Talk:Muhammad#Edit request on 15 June 2012

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|116839929765}}

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?

This section is for mobile-device users who do not see the normal talk page header. This section should not have any comments, so that it stays on this talk page and does not get archived.

The following text is from the article:

"When Muhammad came to his senses, he felt scared; he started to think that after all of this spiritual struggle, he had been visited by a jinn, which made him no longer want to live. In desperation, Muhammad fled from the cave and began climbing up towards the top of the mountain to jump to his death. "

The part where it says "Muhammad fled from the cave and began climbing up towards the top of the mountain to jump to his death." is false, despite it being found in Sahih Al Bukhari, it is known to have a defective chain for attributing to unknown sources. If we were to compare any other historical hadith about it we won't find any source claiming he attempted suicide.

Karim Ibn Karim (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:This is a lie, Sahih Al Bukhari is considered the most authoritative collection of hadiths in Sunni Islam. But if you have a reliable reference feel free to edit the article. 173.230.28.18 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::What you have said is true, however to comprehend the error in this narration which is present in [https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6982 Sahih al-Bukhari 6982] it is necessary to have some knowledge on usul al Hadith.

::The great scholar that made the famous Fath Al-Bari, explanation of Sahih Al Bukhari, Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani wrote:

::"And the author’s arrangement suggests that it is part of ‘Aqil’s narration. Al-Humaydi, in his compilation, proceeded accordingly, carrying the hadith to the phrase “and the revelation ceased,” then stating: “The narration of ‘Aqil, transmitted in a singular report from Ibn Shuhba, ends at the point we have mentioned.” Al-Bukhari then augmented it in his hadith associated with Maʿmar, from al-Zuhri, by saying: “And the revelation ceased for a period until the Prophet became grieved,” and he continued it to the end. In my view, this additional phrase is specific to Maʿmar’s narration. For indeed, it was transmitted via the chain of ‘Aqil—Abū Nuʿaym recorded it in his extract from the chain of Abū Zarʿah al-Rāzī, from Yaḥyā ibn Bakīr, the teacher of al-Bukhārī, in the beginning of the book without it—and he transmitted it here in conjunction with Maʿmar’s narration, thereby indicating that the expression belongs to Maʿmar. Likewise, al-Ismāʿīlī explicitly stated that the addition is in Maʿmar’s narration, and it was also transmitted by Aḥmad, Muslim, al-Ismāʿīlī, and others, as well as by Abū Nuʿaym from a collection transmitted from some of al-Layth’s companions from al-Layth without it. Moreover, the narrator in what has reached us is al-Zuhri, and the implication is that, in the entirety of what has come to us concerning the report of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in this story, it is derived from al-Zuhri’s eloquence and is not part of a connected (continuous) report."

::Al-Karmānī said: “This is what appears to be the case."

::Source: Fath Al Bari Chapter 12, page 359.

::The scholar Al-Suyuti commenteed on the hadith stating: "("As we have heard"): This is the statement of al-Zuhri."

::Source: Kitab al-Tawshih Sharh al-Jami' al-Sahih Chapter 9.

::The great scholar Al-Albani stated:

::I say: This attribution to al-Bukhari is a grave mistake because it implies that the story of his attempted suicide is authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhari, which is not the case. The clarification is that al-Bukhari narrated it in the last part of the hadith of Aisha about the beginning of revelation, which Dr. (1/51-53) has mentioned. It is found in al-Bukhari in the beginning of (Interpretation) (12/297-304 Fath) through the chain of narrators including Ma'mar: Al-Zuhri told me, from Urwah, from Aisha... and the hadith continues until the statement: "And the revelation paused." Al-Zuhri added: "Until the Prophet (peace be upon him) became so sad – as it reached us – that he would sometimes go to the tops of mountains, intending to throw himself off. Whenever he reached the summit of a mountain to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear to him."

::Source: Kitab Difaa' 'an al-Hadith al-Nabawi Page 40.

