Talk:Moses in Islam

Umang

Untitled

It would be sensible to include references to which sura is being described, every couple of paragraphs or so. The reader can't tell what of this legend is actually incorporated in the Koran (Qur'an) and what is the legend that has developed round it. Wetman 14:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. 29 Jan 06

About Musa's death.

There is no single verse in Quran that states that Musa went to a mountain and never came. Quraan didn't mention his death, but according to Prophet Muhammed's talks, Mussa was confronted by the angel of death who at that time appeared when he was about to take people's souls, since Musa was strong, he beat the angel of death, and the angel went without taking Musa's soul.

Then God told Musa to put his hand on a goat's skin, and the number of goat hairs his hand will cover will be the number of years he will live, but then Musa chose to be near God, and he chose to die. Since then, the Angel of death is invisble.

This is the Islamic story of Musa's death, and I am sure of it, so plz change the info on the page. thx

right, but you need a link to a credible source. and remember to sign your post with four tildes(~ ~ ~ ~) 75.72.25.219 (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Firawn,Pharoah giving up?

The claims about the first borns of Egyptians dying, the son of the Firawn dying and Firawn giving up his defiance is unsubstantiated in Islam as far as I know. If nobody comes up with references I am going to delete them. --Abdousi 05:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also noted that, so I deleted it. 29 Jan 06

Musa/Moses

I added a section "Musa in Judao-Christian thought" because... well, this should link back to Moses, the Christian version with a little blurb as that article links here. Granted, I think 95+% of the editors here know him as Moses but, I don't think this should be only about Islamic thought... and yet Moses be about Mostly Christian and then link here... does that seem right? This is primarily Musa from Islamic thought but from this perspective we acknowledge that Christians and Jews are part of this tradition as well. Does that seem sensible? gren グレン 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this need a separate article?

It seems to me that, unlike the case with Jesus/Isa, the Muslim view of Moses/Musa is virtually identical to the Judeo-Christian view, except that they use different names. Would not a brief section in the Moses article outlining Muslims views, and where they differ (if at all) from Judeo-Christian views, be sufficient? As it stands, the story outlined here is virtually identical to the story given in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and in later Jewish legendology. john k 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it should remain separate at least for now until the factual errors are corrected. (of which there are still quite a few and I am not sure if this is all Islamic or rather as you pointed out taken from the Bible, which is, of course, to some extent, also a valid Muslim source). In the end one can see how similar the stories are.

I belive this articel must be merged with article moses! i see no reason why it should be seperate! all arabic texts i know (old testement/bible/quran) use the same name (موسى) which is translated to moses, by all AFAIK. the stories are very similar and there is no dought that they all talk about the same person.--Mayz 02:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It needs a separate article because there is much more information that can be added. Stories of Musa's life are recounted more in the Qur'an than any other prophets and do differ from Christian and Jewish stories. This article should have more information, not merged. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are enough differences between the Biblical and Qur'anic accounts that these articles should remain seperate. This also allows more scope for adding later interpretations, cultural references, art and literature. Each article can refer the reader to the other for comparison. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I still belive this article should not exist! the figure "Moses" has an article, other articles shouldnt be variants of how the name is written! so if a separete article about moses in islamic texts can be written, and cant possibly be merged with the main article due to its size, then so must be it titled, ie, moses in islamic texts or moses in islam or somthing similar!--Mayz 00:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Moses in Islam

This article ought be retitled "Moses in Islam", with a prominent link back to the Moses article across the top.

Along with reconciling it to the standards of an English-language article, it would bring in a broader mix of editors, and help curb blatant POV such as "Musa is a prophet of Islam", "the stories of his life", etc. Also, this article could benefit from more copy editting; more traffic can only help the situation.Timothy Usher 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How is "Musa is a prophet of Islam" POV? Surely it's clear from the context that this describes the religious view of Muslims. Or am I missing your point? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We cannot say that Moses (here called "Musa") was a Muslim, which is entailed by calling him, without qualification, a "Prophet of Islam".

There was no qualifier before I'd added one. The only context to which you could be referring (unless I'm missing something which is possible) is the mere fact of its appearance in this article rather than in Moses - which pretty much proves my point about it being a POV fork, at least in its current title/version.

The very title of the article, besides being inappropriate for an English-language encyclopedia, is unacceptably POV - we cannot say he was a prophet in the title (even though you and I might agree on this point). It also violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).Timothy Usher 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the style page for Islam-related articles. Certainly we'll need to follow that, unless there's a very important reason to deviate. The article is in a sense a POV fork, but it's a real-world POV fork, caused by differing views about Moses. Wikipedia didn't create the fork. To me, 'prophet of Islam' means Muslims regard him as a prophet. "Muslims believe Musa to be one of the prophets of Islam" looks fine. I'd like to avoid 'purported' stories if we could. As far as the title, maybe, 'Musa (Islamic prophet)'? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, purported was unnecessary.

However, "Musa (Islamic prophet)" is even worse than the current title. The question is whether Moses was an Islamic prophet, which implies that he was a Muslim. This is not factually accurate, as being a Muslim entails not only monotheism, but also acceptance of Muhammad as God's messenger.

What this is all about, in the Qur'an and on wikipedia, is establishing the legitimacy of Islam's claim to Abrahamic succession by retroactively declaring previous historical figures to have been Muslims, and in the process delegitimizing Judaism and Christianity.Timothy Usher 02:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I see this page as describing the Muslim understanding of Moses. We may say things like 'Musa was a prophet' or 'Musa was a proto-Muslim'(apologies for incorrect terminology), as long as we make clear that they are statements of Islamic religious belief. I'm open to considering other suitable page titles. I'd like to hear what others think of your suggestion, "Moses in Islam." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy has tried this before and I said no. I agree with Tom about the title and removing "Muslims believe". The name Musa is a name like Moses is. Due to length, and the fact that this article describes an important prophet of Islam means that the article can be named Musa. Moses in Islam would mean "Moses in Christianity", "Moses in Judaism". Musa on his own is a prophet of Islam and important enough to have an article.

