Talk:Muhammad

Frequently asked questions, please read before posting

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

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

Migration to Abyssinia reboot

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)

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

Respect for Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW

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)

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)

@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)

Then why were they using it? Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 20:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Should it be added? Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Reverted

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)

Did you read Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #6? You can also find a previous discussion or 2 at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There are other povs in the world besides Islamic and Christian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's clunky. I think the current version is better. But others can comment. DeCausa (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Not an improvement. Andre🚐 19:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Asked and answered. WP:IDHT Andre🚐 03:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2025

~2025-36639-25 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 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)

Proposed new practice for this talk page and new FAQ

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:

• Talk:Murder of George Floyd/FAQ (FAQ is linked in the talk pages of many other articles related to this topic)
• Talk:Adam's Bridge/FAQ
• Talk:Ahmadiyya/FAQ
• Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad (no FAQ subpage, FAQ is at the top of the talk page)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Support DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Support  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 21:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Support, I guess. Should that be "may be removed"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

"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)

@Anachronist I think the ayes have it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. Sounds good to me.—Chowbok ☠ 07:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Support Tausheef Hassan (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done! Thank you all for your feedback. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2025

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)

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)

 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2025

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2025

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)

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

NPOV

"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)

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)

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)

I went ahead and removed it, along with two other occurrences of "very". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

"Pagan", in the specific historical, descriptive and academically understood context here, just means polytheist or non-monotheist, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

wrong information about death age please review and 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)

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)

Question

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

@~2026-19602-0: Right here. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you in advance:) ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Depends a bit on what type of questions, but if it's about improving this WP-article, this is the place. Check if some of your questions have answers at Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Btw, if you wonder why this [2] was removed, it was because it's not a question or as far as could be told about improving this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really ? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)