::Please cheeck the following hadiths and note that these do not have any mentions on attempted suicide:

::https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4953

::https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3

::https://sunnah.com/muslim:160a

::And for the lenghty explanation, please read from the following website:

::[https://islamqa.info/en/answers/152611/the-reports-which-suggest-that-the-prophet-blessings-and-peace-of-allah-be-upon-him-contemplated-suicide-are-flawed-in-both-their-chains-of-narration-or-their-texts Islamqa.info, The reports which suggest that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) contemplated suicide are flawed in both their chains of narration or their texts] Karim Ibn Karim (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

:::[Please read the previous comments in this topic]

:::Original text present in the wikipedia article of Muhammad: "Shortly after Waraqa's death, the revelations ceased for a period, causing Muhammad great distress and thoughts of suicide. On one occasion, he reportedly climbed a mountain intending to jump off. However, upon reaching the peak, Gabriel appeared to him, affirming his status as the true Messenger of God. This encounter soothed Muhammad, and he returned home. Later, when there was another long break between revelations, he repeated this action, but Gabriel intervened similarly, calming him and causing him to return home."

:::Remove the following content: "and thoughts of suicide. On one occasion, he reportedly climbed a mountain intending to jump off. However, upon reaching the peak, Gabriel appeared to him, affirming his status as the true Messenger of God. This encounter soothed Muhammad, and he returned home. Later, when there was another long break between revelations, he repeated this action, but Gabriel intervened similarly, calming him and causing him to return home." this is not accurate, as previously discussed in this topic we find this information in https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6982 however several sunni scholars have discussed this already as we find in https://islamqa.info/en/answers/152611/the-reports-which-suggest-that-the-prophet-blessings-and-peace-of-allah-be-upon-him-contemplated-suicide-are-flawed-in-both-their-chains-of-narration-or-their-texts. Karim Ibn Karim (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:It still seems that there is a claim of such suicidal thoughts. Whether the Islamic community accepts them as true is not really our concern. We should state that such a claim exists and that Muslims dispute its veracity. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, fellow wikipedian! Yes, there can be a claim of such suicidal thoughts that go back to sunni sources indeed, however none of them meet the criteria of an authentic narration.

::While yes, such claim can be mantained without an issue, it should be further explained as from now the present text suggests that Muhammad did indeed try to end his life.

::So yes, either removal or further explanation would be good options in this case. Karim Ibn Karim (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Karim Ibn Karim. I checked the referenced source.

:::Muhammad A Prophet for out time by

:::Karen Armstrong and it doesn't have anything on suicide. So, the only thing that is referenced is a primary source of Sirah Ibn Hisham.

:::This should either be removed or referenced with a secondary source. Anas Riaz (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: An editor objected to the requested removal. Perception312 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b detail.png

@AimanAbir18plus, hello. You added this pic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=1270197000&oldid=1269575026].

Personally, I don't think it adds very much, though the Kaaba is of course mentioned (and pictured) in the article. That part of the article is somewhat crowded with pictures, and this time (I reverted you once before) you've introduced MOS:SANDWHICH problems, at least on my laptop. Also, there is an invisible message in that section which says:

"PLEASE NOTE: The consensus to include images of Muhammad emerged after extensive months-long discussions and efforts on both sides to balance multiple competing interests. Please do not remove or reposition these images because you feel they are against your religion. Please do not add more images or reposition the current ones to prove a point. To avoid pointless revert-warring, blocking and page protection, please discuss any prospective changes on the talk page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia."

So, I think we can do without this pic. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree; there's enough images in that area as is. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:The section is about "Conquest of Mecca" and this image depicts that (Muhammad is praying at the Kaaba after conquering it). So, I think the image makes sense and important for the visualization of the context. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:I am also in favour of keeping the image. Lova Falk (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Please change the name of respected prophet from "Muhammad" to Hazrat/Respected Prophet Muhammad Sallalah-o-Alaihi-Wa'alihi-Wasallam.

