Talk:History of Islam

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Islam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Islam: Muslim history / Shi'a Islam / Sunni Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Muslim history task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Arab world Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Saudi Arabia High‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Islam

Here the Writer mentioned One of our PROPHET NAME which is wrong It's Dawood but he mentioned David kindly took action and immediately changes should be applied because it hurts Muslim Umah ... 2A00:5400:F000:68B6:1:2:300:2CAB (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copied content about Revisionist school

Hi NGC 628, the content you added here is problematic and needs significant work before it could be appropriate for this article. Aside from some of the prose issues in the first paragraph, the main problems are::

Almost all of it was copied from various sections of Revisionist school of Islamic studies but no attribution was indicated to that article. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and indicate in your future edit summaries where content was copied from.
This material clearly does not belong in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article (see MOS:LEAD). At best, it belongs in the "Early sources and historiography", and it would need to be significantly condensed, since the main article for this topic is Revisionist school of Islamic studies, already linked there, and it does not need to be repeated at length here.
Some of the statements and their implications are not very clear on their own.
Per WP:NPOV, criticism of this Revisionist school should be mentioned for context, as many of the points described are clearly controversial.
Many of the citations are broken because they were copied from elsewhere without copying the corresponding bibliography, and some of the other copied citations are not very clear to begin with, as they mix multiple sources together with no spacing or formatting. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for general guidelines.
(Note: You also copied the same material to Rashidun Caliphate even though it doesn't say anything precisely relevant to that article or to the section where it was added. That also creates an unnecessary amount of repetition between articles.)

I would recommend you work on this further in your sandbox, summarize the content and improve the citations to better fit this article, and then bring it back here after. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism on several articles

As your editing history demonstrates, you @Selfstarter8: seem to be reverting almost every constructive edit that I made in the last few days, completely out of nowhere and without justification.

Mind you, I have already reported you for your seemingly deliberate and nonsensical disruptive editing on several WP articles. I suggest you to stop and collaborate with other users, and avoid making inappropriate and grossly antisemitic comments in the edit summary, such as this one. GenoV84 (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

@Erp, just wanted to make clear that that edit was partially based on my citing MOS:LEADSENTENCE at Talk:History of Christianity. I do think such a lead sentence should probably be reworked, though I'm not sure how. Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I just don't think that particular edit was helped. So the previous lead paragraph is "The history of Islam concerns the political, social, economic, military, and cultural developments of the Islamic civilization. Most historians believe that Islam originated with Muhammad's mission in Mecca and Medina at the start of the 7th century CE, although Muslims regard this time as a return to the original faith passed down by the Abrahamic prophets, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus, with the submission (Islām) to the will of God." The lead that @HumansRightsIsCool wants is "The history of Islam is believed by most historians to have originated with Muhammad's mission in Mecca and Medina at the start of the 7th century CE, although Muslims regard this time as a return to the original faith passed down by the Abrahamic prophets, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus, with the submission (Islām) to the will of God." which most definitely doesn't indicate the breadth of the subject timewise or contentwise. Erp (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't want it that way, but it must be that way to follow wiki's guidelines. i added history of Christianity concerns the political, social, economic, military, and cultural developments of the Christian world on the "history of Christianity" article, but sense remsense loves reverting edits on topics regarding religion even if they're small and harmless (don't ask me why, i don't know"), they reverted my edit and told me to see WP:OTHERCONTENT. since my edit isn't allowed on christianity, why should the page about islam have the same exact sentence? it doesn't follow WP:OTHERCONTENT, so i removed it like a reasonable person unless the same sentence is allowed on the christian article. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And left the opening paragraph not fulfilling its purpose at all. I note a major difference between the sentence you wanted to add in History of Christianity and this article's previous first sentence was the latter has links for "political", "social", etc to relevant article on Islam and that subject and the former did not. However for the time being I'm going to leave it to editors more familiar with this article to decide what to do with the first paragraph. Erp (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead images

