you appear to be inserting your personal views into the article. That is not an acceptable way of editing articles on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, Lahaun. You don't get to force your opinion into the article itself and demand that editors justify its removal. It is incumbent on you to justify its inclusion once challenged. And you are going to have to show us that this is is something more than pure, unsourced, original research, trivia. Resolute 04:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As I feared, an intelligent discussion about religion is not really possible on Wikipedia, so good luck to all of you waiting for Paradise or the Rapture or John Frum. I'll be having a beer instead. Benedictio dei. Lahaun (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On wikipedia, talk pages are intended for discussing the addition of sourced content to articles. They are not intended to be used as any kind of WP:FORUM. You'll find plenty of those on external websites. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

remove the pictures of our holy prophet(S.A.W)

Huzaifah Bhutto (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please address your issues at Talk:Muhammad/Images Mdann52 (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, unfortunately the Wikipedia community has decided that there is a consensus to keep pictures of Muhammad in the article. Apologies on my behalf and the other editors here who disagreed with the decision. Veritycheck (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does posting an image matter? You do seem to be overly sensitive about this topic. My concern is that you are unduly biased for your affectations against what many of the Muslim faith might consider a Graven image. -redORANGEblack (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED is the applicable policy here. Thank you for your concern. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That policy, WP:NOTCENSORED, explains why Wikipedia doesn't have to remove those images, Huzaifah but I can't point you to a policy that says we have to include them, because there is no such policy. It is our free choice to include them or not in the article. We have a right to but no obligation.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's official stance toward you is that we don't care that it offends you. Even though most of the figurative depictions of the prophet (pbuh) in this article add nothing to the reader's understanding of his life, we have decided to include them, because we like to. No other valid reason. Despite the vast majority of us knowing that you'll be disaffected by them, and knowing that we can't tell you one thing that they add to the reader's understanding of the life of the prophet (pbuh), we want to, so we do, and we don't care that you're offended. That is, we don't care enough to remove these totally gratuitous images. On behalf of Wikipedia, I'd like to say sorry, but I can't because we're (as a community) not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You really think taking it upon yourself to apologize for the rest of us helps anything?—Kww(talk) 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I didn't apologise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)This getting very tedious. The recent RFC showed, at great length, that the great majority of editors commenting do not share your views on these points, and yes we know how stupid you think we all are. But don't put these views in our mouths by using "we" since "we" don't hold them - that's YOU. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

John, if you think I'm misleading Huzaifah on some point, I invite you to prove it. If you can't do that, please ignore me. Please. I'm addressing Huzaifah, not you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And misleading him, by claiming what "we" think, when "we" very clearly don't. I'll decline your kind invitation, since these points have been made time & again. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Christian depiction of Mohammed

I didn't see the above discussion as any more than an examination of some vaguely conjured procedure for adding images to the article, which is not embodied in the RFC conclusion. The merits of the picture itself were not discussed that I noticed, only the propriety of reversions. I think the image is very relevant to the "Western views" section of the article since it graphically depicts the western view of Mohammed. It meets the criteria of the RFC. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That is really for Depiction of Muhammad. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the distinction between "views of" and "depiction of". Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Views of" = opinion of him and his beliefs; "Depiction of" = paintings and other representations of his appearance. DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this semantic distinction can be made, even as an argument of how the terms are trying to be applied in these articles. A representation is the same as an expression of a view and is the same as a depiction. If the section on Western views is limited only to non-visual views, I am concerned for the Newspeak involved in the regression of view to not mean view any longer. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the "views" section in this article and the Depiction article? Its not a semantic difference, its how they're written. There's nothing about graphic depiction in the western views section. DeCausa (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you be receptive to expanding the "views" section to include "views"? Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be, but there's lots of editors here. I suggest you open a new thread if you really want to propose such a controversial change. If however this is an area of interest to you I suggest you look at editing Depictions of Muhammad instead. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Now as it seems, every valid change that one may want to bring to the article in good faith, is straightaway labelled as "controversial". It's not Islam-opedia mind you.
  I may be wrong. But I, for one, don't think that adding the Image of Muhammad in the "Western views" section is justifiably controversial or inflammatory.
  I dare say, except for Islamic babbles there is no reason why we shouldn't include that in the article.  Brendon is here 06:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't add a image made in the Western world and label it a Christian view of Muhammad unless the painter was specific about the work being representative of official Christian views. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that, CambridgeBayWeather, is that there's really no such thing as "representative of official Christian views." Christianity is a highly diverse religious group (look at Unitarianism and then at Westboro Baptist Church - both call themselves "Christian," but they have vastly different theologies). Sleddog116 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, and moreover Islam is no different either. There are 73 freaking sects of Islam and who speaks for islam? Some say sahih hadiths are ultimately authentic and some say they are just prattles of devoted buffoons and derogatory to the prophet, thus untrue. Some muslims believe aisha was not as holy as others think and some are in disagreement.

