Talk:Mohammedan

Etymology

This page is misleading because it says that European had a mistaken belief about Muslims, and that the term "Christian" is based on the worship of Christ. There is a source about what "some Europeans believed". Okay, I am sure that some Europeans were mistaken, just as I am sure that some Muslims were mistaken about how the English language works. The term "Christian" comes from belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and not from worship of Christ. Mohammedan and Christian are analogous to many other terms, such as Lutheran, Buddhist, Confucian, Calvinist, etc. They mean following the teachings, not worship. Some Muslims object to the term Mohammedan anyway, but this objection should not be extended to leave the reader entirely false impressions about what Europeans believed and how English works. I have made a couple of edits to partially correct the article, but they have been reverted. Please address the issues here. Roger (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some modern Muslims have objected to the term, saying that the term was not used by Muhammad himself or his early followers" Muhammad and his followers spoke Arabic, not English.

"Muslims believe "Mohammedan" is a misnomer, "which seem[s] to them to carry the implication of worship of Mohammed, as Christian and Christianity imply the worship of Christ."" So all the Lutherans I know are worshippers of Martin Luther?

"Also, the term al-Muḥammadīya has been used in Islam to denote several sects considered heretical." al-Muhammadiya is an Arabic word, Mohammedan is an English one. The fact that they sound alike is no more relevant than any other pair of sound alike words in two languages.

All of these "objections" seem like utterly ridiculous attempts to force one language's rules and norms onto another. How has anyone been able to raise these "objections" without having the hearer just laugh in their face?--Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Picture on Mohammedan

Moved from Talk:Muhammad/images

I have been restoring the picture on Mohammedan as it was removed without proper discussion however it does seem to be a fairly poor image that doesn't add much, certainly nothing essential, to the article so I thought I would ask what people think about it. Should it be removed or replaced with a different image?

Also, I have read the instructions on hiding the images which some people find offensive. They are rather complicated and limited in scope to specific images or all images on specific articles. Instead, would it be possible to provide simple tickbox based preferences for people who do not wish to see certain categories of images. It is a bit poor to tell readers to fiddle with their CSS as non-technical people may see this as an unhelpful fob off. If we could give them a simple tickbox that deals with their objections in an easy and effective way then I think that would help avoid disputes and edit wars. People on both sides of the argument could work together to get all the offensive images correctly categorised and we could turn something disruptive and divisive into something constructive that meets the needs of all readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Um. I think that if you don't actually think it's good or adds much to that article, you might want to [boldly] refrain from reverting its removal :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am actually not that bothered either way. My general approach, on any article, is to revert all unexplained content removal that is not obviously removing vandalism or complete junk. If it was any other article we would probably regard having a picture as beneficial. Maybe there is a good reason to have this picture or maybe we want a better picture rather than none at all? I am genuinely unsure. I do not want to impose my view on this. I have been reverting it simply because it is long-standing content and the Talk page has a specific instruction that images should not be removed without discussion here, which is exactly what has happened, not because I personally think the picture is of great merit or importance.

If you are saying that you think the picture is best removed then that makes me less likely to restore it again but I'd still like to see what the broad consensus is so that we can stick to it in future. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First, the Muhammad talk page is not the page to have discussion of that image for that article. This talk page is specific to a different article. So, if you want to have a discussion about the images for that article, it would be best to open a discussion on that article's talk page (you could neutrally link notice of the discussion here, if you like). Second, the general test is does an edit improve an article - removing what is in your opinion a poor image is generally fine in that sense. Finally, "if we were discussing another article" - is too hypothetical I think, you are discussing that article -- not another article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, that is exactly what I would do but if you look at the top of Talk:Mohammedan you will see boxes advising that special rules apply there and the third box does specifically say to discuss it here rather than on the article's own talk page. If that box is incorrect then I apologise but when I saw it I assumed that it was correct and was done for some reason, presumably to centralise the discussion of the images in one place. I thought it was odd but I wanted to do the right thing and so I came here, as it said to. I was not venue shopping. If it is incorrect then it would make sense to remove or change the instruction so that it doesn't mislead anybody else. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if it confused you but the notices [at Talk:Muhammad/images] specifically say: "This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the notice that led you to the wrong page added discreationary sanction notice. This discussion can conitinue here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has vehemently defended the inclusion of Muhammad images in the Muhammad article, I must say that I find the lead image highly inappropriate for this article, for the following reasons:

• It doesn't illustrate the subject of the article (a follower of Muhammad) but rather Muhammad himself.
• It appears to be a depiction in the style of Western artists, not a more appropriate depiction from regional artists (some of whom were Muslim) as we have in the Muhammad article.
• In fact, such an image would never be accepted in the Muhammad article to depict the subject.
• Finally, the image is not properly attributed, there is no information in the file about where it came from, who created it, where it was first published, and so forth. It has no context.