MOS:LEADIMAGE states "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

The current lead images are an extremely low-quality image of subtexts in the Sanaa manuscript, and a 1654 map of the Ancient Roman division of the Arabian Peninsula. These are not "natural and appropriate representations" of the history of Islam; they do not illustrate the topic specifically; they are not the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works; and I personally was not expecting to see them. With that in mind, I removed them, and was immediately reverted by GenoV84. Their and other editors' opinions are welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content that you have attempted to remove has been on this article for years undisputed, because it's appropriate and not controversial; and the reason for that is that both pictures are well-sourced with reliable references and highly relevant to the early development of the Islamic religion, since both of them provide context for its formative years (see also: Early Quranic manuscripts, History of the Middle East, History of the Quran, and Pre-Islamic Arabia). The first picture of the Sanaa manuscript can be replaced with a better-quality photograph of the same manuscript from Wikimedia Commons, I see no problem with that. GenoV84 (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the current images are "highly relevant to the early development of the Islamic religion" (although that seems a wee bit exaggerated), this article is not actually titled "Early development of the Islamic religion". Instead, it is about the general history of Islam, which neither of these images do a good job of illustrating, per the guideline quoted at the start of this section. "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." is very relevant here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that the Sanaa manuscript and other textual variants of the Quran are not relevant to the early history of Islam? Where does Islam come from, then? GenoV84 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a section in this article that covers the early development of the Islamic religion, in case you didn't notice. GenoV84 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact notice that, along with a couple of dozen of other sections that are not actually about the early history of Islam, and which a manuscript and map of the wrong time period don't help to illustrate. The caption of the second image is also mostly unrelated to its content...funky, I guess! Not very helpful, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are suggesting not only to delete these pictures from the article, but also the entirety of sections that cover the early history of Islam.... because you personally don't like them and feel upset about a page from a Quranic manuscript and a map of Western Asia? Both of which have reliable sources, nonetheless? I have no reason to take your arguments seriously. GenoV84 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. Still, we can wait for the input of others, such as Borsoka, who was also reverted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to come up with a better explanation, because that's what appears to imply when you talk about "a couple of dozen of other sections" that you personally seem to dislike.....

Other editors who have contributed to this article and topics that are closely related to the history of Islam, such as Nederlandse Leeuw, Louis P. Boog, and NGC 628, are welcome to share their opinions and proposals as well. GenoV84 (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE and WP:NPOV: I think the two pictures at the lead ignore both basic policies. Could we introduce Christianity with a picture about the Virgin Mary with a caption stating that her virginity (a basic dogma of the largest Christian denominations) is the result of a misinterpretation of a Hebrew term? Of course, at least the first picture, is relevant when the sources of Muslim faith are discussed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can, because Christianity originated in 1st-century Judea from a sect of apocalyptic Jewish Christians within the realm of Second Temple Judaism.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] If there is any Christian that personally feels offended while reading the article Christianity about learning that the early Christians were all Jews and that the Old Testament of the Christian Bible is actually the Hebrew Bible, that is not Wikipedia's problem. We must stick to the sources, first and foremost. GenoV84 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

^ Wilken, Robert Louis (2013). The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 6–16. ISBN 978-0-300-11884-1. JSTOR j.ctt32bd7m.5. LCCN 2012021755. S2CID 160590164.
^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2005) [2003]. "At Polar Ends of the Spectrum: Early Christian Ebionites and Marcionites". Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 95–112. doi:10.1017/s0009640700110273. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. LCCN 2003053097. S2CID 152458823. Retrieved 20 January 2021.
^ Hurtado, Larry W. (2005). "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Approaches to Jesus-Devotion in Earliest Christianity". How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 13–55. ISBN 978-0-8028-2861-3. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
^ Freeman, Charles (2010). "Breaking Away: The First Christianities". A New History of Early Christianity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 31–46. doi:10.12987/9780300166583. ISBN 978-0-300-12581-8. JSTOR j.ctt1nq44w. LCCN 2009012009. S2CID 170124789. Retrieved 20 January 2021.
^ Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan (2013). "How Antichrist Defeated Death: The Development of Christian Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Early Church". In Krans, Jan; Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J.; Smit, Peter-Ben; Zwiep, Arie W. (eds.). Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Novum Testamentum: Supplements. Vol. 149. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 238–255. doi:10.1163/9789004250369_016. ISBN 978-90-04-25026-0. ISSN 0167-9732. S2CID 191738355. Retrieved 13 February 2021.

