Epstein Files Full PDF

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims? A1: Further information: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer A prohibition of depicting Muhammad is not universal among Muslim communities; for example, the Farsi language article on Muhammad is maintained by Muslims and includes such images. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam. Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions, and it is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. Q2: Aren't the images of Muhammad false? A2: No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th- to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See Depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad. Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history. These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted. None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people. Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings? A3: If you do not wish to view Muhammad images, you can hide the depictions in this article from your personal account by following the steps outlined at Help:Options to hide an image § Disable images on specific pages: Sign in or create an account Go to your common.css to modify your personal CSS stylesheet Click the edit button (if the page does not exist, create the page), and add the following code line: .page-Muhammad .depiction {display: none;} or .page-Muhammad img {display: none;} Click Publish changes or Publish page to save the preference. Please note that this will not hide the images for other users, or from yourself if you log out of your account. See Help:Options to hide an image, for the numerous other options available to hide images. Alternatives: If you do not have an account, and do not wish to register an account, you can disable all images on Wikipedia by going to the mobile version of the website (option to toggle at the bottom of any given page), then going to "settings" and choosing "images off". You may also block a list of specified images, following the format of the example at Talk:Muhammad/images/example css. Experienced JavaScript programmers can hide depictions of Muhammad on the desktop site using Greasemonkey or a similar tool. Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad? A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus. Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article? A5: Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles § Muhammad Wikipedia's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Q6: Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam? A6: While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a Wikipedia biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region. The word "founder" is used in that context, and not intended to imply that Muhammad invented the religion he introduced to Arabia. Q7: Why does it look like the article is biased toward secular or "Western" references? A7: Further information: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Accusations of bias toward Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Wikipedia are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion. In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Wikipedia. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG). Q8: Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user? A8: Persistent disruption of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts, while still allowing edits by more experienced users who are familiar with Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, so long as the original authors (Wikipedia contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license. Q9: Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia? A9: No. The official policy is that Wikipedia is not censored. Q10: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile? A10: This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period; therefore, there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia.[1] Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is as young as eleven years old, or any age inside of a marriage. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha for further information. Q11: Why was my request or comment removed? A11: Requests that are already covered in this FAQ document may 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. References ^ C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp.34–35

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Muhammad was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 7, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 8, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 30, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted July 5, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 2, 2010 Good article reassessment Kept May 14, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept September 10, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 19, 2012. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, June 8, 2006, and June 8, 2018. Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Military / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Islam: Salaf / Shi'a Islam / Sunni Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Salaf task force. This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force. This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force. Arab world Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Saudi Arabia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Medieval / Early Muslim C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Noam Cohen (February 5, 2008). "Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized". New York Times. Torsten Kleinz (February 6, 2008). "Wikipedia: Streit um Mohammed-Bilder (german)". Heise. Fox News (February 6, 2008). "Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad". Fox News. Caroline Davies (February 17, 2008). "Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet". The Observer. Inquirer Newsdesk (February 11, 2008). "Wikipedia faces wrath of Islam". The Inquirer. K.C. Jones (February 7, 2008). "Wikipedia Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad". InformationWeek. "Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Prior community consensus has determined that some images of Muhammad are allowed in the Muhammad article. Discussions regarding images, and of edits regarding those images, must be posted to the images subpage. The removal or addition of images without prior discussion will be reverted. If you find images of Muhammad offensive, it is possible to Set your browser to not display images of Muhammad. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first. The FAQ addresses common points of discussion and represents prior consensus, including the use of images in the article and the inclusion of honorifics such as "peace be upon him". For further information, see the Arbitration remedy and prior community consensus.

Archives

Main archives: (Index) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Image archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Mediation archives: 1. Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild 2. Statements 3. Clarity discussion/Refining positions 4. Ars' final archive 5. The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8 Images Arbitration: 1. Images Aribitration Remedies 2. Arbitration related RfC

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Section sizes Section size for Muhammad (49 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 9,558 9,558 484 484 Biographical sources 2,167 13,359 221 889 Early biographies 4,630 4,630 295 295 Hadith 4,931 4,931 279 279 Quran 1,631 1,631 94 94 Meccan years 54 41,599 0 4,433 Early life 9,098 9,098 822 822 Beginnings of the Quran 6,708 6,708 826 826 Opposition in Mecca 4,717 4,717 552 552 Quraysh delegation to Yathrib 2,139 2,139 287 287 Migration to Abyssinia 4,086 4,832 296 381 Social exclusion of the Banu Hashim 746 746 85 85 Attempt to establish himself in Ta'if 3,987 3,987 498 498 Isra' and Mi'raj 5,307 5,307 483 483 Migration to Medina 4,757 4,757 584 584 Medinan years 48 30,308 0 3,460 Building the religious community in Medina 1,680 1,680 256 256 Constitution of Medina 2,093 2,093 209 209 Beginning of armed conflict 5,228 5,228 544 544 Conflicts with Jewish tribes 3,126 3,126 350 350 Meccan retaliation 2,999 2,999 366 366 Raid on the Banu Mustaliq 1,016 1,016 130 130 Battle of the Trench 3,857 3,857 431 431 Invasion of the Banu Qurayza 3,808 3,808 398 398 Incidents with the Banu Fazara 616 616 84 84 Treaty of Hudaybiyya 2,035 2,035 183 183 Invasion of Khaybar 3,802 3,802 509 509 Final years 17 9,101 0 841 Conquest of Mecca 3,867 3,867 291 291 Subduing the Hawazin and Thaqif and the expedition to Tabuk 3,589 3,589 444 444 Farewell pilgrimage 1,628 1,628 106 106 Death 1,820 1,820 205 205 Tomb 4,080 4,080 197 197 Succession 2,040 2,040 196 196 Household 5,106 5,106 398 398 Legacy 12 28,378 0 2,330 Islamic tradition 4,587 14,024 465 1,084 Appearance and depictions 9,437 9,437 619 619 Islamic social reforms 2,283 2,283 233 233 European appreciation 7,392 7,392 678 678 Criticism 1,151 1,151 94 94 Sufism 555 555 69 69 Other religions 2,961 2,961 172 172 See also 449 449 0 0 Notes 24 24 0 0 References 29 33,024 0 0 Sources 30,276 32,995 0 0 Encyclopaedia of Islam 2,719 2,719 0 0 External links 1,267 1,267 0 0 Total 180,113 180,113 13,433 13,433