  What I'm trying to say is, specificity "about the work being representative of official Christian views" is not a credible criterion (because it's absurd in its face) against adding or deleting content.  Brendon is here 07:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Birth year

The article says "Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca"... The birth year of his is actually 571. Could someone please correct it? Thanks in advance. - 85.102.102.237 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bulletin of SOAS article, one of the cited sources, actually says "about" 570. I did a quick Google Books search on this and both 570 and 571 come up. One book says that there is a variety of years proposed between 567 and 573 but that 571 is the "most common". It should probably at minimum change to "about" 570. Any expert knowledge out there? For the moment I'll insert "about" which then at least ties in with the currently cited source. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an appropriate place to use the word "circa" as in "Born circa 570". It helps maintain the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia without sounding weaselly. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The opening of the "Childhood and early life" says "Muhammad was born in the month of Rabi' al-awwal in 570." I was about to add about/circa to the year but then it looks rather strange being so specific about the month. It's unsourced. DeCausa (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Like the birth date of Christ, claims of a specific day, month or year of Muhammad's birth are based on (much later) traditional sources. There is more on this in Muhammad in Mecca and a cautionary note addressing this problem inserted in the Talk page nearly three years ago. AstroLynx (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should read something like "Muhammad was born in about 570, and, by Muslim tradition, in the month of Rabi' al-awwal" with a citation. I'll look for one. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Even more in line with traditional sources would be "Muhammad was born in about 570, and, by Muslim tradition, in the month of Rabi' al-awwal on a Monday". AstroLynx (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How about saying "...born circa 570..."? -- Frotz(talk) 10:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten to post that I'd already made the changes to the lead and the "Childhood and early life" section. In the latter, regarding the month, rather than refer to "Muslim tradition" (which is a little weasily) I've said that his birthday is 'usually' celebrated by Muslims in that month, (with source) which, I think, is a more tangible way of putting it. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One book I checked cited a work by a 19th-century Egyptian astronomer Mahmud Pasha. A summary of his findings can be found in this book, p.465. Also, if 571 is more common then we should use that instead of 570. Full citation follows: Sherrard Beaumont Burnaby (1901). Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan calendars : with rules and tables and explanatory notes on the Julian and Gregorian calendars. G. Bell. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference I gave said 571 was more common but I saw another one saying 570 was preferred. I'm not sure that a 1901 analysis is really reliable compared to all the modern works. I think the issue is not only translation from the lunar year but when the Year of the Elephant actually happened - I don't think 571 or 570 are the only choices. I think there is, looking cumulatively at all the sources, pretty clearly mixed views and "about/circa" is the most we should say. I think the bottom line is "no one knows". DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, we should prefer sources that give more details about how such a number was derived. A modern source that just mentions a number "in passing" does not seem useful. For an example of how a modern biography deals with this question, see note no. 1 on this page (and page 55). Modern sources still refer to old sources, like that of Mahmud Pasha, which rely on Eclipse information and the positions of stars known to the pre-Islamic Arabs. Thus we should either use "c. 570-571", followed by citations supporting both, or we should write a more elaborate account similar to the one found in the note. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A more modern study by Muhammad Hamidullah in the February 1969 issue of The Islamic Review & Arab Affairs, pp. 6-12 argues for Monday 17 June 569 as the date of Muhammad's birth. AstroLynx (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Wiqqi55's last sentence: does much really turn on this? It does seem rather "undue" to go into much detail. We could add to "about/circa" 570 a statement that there is scholarly debate/uncertainty about the exact year. But other than than that I don't think there is much benefit in a detailed analysis in this general article - that would be better for either Mawlid or Year of the Elephant both of which are wikilinked in the article. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Circa 570 would (in my opinion) be the best solution. Just wanted to point out that there are also proponents for 569 as birth year (in addition to 570 and 571). This topic should perhaps in the future deserve a seperate page. AstroLynx (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with this too (now that I know of 569 being common too). But we should still fix the birth date as given in the infobox. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So little criticism?

Criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century, when he was attacked by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism, his marriages, and military expeditions. During the Middle Ages he was frequently demonized in European and other non-Muslim polemics. In modern times, his sincerity in claiming to be a prophet has been questioned, and the laws he established, such as those concerning slavery have been criticised.

— Muhammad

(as usual emphases are my own)

1. Why so little?
2. It's biased pov, I think.

I think, to many (in millions) people, Muhammad was equivalent to a notorious gangster. And Criticism of Muhammad illustrates just that. I think we must expand this section a little. Just a little to give a reader some idea about the real criticisms of Muhammad.  Brendon is here 09:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Real criticisms

In the Middle Ages, it was common for Jewish writers to describe Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("The Madman"), a term of contempt frequently used in the Bible for those who believe themselves to be prophets. Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan". Pope Benedict XVI said, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, quoted and interpreted several verses of the Koran and described Muhammad as "pugnacious", an "imposter", and one who held out "a bait to men and women, in the name of God, to compass his own selfish needs." Swami Vivekananda wrote in his 1896 book Raja Yoga that though Muhammad was inspired, "he was not a trained Yogi, nor did he know the reason of what he was doing." Vivekananda wrote that great evil has been done through Muhammad's fanaticism with "whole countries destroyed" and "millions upon millions of people killed." Voltaire - "the founder of a false and barbarous sect to whom could I with more propriety inscribe a satire on the cruelty and errors of a false prophet" Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called him a "tyrant" and a "pervert". Geert Wilders calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile". [Citations can be found in the article Criticism of Muhammad]  Brendon is here 10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that article does seem to be a not very subtle WP:POVFORK. It probably should be deleted and its main points summary integrated into this article in a more appropriate NPOV manner. DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I wholly agree with the first line.  Brendon is here 10:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article dealing with the criticism of the Prophet. Balanced opinions are important I feel here too. --The Sea Of Sands (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Titles in infobox

I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but is it really necessary to include so many titles of Muhammad ("Prophet, Messenger," etc.) in the infobox? That seems to me a bit non-NPOV, and extremely distracting. I can go to most of the other religious leader pages (e.g. Jesus, Baha'u'llah, Gautama Buddha) and see just a simple name, though many of them could include a list of titles according to adherents of their respective religions. Why does Muhammad seem to be getting special treatment here? If a Christian went to the Jesus page and added "King of Kings, Prince of Peace," etc., he'd be instantly reverted (and rightfully so).