It's a sin to just call him by name. 103.125.177.44 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:See Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Why is this? I'm not trying to be rude or mean, I'm just curious, I am not a follower of Islam, so I don't know much about it, though I am trying to learn more. Would someone mind explaining this to me? I do not understand why it is sinful to call him the prophet Muhammad or even just Muhammad. Again, I'm not a follower of Islam so aside from what were are learning right now in my religion class, I do not know much about it. 74.83.253.247 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Perhaps Islamic honorifics has something that interests you, 74.83. You can also try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}

Add the Diplomatic career of Muhammad 116.12.36.69 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:See Muhammad#Constitution_of_Medina. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest the first paragraph say "Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Arabic: محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب ‎) (c. 570 – c. 8 June 632), also transliterated as Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎), was a religious, political, and military leader from Mecca who unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam. He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God and, by most Muslims, the last prophet sent by God for mankind.Non-Muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam. Muslims consider him to be the restorer of an unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets." This page shouldn't call Muhammad the founder of Islam because Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam and that Islam always existed. The page here on Wikipedia about Jesus says "Jesus was crucified" even though non-Christians don't believe that, so if Wikipedia is supposed to go by what Christians believe as fact, why not due that with Muhammad? Also Muhammad was also a military leader that should be included and his full name should also be included. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:There are plenty of non-Christians who believe Jesus was crucified, see Historical Jesus if you're interested in that. WP calls it "nearly universal scholarly consensus." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}

it says the Muhammad was 'the founder of Islam' which is false, Muhammad was the last and final prophet and messenger sent by God(Allah) in islam, Islam was there since the first Human being and prophet Adam set foot on earth, Prophet Adam was the first human begin and prophet of Islam. 80.189.62.208 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please see Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #6. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been done across many articles recently. Age matters, and there is literally no fact that belongs here that needs to be tracked down to historiography older than the Taj Mahal—or the preface to a modern translation of it, for that matter. It is especially odd to insist on here, because the material that the editor is trying to cite is already verified by a modern source. It's unfortunately just all the more pointless, and all it can do is confuse and make a mess for the reader. Remsense ‥ 论 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:This book is reliable and was written by a historian and royal scribe. I added most of the new content. Peoplic (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I made a request on Talk:Fotuhat-e shahi , but you have not responded yet. In that instance Fotuhat-e shahi, you deliberately removed encyclopedic content.Peoplic (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Context matters, but more modern sources are certainly preferable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

After reading Talk:Muhammad/Archive 35#Recent neutrality concerns, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources and Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Russ Rogers statements, I feel that this article is indeed problematic in its approach. Although, due to several edit wars the problem is, thankfully, not so visible anymore. Previously, some of the claims in this article seemed very biased and not within the scope of this article, more suited to be included as part of the Criticism of Muhammad article. To make matters worse, this coincided with the start of a proposal to develop a :id:Muhammad article on idwiki for AB (GA), but due to a major overhaul the idwiki plan was delayed, coupled with the removal of GA status, which... well you can all guess how that went.

Anyway, in my opinion regarding sources for biographical articles, you should take the good ones (in this case reliable ones), and throw away the bad ones from the sources. Not all parts of a source need to be included in the article. Conflicting claims are not appropriate for inclusion in the main discussion of the subject's life, and are better suited to the controversy subheading. Sources that make a special claim, but do not provide additional sources to support their claim, are also not worth using (WP:CLAIMS). This is a way to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. WP:RS does not specify how a source is considered scientifically reliable, so judging by WP:RS alone (which only provides the big picture) can be considered ambiguous and confusing. That's understandable, since it's very difficult to implement a specific procedure to sort out which sources are truly trustworthy to use. Plus, this is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, not the place to research the validity of a source. Biographical articles only contain things that are commonly known, other things that are more detailed can be discussed separately.

Oh, this is just a reminder to be careful if the conflict occurs again, not to mean anything. Because there are conflicts that could be worse in other Wikipedia projects. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 10:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Conflicting claims are not appropriate for inclusion in the main discussion of the subject's life" IMO, that's not necessarily true at all, it depends on what the WP:RS say.