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?

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

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

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:

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

Vey sympathetic to the thinking behind this proposal. I have a few concerns though. I wasn't aware that other pages had introduced this and am slightly surprised in a way. It feels slightly contrary to some WP basics eg WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. I guess I might not have got used to the idea that these "drive-bys" can just be reverted rather than responded to with a dismissal. Some might not be good faith but I suspect most are. Is it always disruptive in good faith to raisw one of these questions? My other question is should this not be introduced by some relatively weighty process such as an RfC rather (potentially) 4 or 5 editors n this thread. Lastly, turning to specifics, I think Q7 (on sources) is particularly tricky to treat in this manner. For me, that's something that should be revisted from time to time as a check against systemic bias. Or at least, there is no harm in doing so. But just to be clear, if the consensus in this thread was to adopt this approach then I'm happy with it.DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Adam's Bridge, I was involved in that, and I wrote that FAQ question. The disruption was from incessant WP:RM proposals, where the losing side would post a new proposal soon after the previous one closed while adding no new arguments. A moratorium was imposed on new proposals and any drive-by complaint about the article name would be summarily deleted. That page has only one FAQ question though.

The George Floyd articles (there are many of them, it seems like one for each state where there was a protest) have a FAQ about as extensive as the Muhammad FAQ. I just came across that yesterday and was surprised that the disruption on those pages was enough to add a "delete without comment" condition to the FAQ.

In the case of this Muhammad talk page, the wording of the FAQ answer should make it clear that we wouldn't delete a thoughtful request that shows an understanding of past discussions and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We get those occasionally. Those aren't drive-bys even if past consensus has been established; the requester hangs around to engage in discussion. But I think we can all agree that emotional requests like "You're being disrespectful if you don't add SAW or PBUH to Muhammad's name" isn't going to go anywhere and the requester would never return to see any reply, so it's a wasted effort replying.

Similarly, a request to revisit something in the FAQ that explores reasoning that hasn't been discussed before would also receive consideration.

It's pretty easy to identify the drive-by posts. They are almost always written by an unconfirmed account with few or no other edits than the complaint, they make demands or accusations or pleadings, they don't reference any Wikipedia policy or guideline. My proposed wording above may seem unnecessarily harsh. I based it on what other talk pages say, as a starting point. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your third and fourth paragraphs are very helpful. I wonder if the FAQ could be added to with a similar clarification? DeCausa (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add that the section below this one, titled "Ibn Ishaq being the earliest sirah composer is a very outdated claim now" is likely a drive-by complaint, but it isn't something I'd be comfortable reverting, so I replied although I probably wasted my time doing so. Even if it's a drive-by comment and the OP never returns to read the replies, that unconstructive comment is definitely about a topic not covered in the FAQ. It probably deserves further discussion if the OP decides to remain engaged and offer new or better sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second proposal, accounting for the discussion above.

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

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

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

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

"may be removed" is fine for the first sentence, but doesn't seem right for the last sentence. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What change to the text would you propose? It seems a clear way of stating their unhappiness about the spread of the upstart religion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd improve it by removing the word "very", which is a meaningless intensifier. As Mark Twain is supposed to have said, every instance of "very" should be replaced with "damn" and then reviewed for whether the intensifier should remain. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I suspect the OP is referring more to the use of the word "pagan". Like "heathen" or "kafir" it can (but not always) give a derogatory tone. More generally, the article does recount his life as told, more or less, by the traditional Muslim narrative (with the odd additional gloss here and there). The Jesus article makes it clearer that the account is based on the Christian sources with frequent referencing of the source ("Luke says", "According to the Synoptics.." etc). It's more difficult to do that with this article because the volume of information and detail is so much greater. Stylistically it could be quite repetitive. Not sure what the solution is but having just read over a chunk of the article I think it doesn't quite hit the right encyclopaedic tone anymore (and perhaps it never did). DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Btw, if you wonder why this [1] was removed, it was because it's not a question or as far as could be told about improving this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello there,

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

To effectively argue your points, you need to cite reliable sources, like the article does. Your own views about what is true, what is history, what is a simplification, what is problematic, don't mean anything here. You have to (a) cite reliable scholarly sources (not the Quran or Hadith) and (b) explain what you think is wrong with the sources cited in the article. If you are claiming that the article has engaged in WP:FALSEBALANCE, you need to prove that with an analysis of sources, not hand-waving arguments about Muslim tradition. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, traditional views are never accurate or reliable. Historical revisionism reflects "new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation as they come to light. The process of historical revision is a common, necessary, and usually uncontroversial process which develops and refines the historical record to make it more complete and accurate." "Traditionalist" historians should be disregarded. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]