Talk:Muhammad in Islam

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2022

213.230.78.114 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Muhammad isn't the founder of Islam he was the prophet sent by Allah

 Not done: As stated in the FAQ at Talk:Muhammad: "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." —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

About prophet Muhammad SAW.

Hi my name is md dilkash . In this time we all know about birth of prophet Muhammad from this wikipedia's. But earliest about 10 years before we don't know about this date . Any conflicts about this date? People are said that born date is not written anywhere. Can you give a fact reference about the date ? Thankyou 27.61.115.206 (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see that the birth year of 570 has two footnotes, one to a reliable source, and the other footnote explains that there are differences of opinion. It is not clear what you are asking. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

In the "In the Quran" section, please change "The Quran enumerates little about Muhammad's early life or other biographic details" to "The Quran reveals little about Muhammad's early life or other biographic details". "Enumerates" is just the wrong word. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:71E6:F45C:14F4:6964 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Muhammad in Islam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)

I do see a few sentences missing citations, which is certainly an issue. Could you give some examples of sources you believe are not acceptable for a GA-level article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle have you seen the above question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope I didn't. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You can compare to what a reliable source is here WP:RELY. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

and compare them to stuff like "Muhammad Shafi Usmani (1986). Tafsir Maariful Quran. Vol. 8. English Translation by Ahmed Khalil Aziz. "Al-Suyuti, Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra", and various QUran citations. Furthermore, the sources used rather point at WP:SYN. Please do not forget about all the other points and serious issues the article has. Also note, that the improvement sin the Miraj section are recent additions and would need a new review. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Improvements in the article while the GAR is in progress are not only allowed but actively encouraged. The ideal outcome at GAR is that articles are improved to the point delisting is no longer necessary. I do ask that you keep in mind what may be incredibly obvious to you may not be so to me, I have only some basic knowledge of Islam (maybe more than the average American, but nowhere near the point I'd call myself well versed - I can at least tell you why the Sunni-Shia split is a thing). If I understand you correctly, you are saying the article is heavily reliant on the Quran itself for sourcing, which would be an issue due to WP:PRIMARY (especially inappropriate interpretation/synthesis of what's written in the Quran since it's a primary source) and our general expectation that articles rely mostly on secondary sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as preassueming, I just thought my list was sufficient, especialyl due to the layout. I feel like the entire structure of the article reads like, Users cherry picked whatever sources they see fit. Furthermore, there is no historical critical analysis of Muslim sources (except for the Miraj section I improved a few days ago) and there is significant lack of hagiographic depictions of Muhammad.

I do try to work on the article while the reassessment is happening though. But yes, I think the lack of incline citations and reliance on primary sources should suffice to put it on a B rating, the lack of verification of structure would put it on a C- Ranking (in my opinion). If I could proof the lack of coverage, I would have made the additions already, but there is also a substantial lack of Muslim depiction of Muhammad as not a historical person but a holy person as well. I will try to update the article as much as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)