I know some other articles (like Saint Peter) include some of the titles, but this one seems to be a tad overdone. Could we discuss that a bit? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As the comment does not have a suggested revision, its difficult to respond to "tad overdone." Other than deleting probably the first use of "Prophet," as redundant, the other appellations seem fine as summarily informative of how people see his unique notability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the comment as asking why Muhammad gets special treatment. Look at it: "Prophet Muhammad: Prophet, Messenger, Apostle, Witness, Bearer of Good Tidings, Warner, Reminder, Caller, Announcer." It reeks of a religious POV, using Wikipedia's voice to claim that Muhammad is all these things.

That field of the infobox is reserved for honorific suffixes, but that is not what it currently contains. I see no evidence that any of those appellations are actually honorific suffixes. The common suffixes applied to Muhammad's name are PBUH and SAW. Therefore, the only thing that should appear in that section of the infobox is "Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH), Sallallaho Alaihi Wa alihi Wasallam (SAW)" and nothing else. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the main reason I didn't suggest a revision was because I was hoping that an appropriate revision could be discussed here. If I had my druthers, I'd rather see it look like all the other articles I mentioned above; I'd raise no objections to leaving "prophet" above the name. You said that they're summarily informative of how people see his unique notability but (at the risk of sounding other-crappy) I don't think the same logic would hold up in a discussion on the other articles I've named in my first comment. I think this long, extensive list of titles in the infobox serves no real purpose other than to praise the subject. I'd raise no objection to perhaps integrating some of these titles into the article itself, but for the infobox, it still seems to me a bit excessive and (as Amatulic said) reeks of religious POV. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it is overdone.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst the "names of praise" for Muhammad is a legitimate topic (in terms of understanding Islam), it is satisfactorily covered by the "other names" section later in the Imfobox linking to Muhammad in Islam#Names and titles of praise. The names at the top really do seem inappropriately placed. DeCausa (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To a certain extent, I even disagree with Amatulic - he's in favor of including PBUH and SAW in the infobox, but I don't even really think we should do that. The "Jesus" infobox doesn't include "Christ" and it certainly as much of an honorific as either of the examples given. (I realize I keep making comparisons, but I would say that at least some continuity is important for an encyclopedia, yes?) Sleddog116 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

PBUH and SAW sound like blessings, not appellations. And are they not the same thing in two different languages? So, that suggestion is doubtful, if what is suggested is Wikipedia should bless him instead. Why do we treat subjects differently? Because they are different. I also find it doubtful that anyone would mistake Wikipedia calling him those things, rather than reporting that is what he is called.

They also inform concerning a widely held views. I think there are different issues with other articles using 'king of kings and lord of lords' which are known to be used by several other entities and persons, but Christ or others might work. As noted, other articles sometimes have these appellations lists, so the special pleading criticism is less apparent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that's true, but it still doesn't address the excess. Again, most of the articles I go to have a simple name and perhaps one or two titles, but I feel like I'm getting bombarded when I come to this one. And, as DaCausa said, we already have a section for these names. I'm not objecting to mentioning any of this in the article - the problem here is the excess in the infobox. All of the titles make it look gaudy. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And I don't "feel" that. Other than the redundant use of 'prophet.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

On SAW/PBUH, I think it's more in the nature of a style or almost a titular honorific rather than a blessing (as it literally seems). In light of that one could make a comparison with "Most Revd" etc in the infoboxes of some Christian bishops eg the top of the infobox of Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't come here to argue, Alan (and I mean that sincerely). I was just raising a concern that I have with the article. I just want to obtain a consensus on this as to how we can best improve it. I'm pretty sure we can all at least agree that the redundant "prophet" can definitely go. I still think it can be trimmed further, but I'll respect the consensus of the discussion here (if anyone else would like to contribute to it). And again, Alan, why is the article's name section not sufficient? Is there any particular reason that you want these titles included right there in the infobox? Sleddog116 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have generally been supportive of status quo on these appearance issues in this article because all of them seem to lead to allot of discussion and because I AGF on the reasons for their long acceptance. In short, if I can see some encyclopedic reason, I think it's useful that it stay that way. Here, I think they communicate widely held views of the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The point raised by Sleddog is legitimate and, I believe, all but one who has posted so far have indicated in some form a preference for reducing the appellations. DeCausa (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, look. My point seems to have been lost. Let me spell it out.

• We have an infobox template {{Infobox person}}.
• That infobox is defined with certain fields.
• Those fields should be populated with appropriate information.
• The field honorific_suffix currently does not contain honorific suffixes.
• Putting aside any discussion of POV and what other articles do, the fact remains that this infobox is being used improperly. Therefore, the contents of the honorific_suffix field should either be removed entirely, or replaced with actual honorific suffixes.