Also about the "Muslims believe", since the article already says "prophet of Islam" it makes it clear that it's an Islamic belief.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• It won't be clear at all. If we do things the way you suggest, many readers will be very confused.
• We cannot have a "POV article" wherein POV is declared on top (and only interpretatively/implicitly), and what follows is hence exempt from WP:NPOV guidelines.
• Please see the discussion on Talk:Isa to fully appreciate the strangeness of the "Musa on his own..." claim. There is no "Musa on his own..." What differs isn't who the ideas are about (Moses vs. Musa), but who holds them.
• Nor is it quite the case that "The name Musa is a name like Moses is." - they are both names, but one is standard English and the other is Arabic.Timothy Usher 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you cannot say Moses is considered a prophet of Islam without qualification, as the vast majority of non-Muslims do not consider him so. Merely mentioning Islam does not suffice, much less does the use of Arabic translations in place of standard English. Can there be anyone who believes that Moses was not a prophet of Islam, but Musa was?

Please read and respond to this point before reverting again.Timothy Usher 21:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether someone has an opinion of if he's a prophet of Islam or not doesn't matter. The point here is that he is a prophet in Islam. I would agree with you if it just said that without saying the religion. But I changed it to "in Islam" to make it clear. I think that solves it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• "It's like saying that "Christians believe that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity"

No, it's not. To say Moses is a Prophet of Islam is to suggest that he was a Muslim. That's POV, as I imagine you're well aware.

• "Whether someone has an opinion of if he's a prophet of Islam or not doesn't matter."

Sorry, but it does. I don't believe Moses (or Musa, as you'd have it) to be a Prophet of Islam. Adminship doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily declare other POV's irrelevant. See WP:NPOV.

• "I would agree with you if it just said that he is a prophet without saying the religion."

It does that as well, in the title of this article.Timothy Usher 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are assuming bad faith and I was trying to solve the problem peacefully. It's exactly the same thing as saying that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. Your argument that people will now think that he's Muslim is ridiculous. Also I changed it to "considered a prophet in Islam" so you wouldn't have a problem with it now. Check the article before discussing the older edit. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't solve it. You cannot unilaterally declare an issue solved. The only thing that "solves" it - for you, for now - is WP:3RR, as you are well aware. Shame about the readers, and the article.

Re faith - when a Muslim editor does *exactly* what I'd been advocating re translations, you agree it's good faith, but did not offer me the benefit :of the same presumption. Did you think this wouldn't be noticed?Timothy Usher 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See your talk page.Timothy Usher 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Yet when I advocated the same changes, you weren't so sure.Timothy Usher 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)"

What? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Moses is Nationality isn't Israelite it's Islam. So I suggest you on putting Moses is Nationality as Islam. JohnnyDab31353 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

impressive

who ever went and got all those page references did a great job. very helpful.

The drowned (Firawn's,pharoah's) body from the parting of the red sea exists, is preserved and kept somewhere?

From the section 'God calls Moses', the end of the alst paragraph.

"Here Moses used his staff to part the ocean that allowed the Israelites to pass through, then the (Firawn,Pharaoh) also followed but the ocean closed on him drowning and killing Firawn and his entire army. and now (Firawn,Pharaohs) body can be seen in musuems all over the world plus scientist have proved that Firawn died from drowning and were shocked because his body was preserved in such a manner after all these years which is like a miracle, and god also states in the quran hus body will be preserved as a sign for future generations."

Tha bits above in bold. Where did the statement come from, what backup / proof is there; are there any references available?

God or Allah?

This article uses the English "God" frequently and only once uses the latin translitteration of arabic "Allah". Since "Allah" is the definite article "al" before "ila" (god) it seems to me that the one use of "Allah" could be changed to "God." Of course, I don't want to change it and start any fights, so I'm posting here first. 05:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.55.53 (talk)

Merge

This needs to be merged with the regular article Moses. Since Muslimes recognize the Bible that Jews and Christians use, having a separate article is a nuisance and unhelpful as pointed out by many previous editors above, long before me. What are we waiting for? Student7 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Islamic view of Moses → Moses — This duplicates information in standard article Moses. This is the same Moses, using the same resource as the other two religions do. —Student7 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close this is not a move request, it is a merge request, it should be listed at WP:PM, NOT WP:RM. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close per above, the guy wants a merge not a move Little Professor (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed my own tag as per information above. changed to merge Student7 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

List of references in the Qur'an

I notice other articles on Islamic views of Hebrew characters contain lists of the significant references to that character in the Qur'an -- but this article doesn't (and it would be really useful for me right now if it did!). Has there been any discussion to adding a list of significant passages that deal with Moses/Musa? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See eg Biblical_narratives_and_the_Qur'an#Moses_.28M.C5.ABs.C4.81_.D9.85.D9.88.D8.B3.D9.89.29, which could be a basis for adding such material. Jheald (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If this differs from the Judeo-Christian view, it should be specifically noted somewhere. A pending change to merge is listed above. Student7 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Title "Islamic view of Moses"

Title given to this article of such a importance does not seems at all suitable in my view.The topic's start with 'Islamic' does not make any sense as no one search with word 'Islamic' ,it will start with either 'Moses' or 'Musa' .Any islamic fellow want to serch for Musa does not get any where.If any one want to come from Main article 'Moses', he can always be redirected from there, but one if start with search of 'Musa' will not find any serch result ,hence topic should start with Musa and "Musa( Moses)" is best title possible for the topic ,may pl.agree and discuss further.--Md iet (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We should get rid of all the images of Moses

