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?

Fixing awkward phrasing

This article's got questionable phrasing, stuff I'd edit if I had access. For example:

Roughly 10 months after he captured Mecca, Muhammad took his army to attack the wealthy border provinces of Byzantine Syria. Several motives are proposed, including avenging the defeat at Mu'tah and earning vast booty. Because of the drought and severe heat at that time, some of the Muslims refrained from participating. This led to the revelation of Quran 9:38 which rebuked those slackers.

I think something like Wikipedia standards would be:

Approximately ten months after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad led an expedition towards the Byzantine frontier in Syria. Various motives have been suggested for the campaign, including retaliation for the defeat at Mu'tah and the prospect of acquiring spoils of war.[304][305] The expedition took place during a period of severe heat and drought, and some Muslims declined to join it. According to Islamic tradition, Quran 9:38 was revealed in response, reproaching those who failed to participate.[306]

The phrasing of things like "He changed colour" above it is also weird, because I'm reasonably sure it's a literal translation?

There's also just stuff like this:

"On 8 June 632, Muhammad died. In his last moments, he reportedly uttered: O God, forgive me and have mercy on me; and let me join the highest companions. — Muhammad"

That "— Muhammad" is awkward because it's already he stated he's the speaker.

Just stuff like that throughout. I'd do it, but this account (which I created after losing my last one's password) doesn't have access. DyedMyHairBlue (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This makes sense to me, could you make an edit request? Tanks Muhammad523 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

There's also just stuff like this:

"On 8 June 632, Prophet Muhammad Left this World. In his last moments, he reportedly uttered: O God, forgive me and have mercy on me; and let me join the highest companions. — Muhammad" Mohdazhar2010 (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we change it to this? Because currently it reads On 8 June 632, Muhammad died. We wouldn't change it to your version as it's oddly euphemistic. — Czello ^(music) 10:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

in my opinion, it's better to still use the words "Muhammad died" as "left the world" sounds inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Muhammad523 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The wording does currently say "died".

If I've misunderstood and you're saying "left this world" is better then - simply - you're wrong. — Czello ^(music) 00:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I know that the text currently uses the word "died", I'm not the editor who wrote the reply we are both replying to (Mohdazar2010) Muhammad523 (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

`This whole article is just very badly written and needs a massive overhaul. Maybe even an entire rewrite. UltraCobson (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Founder of Islam

Muhammad is not the founder of islam, Allah is (according to Islam) and Muhammad is just a prophet. What should we call it instead? 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

See the #FAQ at the top of the page. You're promoting the Muslim view here, not the historical view. — Czello ^(music) 07:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Request to remove the facial depiction of Muhammad from the article

I would like to request the removal or replacement of the image currently used in the "Isra' and Mi'raj" section of this article:

File of the Prophet Muhammad riding the buraq steed - Google Art Project.jpg

My concern is not with the historical or religious significance of Isra and Mi'raj. Rather, it concerns the use of an unverifiable artistic depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as a prominent visual representation of that event.

According to the Wikimedia Commons file description, the artwork is attributed to an unknown artist and is dated to the 18th century. It is a painting made with gouache and gold leaf on paper. The file therefore represents a historical artistic interpretation, rather than a documented portrait made from observation of Muhammad or a historically verified depiction of his appearance.

The artwork presents a specific facial appearance for Muhammad, as well as specific visual interpretations of the Buraq and the surrounding celestial figures. There is no basis to treat these particular visual characteristics as historically verified representations of what Muhammad, Buraq, or the angels actually looked like.

This distinction is especially important in an encyclopedia article. A reader who encounters this prominent image may reasonably interpret it as an authentic or historically grounded depiction, when it is in fact an anonymous later artistic interpretation.

Furthermore, visual depictions of Muhammad are a highly sensitive matter for a large part of the Muslim community. The Wikipedia article itself acknowledges that Muslims generally avoid depictions of Muhammad and that such images can cause significant offense or distress. The use of a facial depiction is therefore not necessary to communicate the historical information contained in this section.

I respectfully request that editors consider one of the following alternatives:

Remove the image from the article entirely; or Replace it with a non-figurative or non-facial visual representation related to Isra and Mi'raj; or If an artwork must be retained for historical discussion, use it only in a context that clearly identifies it as a later artistic interpretation rather than a representation of Muhammad's historically known appearance.