For those reasons, I would advocate removal of the lead image. It could be replaced by one of the many images we have of Hajj Pilgrimage, such as this or this. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

These objections are a little strange. The article on Lutheranism has an illustration of Luther as well as Lutherans. Is there some rule that an illustration of Mohammad must be by a Moslem? I don't know about the attribution, but obviously it is a fictional illustration. Who makes these rules about what images are acceptable, and which are not? Roger (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What? Your comment is more than a little strange, it's decidedly irrelevant. Lutheransim has nothing to do with this article, which article is about a largely dis-used word. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this and I think I may have an idea that could satisfy everybody: As this is an article about an obsolete term then maybe it would be possible to show the cover of an old book that uses the word "Mohammedan" in its title or subtitle. That would be literally illustrating the subject of the article, which is the word itself. Copyright should not be an issue if we find something old enough. If the book remains in print under a revised title then that would be perfect as we could note that to demonstrate the depreciation of the word, which is a key point the article has to convey. I have not found anything that fits this brief perfectly but I have found these two:

• File:BURCKHARDT (1829) Travels in Arabia.jpg - I like this because it also has a date on it but it is a bit bland as it is just monochrome text.
• File:1883 religions map.jpg - This one is almost comical in its anachronism which makes the point quite clearly. Also it would add a bit of colour.

Also, I found some examples of the term still in use:

• Mohammedan S.C. (Kolkata) and Mohammedan Sporting Ground - India
• Mohammedan Sporting Club (Dhaka), Mohammedan Sporting Club (Chittagong) and Mohammedan Sporting Club (Jhenaidah) - Bangladesh

Maybe this is worth a mention? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think DeCausa's proposal below (merge to Islam or some other article and change this to a redirect), has merit, and would also solve the problem because redirects don't have images. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think DanielRigal's proposal has merit. While I'm an extreme proponent in favour of images of Mohammed in relevant articles (in fact, I think that the Persian Wikipedia has more than us is a bit sad, and betrays some self censorship), obviously, it's not really warranted here whatsoever. I looked around for a book that had it on the title, and wasn't able to find one that was fair use. However, as per my comment in the section below, we can certainly show this:

Treaty of Tripoli as communicated to Congress 1797.png

The Treaty of Tripoli. The word is in the bottom body of the text, under article 11, written as "Mohametan".

As well as at least one quality picture where the title of the photograph directly includes the word Mohammedan. An extensive list of such images from the Commons can be found here: (Mohammedan) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=mohammedan&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go, and with alternate spellings (Mohamedan), here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=mohamedan&fulltext=Search

Now we just need to figure out which one we all prefer. We can of course keep searching for more relevant images. But I invite comments on these two proposals. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to put the 1883 map at the top of the article as it is a bit more interesting than a scan of monochrome text. I am not saying that this is definitely the image we want but it is better than nothing for now. If anybody prefers something different then just say. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammedan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607033409/http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Mohammedanism to http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Mohammedanism

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Other adjectives for Islam

Many adjectives have been used to describe the religion and culture of Islam:

• Mohammedan (largely obsolete)
• Muslim
• Islamic -- sometimes a synonym for Muslim, but used by some scholars for the culture area rather than the religion -- see, for example, Oleg Grabar's Formation of Islamic Art (1973)
• Islamicate -- introduced by Marshall Hodgson (1974) to speak of the characteristics of regions where Muslims were culturally dominant
• Islamist (starting in 1980) -- "that advocates or supports increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society" (OED)

I'm sure I can find plenty of RS to discuss the history, meaning, implications, and significance of the different terms, and I think it would be worthwhile to discuss all that in one place. So I propose to rename this article Adjectives for Islam and discuss them all here. --Macrakis (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

We already have articles for Mohammedan, Muslim, Islamic, and Islamist. No need to combine them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Muslim article is about followers of Islam, not about the adjectival use in English. In the Muslim#Etymology section, there is a paragraph comparing the word Muslim to the word Mohammedan / Mahometan / Mussulman, and also mentioning Muslimite and Muslimist. But it does not mention Islamic, Islamicate, and Islamist.

Islamic redirect to Islam; in the section Islam#Culture, there is a brief discussion of "Islamic" and "Islamicate", but not the other terms.

Islamist redirects to Islamism and does not analyze the relationship of that concept with the others mentioned above.

I will write an article synthesizing all this -- with WP:RS of course. I think you'll see that there's a fair amount to say here. --Macrakis (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)