The title is "Islamic view of Moses", so why does the article have all those pictures that obviously depict Moses from the Christian perspective? Images of prophets are forbidden in Islam, so this article should be devoid of any images. 211.25.129.2 (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that persian image has nothing to do with Islam..It does not represent the Islamic view of Moses, so it should be removed. Kiwix (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so you cannot remove content based on it being "forbidden in Islam." Peter Deer (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok you can say that but what about the picture when searching asiya bint muzahim (given the title of one of the best women to have lived in Islam)-someones bloody put a picture of ariana grande there! Its entirely disrespectful-its not only one picture you need to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.190.181 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be quite a ridiculous thing to do, seeing how manuscript images, and such were allowed under the rulingship of the Caliphs and throughout the Golden age of Islam. Of course this was pre-Wahhabiyyah reign, Wahhabiyyah being a new age a new way, nothing to do with historical Islam. So there is no reason for you to be removing such manuscripts, your idea and view of Islam may be completely different from others who follow the historical religion.--MuslimKnight786 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

List of promonent prophets

A template is prepared for prominent prophets .

This will help at a glance view link between them. Hope this is also of prime importance in this article. If there is no further suggestion on this, we may include this in this article.--Md iet (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no further suggestion for the template. Hope this seems OK for inclusion.--Md iet (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your patience waiting for responses is appreciated. It looks like you put a lot of work into that diagram. My only question is, can the diagram be made smaller, more compact? It seems like it would dominate any article you put it in. It would be nice if there were a way to shrink the padding within the boxes and shrink the length of the connecting lines. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to make it much smaller due to it using the {{familytree}}. However on the line "{{familytree/start" add "|style=font-size:xx%" will reduce it somewhat. By the way, why not link to Islamic view of Abraham, Islamic view of Adam, Islamic view of Noah, Islamic view of Moses, Islamic view of Jacob and pipe to Ishmael#Islamic tradition. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Audience applause for you CBW, appreciating the efforts made by someone with special help from Joren. Your suggestion will go long way I hope.--Md iet (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Template squeezed in font-size as suggested and Overall width also reduced .Hope Amatulic, now it’s OK.--Md iet (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I woudn't make the font any smaller than that. Actually reducing the font has such a minimal effect on the size that you may as well make it a notch larger. I just did this.

One more thing you could do is remove some of the white boxes. Jacob, for example, doesn't need to be there. Wouldn't it be enough to have a dotted line from Isaac? Similarly you could have a dotted line directly from Ishmael to Muhammad. If the point is to emphasize the six, it should be enough to show how they connect, not selected relatives they connect to.

Also, "applause/sausage" was suggesting replacing the links you have with the "Islamic view of..." links instead. In the context in which this template would appear, that would make the most sense, rather than linking directly to Adam, Moses, etc. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, Jacob and Abadullah are deleted from template. These will not affect family links as one major link is still available in between. The further linking is done for Islamic as well as general article. Thanks Amatulic, this has really made template more concise and well connected.--Md iet (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Height further reduced by removing
not needed.--Md iet (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Added   in between names. Also it might work as shown at Template talk:Six Islamic Prophets which cuts out the links to the non-Islamic views. By the way Abdul Muttalib is a disambiguation page. Given the dotted line between him and Muhammad I figure you want his grandfather, Shaiba ibn Hashim, rather than Abd Allah ibn Abd al Muttalib. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Look more symmetrical and prominent.Link for Abdul Muttalib also corrected. Thanks CBW,--Md iet (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Further spell correction done by Joren, thanks. Hope this correction will continue for betterment. For the present it seems that template is ready for inclusion in all related articles.--Md iet (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or this template can now be displayed as a flat box like navigation templates at the bottom of an article by setting a paramter "navbox=yes"

{{Six Islamic Prophets|navbox=yes}}

which may be less intrusive in certain circumstances -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This template can also be displayed with the list collapsed by adding the parameter "expanded=no"

{{Six Islamic Prophets|expanded=no}}

-- PBS (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't there a German version of this article? Where did it go?

? 24.25.237.226 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia and has no control over the German version. You need to go to the German language Wikipedia and ask there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

• Islamic view of Moses → Musa
• Musa → Musa (disambiguation)Musa (disambiguation)

– The article i want to move to Musa is Islamic view of Moses. As Islamic view of Moses depicting the Prophet Musa in Islam so i believe the name of the page should also be depicting the way it is spelled and understood in Islam. While the Islamic view of Moses would be treated as a redirect to the page Musa and Page Musa should be move to Musa (disambiguation). As the Prophet Musa is a prominent figure in Islam therefore majority of the places and names of person are named after Him as also show in Musa (disambiguation) page. So i believe the primary topic should be Islamic view of Moses and the disambiguation page Musa should be moved to Musa (disambiguation). Please provide your opinion regarding the move with justification whether positive or negative. Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Procedural close; I'm consolidating these requests on Ibrahim's behalf. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abraham in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Visiting devil accidentally by Prophet Moses according to Islam

Once Prophet Moses saw devil (Prophets can see devil) was crying very much. He said, why you are crying? Devil answered because God doesn't forgive me. Prophet Moses said, I ask your forgiveness from God. He discussed it with God, Allah said ok I forgive him but he has to say that I'm not better than human. Prophet oses told devil. In answer Devil said no I'm better, I am from fire and human from soil.

[User:Mjesfahani|MansourJE]] (talk) 12:27 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"family tree with prophets on right" is intended to convey. It seems to have been introduced several years ago. My guess is that it's intended to refer to some sort of diagram and is a placeholder of some sort, but is now obsolete. I'm going to delete it, but if someone cares to restore it, perhaps they could explain what it means a bit better. Wcoole (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

2.147.214.57 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

God is not really Allah.

