Talk:Muhammad

Timeline
The Prophet Muhammad passed away in the year 632, his daughter Fatima soon after...how could they even comprehend or even predict the death of their descendant Husayn ibn Ali?

The Quotes regarding Husayn ibn Ali in this article are therefore...false :)

The Vast Amounts of quotable hadith
In my mind, this page is THE hardest to create. Tens of thousands of hadith exist, and various Islamic schools of thought exist which classify them on a scale of undeniably authentic to false. A good number of these hadith are disputed among the different sects, mainly Sunni and Shia. Also, a large number of these hadith really need some sort of commentary to be understandable to the uninitiated. Some hadith are literally pages long, and involve a story and background of events in order for the quote to be understood, but are still vital hadith in Islam. I suppose we don't have to compile ALL the hadith, but a "best of" list will be quite tricky in itself. Anyone want to help me? ~ mr100percent 23:53, 08 Mar 2005 (EST)

Does the Fatiha (first chapter of the Koran) has any reason to belong to that page ? I don't think so...

^some scholars say that Fatiha is the question and all the other Surah's (not chapters) are the answers

Portrait of Muhammad
The portrait on the right hand side of the web page portrays Muhammad, at least in the manner of the artist's imagination. In accordance with Islamic beliefs, I respectfully ask that it be taken down as a sign of respect to Muslim tradition.


 * This is a valid point, I think it might be a good idea to ask some Muslims on their opinion of the matter, given that art within some mosques I've been inside depict prophets, just with blank faces (as in the picture). I think this may be permitted, although this may only be specific to certain sects. Would be good to have some more information on the matter.


 * It is forbidden in Islam. It is a sin to draw Muhammad.


 * It wasn't always considered forbidden. Just look at old Iranian art.  There are plenty of pictures of Muhammed drawn by the original Muslims.  Nobody has the right to get self-righteous over this subject...if you post a picture of the prophet you aren't violating anything sacred.


 * The problem is everyone has their own level of faith, some people feel it is not bad to depict the prophet even though portraying pretty much anything with a face is not permissible under Islamic Law, so you can't say this act wasn't always forbidden, just some people tend to avoid it.


 * Most Shi'a groups (including the dominant Nizari Ismaili and Usuli Twelver) have no issue with pictures. I'll be putting them up. -- Enzuru 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, this is not a Muslim page but rather a page about a Muslim on a database that does not subscribe to any faith. Wikquote does not exist to appease but to inform. The posting of an image for clarity should not be an issue. _85.90.232.145 12:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Depicting prophets and any other highly appreciated religious figures of the past is forbidden by the Sunna doctrine of Islam, which is the righteous one. The point is that such images may be later worshipped and held in wrong positions, but if they are not imaged, we will remain focused on our right religion and hold them in their correct positions. 41.68.87.177 20:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Qur'an quotes
Recent additions here have been rather disorganized and show signs of an edit war between different quotations from the Qur'an. As there is a separate article for the Qur'an any quotes from it should go there, and the sourced hadith have been organized here in alphabetical sequence. I might do some editing on this later, but only have time to make a few comments right now. ~ Kalki 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There have now been extensive additions of Qur'an quotes made here, and as there is a separate article for these quotes they should all go there, and not remain here, especially since, in most traditional Muslim interpretations, these were not the words of Muhammad at all, but of Allah. ~ Kalki 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an obvious bad faith in quotes that have been placed in this page. The Quranic quotes are all about disbelievers, as if there is no other statement in the book. All religious books promise punishment to disbelievers. This book, however, is not about that, as it is portrayed. For every "doom" mentioned in this book, there is at least one "blessing", either before or after that statement. It is bad faith to quote only the parts about wrongdoers and their punishment. Muslims do not believe that people in heaven will be all Muslims. Non-Muslims *are* believed to go to heaven too, as long as they do good in their lives, and they are even believed to deserve heaven more than those who do believe in Allah yet do not do good as they should. Mostly, those who are promised heaven are not just named "believers", they are more importantly named "those who do good". This is an important point. Also, the quotes about Jews and Christians are *not* about all of them but about those who have/had lost their way. Please note that Jews and Christians are *never* mentioned as nonbelievers. On the contrary, they have always been seperated from nonbelievers, as "People of the Book(s)". Please note that and give quotes with good faith, and try to be just, instead of trying to portray a book of hatred. --BlacxthornE 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just a brief comment, as I am about to leave home and will be gone for a few hours. I do not believe that quotes from the Qur'an should be on this page. I once included only the Basmala and links to the Qur'an here, and thought that a pretty good situation. I consented to have the Basmala removed at the objection of someone or other, but I do believe that primarily only links to Qur'an should be made near the start of the article, and quotes from it not included in the article itself. I am not inclined to argue the point of whether or not this or any other book or message is the "ultimate" or "supreme" word of God/Allah/Bhraman/Tao/Whatever. If the "word of God" is fundamentally Truth, then the shopping list I compose for my own consultation is a word of God, though not a highly important one, for me or for anyone else. Many authors have separate pages for extensive quotes of their works on separate pages, and the division separating the Qur'an from the Hadith on this page is convenient, even if one considers Muhammad the author of the work, and there is not need for a dispute over theological matters in making the division. ~ Kalki 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced quote
I was tempted to add the following saying attributed to the prophet Muhammad