I don't know how to be clearer than that. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be such rigidity in MOS:INFOBOX or in words like suffix, title, appellation but YMMV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan: No there isn't much rigidity in the MOS, but here's where we use other articles as examples. Let's look at the other key religious features: Jesus (Christianity, no appellations), Bahá'u'lláh (Baha'i, no appellations), Buddha (Buddhism, no appellations). The only exceptions for the key spiritual leaders is for Muhammad (Islam) and Abraham ("founder" of the Abrahamic religions - and even most of the appellations on that article are Islamic). I'm not saying that this is the only page to use such a long list in the infobox, but it seems to be unique among the pages of the central figures of the major world religions. I agree with what Amatulic said above, but I think the honorific field should be removed entirely. It serves no purpose on this page that isn't POV. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with the premise. These arguments about do unto him what we do unto Jesus and Buddah are of limited value. In addition to Abraham and St Peter, the pedia has this for Ghengis Khan, this for John the Baptist, this for Khosrau I and this for St. Paul. So, yes the pedia is all over the place depending on subject matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference, Alan (and I'm sorry to be the fly in the consensus ointment here), is that on the other pages you mentioned (with the possible exception of Abraham), the included titles are of encyclopedic value in some fashion and (the big thing) are probably explained in the articles. The article on John the Baptist may be a bit excessive, but those four titles are arguably what define John's significance (that, and the John the Baptist article has been tagged with a cleanup-rewrite tag since November of last year). In Paul's case, his main function in Christianity is as an Apostle to the Gentiles - calling him that is tantamount to calling Muhammad "the prophet". So again, the comparison is still valid. The same is true (in a parallel sense) of Khosrau I. Now, Genghis Khan, I have to admit you've got me on that one. Genghis Khan does have a lot of titles that are not explained anywhere in the article (i.e. Lord of the Four Colors), and in all truth, I'd like to see a lot of those removed, too. So in other words, most of the articles we're talking about here are applying the appellations as they are part of the figure's significance. I just don't see that being the case here. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The appellations are elucidated in the article, so I am a bit at a loss (one may use the search function for them and their variants, if that will help locate where). As I said, they communicate widely held views of the subject and thus encyclopedic value. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

These views are "widely held" only by Muslims. Explaining these views in the text constitutes neutral treatment. Equating a religious viewpoint with the subject in the infobox is not. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they are not widely held. Besides, it does not take any faith to understand he is said to have had a message, or that he announced, called, or warned. While, apostle, good tider, and reminder, are the exact same, or similar to, the terms used in the infoboxes of other articles linked above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Amatulic somewhere above said, "That field of the infobox is reserved for honorific suffixes, but that is not what it currently contains."
And User:DeCausa said, "Whilst the "names of praise" for Muhammad is a legitimate topic (in terms of understanding Islam), it is satisfactorily covered by the "other names" section later in the Imfobox linking to Muhammad in Islam#Names and titles of praise."- Wading through the simmering ocean of nuances and chicaneries, I'm wondering what the heck are we waiting for then? Go change it already.  Brendon is here 08:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We're waiting to balance what's been said here with Alanscottwalker's objections. I know consensus doesn't always have to be unanimous, but it's a goal that we should all at least try to reach. I'm still in agreement with Amatulic - the "widely held" argument doesn't really hold up in this case because, as Amatulic said, it's basically only Muslims that constitute "widely held." By that logic, it would be "widely held" that Jesus is the "Prince of Peace" and so forth (there are a lot more Christians than Muslims). I don't see any encyclopedic (i.e. nonreligious) reason for all of those titles to be included in the infobox. Explaining his titles/names in the article(s) is one thing, but to me, using all of those titles in the infobox amounts to tacit endorsement of said titles. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have brought this up at MOS Talk (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Titles in Infoboxes), purposely not mentioning Muhammad because of the strong feelings some have on that topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am probably close to the average person in my knowledge of this topic; until I read this page I didn't know much about Islam, other than having a generally favorable view of those who follow that religion. One phrase I think pretty much everyone has heard is "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet." That seems to be a core message, just as "Jesus Christ" is a core message of Christianity and "Moses the Prophet" is a core message of Judaism. I think the infobox should use the title "Prophet of Allah" and all the other honorifics should go in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I (obviously) agree here, but I think it's good to bring this up at the MOS talk page, because it represents a larger issue that seems to be present throughout the project. As I said here, I think this is a severe case of article creep. These titles weren't added all at once, but I think what happened is that when one was added, it was left alone - discussions (with the thankful exception of this one) here can have an unfortunate tendency to become toxic rather quickly, so no one ever felt like getting into a discussion about it. Now it's gotten to the point where we can't just push it to the back burner any more. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Since discussion seems to have reached something of a consensus here (even if not completely unanimous), I'm going to make an edit to the infobox to try and clean it up a little. If anyone objects to my edit, go ahead and revert it, but then please discuss it here so we can figure out the best way to proceed. I don't know if the discussion at the MOS talk page has fully run its course yet, but I think there seems to be broad agreement at least on this page that the infobox needs some reduction. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In light of the evident desire to reduce, but also respecting longtime article usage, the rule of three (from the Latin, "omne trium perfectum" (everything that comes in threes is perfect, or, every set of three is complete) ) may be used to promote stability. The three chosen were the first three on the list. They also cover 1) what he said 2) what he is said to be, and 3) what is said to have happened to him. (The second term is also widely used on other articles in this section of the infobox.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing it - I'll definitely agree that even this is better than what we had. I admit, it's not what I'd prefer, but I'm certainly not going to edit war over it; I can't really debate your logic here. I'd still like it to be much simpler, but I'm not going to push it on this particular article. I'm curious to see what the discussion at MOS yields. Thanks for helping address the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reducing words by 70% and characters by something like 90%, not a bad weeks work ;) Perhaps you can get traction over at MOS with some judicious use of the rule of three. Seems someone should propose guidelines that are flexible for titles and appellations, perhaps worded slightly differently. (Interestingly, no article seems to use that field for your run of the mill name suffixes). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Founder (yet again, sorry)

It seems as though many have forgotten that Wikipedia is not about voting your crap into or out of the articles and that polling is not a substitute for discussion.