"God" is a regression of Gotan, that includes a second tree, where one becomes "God". This is not part of the original Gotan religion, neither Islam. Gotan though is like Allah, and Ragnarok, Vàlhàll and Hél corresponds to Judgement day, Jannah and Jahannam. On the islamic side, Allah is not associated with secs, or their sufism either. Clearing this up, the "christian" distortion of a second tree, hallucinogenic drugs, and claims of being "god" has many similarities to the pantheism of the sufis, and may be seen as irreligious conflicts, and really conflicts of sectarian regressions, rather than the original religion, which is culturally corresponding. Which indeed, in religion science, if prophets really talked about the same deity, then it would be so.

I suggest that all articles that deal with Allah, not use the regression "God". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

mussa

he was a very repectful man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.120.240 (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses discussion

Hi, please see Talk:Ishmael#Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses and Abraham. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Musa(prophet)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Musa(prophet) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#Musa(prophet) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Imran and Amram

These are two completely different names. why are they used interchangeably? I understand they sound similar, but they're not the same, this is exactly why the author of qoran got it mixed up 121.200.6.85 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

MAJID

Majid 39.48.25.128 (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

But also Who is The Firaun (Pharoah)

Some people say it’s Ramses II but this is a bit confusing……………………………………….. Mathsmaster707 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Pharaoh in Islam" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pharaoh in Islam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28 § Pharaoh in Islam until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing Image File

under the "Escape to Midian" and "Prophecy", the Image file of Midian Mountains and Mount Sinai is missing, but the caption and source is still displayed on the page SiWa12 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Repaired. Thanks for letting us know. — Trey Maturin™ 10:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this paragraph.

For example, this "His revelations, such as the Ten Commandments, which form part of the contents of the Torah and are central to the Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Christianity." is not a sentence. Kriegman (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2025

Islam prohibits depicting of Prophet's, Change the main picture with Musa name arabic calligraphy that is also consistent with other Islamic Prophet's pages on Wikipedia 2A0A:EF40:10D2:2100:340D:2FC0:BFE8:2EE1 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NOTCENSORED Cannolis (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead image

I am aware that on some other Islamic prophet articles they have chosen to use a calligraphic image rather than an old illuminated manuscript image, but on this article the image has been restored several times for the last few years. Per MOS:ISLAMHON a calligraphic image needs to have a documented usage outside of Wikipedia. The file File:Musa (Moses)1.png is clearly an example of this and as such violates the guideline, and I see no reason given to use it; this article is not required to maintain consistency with other Islamic prophet articles. I submit that while it is offensive to devout Muslims, WP:NOTCENSORED and that the existing image, or no image, is a question without a consensus currently. I personally find the existing image suitably illustrative, and since it's Moses, not Muhammad, hopefully that makes it marginally less offensive, but I'm open to hearing arguments to change the image. Andre🚐 03:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre

Just a note, I am talking about the WP:lead image (which the page says to be careful with although WP:NOTCENSORED).

As far as I can tell, this specific image has only been up for a year by User:Bari' bin Farangi. This isn't an isolated edit of his because I've seen images he put up on multiple pages. Check Lot in Islam for example.

This was the diff .

I was unaware of the MOS:ISLAMHON rule. Instead of using the user-generated image, I propose one of these two images.

(Mount Sinai)

(Nabi Musa)

I will tell you if I find calligraphy, because I think consistency is important. But for now, I propose these.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you accidentally linked the same image twice. Anyway, I don't see that an image of the building is better than an actual illustration of a human figure from an old illuminated manuscript. I am aware this is prohibited in observant sects of Islam, but I do not personally think it's sufficiently offensive to remove it. And I do not think this page needs to be consistent with any other page necessarily, as the availability of illustrative images may vary by topic. While lead image guidelines do contain language about potentially offensive images, that remains to be determined by a consensus of editors on this specific page how illustrative the image is or how shocking or offensive it would be perceived by the typical editor. There was also File:Musa_with_a_cane_in_his_hand.jpg which was up and down for several years. Personally, while I certainly am open to changing my view, I do not think a user adding old Persian manuscripts is anything nefarious, and I do not quite see the rationale for removing them other than the potential to offend very observant Muslims. I understand why the compromise has been chosen on the Muhammad page, but that doesn't carry beyond that page. Andre🚐 01:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the other image: .

I'm not even necessarily asking to remove it, just that it's not the lead image. I believe that this is quite "shocking or offensive" to the typical editor. Many complaints have been made in the past, as seen in the links you put in the first message of this thread. Even in this talk page (as of right now) there are two non archived threads related to this. This is the third.

The Persian manuscript isn't so much better than these pictures anyway. They all illustrate a major event.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, the links show essentially a years-long, slow-motion edit war between different editors either removing the image, replacing it with calligraphy, or adding it or another image back. I didn't check all the archives to see if there was a concomitant discussion at the time, and it's obviously not a sanctionable edit war, but I do think it would be better to hear from a few editors, maybe even have an RFC or some kind of solicitation of a third opinion, rather than personally continuing to belabor fluffy arguments that come down to our personal milieux, unless you've got anything a little more evidentiary. As to your proposals, I cannot see how the image of a building is more illustrative of the topic but I do agree it is not the worst image and is somewhat illustrative of a major aspect of the topic, namely the location that tradition ascribes to the tomb of Musa in Islam, which is certainly one of the most important aspects, but I do think an article about a person is more properly generally illustrated with something about their life, of which the death and burial is only the last part. As to the Mt. Sinai idea, that might work, but the one you showed reads weird to me. It appears to be a picture of the view from the summit of whatever small station is down there. A Mt. Sinai image might work, isn't there some actual, external world representation of that in Islamic tradition from inside the building or book or whatever? Andre🚐 02:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think Wikipedia's editorial policies should try to adjudicate matters of Islamic theology and thus offense regarding visual representations should simply be off the table as a substantive argument. The same goes for what or who is devout or observant and I would ask for a little more care regarding phrasing surrounding this subject as this is simply a matter of personal belief and not generalizable for Islam as a whole and to describe groups or people as devout or observant for coming down on one side of millennia-old matter of theological dispute seems incompatible with the principle idea behind NPOV. The manuscript the image is from is in no way a secular text, it consists solely of Quranic citations and exegesis and uses a visual language deeply familiar to Islamic civilization with regards to the depictions of holy figures, its use in a secular encyclopedia comes down simply to aligning with being illustrative and representative examples of religious art from the Islamic tradition helping a neutral reader get a good idea of what various Muslims imagined when thinking of these figures over centuries. None of this is meant to cause offense or disturb readers of various aniconic sects, but a central problem here comes down a complete incompatibility of aniconic beliefs with the way a neutral encyclopedia is illustrated, a blank prohibition of representations of people or animals simply clashes with the normal way a neutral editor would edit an article on a person or an animal. Photographs of a shrine, mosque or a geological formation etc give little insight into the history of Islamic art or the way Muslims imagined the figure in question and as such are not very illustrative, in addition to that they ascribe a certain kind of implied historicity to these figures that isn’t particularly in line with the way an article written from the perspective of religious studies (ie not theology) would approach these things, due to the rich Islamic tradition of mystical, allegorical, and metaphysical readings of these texts existing next to and times together with stricter literalism. To my mind, the only logical reason one would opt for them over artwork much better fit for the purpose is to validate or appease the beliefs of one particular side in a theological debate over those of another and such an editorial position to me personally seems blatantly incompatible with NPOV. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