 * "The ink [of the pen] of the scholar is more precious than the blood of martyr"

which is cited on numerous Islamic websites but an exact source is never cited and so far I have been unable to trace its origin.

Is anyone familiar with its origin?


 * The quote is even in Mohammad, Messenger of God near the end of the movie. It is a fabricated hadith.--Inesculent 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This text is a derivation of hadith mentioned in the Book Man La Yahdurhul Faqeeh Vol. 4, page 399.


 * "Love the Arabs for three reasons because (1) I am an Arab (2) the Holy Koran is in Arabic and (3) the tongue of the dwellers of paradise shall also be Arabic.
 * Hadith no. 5751 (Mishkat, Vol. 3) see also Mishkat al-Masabih -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed Statement
"Anti-Muslims resort to a deceitful misrepresentation when they misquote the Quranic verses of the second chapter. They claim that Quran promoted killing the infidels wherever you find them. Indeed, this is true but only if the infidels attack Muslims. Here are the verses complete" reveals rather plainly an agenda, perhaps a response to the fact that (I believe) the verses he/she added to were left alone and thus perhaps were misleading. But not all who point out those verses are anti-Muslim, it creates a straw man anti-Muslim, and the agenda of one person obviously has no place here.

Apparent Bias of the Translations
It is evident that most of the English translations, and some of the bracketed comments were made by non-Muslims, as the widely-used scholarly translations of the Quran and the Hadith were not used (translations such as Yusuf Ali, Malik, or even the less used Pictall). Instead, pseudo-sarcastic, comment-like, almost insulting translations are given which are quite frankly an embarrassment and an insult to the aforementioned scholarly efforts to translate the Quran and Hadith, and a further insult to the beauty and depth of the original Arabic. I will never recommend this page to anyone, except as evidence of a work of users that either muddled the original posts, or intentionally reduced the quotations so as to selfishly and cowardly promote their own belief systems. -- AHM, Trinidad & Tobago.

Depictions of Muhammad
I support the merger of the above article into this one. I see no reason that a separate article is needed. Depictions of Muhammad as it is now written appears to be a negative pov fork. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merged as "About Muhammad". The precedent discussion may be found at Talk:Depictions of Muhammad. There is also another similar article, perhaps transwikied from English Wikipedia (it is in their format, not ours), Non-Islamic views of Muhammad. I think it should be also merged to the same section, without POV header, "non-islamic view" or alike. --Aphaia 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Riyadh-us-Salaheen
Riyadh-us-Salaheen is another spelling of Riyadh as-Saaliheen.

It would be nice if an online version of this existed so that we could check specific sayings.--Inesculent 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Riyad-us-Saliheen. --Inesculent 00:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ransom for POWs

 * The Prophet Muhammad himself exchanged prisoners for ransom. There's nothing wrong with collecting money in exchange for prisoners.


