Wikipedia

Talk:Muhammad#Proposal 2

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

Frequently asked questions, please read before posting

[edit]

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

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

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

Odd citation of Iskandar Beg Munshi's 17th-century history of Abbas the Great on every single article possible

[edit]

This has been done across many articles recently. Age matters, and there is literally no fact that belongs here that needs to be tracked down to historiography older than the Taj Mahal—or the preface to a modern translation of it, for that matter. It is especially odd to insist on here, because the material that the editor is trying to cite is already verified by a modern source. It's unfortunately just all the more pointless, and all it can do is confuse and make a mess for the reader. Remsense ‥ 论 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This book is reliable and was written by a historian and royal scribe. I added most of the new content. Peoplic (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I made a request on Talk:Fotuhat-e shahi , but you have not responded yet. In that instance Fotuhat-e shahi, you deliberately removed encyclopedic content.Peoplic (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters, but more modern sources are certainly preferable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article, seems to be solved?

[edit]

After reading Talk:Muhammad/Archive 35#Recent neutrality concerns, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources and Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Russ Rogers statements, I feel that this article is indeed problematic in its approach. Although, due to several edit wars the problem is, thankfully, not so visible anymore. Previously, some of the claims in this article seemed very biased and not within the scope of this article, more suited to be included as part of the Criticism of Muhammad article. To make matters worse, this coincided with the start of a proposal to develop a id:Muhammad article on idwiki for AB (GA), but due to a major overhaul the idwiki plan was delayed, coupled with the removal of GA status, which... well you can all guess how that went.

Anyway, in my opinion regarding sources for biographical articles, you should take the good ones (in this case reliable ones), and throw away the bad ones from the sources. Not all parts of a source need to be included in the article. Conflicting claims are not appropriate for inclusion in the main discussion of the subject's life, and are better suited to the controversy subheading. Sources that make a special claim, but do not provide additional sources to support their claim, are also not worth using (WP:CLAIMS). This is a way to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. WP:RS does not specify how a source is considered scientifically reliable, so judging by WP:RS alone (which only provides the big picture) can be considered ambiguous and confusing. That's understandable, since it's very difficult to implement a specific procedure to sort out which sources are truly trustworthy to use. Plus, this is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, not the place to research the validity of a source. Biographical articles only contain things that are commonly known, other things that are more detailed can be discussed separately.

Oh, this is just a reminder to be careful if the conflict occurs again, not to mean anything. Because there are conflicts that could be worse in other Wikipedia projects. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 10:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflicting claims are not appropriate for inclusion in the main discussion of the subject's life" IMO, that's not necessarily true at all, it depends on what the WP:RS say.
"better suited to the controversy subheading" Having a controversy subheading, which this article doesn't, is generally sucky WP-writing. If a "controversy" is WP:DUE, it should generally fit in the article in another way, chronological, topical or whatever. That said, I consider it reasonable that Muhammad#Criticism is part of this article. You are welcome to mention the sources you consider bad, other editors may agree with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest Biography is of Ibn Ishaq's?

[edit]

The article states "The earliest written sira is Ibn Ishaq's Life of God's Messenger written c. 767 (150 AH). " and the source is from 1998. This statement is clearly outdated and should be removed.

In 2021, a manuscript of Musa ibn ʿUqba's (675-759), Lost book, Kitāb al-maghāzī was found and published for the time. In 21st century sometime, a manuscript of yet another lost work, Kitab Sirah Rasul Allah ﷺ by Sulayman ibn Tarkhan at-Taymi (661-761) was found and published it for the first time. In 2015, Sean W. anothony published the English translation of "The Expeditions" by Ma'mar ibn Rashid (714-770), after the lost work was found in a masnucript of Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq. (https://x.com/shahanSean/status/960956916108230656?t=HG8esiY8q_SLnXqzGVzvcg&s=19) Anas Riaz (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "recognition" of Muhammad in the Sikh faith

[edit]

The statement "Muhammad is honored in Sikhism as a divine messenger" lacks a proper citation. Additionally, it is misleading and false because while Muhammad is indeed recognized as the central religious figure for the Muslims, his divinity in the Islamic canon is not equivalent to his treatment in the Sikh canon.

In other words, while Muhammad is honored as a messenger of God in Islam, this view is simply not shared in Sikhi. Moreover, the role of God's "messenger" or "representative" in Sikhi is performed by the Guru and since Muhammad is not recognized as equivalent to any of the Sikh Gurus, the statement is therefore false.