:"better suited to the controversy subheading" Having a controversy subheading, which this article doesn't, is generally sucky WP-writing. If a "controversy" is WP:DUE, it should generally fit in the article in another way, chronological, topical or whatever. That said, I consider it reasonable that Muhammad#Criticism is part of this article. You are welcome to mention the sources you consider bad, other editors may agree with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The article states "The earliest written sira is Ibn Ishaq's Life of God's Messenger written c. 767 (150 AH). " and the source is from 1998. This statement is clearly outdated and should be removed.

In 2021, a manuscript of Musa ibn ʿUqba's (675-759), Lost book, Kitāb al-maghāzī was found and published for the time. In 21st century sometime, a manuscript of yet another lost work, Kitab Sirah Rasul Allah ﷺ by Sulayman ibn Tarkhan at-Taymi (661-761) was found and published it for the first time. In 2015, Sean W. anothony published the English translation of "The Expeditions" by Ma'mar ibn Rashid (714-770), after the lost work was found in a masnucript of Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq. (https://x.com/shahanSean/status/960956916108230656?t=HG8esiY8q_SLnXqzGVzvcg&s=19) Anas Riaz (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The statement "Muhammad is honored in Sikhism as a divine messenger" lacks a proper citation. Additionally, it is misleading and false because while Muhammad is indeed recognized as the central religious figure for the Muslims, his divinity in the Islamic canon is not equivalent to his treatment in the Sikh canon.

In other words, while Muhammad is honored as a messenger of God in Islam, this view is simply not shared in Sikhi. Moreover, the role of God's "messenger" or "representative" in Sikhi is performed by the Guru and since Muhammad is not recognized as equivalent to any of the Sikh Gurus, the statement is therefore false.

In effect, I propose removing this statement or at the very least, adding a "citation needed" at the end of the sentence to let the reader know of the disputed nature of this claim.

Also in the "Other religions" subsection under the "Legacy" section, the statement "Muhammad Sahib is honored by Sikhs as one of the divine messengers sent to mankind, along with Moses, Jesus and others." is also misleading. While this statement does cite pages 1-2 from Sikhism Today by Sikh scholar Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, it has seemingly neglected the entire context of the passage. I have pasted the following excerpt from the same pages that note the entire context below:

"Sikhs can accept that the central figures of other faiths, such as Krishna, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, were messengers of God with a divine mission. However, they do not accept the authority of any of the scriptures from other religions, looking instead for enlightenment and guidance from the Guru, which is manifested in the Guru Granth Sahib (GGS), the holy book of the Sikhs. Sikhs also do not believe that God takes a human form and hence reject the idea of, for example, the divinity of Jesus Christ or the gods or avatars of Hinduism. The word Sikh is derived from the Sanskrit word Shishya, which means a ‘disciple’ or ‘learner’. This embodies the mindset of Sikhs, who are on a continual quest towards enlightenment." (Jhutti-Johal, J. (2011). Sikhism today. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 1–2)

While some works of Muhammad (like certain concepts from the Quran) are indeed honored and revered in the Sikh faith as references to God's own will, it's still false that Muhammad himself is "honored" in the Sikh faith.

For these reasons, I propose that these misleading statements be removed to avoid confusing readers about how Muhammad is viewed in the Sikh faith. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I added a "citation needed" template to the statement. If nobody can back it up, we can delete it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:The purpose of the lead section is to provide an overview of the article body, and that sentence attempted to provide an overview of what the article says about Sikhism later on. I looked at that part, checked the source, made a revision, and then revised the sentece in the lead. Muhammad is viewed with respect or even reverence by a couple of Sikh leaders including the founder, that's all. A citation isn't needed for a summary overview sentence because the citations are already in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|Clear consensus against the proposal. Proposer is showing an WP:IDHT attitude. Further discussion is a waste of time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC) }}