 * This quote should remain until at least someone finds a traditional Islamic source to refute it.--Inesculent 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

John Owen quote
In the fragmentary clause, "... as the great imposter Mohammed pretended he was taught his Alkoran" (view the whole text at GoogleBooks), Owen makes only passing reference to arguments branding Mohammed an impostor on the grounds that he was a well read man who only pretended to be uneducated in order to bolster the claim that his writings were divinely received. It is a peripheral remark: in this treatise Owen is actually arguing for Trinitarianism and against Socinianism. The quoted bit suggests that Socinians would make Jesus a "mere" prophet, and insinuates he would then be open to claims of imposture. Taking this gratuitous bit of innuendo out of context does not do Owen credit, for he was an erudite Puritan scholar, nor does it do justice to the view to which he alludes. It is a poor quote, and I hope is will be replaced with something from another writer who addresses the topic more directly and clearly. ~ Ningauble 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am adding more of the quote here, because it is only a passing remark about Muhammad, within a passage primarily about Jesus and the nature of Divinity and the Holy Spirit, and rational doubts that can arise from any accounts or assumptions about either:
 * Where, or with whom, was this Word in the beginning? " It was," saith the Holy Ghost, " with God." There being no creature then existing, he could be nowhere but with God; that is, the Father, as it is expressed in one of the testimonies before going, Prov. viii. 22, " The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old;" verse 30, "Then was I by him as one brought up with him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;" that is, in the beginning this Word, or Wisdom of God, was with God. And this is the same which our Lord Jesus asserts concerning himself, John iii. 13, "And no man," saith he, "hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." And so in other places he affirms his being in heaven,—that is, with God,—at the same time when he was on the earth; whereby he declares the immensity of his nature, and the distinction of his person; and his coming down from heaven before he was incarnate on the earth, declaring his pre-existence; by both manifesting the meaning of this expression, that " in the beginning he was with God." But hereunto they have invented a notable evasion. For although they know not well what to make of the last clause of the words, that says, then he was in heaven when he spake on earth,—" The Son of man which is in heaven," answerable to the description of God's immensity, "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord," Jer. xxiii. 24, but say that he was there by heavenly meditation, as another man may be; yet they give a very clear answer to what must of necessity be included in his descending from heaven, —namely, his pre-existence to his incarnation: for they tell us that, before his public ministry, he was in his human nature (which is all they allow unto him) taken up into heaven, and there taught the gospel, as the great impostor Mohammed pretended he was taught his Alkoran. If you ask them who told them so, they cannot tell; but they can tell when it was,—namely, when he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness for forty days after his baptism. But yet this instance is subject to another misadventure; in that one of the evangelists plainly affirms that he was " those forty days in the wilderness with the wild beasts," Mark i 13, and so, surely, not in heaven in the same nature, by his bodily presence, with God and his holy angels.