In effect, I propose removing this statement or at the very least, adding a "citation needed" at the end of the sentence to let the reader know of the disputed nature of this claim.

Also in the "Other religions" subsection under the "Legacy" section, the statement "Muhammad Sahib is honored by Sikhs as one of the divine messengers sent to mankind, along with Moses, Jesus and others." is also misleading. While this statement does cite pages 1-2 from Sikhism Today by Sikh scholar Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, it has seemingly neglected the entire context of the passage. I have pasted the following excerpt from the same pages that note the entire context below:

"Sikhs can accept that the central figures of other faiths, such as Krishna, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, were messengers of God with a divine mission. However, they do not accept the authority of any of the scriptures from other religions, looking instead for enlightenment and guidance from the Guru, which is manifested in the Guru Granth Sahib (GGS), the holy book of the Sikhs. Sikhs also do not believe that God takes a human form and hence reject the idea of, for example, the divinity of Jesus Christ or the gods or avatars of Hinduism. The word Sikh is derived from the Sanskrit word Shishya, which means a ‘disciple’ or ‘learner’. This embodies the mindset of Sikhs, who are on a continual quest towards enlightenment." (Jhutti-Johal, J. (2011). Sikhism today. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 1–2)

While some works of Muhammad (like certain concepts from the Quran) are indeed honored and revered in the Sikh faith as references to God's own will, it's still false that Muhammad himself is "honored" in the Sikh faith.

For these reasons, I propose that these misleading statements be removed to avoid confusing readers about how Muhammad is viewed in the Sikh faith. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "citation needed" template to the statement. If nobody can back it up, we can delete it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the lead section is to provide an overview of the article body, and that sentence attempted to provide an overview of what the article says about Sikhism later on. I looked at that part, checked the source, made a revision, and then revised the sentece in the lead. Muhammad is viewed with respect or even reverence by a couple of Sikh leaders including the founder, that's all. A citation isn't needed for a summary overview sentence because the citations are already in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Muhammad is viewed with respect or even reverence by a couple of Sikh leaders including the founder, that's all."
This statement in itself is misleading because Sikh theology admits faith to only God and rejects intermediary figures like "prophets", "angels", etc. as creations from man so while certain passages from religious texts and writings may praise the wisdom in works commonly attributed to Muhammad, this praise should not be equated to reverence.
Even the cited excerpt uses the word "can" to imply that Sikhs have the option to view such figures, who are indeed outside of the direct religious canon, with "respect" but it would be misleading to state that all Sikhs "revere" these figures. It's an admittedly nuanced difference but this is important because I'm not a fan of this mischaracterization.
"Sikhs can accept that the central figures of other faiths, such as Krishna, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, were messengers of God with a divine mission." (Sikhism Today, Page 1).
In any case, I looked over your changes and while it certainly reads better, there are some issues worth addressing:
"Muhammad Sahib is honored by Sikhs as one of the divine messengers sent to mankind, along with Moses, Jesus and others.[393] Guru Granth Sahib, the holiest book of Sikhism, states that a true Muslim who follows the faith of Muhammad would put aside the "delusion of death and life."[394] The founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, is specifically said to have praised Muhammad as a source of divine experience having a personal influence on his life, as stated in the janamsakhi of Bhai Bala.[395]"
This line would imply that the Sikh views Abrahamic figures like Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, etc. as "divine messengers" which is incorrect. A more apt interpretation would be that the Sikh views these as figures who performed actions in the name of God and that's it. The phrase "divine messengers" is giving me considerable pause because most (if not all) Sikhs do not infact view any Abrahamic figures with any sense of divinity. The role of divine figures is uniquely reserved for the Gurus alone.
A more apt edit might look something like this:
"In Sikhi, serveral of the Gurus viewed Muhammad as a man of God. This can be seen in several historical Sikh texts, such as the JanamSakhi of Bhai Bala, where it is written that Guru Nanak Dev praised Muhammad's connection with God. Similarly, in the Bachittar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh notes that Muhammad was known as a man of great faith in God. Lastly, the Guru Granth Sahib uses Muhammad as well as quotes from the Quran to reference to God's strength, stating in Raag Majh that a true Muslim is one who is merciful to all beings and one who would put aside the delusion of life and death to accept God's will." AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my previous comment, I would also add that the statement in the fourth paragraph of the page:
"...Muhammad has received praise in Sikhism as an inspirational figure..." ought to be changed to
"...Muhammad has received praise in Sikhi for his faith in God...".
The term "inspirational figure" is not an accurate reflection as to how Muhammad is viewed in the Sikh ethos. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and misleading information about an important event