Under the Battle of the trench section:

following para:

"In the siege of Medina, the Meccans exerted the available strength to destroy the Muslim community. The failure resulted in a significant loss of prestige; their trade with Syria vanished. Following the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad made two expeditions to the north, both ended without any fighting. While returning from one of these journeys (or some years earlier according to other early accounts), an accusation of adultery was made against Aisha, Muhammad's wife. Aisha was exonerated from accusations when Muhammad announced he had received a revelation confirming Aisha's innocence and directing that charges of adultery be supported by four eyewitnesses (sura 24, An-Nur)."

correction:

"In the siege of Medina, the Meccans exerted the available strength to destroy the Muslim community. The failure resulted in a significant loss of prestige; their trade with Syria vanished. Following the Battle of the Trench, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him made two expeditions to the north, both ended without any fighting. While returning from one of these journeys (or some years earlier according to other early accounts), False rumors of adultery were spread by hypocrites against Aisha (May Allah bless her), the wife of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. This caused the prophet to change his demeanor towards her until her innocence was proven through divine revelation. Refer to (Surah no 24, Al-Nur Verses 11 - 21) and Sahih Al-Bukhari 2661 (sunnah.com numbering scheme)."

refer to : Sunnah.com Home » Sahih al-Bukhari » Witnesses - كتاب الشهادات » Hadith 2661

There was actually no accusation made publicly or court case held. this is false information. there were rumors among people and internal strife between the Prophet peace be upon him and his wife caused by misconception and slander.

The paragraph appears as crafted lie aimed at demeaning the prophets' character and ahl-ul-bayt (household) which is not acceptable. correct it! Semantic shard (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:And your suggested revision appears crafted to promote a religious viewpoint rather than scholarly perspective, violating all Wikipedia guidelines about honorifics and neutral point of view. Where in the sources cited are refernces to "false rumors" or "hypocrites"? We do not directly cite religious texts as sources. You are also contradicting yourself by saying "rumors of adultery were spread" and in almost the same breath say there was "no accusation made publicly"; well how else would rumors become known? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I copy pasted the text at first and didn't add the honorifics and as such which wikipedia guidelines am i violating to add honorifics after respected figures of my religion? These are valid preserved texts of traditions and refers to the arabic version for authenticity. Why do i not see the accurate citational reference for the paragraph before this,.. odd. This is common knowledge that they were false roumors. And where is the citation or accurate reference to there being a public accusation? How can you make remarks yourself when there is actual reference of the whole story by the person said herself narated from a chain of narators and multiple like those scrutinized for authenticity. i see you unable of comprehension. this shall remain for discussion. Semantic shard (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::The purpose of this Wikipedia article is not to present a Muslim perspective on Muhammad, but to present Muhammad from an objective, outsider's perspective. There are plenty of sources on Muhammad's life written by Muslims if you are interested in hagiography and honorifics, but Wikipedia's purpose is not hagiography. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::How about correcting the paragraph to accurately represent what happened rather that arguing about views. The reference explains the matter that took place. Semantic shard (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::How do we know the accusation is affirmatively false over 1400 years on? We don't. It is not for us to say. We can only report the what the sources tell us, which is that there was an accusation, and Muhammad said that according to divine revelation he received it wasn't true. The article already accurately states in plain language that in no way impugns any of the parties. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::accusation = point out someone for something they have or have not done

:::::roumor = talk behind someone's back about him/her

:::::please read the reference and understand it first.

:::::No accusations were made infact there was slander spread.

:::::Internal strife took place.

:::::And then there was divine revelation regarding this matter that came.