The historical event of Isra and Mi'raj can be explained accurately through textual sources without presenting an invented or unverifiable facial representation of the Prophet.

I am therefore requesting community discussion and consensus on removing this particular image from the article. SabbirRND (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the issue of the image being the artist's interpretation. I think any reader will reasonably know this isn't historically verified, especially given that it depicts supernatural beings.

Furthermore, visual depictions of Muhammad are a highly sensitive matter for a large part of the Muslim community. This has been discussed numerous times and isn't a valid reason for removal; see the FAQ. — Czello ^(music) 10:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed, and there is already a very clear consensus on the matter. Please see the second question in the FAQ featured prominently at the top of the talk page, at the beginning of the discussion that says "please read before posting", and in the pop-up alert that comes up when you hit the "edit" button. 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, and there is no reason to remove the images on that basis alone. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2026

Mohdazhar2010 (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 10:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2026

CHANGE: "Apart from Islam, Muhammad has received praise in Sikhism as an inspirational figure, in the Druze faith as one of the seven main prophets, and in the Baháʼí Faith as a Manifestation of God."

TO: "Apart from Islam, Muhammad has received praise in the Druze faith as one of the seven main prophets, and in the Baháʼí Faith as a Manifestation of God."

EXPLANATION: There is no source or evidence in any Sikh text or scripture that regards Muhammad by name, let alone praises him. This is a biased misrepresentation of the Sikh faith.

SECTION [Lecacy] SUBSECTION [Other Religions]

DELETE: "Muhammad is honored by Sikhs as one of the divine messengers sent to mankind, along with Moses, Jesus and others.[424] 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."[425][independent source needed][unreliable source?] 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.[426][unreliable source?]"

EXPLANATION: None of the sources provided are reliable. The supposed quote from the Guru Granth Sahib is an incorrect translation; Muhammad is not mentioned by name. The correct translation is "the primal deen" in reference to the eternal true religion as believed by Sikhs. There is no mention of Muhammad in the Guru Granth Sahib. There is also no mention of Muhammad in the janamsakhi of Bhai Bala. Bhai Bala himself may not have even existed, and furthermore many janamsakhis are foundationally shaky at best. This is a biased misrepresentation of the Sikh faith. ~2026-47544-03 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: Biographical Sources

The biographical Sources section starts with the sentence. "Critical evaluation of sources is of particular importance in uncovering Muhammad's historical existence beyond the myths." I wondered if this sentence constituted editorializing. Firestar47 (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Re: beginnings of the Quran

A lot of this section is presented as fact when in fact many of the events in it, particularly the supernatural ones, are unproven. One can believe or not believe they occurred as one wants but they are not proven facts. Personally I think it needs stating that everything in this section is the account of events in islamic tradition. Presently the section only does this in a manner that refers to one sentence. Perhaps also there could be an added note to say that whether the account is accurate is unknown. One could also say critics have suggested Muhammad imagined things or invented them but possibly that would be excessive. Firestar47 (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The section includes these phrases: "According to Muslim tradition", "According to Islamic tradition", "according to Muslim belief", "Some historians posit", "he reportedly". O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Only in relation to other content within specific sentences. The rest of the account is written as though it were all fact. Possibly that is not how the writer intend but it is exactly the way it reads. Firestar47 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2026

Chang the date of birth from "c. 570 CE" to "20 April 571". Bellow is the reference, in French, of a well conducted study and calculation of his exact birth date: Bey, Mahmoud. (1858). Mémoire sur le calendrier arabe avant l'islamisme, et sur la naissance et l'âge du prophète Mohammad. Journal Asiatique, 5ᵉ série, tome XI, pp. 109–192. Imprimerie Impériale, Paris.

page 22: link: https://www.persee.fr/doc/marb_0776-3123_1861_num_30_1_1673 Bml13 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that this date is one of several dates proposed in past for Muhammad's date of birth. Others mentioned in the literature range from 569 to 572. For further discussion, see the talk archives of this page (search for "April 571"). AstroLynx (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Removal of image

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.

---

I would like to request the removal of the image currently used in the following sections of article: Early life Beginnings of the Quran Isra' and Mi'raj Meccan retaliation Conquest of Mecca Farewell pilgrimage Death European appreciation ~2026-51171-66 (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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.