[edit]
Clear consensus against the proposal. Proposer is showing an WP:IDHT attitude. Further discussion is a waste of time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Under the Battle of the trench section:

following para:

"In the siege of Medina, the Meccans exerted the available strength to destroy the Muslim community. The failure resulted in a significant loss of prestige; their trade with Syria vanished. Following the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad made two expeditions to the north, both ended without any fighting. While returning from one of these journeys (or some years earlier according to other early accounts), an accusation of adultery was made against Aisha, Muhammad's wife. Aisha was exonerated from accusations when Muhammad announced he had received a revelation confirming Aisha's innocence and directing that charges of adultery be supported by four eyewitnesses (sura 24, An-Nur)."

correction:

"In the siege of Medina, the Meccans exerted the available strength to destroy the Muslim community. The failure resulted in a significant loss of prestige; their trade with Syria vanished. Following the Battle of the Trench, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him made two expeditions to the north, both ended without any fighting. While returning from one of these journeys (or some years earlier according to other early accounts), False rumors of adultery were spread by hypocrites against Aisha (May Allah bless her), the wife of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. This caused the prophet to change his demeanor towards her until her innocence was proven through divine revelation. Refer to (Surah no 24, Al-Nur Verses 11 - 21) and Sahih Al-Bukhari 2661 (sunnah.com numbering scheme)."