"...but a central problem here comes down a complete incompatibility of aniconic beliefs with the way a neutral encyclopedia is illustrated..."

I don't think that it's "incompatible".

I'm fine with there being images of people on their biographies, even drawings of prophets in Christian/Jewish/other religions' articles.

I'm not even asking for all images to be removed, simply a different lead image.

To be specific, I'm referring to the parts where it says:

• "lead images should be selected with care (see § Offensive images, above)")
• "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred."

(To Andre because I don't want to write a full other response to tell him.) I'm going to search for an image hopefully.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

But the offense here derives not from some innate quality of the depictions or some generalizable sentiment within all of Islam but your personally-held, particular and normative theological beliefs about what Islam should be. Many religious Jews similarly hold aniconic beliefs and yet when illustrating articles about prophets in Judaism using religious art from a Jewish context depicting them figuratively is the most logical and straightforward way to go about things. To make sure a lead image on a religious topic is respectful, artistically-valuable, and illustrative is adequate care; to forego considerations of this kind and abide by normative prohibitive demands by particular sects instead is frankly the opposite… Shock value derived from graphic depictions of violence, mocking caricatures etc. is something very different than shock value that comes down to an artist not laying down their pen because they hold a different theological outlook than you do, the former must be respected, the latter in a secular context cannot be part of editorial considerations. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Your response isn't really referencing Wikipedia, moreso about logos.

If you really want to talk about it from a non-Wikipedia rules/policies perspective, okay.

"particular and normative theological beliefs about what Islam should be" This is just the vast majority of Islam, and Islam's rules aren't affected by what people practice. Most of the people reading the article are Muslims (I'm assuming) and as evidently seen in this talk page right here, many do consider this shocking and are asking for removal.

This isn't my perspective, but one could argue that "violence and mocking caricatures" are only bad because people believe that they are bad. Then they could go on and say that those opinions shouldn't be considered in a secular context or for Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if further discussion on this topic is necessary; I think it may be more productive to focus on solving the problem (problem because multiple people have brought it up and obviously it could be assumed that a majority of people who are offended don't go to the talk page and mention it) instead of accepting (Wikipedia isn't perfect, but let's try to get it as close as we can), normalizing, or defending it.

(The following message is copypasted because it still holds true.) - (To Andre because I don't want to write a full other response to tell him.) I'm going to search for an image hopefully.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

My response was just a round about way of explaining the logic behind wp:notcensored and the kind of normative demands that by their nature eclipse what a secular project can abide by. Regarding the claim "This is just the vast majority of Islam, and Islam's rules aren't affected by what people practice." this is just at odds with the basic principles of religious studies as a field, ie the relevant academic approach when writing a neutral non-sectarian article on these subjects, as introductory reading on the standard approach in this field I recommend:

https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/what-we-do/our-approach/core-principles

But to subsume the basic principles of the field to this discussion, writing from a secular perspective presumes accepting the legitimacy of diverse normative claims regarding imagery in Islam, which for our purposes is the changing and evolving sum of practices and expressions of Muslims and the cultures they inhibit. This stands in stark contrast to a theological approach that seems Islam as a monolithic divine truth whose normative claims are uniform and deviations from which can be characterized as wrong. Any writing that ignores these basic principles and asserts even in minor editorial decisions a notion of Islamic orthodoxy moves by its nature beyond the base consensus of this project and the tangent academic field. All the objections you reference come down to this partisan notion which by its nature is immaterial to the arguments that can be considered on Wikipedia. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

"My response was just a round about way of explaining the logic behind wp:notcensored and the kind of normative demands that by their nature eclipse what a secular project can abide by."

I'm not removing anything, just switching in a different WP:Lead image.

In my opinion, the image is quite cluttered anyway.

@AndreJustAndre

Maybe something like this could work? Just shift it to the top?

-- LightningThrower (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, probably not, as this is not from a historical Islamic manuscript or text or source.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre

Sorry for pinging you twice, but I have an idea.

What if I make a map detailing where Moses (Musa عليه السلام) travelled throughout his life?

Do you think that could be the lead image?

(The following message was added in an edit and not part of the original message) I finally found a full on category of potential candidates. These are quite historic and rooted in Islamic culture. This too:

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe one of those Andre🚐 19:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I propose this because it's the last Turkish one or maybe this because it's at the shrine.