Image added by Brendon111

Well, I have to apologise but...this edit has highlighted to me that the lead is now so anodyne on this point that we've avoided telling the reader a key aspect about Muhammad. I supported the current solution, but looking at it now it looks to me as though we're doing the reader a real disservice. Was there a reason (I honestly can't remember) why the lead doesn't contain a sentence that says, in terms, "Historians writing from a non-Muslim perspective consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam whereas Muslims believe..." etc Ok not necessarily those exact words, but the principle. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That edit appears to remove an elegant finesse of the issue. But as has been stressed before this "founder" nomenclature, especially given its tendency to generate discussion, should be directly reliably sourced, pro or con. It would help if those interested would provide quotes from RS for these ideas and that word, right here, and we go from there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no secular perspective from which Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. The constant efforts to remove that are a result of the improper application of NPOV, which does not demand that we treat religious beliefs as true, only that we treat them equally. I think that "founder of Islam" should be restored.—Kww(talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think ASW's response is particularly relevant. There's a myriad of sources for that. To start at the basics, there's the Muhammad entry in Britannica, and one could go on from there. Also, the edit removes no "elegant finesse" (if, indeed, "elegant finesse" is the sort of game WP should be in)- the edit summary is quite accurate. But the real point is why just we don't plain and simple state the two "standard" points of view in the one sentence. KWW's response, however, reminds me how we ended up here and makes me regret raising this. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if secularism causes you pain. I corrected my missing "not" above your comment, but you seem to have interpreted me correctly despite me saying the exact opposite of what I meant.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Secularism causes me far from pain. Re-reading your post (and I have to say your double negatives don't help!) I see that I jumped to conclusions, for which I apologise. You seem to support what I say in fact. DeCausa (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

These are the discussions that I was referring to. Whereas, when people present RS to support a particular wording formulation they usually can come to agreement of specific wording by discussing those RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Insert this before last sentence in first paragraph of lead: "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam this is a view not shared rejected by Muslims." with this as an inline citation DeCausa (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Our view limit has been exhausted. Can you summarize?—Kww(talk) 18:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

paragraph opens with "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam, Islam does not claim to be a new religion." The rest of the paragraph goes on to give the muslim view which is pretty close to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article's lead. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I would change "rejected" to "not shared", but I'm reasonably happy with the proposal.—Kww(talk) 18:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also prefer "not shared", and "this" is ambiguous; should be "this view". ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're both right. I've changed it above. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I support the proposal, wholly.  Brendon is here 08:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I object to the proposal on two counts. For one, it appears to me to violate WP:VALID by juxtaposing two contrary views that aren't equally accepted by the academic community. Secondly, while the sentence doesn't explicitly state that it was god who founded Islam, that is the statement being insinuated and that is the argument being represented. Every religion could claim that god founded it in the same way that anyone can claim that god's tears make the rain. I'm not attempting to argue that illogical POVs shouldn't be included on WP, rather I'm trying to argue that they shouldn't be afforded equal weight when we know that they are clearly illogical statements. I propose that it be stated clearly in WP's voice that Muhammad is the founder of Islam but that the view is not accepted by some Muslims. It shouldn't be contentious to state unequivocally that a man founded Islam. SÆdon^talk 09:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should say it flat out, if we have sources that do. But the opposing claim is not so much about god but that it actually existed before M. I think what may have happened is that the Esposito and Peters discussions (cited at the end of the first paragraph) have been truncated, over the editing of this issue, so it would be helpful if anyone has current access to them, and can expand. I could also see a presentation of the last sentence of the paragraph being something like:

"He is noted as the founder of Islam; however, Muslims consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs)

Saedon, I'd like you to point to the policy that says that Wikipedia is supposed to be the voice of academics. I ask, because I'm pretty sure you won't find one. We're supposed to be neutral, not favor one particular form of knowledge gathering over another. Were this an article about a strictly academic subject, I'd accept your position, but it's not--it's about general history. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue. Almost all the articles on religious figures are based around the formula of "Believers believe X, but the non-believers view is Y". Look at the lead to Jesus. 1st paragraph of lead says "most Christian denominations worship him as God the Son incarnated". 2nd paragraph says "Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee". Why is this any different? Seems like a sensible way of doing it if you look at it in terms of imparting useful information to readers (rather than an as an ideological struggle). I think it's actually a useful piece of information for readers to know that there's a difference between non-Muslim/Western/academic/historical (whatever you want to call it) view of muhammad's role in the foundation of Islam and the Muslim view. DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Saedon ^contact wrote that "For one, it appears to me to violate WP:VALID by juxtaposing two contrary views that aren't equally accepted by the academic community"
—I have a few points to make,

1. WP:VALID explicitly says that

   “speculative history ..should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.”

