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?

Why no picture of Muhammad?

Usually encyclopedias include a picture of the historical figure that is the subject of an article. I understand that this would offend some (but by no means all) Muslims, but Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED, and Wikipedia does not follow any religion WP:NPOV. I suggest we include a depiction of Muhammad. ~2026-17746-35 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Because no reliable historical portrait of him exists? What is the point of displaying a fantasy portrait that has no real bearing on what he actually looked like? The article has numerous depictions of him by various Islamic artists, but the intent is to depict scenes in his life rather than serve as portraits of him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, we do have some articles with WP:LEADIMAGE "fantasy portraits" like Arminius, Pontius Pilate, Jesus etc. Sometimes it's the way to go, but the calligraphy has well-debated consensus, so there's no reason to change. If someone wants to start a new rfc, they can, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images was some time ago. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The top of the article shows a picture of the most common representation of Muhammad. So what if it's calligraphy? That is how he is most often depicted. I don't see the problem. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

There are several depictions of Muhammad in this article. See also Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but this is the result of an unfortunate compromise from many years ago. At the time, just getting any pictures of Muhammad in the article was a huge battle. Now that that's been settled, we probably should revisit this last vestige of censorship.—Chowbok ☠ 22:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The logic for including a calligraphic representation at the top is obvious and not "unfortunate"; it's the most common representation. I doubt that anyone would agree that any specific portrait of Muhammad (such as those shown in depictions of Muhammad) is deemed iconic enough to represent the topic. What we can discuss instead is whether we can have a depiction of Muhammad above the fold but not in the infobox. One of the compromises was to agree that any depiction of Muhammad shouldn't be visible unless the reader scrolls beyond the lead section. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

"What we can discuss instead"... oh really? So you determine what can and cannot be discussed?—Chowbok ☠ 00:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm proposing something that we can revisit that is more likely to involve a change in consensus than changing the lead image to a portrait. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I think something like the infobox of the Ali article (a calligraphic representation followed by a depiction) may be worth discussing in an RfC. If there were consensus for that, then a discussion on which specific depiction may be worth infobox can take place. Though there are unlikely to be depictions of Muhammad that are as iconic as those of Ali, since Shia Muslims have a long and robust tradition of depicting Ali but the same is not true of Muhammad. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that Shia Muslims have no issue with depictions of Muhammad like Sunnis have, so there's probably something iconic. However, I fully expect that any discussion about which non-calligraphic depiction of Muhammad is most suitable would be an endless debate with no resolution. That's why we ended up with the calligraphic depiction the last time we went through this. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but I don't think the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images outcome was particularly unfortunate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not oppose a new RfC on this topic. At the very least, the last RfC was in 2012, and one of the benefit of RfCs is that we can have longer discussions, with more detailed and nuanced choices, than is possible on a talk page. Cherrytxrt 📧 20:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason why Trump will make a shitpost portraying himself as Jesus but not as Muhammad. ~2026-27390-96 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2026 (2)

During his infancy, he was cared for by his mother, but later, according to the custom of the Arabs, he was sent to the desert to be nursed and raised by Halima al-Sa'diyya, where he would grow in a pure linguistic and natural environment. While living in the desert, an extraordinary event took place. As he was playing with other children, an angel came to him, and his chest was opened in a manner beyond human understanding. His heart was purified and then returned. The children who were with him became frightened and informed Halima. After this incident, she became concerned for his safety and eventually returned him to his mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khadija Uznain (talk • contribs) 07:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, this has some coverage at Muhammad_in_Islam#Biography. Also, you have not made any request. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2026

Please correct that Muhammad is the messenger of ISLAM and not the founder of Islam. ~2026-36290-18 (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See FAQ at the top of this talk page. tony 03:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You can simply revert-on-sight these drive-by complaints. That's in the FAQ too. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:49, 22 June 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)

Fixing chronological distortion and imprecise language in "Migration to Abyssinia" section

I would like to propose a textual adjustment to the second paragraph of the "Migration to Abyssinia" section. The current phrasing introduces an artificial chronological delay and utilizes generalized language that compromises encyclopedic neutrality (WP:NPOV) and accuracy.

Current Text:

"According to the scholar Shahab Ahmed, the so-called Satanic Verses incident was reported en masse and documented by nearly all of the major biographers of Muhammad during Islam's first two centuries. More recent scholarship is mixed. By the 20th century, Muslim scholars had unanimously rejected this incident."

The Problems:

1. False Chronological Delay & Recentism (WP:RECENT): The text creates a false binary by jumping from the 2nd century directly to the 20th century. This erroneously implies to a casual reader that historical Islamic scholarship accepted the narrative for over a millennium and only recently engineered a modern, revisionist denial. In reality, the critique and rejection of the narrative's authenticity was not delayed; it was established early on, concurrent with the rise of systematic Hadith criticism (isnad analysis) by early tradition critics. Prominent early and classical authorities—ranging from Ibn Khuzaymah (9th/10th c.), who declared the narrative a fabrication, to Al-Bayhaqi (11th c.), Al-Qadi Iyad (12th c.), and Ibn Kathir (14th c.)—firmly rejected the story because it fundamentally lacked continuous, authentic transmission chains.
2. Imprecise Phrasing: The phrase "reported en masse" is unencyclopedic and overly broad. While early biographical compilers (Sira/Maghazi) recorded varying accounts, they did so as disparate oral and historical traditions, often explicitly noting missing links in transmission (mursal). Flattening this down to "en masse" exaggerates the nature of its early status.

Proposed Revision:

"According to the scholar Shahab Ahmed, the so-called Satanic Verses incident was widely compiled by early biographers of Muhammad during Islam's first two centuries. However, from the early development of systematic Hadith criticism, Islamic scholars and theologians—beginning with early authorities like Ibn Khuzaymah and continuing through classical critics like Ibn Kathir—rejected the narrative's reliability due to systematic defects in its chains of transmission. In the modern era, contemporary Muslim scholarship maintains this consensus of rejection, while Western academic scholarship remains divided on its potential veracity."

This adjustment eliminates the imprecise "en masse" hyperbole, explicitly anchors the rejection to early historical scholarship to prevent chronological distortion, satisfies WP:NPOV, and retains existing citations seamlessly. I welcome community feedback on this proposed wording. Scribe Neutral325 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)