The final Turkish one was likely more historic from what I can tell.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd be ok with one of those two as a compromise. Andre🚐 20:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put the first one up.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The pertinent question is: what two positions are supposed to have been compromised between here? At no point in this discussion has @LightningThrower actually delivered a rationale that at its core conforms to the basic consensus of Wikipedia as a religiously neutral encyclopedia. At several points in this discussion they have made it very clear that their concerns come from a place of (good faith) conviction that their personally held religious beliefs are representative of Islamic orthodoxy, deviations from which are to be seen as offensive, and that editorial decisions here should quite literally marginalize art stemming from alternative normative beliefs within Islam, ie a position that has no parity at all to the basic concerns of “what most helpfully illustrates the subject”. As an end result of this effort the infobox image has gone from a centuries-old miniature in the Qazvin-style representative of hundreds of saint motives of Moses in Islam and quite illustrative of what many Muslims imagined when hearing the name to a black and white photo of a hundred Turkish men standing around in a circle holding Turkish flags to illustrate the article “Moses in Islam”… Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out here, as this image is at least not violating any guidelines that I can tell, and it does illustrate how Muslims celebrate Moses in Islam, or at least what they did in 1917. I don't mind it as a compromise because LightningThrower claims the other image could be shocking or offensive to some people, I don't really think it is, but as a compromise we have chosen another image that is historical, based on some sort of ritual observance involving Moses in Islam, and is not just a random pic of user-generated calligraphy or some user-selected modern pic of a mountain. Beyond that I leave it to you. Andre🚐 06:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

That’s fine, thank you for participating in the discussion :) I am going to remain very open to a change in the infobox image here, but one whose rationale doesn’t come down to trying to assert one’s own religious beliefs in favor of more straightforwardly illustrative material. Until I actually see a piece of art etc. that has the same or more illustrative character as the previous one or hear a rationale that does not rely on fundamentally disregarding base principles of religious studies and neutrality (ie “deviations from the normative beliefs I hold to be orthodox are shocking or offensive”) I am going to revert to the previous version as no consensus has been reached thus far. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bari' bin Farangi

(Last message): "black and white photo of a hundred Turkish men standing around in a circle holding Turkish flags"

That's a pretty unfair way to present the Last Turkish celebration of Nebi Musa.

The Nebi Musa is the Tomb of Moses (Musa عليه السلام) and a culturally significant and historic festival.

I don't see hundreds of motives in the "Qazvin-style representative of hundreds of saint motives of Moses in Islam", and as I expressed above, it's unclear and cluttered to me. We don't know if "many Muslims imagined when hearing the name" is true or this was a one-off artist/culture.

The miniature is (in my opinion) likely to be edit-warred and removed many times in the future anyway. Replacing that image with another culturally and historically significant image would potentially avoid many hours or even days of conflict in the future.

Have you looked at this? It doesn't have any flags and is at the shrine.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It is an unfair reading without all the trappings of a well-informed reader familiar with cultic expressions of late 19th- and early 20th-century Islam in Ottoman Palestine and the practices outgrown from it in Mandate Palestine, however Wikipedia is written for such a general audience, ie any illustration that requires intense acts of transferring previously acquired background knowledge to be read, like these two monochrome photographs do, is not very suited for the job.

Regarding your legitimate concern that this might be a one-off piece not representative of a broader tradition I refer you to Norah M. Titley 1983, Persian Miniature Painting and Its Influence on the Art of Turkey and India which details how the types of Persian miniatures this illustration is broadly representative of manifestly shaped the traditions in the Ottoman Sultanate and the Mughal courts, but I also encourage you to look at other Stories of the Prophets manuscripts from all three regions on your own as you will find this particular motif of Moses battling the Pharaoh’s magicians over and over again in manuscripts produced hundreds of years and hundreds of miles apart. As a motif it presupposes little particular background knowledge by the general public as the most recondite part, the Flaming Nimbus, which marks a prophet in the tradition of Islamic miniature, is quite easily understood by someone unfamiliar with it as a general kind of halo; while the rest of the image just straightforwardly depicts the scene as such.

It is this plain and hard to misread illustrative character that makes the image suited for the infobox. If during your time with these manuscripts you find other versions of this particular motif or even other motifs that seem artistically more valuable or visually more interesting and which offer the same kind of illustrative character to you feel free to suggest them here; as again I am very open to changing this particular image. But please try to approach the matter from an NPOV perspective and using the standard approach for religious studies, ie don’t expect images like the ones you have suggested thus far, which require these intense acts of abstract thinking to be understood as illustrative of “Moses in Islam” and not just vaguely tangentially related, to suddenly be just as helpful to the general audience of an encyclopedia as the above-discussed traditions of Islamic saint art, simply because you consider that genre as per-se offensive due to it diverging from your personal understanding of Islamic orthodoxy. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bari' bin Farangi

Just for the future (I really care about grammar and spelling especially) per se isn't hyphenated.

You did just refer me to a 279 page book... Maybe I'll read it (I made an internet archive account for this). I'm not sure if you will get a timely response though.

I still disagree with the view that the black-and-white image is messy ((In my opinion,) both the black-and-white image and the miniature need a caption, but no more than that is required for comprehension of how they represent and are related to the topic.), but I don't think we will agree on this, and this is partially a matter of opinion, what kinds of images we have seen or are used to, and our background knowledge on the topics of the image styles or histories.

I had another idea earlier which I didn't do because I thought it would be quite time consuming and unnecessary, but I could still do it.

To quote myself from earlier "What if I make a map detailing where Moses (Musa (عليه السلام)) traveled throughout his life?" (Although I did make travelled become traveled (they are both correct anyway but I'm using American English. I also changed (AS) to عليه السلام.))

What do you say? Do you think that a map showing where he went throughout his life would be the top image? I think it would be the best summary of his ENTIRE life.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I personally don’t believe in linguistic prescription beyond broad disambiguation and follow the standard academic approach of linguistic descriptivism; but if the former fulfills you feel free derive as much emotional satisfaction from it as you desire.

It’s a really helpful introductory text in my opinion compared to most other scholarship in this field which presupposes large amounts of pre-established knowledge and is usually looking at more specific developments.