That's not really the point though, GenoV84, is it? It might be factually correct (and those would be good sources to substantiate the claim), but it's not relevant enough to be mentioned in an introductory section on Christianity. NLeeuw (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with Borsoka. Proposal:

How about we replace File:Blue koran sanaa.jpg with File:Sana'a1 Stanford '07 recto.jpg, and add some very basic description such as Sanaa manuscript, one of the earliest Quranic manuscripts? The lead section is really not the place to dive right into textual criticism (as much as I love that discipline), and there are enough links to that subject throughout the text.
How about we move File:Map of the Three Arabias Excerpted Partly from the Arab of Nubia Partly from Several Other Authors.png with its full descript down to the section Early sources and historiography, just above Until the early 1970s, Non-Muslim scholars of Islamic studies...? That seems the place where it belongs properly. We shouldn't put a particular POV, even if supported by a large group of Western scholars (though not a majority) so prominently in the lead section.

Seems to address most issues. NLeeuw (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree about this, seems a better solution. GenoV84 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. How about Borsoka and AirshipJungleman29? NLeeuw (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also like this idea. Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, although I would change the caption: a caption is not the best place to present scholarly PoVs. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, if only because there is little space under an image, and a lot of text will cause layout problems eventually. I also think that the text in the caption is barely related to the map shown. The idea that Mo was a leader of the "Saracens" is really obsolete medieval European mythology that is not taken seriously anymore by modern scholars. The word "Saracens" also doesn't appear on the map, I think, only the toponyms Arabia Petraea and Arabia Deserta, which is only tangentially related to the question where Islam originated.

I see the map and the Sanaa manuscript photo have been removed after some more reversions. I think it would have been better to rearch consensus here first, as we were getting quite close to that. But by now I think removing the map is okay, as it was essentially a bunch of WP:SYNTH. On the other hand, I would favour bringing back an image of the Sanaa manuscript with a link to early Quranic manuscripts as we agreed above. NLeeuw (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both NL's general suggestion and Borsoka's specific contention here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NL and Borsoka. Such an illustrative image only needs a minimal caption. Since the image is part of the lead section, its caption shouldn't go into details that we obviously wouldn't write in the lead prose either: the question of the codification of the Qur'an is not mentioned in the article at all. –Austronesier (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with NLeeuw's general proposal and Borsoka's suggestion; we could add a subsection under History of Islam#Origins of Islam on the codification of Quranic textual variants and move the picture of the Sanaa manuscript there, in order to provide more context for the early history of Islam. GenoV84 (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Wilken, Robert Louis (2013). The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 6–16. ISBN 978-0-300-11884-1. JSTOR j.ctt32bd7m.5. LCCN 2012021755. S2CID 160590164.

[2] Ehrman, Bart D. (2005) [2003]. "At Polar Ends of the Spectrum: Early Christian Ebionites and Marcionites". Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 95–112. doi:10.1017/s0009640700110273. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. LCCN 2003053097. S2CID 152458823. Retrieved 20 January 2021.

[3] Hurtado, Larry W. (2005). "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Approaches to Jesus-Devotion in Earliest Christianity". How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 13–55. ISBN 978-0-8028-2861-3. Retrieved 20 July 2021.

[4] Freeman, Charles (2010). "Breaking Away: The First Christianities". A New History of Early Christianity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 31–46. doi:10.12987/9780300166583. ISBN 978-0-300-12581-8. JSTOR j.ctt1nq44w. LCCN 2009012009. S2CID 170124789. Retrieved 20 January 2021.

[5] Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan (2013). "How Antichrist Defeated Death: The Development of Christian Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Early Church". In Krans, Jan; Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J.; Smit, Peter-Ben; Zwiep, Arie W. (eds.). Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Novum Testamentum: Supplements. Vol. 149. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 238–255. doi:10.1163/9789004250369_016. ISBN 978-90-04-25026-0. ISSN 0167-9732. S2CID 191738355. Retrieved 13 February 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]