Talk:Criticism of Muhammad

Sourcing and inconsistency Issues

The source provided for Dayanand Saraswati appears to be unreliable. The citation from Welch in the Encyclopedia of Islam should be removed, as a full citation has not been provided yet. Additionally, do we really need sources from apologists like Geisler and orientalists like Muir?

There is also an issue of inconsistency. In the section "Neglected Legacy," it states that Muhammad left the Muslim community leaderless and divided by failing to declare the individual, selection process, or institution that should succeed him. Then, in the section "Tribalism," it claims that Muhammad said Muslims should be perpetually ruled by a member of his own Quraysh tribe after him and introduced a hereditary elite topped by his own family and descendants. Is it just me, or is there indeed a discrepancy here?

There are also some areas where the content seems redundant, messy, or unnecessarily divided; it could be streamlined in a more orderly manner. StarkReport (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

While I am addressing the issues noted above in the article, there are a few additional concerns that need to be resolved:

1) I am unable to verify the ""In this reckoning, he introduced-----." content attributed to Christophe Jaffrelot in the "Tribalism" section. Can someone confirm the source? Nonetheless, I don't think it was a critique.

2) Could anyone provide the complete reference for Taha Hussein's "The Great Division" (1966) mentioned in the same section? I am unable to verify this source.

3) The critique by William St. Clair Tisdall in the "Personal Motivations" section is redundant, as it has already been covered in the "Zaynab" section.

4) The Bernard Lewis quote in the "Personal Motivations" section does not make any intelligible sense. It is to be removed. StarkReport (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"Clarification Needed: Incorrect Attribution to Karen Armstrong, Book Cited Contradicts the Claim"

"I noticed that the article attributes a claim to Karen Armstrong that does not align with her actual views, as presented in her book [Book Name]. In the cited text, Armstrong presents a different perspective, which seems to contradict the claim being made here. I believe it’s important to correct this . I have found the corect version of that reference and want to replace it . I hope no one will ever object this . Army Burnhall (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Upon reviewing Karen Armstrong's perspective on this matter, it appears to contradict the information presented here. It's important to correct any inaccuracies attributed to her, especially given the sensitivity of this topic. I will make the necessary adjustments to ensure accuracy. Khan Karim Khan (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Someone revered your edit because the references weren't strong enough I will revert it but please add the sources that are more reliable and accepted . Army Burnhall (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is contradictory here? Provide a quotation from her book. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Both the statements from Karen Armstrong are against what she wrote , her views on the Holy Prophet's (PBUH) marriage with Hazrat Zainab (May ALLAH be pleased with her ) that are present in her book are contradictory to what she mentioned .

Secondly their are quotations from Waqidi and Tabari are mentioned but their authenticity and reputation in the Islamic history aren't mentioned which are necessary to mention here according to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality , and I added that .

Hope you won't revert my edit If I add more reliable sources as you said that the sources aren't reliable .

Here is the exact quotation from her book

At Page 135 in Chapter of Hijrah she states

The Quran would give women the legal status that most western women wouldn't enjoy till the 19th century . The emancipation of women was a project dear to the Prophet's heart but it was resolutely opposed by many men in the ummah , Ina society of scarcity it took courage and compassion to take financial responsibility of 4 women and their children "Marry the spouseless among you, and your slaves and handmaidens that are righteous ; if they are poor GOD will enrich them of HIS bounty , GOD is is all embracing - All knowing .

Muhammad led the way , after the battle of Uhud he married Zainab .

She also described the reason for this that was to clarify that biological and adopted sons are different because Hazrat Zainab r.a was first married to the Holy Prophet's (pbuh) adopted son Hazrat Zaid r.a who was first know as Zaid the son of Muhammad but afterwards became to be known as Zaid ibn Harith (his real father) .

Please review all of this , I hope after this you wont object if I add the other half of the information in the article as it arises questions on Wikipedia's credibility .

Thanks Khan Karim Khan (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Unreliable sources (such as apologist sites, Reddit and etc) were inserted, but that is not the only reason I reverted. In the edit, unexplained changes and removals were also made. It appears that personal interpretations were also made regarding secondary sources, but every interpretation has to be made based on secondary source. We cannot criticize sources ourselves. I could not find anything about women's rights in Armstrong's book on that page number, nor anything else that you mentioned, or even the content that was introduced in the edit (except perhaps the divinely ordained part). In the source, on page 168, it is written: Muhammad was reassured on this point by a revelation that assured him that Allah himself desired the match and that it was not sinful to marry the spouse of an adopted child. However, apart from that, Armstrong did not go into detail about relationships, customs or norms, so the edit does not match the source. You are welcome to find sources, but I would advise you to propose the changes here first, so that they can be discussed point-by-point. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello

I'll definitely find more reliable sources but this is written in the book that is on internet archive not on amazon or any other source .

Secondly other edits I made are meant to present the larger background of the incident for instance a very controversial story from the Islamic scholar Tabari and Al Waqidi was mentioned but it wasn't mentioned that these 2 scholars have a very poor reputation among Islamic scholars .