I like maps and I have created a similar image for Ibn Butlan here

But going from that experience I see a few major issues here:

1st it’s still not very illustrative compared to a miniature.

2nd Even with a figure like Ibn Butlan for whom historicity is well-established mapping out real places, routes and dates proves tremendously difficult. Moses (while the most mentioned Messenger in the Qur’an) presents as an enormously fragmentary character in Islamic religious texts (Quran, Sayings literature etc) itself. Many traditional Islamic scholars use Isra’iliyyat to paint a more coherent picture but that is where we run into a real problem, these accounts differ based on what Jewish and Christian sources they consulted, don’t represent in that sense purely Islamic perspectives and completely fail in terms of establishing anything reliability in terms of historicity that would allow for a map de facto wikivoicing it. Therefore any map would have to come with the caveats of being presented as this-or-that-scholar’s idea, the irl locations would certainly be up for debate and the Isra’iliyyat consulted would have to be heavily discussed to give a glimpse into the approaches to comparative theology in medieval Islam that even led to such a narrative.

4th Tangentially related to the previous point more mystical approaches to Islam such as Sufism, Alawism etc would be completely be completely bewildered by such an attempt at historicizing narrative building and push the fragmentary nature of the purely Islamic accounts into the opposite direction; think of the correspondence between Moses and Dan ibn Usbaut etc in Alawism, so to avoid wp:undue one would have to somehow seriously discuss the severe differences in dealing with the fragmentary accounts in different Islamic contexts. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

"1st it’s still not very illustrative compared to a miniature."

What do you mean by this? I legitimately don't see what you are talking about. Wikipedia isn't trying to look pretty, it's trying to give concise information. (In my opinion,) An image on a singular event (which honestly could very well be described in text) is not superior to a map regarding a full lifetime.

The second point I could show multiple possible paths or simply give due weight to the main point of view as of right now.

The fourth (third? (second point fifth because it's related?)) point: I could just say "from xyz pov" or "the potential path" anyway. Images don't have to be perfect. There is likely some group who would disagree with the miniature, there are always some people who disagree with things.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t have to be pretty but it tries to set an academic and encyclopedic tone in its illustrations, that’s also the reason why user generated medallions in the style of 19th-century calligraphy aren’t generally appreciated as helpful here, because they don’t set such a tone but one of a particular kind of religious reverence absent from reliable secular texts on this matter but that’s besides the point.

To illustrate an article called “Islamic perspectives on the Out-of-Egypt Migration of the Israelites” a map detailing different paths according to Islamic theologians trying to marry the fragmentary account presented by Islamic sources with the Isra’iliyyat into a coherent whole would work great in terms of show-don’t-tell for that particular subject. But as the article is much broader and a map doesn’t provide much insight into “What did Muslims imagine when hearing the name Moses?” it’s just not very illustrative regarding the primary question that would drive a general audience here. An example from a broad genre of Islamic pictorial art of a prophet with a beard playing out one of the prominent scenes from the Qur’an essentially word for word however is a lot more helpful towards answering that question, without being married to one mode of exegesis or another, as it clearly isn’t a photograph of a real life location of a tomb or an attempt at historical reenactment or reconstruction using real life places and objects etc; instead by being a painted artistic work it occupies a visual space very similar to the linguistic space of Qur’anic poetry itself one that might make an average reader ask for exegesis and contextualization and that feasibly could allude to such perspectives but not one that already provides them in the text itself and therefore creates a distance of ambiguity that is helpful to maintain an academic impression. That is why religious art of this kind without much effort can be extrapolated into a fairly helpful first impression, because it conveys uncertainty and historical context in its very subtext. Meanwhile a map based on different exegetical texts is seeking to do away with such uncertainties, such an approach provides a deep and narrow insight into differing perspectives on a small issue which can be very helpful in that context but it also presupposes a reader already has some idea about the first question driving them here. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

"such an approach provides a deep and narrow insight into differing perspectives on a small issue"

How is where he went/was a small issue? Location is important as it sets the background for any events or actions to take place. Why would the Red Sea be split if he wasn't there/didn't go there.

"presupposes a reader already has some idea about the first question driving them here."

Does it though? A map of the major points of view would be quite informative, and I don't see the background context needed for it.

"An example from a broad genre of Islamic pictorial art of a prophet with a beard playing out one of the prominent scenes from the Qur’an essentially word for word however is a lot more helpful towards answering that question, without being married to one mode of exegesis or another, as it clearly isn’t a photograph of a real life location of a tomb or an attempt at historical reenactment or reconstruction using real life places and objects etc; instead by being a painted artistic work it occupies a visual space very similar to the linguistic space of Qur’anic poetry itself one that might make an average reader ask for exegesis and contextualization and that feasibly could allude to such perspectives but not one that already provides them in the text itself and therefore creates a distance of ambiguity that is helpful to maintain an academic impression."

(All one sentence by the way)

How is it not just the artists interpretation? The artist wasn't there or alive at the time, so they are drawing from the primary sources.

Please answer all three questions/criticisms, they are legitimate inquiries to which I would like to know the answers to.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Your first question presupposes Moses’ historicity and ascribes authorial intent to that view on parts of the author/authors of the Qur’an. That perspective is thoroughly situated within one mode of exegesis of Islamic theology, it also is not a defensible perspective for a scholar in the field of religious studies approaching these sources. Whether Moses existed or not, what the exact intentions on parts of the author/authors of the Qur’an were, and how their poetry aligns with real life events is irrelevant to a secular perspective dealing with these sources as none of these speculations are provable or falsifiable or provide any deeper insight into the religious practices of Muslims pertaining to these texts. The closest secular scholars get to dealing with these questions is comparative religion where one would compare for example the narratives in the Pentateuch with older texts in an attempt at reconstructing how various narratives might have been integrated to produce a composite text; the same has been done with various parts of the Qur’an, however this practice presupposes authorship in a more conventional sense and thereby precludes the (usually) preferred perspective of divine revelation of various religious groups pertaining to their particular canonical texts; that being said because of how speculative this often gets and to what extremes certain scholars push these theses (particularly in the revisionist school of Islamic studies) this approach has to be handled with great caution when being reproduced here. That’s why a map would be a narrow insight into a small issue, because it would merely illustrate theological perspectives from outside the academic study of religion that are only relevant to the academic study of Islam in so far as those particular attempts at historical reconstruction have a bearing on the religious practices of Muslims, which in this particular case largely comes down to modes of medieval Islamic comparative theology; a fascinating subject (and one that deserves attention especially because it relates to various religious movements in Islamicate civilization and is a prerequisite to understand various forms of Sufism, mysticism more generally and even new religions like the Baha’i faith) though just not a very general one.