2. WP:VALID militates against juxtaposing two unequally verifiable viewpoints (esp. when there is scientifically well-established or verifiable facts contrary to the claim) out of proportion.
   But since the claim that “Muhammad was not the founder of Islam and it was GOD who founded Islam” is in itself an unverifiable speculation which is predicated on sheer faith and thus a POV, WP:VALID is actually against the inclusion of that faith-based assertion, or at least not applicable here.
3. As for the questions of reliable sources, there are quite a few (some of which I've listed below) that basically say

   “many (if you don't like the word ‘most’) non-muslims believe Muhammad was the founder of Islam.”

Hence we should not include statements like "Muhammad was (or was not) the founder of Islam", instead we must include the line that “Muslims believe it was GOD who founded Islam but Non-Muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam.”  Brendon is here 04:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I myself am a non-Muslim and do not consider Muhammad the founder of Islam. I suggest you reword your proposed statement so it does not divide beliefs into only two camps, namely Muslim and non-Muslim. There are many other non-Muslims who do not consider Muhammad a founder; academics among them (F.E. Peters, A Primer on Islam and John L. Esposito to name but two.) The proposed statement is not accurate. Veritycheck (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not having access to those two books, can you quickly explain how they explain the emergence of Islam that doesn't fall into either of the two positions described?—Kww(talk) 19:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. I found F.E. Peters, A Primer on Islam - by Googling it. Here are his words from the introduction and actually the first sentence:

"Islam was not founded by Muhammad (ca. 570–632 c.e.); on the Muslim view, it is better understood as part of God’s merciful providence,
present from all eternity but revealed at various moments in history through the agency of His Chosen Prophets. Muhammad was one of
these latter, a mere man singled out by God—the divine name in Arabic, Allah, may obscure the fact that this is in truth the same universal
God who spoke to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—to communicate His final message to His creation."

Veritycheck (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a recitation of the Islamic view on the topic. How could you describe anyone that held that view as "non-Muslim"?—Kww(talk) 21:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you research the author yourself. He has written numerous books on Islam and is widely regarded as a western expert on the subject. If you're interested in his religion check it out yourself. I came here to oppose the proposal, give my reasons, and kindly responded to your first inquiry by supplying you with a direct quote and citation. The rest is up to you.

What do the author's qualifications have to do with the fact that what he said is a recitation of the Islamic view on the topic? -- Frotz(talk) 21:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And I'm kindly responding: the reasoning behind your oppose appears to be without merit, and you've provided no justification for it. Your quote specifically describes the Muslim view on the topic. There's some vagueness in your quote as to whether the view being described is Peters's or simply Peters's description of the Muslim view on the topic, but, if it's the former, most reasonable people would describe the author as Muslim, regardless of any self-identification to the contrary.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• "That's a recitation of the Islamic view on the topic." - Exactly.

  These are all just witless sophistries regurgitated from Islamic viewpoints and I don't care if veritycheck ^contact himself is a muslim or not (how is one's personal religious orientation even germane to this discussion, is beyond me)! This sort of reasoning really gets under my skin.
  Now before I get accused of something I'm not (happened to me in the past), let me clarify I am not trying to harass anybody. If you feel I am being uncivil please tell me so unequivocally.  Brendon is here 13:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• SupportOppose Need More Information. Recent edits eliminated the statement that Muhammad founded Islam. Such language must be restored. Certainly there was some sort of religion practiced by Abraham on down to Moses, which is when Judaism is usually thought to have begin. There are no writings or oral traditions prior to Muhammad that call this Islam. -- Frotz(talk) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on now. Does "support" mean that I want mention of Muhammad as the founder or does "oppose" mean that? This thing has been muddied up such that I can scarcely figure out what supporting or opposing this would mean. Could we scrap this proposal and do a new one stated more clearly? For instance "Shall the lead paragraph be replaced with the following text: blah blah blah" instead of thise insert here business. -- Frotz(talk) 00:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't how you've lost track. Supporting would be in favor of including "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam this is a view not shared by Muslims" into the lead.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know either. People on both sides seem to be saying the same thing. Now, for everyone else, if you haven't yet done so, PLEASE POST a simple SUPPORT or OPPOSE or whatever with a bullet point and a brief explaination for why instead of saying so buried in followups like this. I think we all can agree that it would be best to be able to do a simple scan and figure out what people's feelings on the subject are. -- Frotz(talk) 00:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote provided does appear to be the Muslim view but that's already in the article. This discussion is about putting another view in the article, so the last oppose rationale does not appear responsive to that and should therefore be disregarded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. I have corrected my error. Generally speaking, the edit that TharkunColl made here was spot on. Can we start with that and work both perspectives in without lengthy circumlocution? -- Frotz(talk) 07:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Seriously, why do so many of you simply not get this: saying "was the founder of Islam" in Wikipedia's voice is POV. It's blatantly POV. It's favoring Western academics over Islamic academics. Neither is the "non-founder" position so fringe that it should not be represented. I get that you all think he was the founder...heck, I think he was the founder. But that is only an opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't we need to evaluate the quality of argument based on the evidence presented? If the evidence presented is "based on faith" we treat it one way, if it is "based on fact," we treat it another. In many ways both views say, he is the founder, they just qualify it differently. The Qur'an did not exsist before Muhmmed and Islam as its understood today did not exist before the Qur'an. As the Encyclopedia of Islam says Muhammad "is the founder of Islam" [1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• “saying 'was the founder of Islam' in Wikipedia's voice is POV.” - I strongly disagree with Alan's Qwyrxian's comment above, since saying "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam this is a view not shared by Muslims" is NPOV.