refer to : Sunnah.com Home » Sahih al-Bukhari » Witnesses - كتاب الشهادات » Hadith 2661 There was actually no accusation made publicly or court case held. this is false information. there were rumors among people and internal strife between the Prophet peace be upon him and his wife caused by misconception and slander. The paragraph appears as crafted lie aimed at demeaning the prophets' character and ahl-ul-bayt (household) which is not acceptable. correct it! Semantic shard (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your suggested revision appears crafted to promote a religious viewpoint rather than scholarly perspective, violating all Wikipedia guidelines about honorifics and neutral point of view. Where in the sources cited are refernces to "false rumors" or "hypocrites"? We do not directly cite religious texts as sources. You are also contradicting yourself by saying "rumors of adultery were spread" and in almost the same breath say there was "no accusation made publicly"; well how else would rumors become known? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I copy pasted the text at first and didn't add the honorifics and as such which wikipedia guidelines am i violating to add honorifics after respected figures of my religion? These are valid preserved texts of traditions and refers to the arabic version for authenticity. Why do i not see the accurate citational reference for the paragraph before this,.. odd. This is common knowledge that they were false roumors. And where is the citation or accurate reference to there being a public accusation? How can you make remarks yourself when there is actual reference of the whole story by the person said herself narated from a chain of narators and multiple like those scrutinized for authenticity. i see you unable of comprehension. this shall remain for discussion. Semantic shard (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this Wikipedia article is not to present a Muslim perspective on Muhammad, but to present Muhammad from an objective, outsider's perspective. There are plenty of sources on Muhammad's life written by Muslims if you are interested in hagiography and honorifics, but Wikipedia's purpose is not hagiography. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about correcting the paragraph to accurately represent what happened rather that arguing about views. The reference explains the matter that took place. Semantic shard (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know the accusation is affirmatively false over 1400 years on? We don't. It is not for us to say. We can only report the what the sources tell us, which is that there was an accusation, and Muhammad said that according to divine revelation he received it wasn't true. The article already accurately states in plain language that in no way impugns any of the parties. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
accusation = point out someone for something they have or have not done
roumor = talk behind someone's back about him/her
please read the reference and understand it first.
No accusations were made infact there was slander spread.
Internal strife took place.
And then there was divine revelation regarding this matter that came.
This holds significat importance in our religion constituting immense research by scholars over decades and passing of knowledge. This incident is linked to the revelation of verses in the Holy Quran and it of utmost high importance. Semantic shard (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikipedia is not and will not be written from an Islamic perspective. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to affirm Muslim's religious beliefs. If you're expecting that from Wikipedia, you're on the wrong website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, WP:RS mean here: mainstream academic sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to argue your agenda. The article has incorrect information for the general user. Most users who have no idea of the matter will read this and they would have no idea what divine revelation even means in this context. they would consider this religious nonsense rather than understanding what happened and because wikipedia supports neutral point of view it should include the actual representation of what happened. maybe even you believe this is religious lies about the prophet he made up to cover up his wife but that was not the actual case in history. if you do not believe in our religion that is not what i am arguing on rather the historical context of said paragraph and the information it contains. Muslims already know that Aisha was innocent. This article however does not accurately represent the said historic event. you western references regarding this event are derived from our muslim knowledge. I am only asking to correct the context to its actual meaning rather than the unkowing user who reads that accusation was made against Aisha (may god bless her) and then the prophet crafted divine revelation to cover it up while actually there were people among the comunity against the prophet's teaching and opposed and despised him in medina but they were overpowered by muslims turing to hypocritic methods against them and and Abdullah bin Ubai was regarded as the most hypocritic among them. He was one of the leading figures in this case of roumors against Aisha to harm the prophet and his household reputation on a large scale. One should understand even the prophet did not think that his wife could do something like that and these roumors saddened him and his demeanor towards Aisha changed until Aisha when got to know of the roumors being spread about her broke to tears on the demeanor of the prophet towards her and then the prophet asked her about this matter on which she put it upon Allah to reveal the truth in some way. Allah sent divine revelation which is translated as follows in english.
Before that i seek provision in Allah from the devil
And by the Name of Allah The Most Merciful And Most Kind
"Indeed, those who came up with that ˹outrageous˺ slander are a group of you. Do not think this is bad for you. Rather, it is good for you. They will be punished, each according to their share of the sin. As for their mastermind, he will suffer a tremendous punishment. (11) If only the believing men and women had thought well of one another, when you heard this ˹rumour˺, and said, “This is clearly ˹an outrageous˺ slander!” (12) Why did they not produce four witnesses? Now, since they have failed to produce witnesses, they are ˹truly˺ liars in the sight of Allah. (13) Had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you in this world and the Hereafter, you would have certainly been touched with a tremendous punishment for what you plunged into— (14) when you passed it from one tongue to the other, and said with your mouths what you had no knowledge of, taking it lightly while it is ˹extremely˺ serious in the sight of Allah. (15) If only you had said upon hearing it, “How can we speak about such a thing! Glory be to You ˹O Lord˺! This is a heinous slander!” (16) Allah forbids you from ever doing something like this again, if you are ˹true˺ believers. (17) And Allah makes ˹His˺ commandments clear to you, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. (18) Indeed, those who love to see indecency spread among the believers will suffer a painful punishment in this life and the Hereafter. Allah knows and you do not know. (19) ˹You would have suffered,˺ had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you, and had Allah not been Ever Gracious, Most Merciful. (20) O believers! Do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Whoever follows Satan’s footsteps, then ˹let them know that˺ he surely bids ˹all to˺ immorality and wickedness. Had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you, none of you would have ever been purified. But Allah purifies whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (21) "
Indeed Allah speaks the truth
.
Understand that even the muslims were baffled by this event that the wife of the prophet could do such a thing and they were also included in the roumor talks as is evident from the holy quran surah al nur Semantic shard (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is rooted in deep religious knowledge and historic relevance and main point the article must be corrected.
while wikipedia does not promote religion, our religion is reality. God is a reality but some people dont accept it.
How would the universe exist without a creator when it so intricately designed and all the systems in it.
Allah guides whomever He will and whomever He wills He will put to hellfire.
If you think these are religious views go and see the world. you cannot survive a second without God. Semantic shard (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.) There are many religions. We document them as per the scholars. We do not favor any religion and consider religious texts as unreliable sources.
2.) This is WP:NOTAFORUM. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2025

[edit]

Need to correct spelling of Kinana to Kenana Ng565 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ng565 Done, thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to edit and add source

[edit]