It would be of great informative value for a theological encyclopedia like WikiShia which is not constrained to reproducing academic sources and viewpoints. But because Wikipedia is a secular project that relies on exactly these kinds of secular, reliable secondary sources and one which cannot simply reproduce theological perspectives, ie perspectives presupposing certain unprovable notions (like the divine origin of the Qur’an, the absolute historical reliability of the events described therein etc.) because the texts they are from are primary sources for the purposes of wp:rs, ie they would require adequate categorization and contextualization from reliable secondary sources to be used here. Without that context it simply wouldn’t be usable here and with that context it’s not a simple illustration for an infobox anymore.

That the work is a fragmentary and stylized rendition and interpretation of Qur’anic poetry that can be read while remaining agonstic on the question if there even could be “primary sources” (as you call them) is the point. It is a snapshot that is primarily representative of Islamic religious art and mainly draws on the visual and narrative vocabulary of Islamic civilization. Its purpose is not to show a reader what a historical Moses really looked like or what he actually did, but to provide them with a helpful insight into said visual and narrative vocabulary surrounding him in Islam, as that vocabulary, that cosmos of narratives and ideas, and the practices resulting from it, is the exact thing in focus for an academic writing about “Moses in Islam”. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

My response in general may be found above this message, as the indent amount is getting quite high and this specific part (also partially my fault) is getting quite tangential.

-- LightningThrower (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Throughout this thread I assumed good faith. I therefore provided you with carefully worded replies to very broad and basic questions, as well as introductory reading materials on the basic scientific methodology requisite for writing about the subject at hand. I don’t think demanding an answer to three such questions a reply ago just to turn around and demand they be shorter is conducive to a helpful discussion. If you really want to have the most concise reply to the entirety of your questions here you go:

Make sure to familiarize yourself with the basic methods and principles of the scientific study of religion and adopt them as your own prior to making editing suggestions for an article written from that perspective by base consensus. You consistently seem to be unfamiliar with what approaches belong to the internal study of religion, ie theology, and which ones belong to the external study of religion and thus should be used when writing on Wikipedia, a secular project. Also keep in mind WP:NPOVFAQ#Religion before formulating an argument about offense stemming from your personal religious beiefs. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• The current lead image (the Persian miniature) is fine, it's much much better than the proposed alternatives (see the gallery below: the two images depicting the Nebi Musa feast are to small to make anything out, and it's not immediately clear how any of the alternatives illustrate the subject at all), and the whole argument to replace the lead image in the first place is based on a view (religious censorship) which per WP:NOTCENSORED carries no weight at all on Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I still disagree with your point, because you overlooked the current and main alternative proposal in question (the map which I plan to create if it's agreed upon).

  This isn't even related to WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm not removing anything, which I've stated multiple times.

  The most relevant guideline is WP:LEADIMAGE, which has been discussed above. (Please read above it was one of the first things discussed and I don't want to clutter the thread further.)

  Additionally, a related article would be WP:GRATUITOUS, which states that "Images should respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." I believe that this image does not respect the expectations of the readers for a given topic.

  I've tried meeting people in the middle and I do want a consensus on this topic. The lead image isn't only in potential violation of WP:GRATUITOUS, but as stated above in the thread, this image is problematic for many editors. Examples are in other threads on this page.

  I've been suggesting a map as an alternative, please read that part. The map would basically show (a) potential path(s) that Musa عَلَیهِ‌السَّلام traveled.

  From what I can tell, the map would be a better, more informative, and less problematic than the current lead image.

  -- LightningThrower (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is only one reason why you want to change the lead image, and it is that "this image is problematic for many editors" (i.e. Muslims of certain iconoclastic denominations). Now this reason is null and void according to Wikipedia's guidelines on religious censorship. Conventional expectations of readers for a given topic ≠ specific religious expectations of a certain subset of readers. A map would likely be too small to serve as a useful lead image as well, but that's a moot point: you are wasting all of our time by insisting on an argument that has long been rejected by the Wikipedia community as a whole. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  This doesn't address my points and is not following WP:AGF. I'm not removing the image, so WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply.

  The map being too small is speculation, because I haven't even made/found the map yet. As far I can recall, he didn't travel exceptionally far. I haven't made the map yet because I don't want to invest so much time into making a map if it won't be accepted.

  Saying that the Wikipedia community has rejected this view as a whole is incorrect. The largest debate on this happened (as far as my knowledge goes) in Muhammad (and calligraphy won).

  I think that the next best thing unless you and Bari bin Farangi agree to the map would be to find calligraphy and follow the precedent.

  -- LightningThrower (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Um, no the precedent on another article does not apply here. Andre🚐 02:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is getting very, very long and we aren't making much progress.

  I'm going to stop replying because I think that this discussion has reached No Consensus.

  I may or may not return to this, but I'm probably not going to be editing Wikipedia for a while/frequently, so bye.

  -- LightningThrower (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Gallery

• 
  Current lead image
• 
  Proposed alternative
• 
  Proposed alternative
• 
  Proposed alternative
• 
  Proposed alternative
• 
  Proposed alternative