  It can't get any more neutral than this. Muhammad was the founder of Islam (BTW, Wikipedia doesn't operate on faith). And not disclosing this verifiable fact would be tantamount to censorship of valid information due to religious predilection.  Brendon is here 14:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you disagree with about my comment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you. I'm sorry. I've corrected my comment.  Brendon is here 14:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it's a verifiable fact? We have reliable sources, which we treat (or should be treating) equally, that say different. On Wikipedia, all we care is what reliable sources say. At least, that's the policy I learned. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We know when the source presents it as historical fact, just like we know it's faith, when the source presents it as a matter of faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U94S6N2zECAC&pg=PA101&dq=non-Muslims+Muhammad+%22founder+of+islam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YrDkT9bFLcab8QPa1-TPCg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=non-Muslims%20Muhammad%20%22founder%20of%20islam%22&f=false should suffice to source DeCausa's proposal. I strongly object to the notion that religious beliefs count as a "perspective" in terms of NPOV, but DeCausa's proposal neatly sidestepped that issue.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I accept De Causa's position as listed at the very top of this section. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note about the Encyclopedia of Islam. The quote above is from the first edition, now considered outdated. The 2nd edition does not use "founder of Islam" as the first sentence of the "Muhammad" article, but instead uses "the prophet of Islam" (vol. 7, p. 360). Not sure if this change was intentional. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa, I was unable to find where in the cited source it says "Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam" or anything to that affect. If it is there and I missed it, could you include the page number? Thanks. If it's not there, than this would constitute WP:OR requiring another source which does support its addition to the article. Veritycheck (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that there exist no reliable sources that state that Muhammad was the founder of Islam? -- Frotz(talk) 09:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, those would be your words alone and do not express my view. I take issue with the all-encompassing proposed "non-Muslims consider". John Esposito, a Roman-Catholic prolific writer on Islamic studies and a Georgetown University professor, is yet another example of a "non-Muslim" academic who does not consider Muhammad the founder of Islam. In his book, Islam: The Straight Path, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 (1st edition), he states; "Muhammad was not the founder of Islam; he did not start a new religion. Like his prophetic predecessors, he came as a religious reformer."

I absolutely agree that the perspective of Muhammad as the founder of Islam should be included in this article and have even added it myself in the past. However, the proposed sentence is neither accurate as other sources have shown, nor I believe supported at this time with a WP:RS. Veritycheck (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote states a proposition that is readily accessible to people who have an understanding of Jewish, Christian or Muslim views of Prophets -- not so for those who do not have those views. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. The link was to the page itself - I believe it's page 101. I quoted the exact wording above. To repeat it: "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam, Islam does not claim to be a new religion." Frotz: This is not a source to say that Muhammad was the founder, it is a source to say non-Muslims consider him to be the founder. Just on that, whilst not denying that Muhammad was the founder, I did in fact find it somewhat more difficult than I was expecting to find specialist sources that made the bald statement that he was the founder - although there are a number that do. For example, in the Muhammad entries in neither Esposito's Oxford Dictionary of Islam or the Houtsma Encyclopedia of Islam plainly is it stated(although, I only saw a preview of the latter, not the whole article). Before anyone starts reeling off a list of sources that do, I'm not denying that. I just found it interesting that it was not as common as one might have thought. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the page number. We have now seen different sources giving different information. That fact must be reflected in any edit should such an addition be made to the article. Veritycheck (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed Wiqi55's point about the Encyclopedia of Islam above, which may confirm the position. I also just noticed VerityCheck's comment about Esposito. It's pity this issue can't be explored a bit more calmly without everyone leaping to defend ideological positions. As a non-expert on this area, I'm getting the feeling thee's an underlying academic issue which might be interesting for the reader but which isn't being explored properly. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Have we arrived at some sort of finality? I think after three days and this torrent of commentary, it's clear that the supporters outnumber the opposers. Or should we make it a full week and consider finality then? -- Frotz(talk) 11:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that we are drafting the lede of this article. That means we have to, in summary form, introduce the reader to the foundational aspects of his career and the religious and secular significance. If there was nothing unique in history to him, no one would be writing about him today. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Frotz, from an earlier comment I'm not sure what you are meaning as "support" and "oppose". I've put a proposal at the head of this thread. "Support" should therefore mean support that proposal as I've written it. Is that what you mean? DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I understand now. I got a little confused over what Alanscottwalker said in reply to my "support" vote. -- Frotz(talk) 22:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording needs to be amended. Additionally, 2 Supports and 2 Opposes for the proposal hardly constitutes a "clear" consensus to do anything at this time. Furthermore, it's been less than 72 hours. Being hasty, particularly considering the nature of this article and taking into account that this contentious point has already been raised several times before, is not in the best interest of the article. It requires a little more time to get it right. The alternative is seeing it edit-warred or just changed again once this page is archived which seems to be the rule up until now and not the exception. Veritycheck (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Somewhere Qwyrxian ^contact wrote, “How do you know it's a verifiable fact? We have reliable sources, which we treat (or should be treating) equally, that say different”

—I guess you know that there are many reliable sources (even books) basically saying that non-muslims accept Muhammad as the founder of Islam? I think the following lines wrap it up perfectly,