“Muhammad was born in Mecca to the aristocratic Banu Hashim clan of the Quraysh”. Muhammad’s birthplace being in Mecca is not considered historical fact. His birthplace is considered unknown by modern historical methods. Islamic religious texts citing Muhammad’s birthplace, although having religious significance to some, are not considered historically reliable. Please add “according to Islam” and cite relevant Islamic texts. Shikafish (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That you haven't cited any scholarship yourself bears pointing out. Did you check the secular, scholarly sources already plainly cited after the claim before posting this? Remsense 🌈 论 00:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I will direct us to some scholarship that backs up my point. I think Dr Joshua Little’s work is a good starting point. If you’re able to follow a link here, I’d suggest going to: https://islamicorigins.com/a-bibliography-on-the-origins-of-hadith/
and scroll down to “[@1:39:24] PART 1: Critical Scholarship” for a list of sources critiquing the historicity of Hadith in particular (of which is the basis of claims Muhammad was born in Mecca).
The following Wikipedia page presents some of views of modern historical scholars generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad
For a list of scholars or historians that specifically claim we cannot know that Muhammad was born in Mecca (based on the historical unreliability of Hadith and Sira): Patricia Crone, John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, Henri Lammens, Régis Blachère, John Burton, Wim Raven, Lawrence Conrad, Tom Holland and others.
Quotes from select scholars of historical unreliability of sources claiming Muhammad was born in Mecca:
Sira Literature: Early biographies (e.g., Ibn Ishaq as preserved by Ibn Hisham) narrate the Prophet's life in exclusivist terms.
"Scholars must always approach this material with 'skeptical caution rather than optimistic trust'" (Sean Anthony, Muhammad, 235).
Hadith Collections: Authenticated sayings of the Prophet often emphasize unique Islamic rites.
"There now prevails an almost universal Western skepticism on the reliability of all reports [Hadith]" (F.E. Peters Quest for Historical Muhammad, 302)

The last two centuries of critical scholarship on islamic origins has exposed a legion of problems with the Islamic literary sources thereon, above all in the Hadith corpus. (Joshua Little, Prospects) - goes on to list 21 problems.
Tafsir and Early Muslim Historiographies: Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn al-Athir, and others wrote commentaries on the Qur'an histories which highlight conflicts with non-Muslims.
"Tafsir is less a historical record that stretches back (parallel to the Qur'än itself) to the time of the Qur 'än's origins, and more the product of individual scholars (of a later time] and the (much later) context in which they worked." (Gabriel Reynolds, The Qur'än and Its Biblical Subtext, 228)
The claim in the “Muhammad” Wikipedia page regarding sira “Many scholars accept these early biographies as authentic” cites Nigosian, Solomon A. (2004). “many” scholars is not consensus, as there are “many” scholars that take the opposite view. In fact the consensus by modern scholarship looks to be that the sources suggesting Muhammad was born in Mecca are not reliable from a historical standpoint.
If Wikipedia is claiming this as historical fact then surely modern secular scholarship must be cited relating to this specific claim being historical fact? And in this case as I’ve hopefully shown above, it is not considered historical fact that Mohammed was born in Mecca, therefore there should be a rewording in the Wikipedia article. Shikafish (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting this all together, to be clear I came into this appreciating the nature of your concern – i.e. that the only sources we have for information about Muhammad's early life are the Quran, sunnah and hadith. I am in total agreement that the nature of these sources fundamentally requires scholars attempting to extract data about historical events from them to exercise a particular degree of care and skepticism.
In short, while the above is certainly true, what that scrutiny should entail depends on the particular claims being evaluated. From what I understand, no scholars I've read on this have expressed reasons for concern regarding this particular claim. Some characterize Mecca as merely the "probable" birthplace of Muhammad, but I haven't come across any arguing that the issues inherent to the tradition should lead us to conclude he was likely born elsewhere – either because the sources likely didn't have access to that information in the first place, or that they had clear incentives to establish Mecca as his birthplace over another location.
Something like according to tradition is a level of qualification I haven't seen in sources, never mind it being consensus. It would thus likely mislead readers concerning the degree of doubt scholars have about this. It's possible we could insert a "probably", possibly with a footnote, but I doubt even that could possibly be a better representation of our sources atm. Remsense 🌈 论 16:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2025

[edit]

dear editor 

please add "Sallallahu alaihi wasallam" (صلى الله عليه وسلم) after the name of Muhammad (SAW). 103.55.146.170 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoldRomean (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Q5 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Wikipedia does not use honorifics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of name

[edit]

Please add Holy Prophet Muhammad PBUH with His name instead of just Muhammad, because a greatest lawgiver should be treated with intense respect. 39.43.147.98 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, please see WP:PBUH — Czello (music) 18:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]