Also many counter arguments are needed in this article and I will definitely add them with reliable sources after finding them . Khan Karim Khan (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

A source on Amazon can be reliable, as long as it is not published by Amazon. Internet Archive does not publish books but makes them available. You can also look for books on Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR and etc. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the credentials of Tabari and Al Waqidi, you will need to find WP:RSs that do so. If not, you will have to let them stand while giving the (RS) alternative view (per WP:NPOV) and let readers decide. More work for you to do, sorry! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note that I've blocked Army Burnhall and Khan Karim Khan for Confirmed socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

quick question

@MrOllie, I very much trust your judgment as always, though I was also finding I couldn't find twelve stated explicitly as an age anywhere. This is among the least comfortable conversations possible to have, apologies, but I'm not exactly sure where in which sources the claim is verified. Remsense 🌈 论 22:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy is cited and is good for this. And in its footnotes it cites a few more sources as well. '12 or older' is a common claim (I'm sure very, very easy to source) because an early biography of Muhammad states that Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed, and that was 12 years before the marriage. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Remsense 🌈 论 22:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Muhammad

How was Muhammad viewed by others 86.22.108.123 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

should we add this to aisha section

Earilest criticism of Muhammed for his marriage to Aisha was in 1574. refrence: https://books.google.es/books?id=hcQ7AAAAcAAJ chapter: section 11 page: 99 ~2025-34520-18 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on that book we might mention that the criticism was made then, or perhaps even that it goes back at least that far, but to call it the earliest would require a good secondary source that says so. (“Good” meaning by an author we’d expect to have an extensive command of the relevant literature.)—Odysseus1479 01:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC) P.S. If I read the note on the last page correctly, this is a French translation of a publication from Seville dated April 1537.—03:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

define secondary source + if its french translation of a book should i use original book as a source ~2025-34520-18 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

That’s not really the issue. To say it’s the earliest requires a judgement by an expert who’s in a position to assert there are no earlier examples; it would be WP:OR to draw that conclusion ourselves. Regardless, that the passage exists appears to contradict the article’s statement that this polemical theme began in the early 20th c. Perhaps a sentence about Juan Andrés’s position could be inserted before that, although it would be better if a secondary source on the reception & significance of his work could be found, per WP:DUE, especially when it comes to rhetoric like “nearly a homicide & a sin against nature”. Note that the existing statement is cited to recent books, not directly to works by Newcomb or Margoliouth. I don’t know which book, if either, supports the part in question, but the sentence can certainly be recast so as not to imply that the 20th-c. criticisms were the very first along this line.—Odysseus1479 07:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

what about "in 1537 juan andres criticzed muhammed for his marriage to aisha" ~2025-34520-18 (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

can i add "in 1537 juan andres criticzed muhammed for his marriage to aisha" to the article ~2025-34520-18 (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Not without a citation to a reliable scholarly source. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Removals

Removing a 19th century source about a figure from 700 CE makes no sense. Outdated sources are outdated when they are being brought to bear for truth or issues about something with more recent information. A 19th century critic of Muhammad isn't outdated if the critic is notable. Andre🚐 16:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

This is incorrect because, as a religious figure whose life is based primarily on oral history, these older sources make the (now considered by reliable sources) mistake of realying on these oral testimonies (hadith). And there has been a critical appraisal of Islam in the later 20th century to present, the Revisionist school of Islamic studies.

And historiographical methods have also developed significantly. Please justify your changes by showing where these older sources are cited uncritically by modern sources (i.e. they are up to the modern standard of academia). JaneFootball (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

That's not the standard here. These are simply attributing criticism to notable people. John Mason Neale and

Thomas Patrick Hughes aren't academics and we aren't using them for academic facts. Andre🚐 16:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in WP:N, WP:RS, or WP:DUE that says we should give preference to citing notable people. I could find WP:OUTDATED which supports my edits. I will try to read some more policy but it would be helpful if you gave me the policies that your reversions are based on. JaneFootball (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

and Wikipedia articles should be based on the most reliable sources, which is often academia. We are not just a collector of opinions by random people with Wikipedia articles (WP:NOT) JaneFootball (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The article is "Criticism of Muhammad." Notable criticisms are worthy of an entry in the intellectual history of that criticism, and are not outdated since the historical event is centuries older, and removing them because they are old is nonsensical because they are cited for their context and not as historical truth. Many articles cite the intellectual histories of their topics, including 19th century, and if we followed this logic we would remove a lot of things. Your link to OUTDATED says nothing that bears on this. It's a link to arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Claiming we should base the entire article on the revisionist historiography is WP:RECENTISM. Andre🚐 18:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Not revisionist historiography, I am just mentioning it because you asked what significant came. But now, in the 21st century and starting in the later 20th century, we had access to better Arabic translations made by Arabic native speakers, so research improved.

I meant to link to WP:AGE MATTERS. It says "sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." Well, back in the day, Muslims were called Mohammedans in English, there are new theories (both revisionist and neotraditionalist) and new information has been brought to light, many hadith collections were previous untranslated. For these various reasons, I am saying that the article be based on new sources, not just 'revisionist' (only include as many revisionist sources as would be due, in context with the proportion of revisionist papers {in the 21st century or perhaps late 20th to 21st} to total amount of reliable scholarly work.)

I know that there are ways to resolve this dispute. I think that the argument I made is pretty inline with policy, but if you disagree then I could try one of those. JaneFootball (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Read AGEMATTERS again. It is specifically referring to scientific and academic fields, politics and fashion, ie things that change making old information incorrect, medicine, etc. We are, again, talking about 19th century criticism of something from the 8th century. It is perfectly fine to use revisionist and modern academic sources for much of the article especially when we're talking about factual things that might be wrong or outdated. Wikipedia articles are full of citations to notable critics or thoughts from the past. It's part of history. It doesn't make sense to remove old examples of notable criticism of Muhammad. A better approach would be to expand and improve the article with newer sources and situate the older stuff in context. Andre🚐 20:26, 13 October 2026 (UTC)