From a modern, historical perspective, Muhammad was the founder of Islam. From the perspective of Islamic faith, he was God's Messenger (rasul Allah), called to be a “warner,”
— The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, by John L. Esposito (page 153)

Although non-muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam, Islam does not claim to be a new religion.
— Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice, by Diane Morgan

Many non-Muslims believe that Muhammad (AD 570-632) was the founder of Islam. Muslims, followers of the religion of Islam, on the other hand, believe that Allah, their God has always existed, so it follows that Islam has always existed.
— Islamic Weapons, Warfare, and Armies: Muslim Military Operations Against the crusaders, by Paul Hilliam (page no. 5)

[Emphases are my own]

I don't see a reason why we should not mention both the perspectives (Islamic and Otherwise) on the formation of Islam.  Brendon is here 13:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Some historians regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam, while other consider him to be a religious reformer. Muslims do not share the first view, as Islam does not claim to be a new religion." But all this is getting kinda long for the lede.VR _talk 12:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That distinction doesn't really get at the heart of the matter. In my view, Muhammad was clearly a religious reformer, taking the fabric of the Abrahamaic religions and creating a new one using them as a foundation. That still makes him a founder. The only way to avoid treating him as a "founder" is if you accept the concept that the Abrahamaic religions are built on a foundation of truth. Since, in fact, there are no angels, gods, or prophets, that's not a perspective that should be treated as truthful in the lead. It's always a fine art to describe such beliefs without attacking them or endorsing them, and that's what we need to be wrestling with.—Kww(talk) 13:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Good discussion, especially in bring sources forward but it seems if this is going anywhere we should line up the three or four proposals (and any other one anyone wishes to add) each proposal should include cites and exactly where in the lede it should go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2

OK, taking into account the various views expressed above (and probably satisfying none of them) how about this: "Muhammad is generally considered to be the founder of Islam, although this is a view not shared by Muslims." I think "generally" qualified by Muslims taking a different view still be sourced by the citation I've mentioned for the first proposal (i.e it amounts to the same thing). I'm also justifying "generally" on the basis of non-Muslims significantly outnumbering Muslims - although I accept that's not the strongest of justifications for the word. It also allows for Esposito and others (if they exist amongst non-Muslims) to take a different view, while (I think) still maintaining that this is the vastly predominant view. Any chance of acceptance? DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Again an Islamic POV.

“Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly.”

Well, I can guarantee you that there are scores of people (even some scholars) who disagree with that statement. Muhammad himself was responsible for the resentment of the local people by breaking with tradition and denigrating and cursing other religions:

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until
he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. 
—(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167)

He was asked to refrain from Insulting the Gods of meccans but Muhammad continued to vilify the venerated GODS of Mecca:

[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. 
He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods 
—(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183).

Again,

They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they

had sent for him in order that they could talk together. No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they
repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all;
if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king.
—(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188)

William Muir writes that the elders of mecca came to Abu talib so that he could coax muhammad out of this Madness,

This Nephew of thine hath spoken opprobriously of our gods and our religion: and hath abused us as fools, and given out that our forefathers
were all astray. Now, avenge us thyself of our adversary; or, 
(seeing that thou art in the same case with ourselves,) leave him to it that we may take our satisfaction.
But Abu talib answered them softly and in courteous words so they turned and went away.

But Muhammad didn't listen to his uncle or refrain from his offensive conduct so the elders of Coreish went again to Abu Talib with great exasperation and said,

and now verily we cannot have patience any longer with his abuse of us, our ancestors, and our gods, 
wherefore either do thou hold him back from us, or thyself take part with him that the matter may be decided between us.

Muhammad stayed in mecca for thirteen years and he was also the nephew of Abu talib (local authority figure) People came to complain about Muhammad to his powerful uncle,

[The leading men of Mecca] went to Abu Tablib [and said] “Your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life
and accused our forefathers of error. Either you must stop him or you must let us get at him” 
..The apostle continued on his way… In consequence, his relations with the Quraish [Meccans] deteriorated and men withdrew from him in enmity. 
—(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 168).

And also compare this to what non-muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or Saudi arabia face by virtue of their dissenting views today.  Brendon is here 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Even with good sourcing, this is likely to stir up a hornet nest. I think perhaps a sentence or two describing what Muhammad did to make the Meccans angry would suffice along with a link to Criticism of Muhammad where the rest of this material should go. Given stuff like this, the notion that his early followers suffered persecution becomes shaky. Instead they faced retaliation for associating with someone who was directly enraging the local tribes. Therefore the phrase "To escape persecution" should also be changed. -- Frotz(talk) 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the sentence. "Harshly" doesn't equate to "unfairly" it equates to "severely". I don't read any POV in that. The explanation for the "harsh" treatment (challenging of traditional gods etc) is explained in the body of the article. The reference to "persecution" is derived fom the sourced statement in the body of the article "Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers." (with 2 citations) If only the above sources are used, any re-writing of that to the effect of "he got what he deserved" (or variants thereof) would be either WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR as none make that explicit statement (and they're primary sources anyway). Any change to "persecution" requires a clear WP:RS that it can't be described as "persecution", and then that reliable source needs to be compared with the existing ones: any comparisons with the treatment of non-Muslims in Saudi etc to make that point are not only WP:OR but also WP:NOTFORUM. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually "harsh" clearly does imply an element of unfairness or excess, and at the least the word should be changed: maybe "conflicts with him and his followers began to become violent" perhaps (not gone to the actual sources for this). Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)