Talk:Muhammad
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that some pictures of Muhammad are allowed.
Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, MUST be posted to the images subpage. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad.
Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
A1:
There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam. Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions, and it is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible.
Q2: Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
A2: No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th- to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See Depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad.
Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history. These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted. None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people.
Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
A3: If you do not wish to view Muhammad images, you can hide the depictions in this article from your personal account by following these steps:
Please note that this will not hide the images for other users, or from yourself if you log out of your account. Alternatives: If you do not have an account, and do not wish to register an account, you can disable all images on Wikipedia by going to the mobile version of the website (en.m.wikipedia.org), then going to "settings" and choosing "images off". You may also block a list of specified images, following the format of this example. Experienced JavaScript programmers can hide depictions of Muhammad on the desktop site using Greasemonkey or a similar tool.
Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.
Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
A5:
Wikipedia's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Q6: Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
A6: While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a Wikipedia biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region. The word "founder" is used in that context, and not intended to imply that Muhammad invented the religion he introduced to Arabia.
Q7: Why does it look like the article is biased toward secular or "Western" references?
A7:
Accusations of bias toward Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Wikipedia are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion. In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Wikipedia. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG).
Q8: Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
A8: Persistent disruption of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts, while still allowing edits by more experienced users who are familiar with Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.
In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, so long as the original authors (Wikipedia contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license.
Q9: Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
A9: No. The official policy is that Wikipedia is not censored.
Q10: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?
A10:
This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period; therefore, there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia.[1] Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is as young as eleven years old, or any age inside of a marriage. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha for further information.
|
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Muhammad was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
Main archives: (Index) Image archives: Mediation archives: Images Arbitration: |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Frequently asked questions, please read before posting
[edit]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):
- Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
- Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
- How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
- Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
- Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
- Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
- Why does it look like the article is biased towards secular or "Western" references?
- Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
- Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
- 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.
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: While instability is not in itself a reason to delist, poor quality sourcing is; the discussions on the talk page constitute, in my view, consensus that the sourcing has been degraded. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
It has recently been brought to light that this page and its sourcing have been altered fairly wholesale since the page was last reviewed and kept as GA, and that there is little reason to believe the level of former quality has been maintained; on the contrary, recent informal assessments by editors have uncovered significant issues in terms of prior content and source removal, as well as in terms of the quality of new sourcing and the resulting balance of the page and its contents. The sum conclusion of the current state of affairs has already been assessed by several editors as no longer meeting GA standard. For details, see the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Removal of "good article" status, as well as the broader discussion entitled Talk:Muhammad#Recent neutrality concerns, and other subsequent talk page discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria It is not stable due to edit warring on the page....: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Moxy-
04:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Even excluding the wholesale rewriting the article has undergone recently, 2012 is a long time ago, and the article quality standards back then were arguably lower. I do not see a reason to maintain GA status given the current edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
GA or Featured nomination
[edit]Is there any plan for this article to be made up to the standards of GA or even Featured. This is a very high importance figure and the article should be made up to the best standards. If there is any plan to enact a nomination please let me know so I can help. Titan2456 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would recommend you take a look at the GA criteria, and maybe see if there are places in the articles that you could help bring up to those criteria. If you have questions, let me know: GA and FA are different processes and one generally takes place before the other. Remsense ‥ 论 21:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was GA for a long while until now-blocked editor Kaalakaa took it upon himself to rewrite most of the article over a period of several months starting in Jun 2023. This talk page history has records of some contention that caused.
- One of the fallouts was this article losing its GA status, because the article that earned GA wasn't the same article as what it eventually became. Kaalakaa's edits weren't bad, they were overall improvements I think, but his view on what sources are reliable, and his interpretation of them, have been questioned.
- What needs to happen to restore GA status is to go through every one of his hundreds of edits with a fine-tooth comb and check the sources. This is a big job because not all sources are available online, and not all aren't behind paywalls.
- As for FA, that isn't feasible. FA articles are unprotected when featured on the main page, and this Muhammmad article experiences enough disruption when it's unprotected that it would be impossible to keep it free from disruption by people who take offense at its content if it became FA. I mean, do you know of any article about a contentious topic that ever became a Featured Article? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- So the main problem is with the citations, thank you, I will try to check them but as you said it is a long process. As for contentious FAs Jesus is one. Titan2456 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't just the sources. Many of the sources are good sources, but the interpretation needs checking. Some of the sources may be questionable. A recent example is The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah by Russ Rodgers, published by the University Press of Florida. Archived discussions here, here, here (about 2/3 the way into the conversation), and on RSN, is that the book includes extraordinary claims that demand support of multiple reliable sources, yet the author is rather obscure (more of a hobbyist historian) having been largely ignored by academia with few citations. The book may be useful for some military tactics, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's my question: if some of these sources are so hard to find (acknowledging that's not inherently a criterion for reliability)—shouldn't we consider removing material that's only verifiable in those sources per WP:DUE, given the enormity of the topic? This article is over 13k words long—frankly, to me that always indicates that we should be cutting it down somewhere, and this seems like obvious low-hanging fruit. Remsense ‥ 论 09:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- That particular source by Rodgers is a candidate for removal, yes. I can't say about the others. I suggest you start going through Kaalakaa's edits starting in June 2023, and take notes. He put a lot of work into it, most of it good, but such an overwhelming amount that the other regulars here haven't found the spare time to check it all. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is my impression as well. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the Rodgers source for now Titan2456 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to remove all the citations which cannot be found in the Household section. All the ones not found already have more than one citation, so I would not be removing any information. Titan2456 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- The more critical task would be checking whether what the Wikipedia article says aligns with what the citations say, in proper context. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to remove all the citations which cannot be found in the Household section. All the ones not found already have more than one citation, so I would not be removing any information. Titan2456 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the Rodgers source for now Titan2456 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is my impression as well. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- That particular source by Rodgers is a candidate for removal, yes. I can't say about the others. I suggest you start going through Kaalakaa's edits starting in June 2023, and take notes. He put a lot of work into it, most of it good, but such an overwhelming amount that the other regulars here haven't found the spare time to check it all. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's my question: if some of these sources are so hard to find (acknowledging that's not inherently a criterion for reliability)—shouldn't we consider removing material that's only verifiable in those sources per WP:DUE, given the enormity of the topic? This article is over 13k words long—frankly, to me that always indicates that we should be cutting it down somewhere, and this seems like obvious low-hanging fruit. Remsense ‥ 论 09:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't just the sources. Many of the sources are good sources, but the interpretation needs checking. Some of the sources may be questionable. A recent example is The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah by Russ Rodgers, published by the University Press of Florida. Archived discussions here, here, here (about 2/3 the way into the conversation), and on RSN, is that the book includes extraordinary claims that demand support of multiple reliable sources, yet the author is rather obscure (more of a hobbyist historian) having been largely ignored by academia with few citations. The book may be useful for some military tactics, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- So the main problem is with the citations, thank you, I will try to check them but as you said it is a long process. As for contentious FAs Jesus is one. Titan2456 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024
[edit]FAQ No. 5
| ||
|---|---|---|
My request is to write the name of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him with respect and not only his name, so please write “Prophet Muhammad” with respect 156.215.43.238 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
|
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhammad's birth date is 571 so it should be changed to 571 from 570 Berkyyy (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia of Islam source
[edit]Hello! I have been looking over the sources of Islam-related pages and one I find consistently is "Buhl and Welch 1993", which is only linked to a purchase page for the book.
Yesterday I find out that it is actually available online. This got me thinking: is it better to leave the source's link as it is, or should we link the aforementioned reference.
In addition, I cannot find Buhl or Welch's names as the authors of the Muhammad section which is most frequently used. I can only Trude Ehlert. I would be grateful if somebody clears up my confusion. Daminb (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- See p. 376 (left column). AstroLynx (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Daminb - Here 13:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- F. Buhl was the author of the Muhammad section in the first edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam (1934), which in the 1993 edition was revised and updated by A.T. Welch .AstroLynx (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Daminb - Here 13:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- See p. 376 (left column). AstroLynx (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've bundled a citation underneath for the new online edition of that article. Remsense ‥ 论 07:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I assume the above user meant that the archive.org link should replace the |url= in the existing main Encylopaedia of Islam source, not that a new citation should be added with a url going to what is for them also inaccessible content. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was my inquiry pretty much. Daminb - Here 17:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I assume the above user meant that the archive.org link should replace the |url= in the existing main Encylopaedia of Islam source, not that a new citation should be added with a url going to what is for them also inaccessible content. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change date of birth, its 22nd Apr, 571 AbdulHakeeem27 (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- What source do you have? Consider Mawlid#Date. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2025
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change leading sentence from Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social, and political leader to Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious leader" as per MOS:FIRST that states: "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". The lead sentence should stick to what he was primarily known for. The infobox is there to include additional occupations. The world knows him as a religious leader, not as a political and social leader. For example, Muhammad Ali was a prominent philanthropist and poet but since the world knows him as a professional boxer, we have that on his article. Mirza Elia (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't find the current writing particularly overloaded/everything. Social/political is quite relevant, religious too limited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Political can arguably be relevant as he was the founder and ruler of a state but social is definitely not that relevant. Just because a few social norms changed during Muhammad's lifetime doesn't mean he's widely known as a social leader in the world. Major encycloepdias' introductory sentence just calls him a religious leader or the founder of Islam i.e. Muhammad (born c. 570, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died June 8, 632, Medina) was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.. Best case scenario is having Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious and political leader". Mirza Elia (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with removing 'social'. It does seem redundant. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Agree? Srnec (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Drive by comment: I too do not see the need for the term "social". I'm not sure what constitutes a "social leader" to begin with. Anonymous 04:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Rainsage (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with removing 'social'. It does seem redundant. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Agree? Srnec (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Political can arguably be relevant as he was the founder and ruler of a state but social is definitely not that relevant. Just because a few social norms changed during Muhammad's lifetime doesn't mean he's widely known as a social leader in the world. Major encycloepdias' introductory sentence just calls him a religious leader or the founder of Islam i.e. Muhammad (born c. 570, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died June 8, 632, Medina) was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.. Best case scenario is having Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious and political leader". Mirza Elia (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
About Muhammad's Alleged Suicide Attempt
[edit]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)
Recently added image
[edit]
@AimanAbir18plus, hello. You added this pic [1].
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 the 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)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (military) articles
- Low-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- B-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Top-importance Islam-related articles
- B-Class Salaf articles
- Unknown-importance Salaf articles
- Salaf task force articles
- B-Class Shi'a Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Shi'a Islam articles
- Shi'a Islam task force articles
- B-Class Sunni Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Sunni Islam articles
- Sunni Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- Top-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- B-Class Saudi Arabia articles
- Top-importance Saudi Arabia articles
- WikiProject Saudi Arabia articles
- B-Class Middle Ages articles
- Top-importance Middle Ages articles
- B-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class biography (military) articles
- C-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles
- C-Class early Muslim military history articles
- Early Muslim military history task force articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press