:::::This holds significat importance in our religion constituting immense research by scholars over decades and passing of knowledge. This incident is linked to the revelation of verses in the Holy Quran and it of utmost high importance. Semantic shard (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Again, Wikipedia is not and will not be written from an Islamic perspective. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to affirm Muslim's religious beliefs. If you're expecting that from Wikipedia, you're on the wrong website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yup, WP:RS mean here: mainstream academic sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I am not here to argue your agenda. The article has incorrect information for the general user. Most users who have no idea of the matter will read this and they would have no idea what divine revelation even means in this context. they would consider this religious nonsense rather than understanding what happened and because wikipedia supports neutral point of view it should include the actual representation of what happened. maybe even you believe this is religious lies about the prophet he made up to cover up his wife but that was not the actual case in history. if you do not believe in our religion that is not what i am arguing on rather the historical context of said paragraph and the information it contains. Muslims already know that Aisha was innocent. This article however does not accurately represent the said historic event. you western references regarding this event are derived from our muslim knowledge. I am only asking to correct the context to its actual meaning rather than the unkowing user who reads that accusation was made against Aisha (may god bless her) and then the prophet crafted divine revelation to cover it up while actually there were people among the comunity against the prophet's teaching and opposed and despised him in medina but they were overpowered by muslims turing to hypocritic methods against them and and Abdullah bin Ubai was regarded as the most hypocritic among them. He was one of the leading figures in this case of roumors against Aisha to harm the prophet and his household reputation on a large scale. One should understand even the prophet did not think that his wife could do something like that and these roumors saddened him and his demeanor towards Aisha changed until Aisha when got to know of the roumors being spread about her broke to tears on the demeanor of the prophet towards her and then the prophet asked her about this matter on which she put it upon Allah to reveal the truth in some way. Allah sent divine revelation which is translated as follows in english.

:::::::Before that i seek provision in Allah from the devil

:::::::And by the Name of Allah The Most Merciful And Most Kind

::::::: "Indeed, those who came up with that ˹outrageous˺ slander are a group of you. Do not think this is bad for you. Rather, it is good for you. They will be punished, each according to their share of the sin. As for their mastermind, he will suffer a tremendous punishment. (11) If only the believing men and women had thought well of one another, when you heard this ˹rumour˺, and said, “This is clearly ˹an outrageous˺ slander!” (12) Why did they not produce four witnesses? Now, since they have failed to produce witnesses, they are ˹truly˺ liars in the sight of Allah. (13) Had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you in this world and the Hereafter, you would have certainly been touched with a tremendous punishment for what you plunged into— (14) when you passed it from one tongue to the other, and said with your mouths what you had no knowledge of, taking it lightly while it is ˹extremely˺ serious in the sight of Allah. (15) If only you had said upon hearing it, “How can we speak about such a thing! Glory be to You ˹O Lord˺! This is a heinous slander!” (16) Allah forbids you from ever doing something like this again, if you are ˹true˺ believers. (17) And Allah makes ˹His˺ commandments clear to you, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. (18) Indeed, those who love to see indecency spread among the believers will suffer a painful punishment in this life and the Hereafter. Allah knows and you do not know. (19) ˹You would have suffered,˺ had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you, and had Allah not been Ever Gracious, Most Merciful. (20) O believers! Do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Whoever follows Satan’s footsteps, then ˹let them know that˺ he surely bids ˹all to˺ immorality and wickedness. Had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you, none of you would have ever been purified. But Allah purifies whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (21) "

:::::::Indeed Allah speaks the truth

:::::::.

:::::::Understand that even the muslims were baffled by this event that the wife of the prophet could do such a thing and they were also included in the roumor talks as is evident from the holy quran surah al nur Semantic shard (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The argument is rooted in deep religious knowledge and historic relevance and main point the article must be corrected.

::::::::while wikipedia does not promote religion, our religion is reality. God is a reality but some people dont accept it.

::::::::How would the universe exist without a creator when it so intricately designed and all the systems in it.

::::::::Allah guides whomever He will and whomever He wills He will put to hellfire.

::::::::If you think these are religious views go and see the world. you cannot survive a second without God. Semantic shard (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::1.) There are many religions. We document them as per the scholars. We do not favor any religion and consider religious texts as unreliable sources.

:::::::::2.) This is WP:NOTAFORUM. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}