 * While even this is only a portion of a much more extensive theological argument, it does indicate the somewhat trivial and offhand nature of the assertion, within the context of arguments with a far different focus. ~ Kalki 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As this has been several times restored to the page, I accept it probably should be on the page — but have provided more of the above text along with it, so as to clarify the casual offhand and rather trivial nature of the assertion, rather than leaving it in such a form as portrays it as a vigorously major or even primary presentation in itself. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 10:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think this quote is a poor selection for this page. In this passing remark Owen uses Muhammad as a rhetorical bogeyman when arguing against certain socinianist doctrines on the pre-existence of Christ. This is exactly analogous to the commonplace use of Hitler as a rhetorical bogeyman when arguing against some socialist or progressive doctrines. It may be appropriate to include such quotes, if they are noteworthy, in a theme article on the doctrine in question or in an author page; but it would make a travesty of the Adolph Hitler page to include countless examples of gratuitous reductio ad Hitlerum quotes there. Even if such quotes were expanded to show that the context is not really about Hitler, thereby avoiding misrepresenting the author's intent, it would make the article a rubbish heap of tangential irrelevancies. ~ Ningauble 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In those examples you cite it is unlikely that people would be adding them to the Hitler page — in this example, it seems to have wide circulation among some people as primarily a statement about Muhammad, which it clearly was not — but merely a rhetorical flourish playing upon the common prejudices of his audience, much in the way those who quote it regularly seek to play upon the common prejudices of theirs. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 15:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be widely circulated out of context. A Google search for the key phrase ["pretended he was taught"] gives very few hits, and they treat the full context of Owen's treatise. Searching ["pretended that he was taught"] yields even fewer hits: Wikiquote and one (1) other quotation site that appears to have copied the quote from a Wikiquote page that was merged into this one. (I have tried to search using phrases that are not subject to the many spelling variations for "Muhammad" and "Qur'an".) Searching for ["the great imposter" Mohammed] yields considerably more hits; but among the top 50 hits the only ones that refer to this quote are Wikiquote and mirror sites. More tellingly, the only hits for ["John Owen" "the great imposter"] that refer to this John Owen are Wikiquote and its mirrors. I appreciate the value of debunking common misquotations and deprecating widespread abuse of quotes taken out of context; but I do not believe that is what we are dealing with here. Rather, this looks like a clear case of an agitator (or a few kindred such) attempting to use Wikiquote to spread something that is not widespread, that hardly exists elsewhere. Expanding the entry, rather than removing it, may be a case of inadvertently feeding the trolls. ~ Ningauble 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am accepting your arguments and research which indicate this is an obscure statement, rarely quoted, from a statement about Jesus where it is merely offhand remark of minor notability or significance. IF others do wish it to once again be added, I believe there should be consensus vote taken on the matter, and I would recommend that were it included it be used with remarks as to its actual context, such as I had earlier included:
 * They tell us that, before his public ministry, he was in his human nature (which is all they allow unto him) taken up into heaven, and there taught the gospel, as the great impostor Mohammed pretended he was taught his Alkoran.
 * John Owen, referencing Muhammad in relation to arguments about Jesus, in "Communion with God" (1657) in The Works of John Owen Volume 2, (1997) p. 391 Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust ISBN 0-85151-124-4 ; though sometimes presented as if this were an authoratative statement testifying against the veracity of Muhammad, it is actually a minor offhand remark, playing upon popular prejudices of Owen's time about Jesus and Muhammad, within a very complex theologicial argument affirming particular notions of the divinity of Christ:
 * There being no creature then existing, he could be nowhere but with God; that is, the Father, as it is expressed in one of the testimonies before going, Prov. viii. 22, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old;" verse 30, "Then was I by him as one brought up with him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;" that is, in the beginning this Word, or Wisdom of God, was with God. And this is the same which our Lord Jesus asserts concerning himself, John iii. 13, "And no man," saith he, "hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." And so in other places he affirms his being in heaven, — that is, with God, — at the same time when he was on the earth; whereby he declares the immensity of his nature, and the distinction of his person; and his coming down from heaven before he was incarnate on the earth, declaring his pre-existence; by both manifesting the meaning of this expression, that " in the beginning he was with God." But hereunto they have invented a notable evasion. For although they know not well what to make of the last clause of the words, that says, then he was in heaven when he spake on earth, — "The Son of man which is in heaven," answerable to the description of God's immensity, "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord," Jer. xxiii. 24, but say that he was there by heavenly meditation, as another man may be; yet they give a very clear answer to what must of necessity be included in his descending from heaven, — namely, his pre-existence to his incarnation: for they tell us that, before his public ministry, he was in his human nature (which is all they allow unto him) taken up into heaven, and there taught the gospel, as the great impostor Mohammed pretended he was taught his Alkoran. If you ask them who told them so, they cannot tell; but they can tell when it was,— namely, when he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness for forty days after his baptism. But yet this instance is subject to another misadventure; in that one of the evangelists plainly affirms that he was " those forty days in the wilderness with the wild beasts," Mark i 13, and so, surely, not in heaven in the same nature, by his bodily presence, with God and his holy angels.


 * I can conceed this extensive citation actually does probably place far more emphasis on it than is probably merited, but I believe that preferable to leaving it as a standalone statement without proper context. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 02:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In my most recent edits I had trimmed the above considerably to consist of only this:
 * They tell us that, before his public ministry, he was in his human nature (which is all they allow unto him) taken up into heaven, and there taught the gospel, as the great impostor Mohammed pretended he was taught his Alkoran.
 * John Owen, referencing Muhammad in relation to arguments about Jesus, in "Communion with God" (1657) in The Works of John Owen Volume 2, (1997), p. 391, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust ISBN 0-85151-124-4 ; though sometimes presented as if this were an authoratative statement testifying against the veracity of Muhammad, it is actually a minor offhand remark, playing upon popular prejudices of Owen's time regarding Jesus and Muhammad, within a very complex theologicial argument affirming particular notions of the divinity of Christ.
 * The person or persons who lately seem most involved in posting and promoting this statement does appear to have an agenda of only quoting the portion defamatory of Muhammad, and removing any content or mention of its context which might mitigate such defamations. I believe that the above form is probably about as concise a summation of the actual context as can be arrived at, and preferable to my much longer provision of a larger portion of Owen's statement. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 14:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This additional content and information about context continually get censored out by anonymous IP edits; in the latest incident I posted this to the User talk:58.170.54.210:


 * Thus far your edits seem designed to promote the defamation of Muhammad, using quotes or portions of quotes which are critical of this individual. I am NOT a promoter of the notion of needless censoring of criticism of ANYONE, by even the most ignorant, deluded of people — but I am an advocate of the principle that statements of deficient or false opinions or delusions in regard to matters of fact, MUST be fought with indications of truth — and you seem VERY intent on censoring and removing statements of truth and fact which do not fit in with what appears to be your agenda.


 * The matter of the quotes you have been adding, and which I have added a small bit of content to, in order to provide indications of their proper context, further commented upon in a brief exposition of its content, has been discussed intermittently since January 2009 at the "John Owen quote" section of the Muhammad discussion page. I believe the brief extension and comment I have added is proabably about a good a solution as can be arrived at, and though I had accepted another regular editor's arguments that it probably is of so little notability as to not merit inclusion, it is sourced quote — which I can accept being included, but ONLY with mention of proper context.

If such edits continue unabatted it might be appropriate to termporarily restrict edits of this page to registered users. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 00:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This editor seem persistent in wanting to reduce a statement in which the author was making theological comparisons of tales about Jesus and Muhammad to one which was only a derision of Muhammad, thus succeeding in posting mislieading information that is defamatory of the intentions of that author in making the statement. In comparing the rival claims of some Christians and muslims Owen states:
 * They tell us that, before his public ministry, he was in his human nature (which is all they allow unto him) taken up into heaven, and there taught the gospel, as the great impostor Mohammed pretended he was taught his Alkoran.
 * To reduce this, as this editor seeks to do, to simply "The great imposter Mohammed pretended that he was taught his Koran" is severely maligning the intentions of Owen in making such a statement. I certainly do not contest that it was his honest opinion — but to present that opinion without presenting at least part of the longer sentence of which it is a portion is to severely skew the intentions and aims of the author in declaring it. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 00:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this again. Our purpose here is to collect notable quotes, not to catalog every instance of anyone referring to Mohammad as an impostor, however incidentally or obscurely. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1011
There is a quote on forgiveness sourced to "Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1011". I also find it on the religioustolerance.org website. I would love to read the source text, but I simply can't find it; can anyone help me? Thanks. --76.67.161.176 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Negativity of last editing
The Muhammed quotes page has been clearly edited to represent a negative image of Muhammad.

As such I have taken the liberty to remove the following;

On infidels

 * Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."


 * Narrated Ibn Umar:Source:Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24

On Jews

 * Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."


 * Narrated Abu Huraira:Source:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177

On Terrorism

 * Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).


 * Narrated Abu Huraira:Source:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220

On adultery
'''
 * '''The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque."
 * Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:Source:Volume 2, Book 23, Number 413

On apostacy

 * Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"


 * Narrated 'Ikrima:Source:Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57

i think the recent case of the Saudi blogger fleeing to Mayalasia, subsequently being deported back to the land of the two holy cities to face almost certain death for a twitter post which as earned him a charge of apostasy, would back up the veracity of that quote. 76.168.169.86 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

other quotes

 * Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has not faith.
 * As quoted in Al-Islam‎ (1926) by Khwajah Kamal al-Din, p. 47
 * Variant translation: Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever hath not kindness hath not faith.
 * As quoted in Prabuddha Bharata : or Awakened India, Vol. 44 (1939) published by Advaita Ashrama, p. 84

Anyone who thinks it should be reinstated is showing racism. This is a page for education and knowledge not for battles of respect and disrespect.
 * Most if not all of these are still in the article, as they are properly sourced, and unless there is sufficient dispute as to notability resolvable only by voting to determine consensus, sourced quotes are generally retained here. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 03:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most if not all of these are still in the article, as they are properly sourced, and unless there is sufficient dispute as to notability resolvable only by voting to determine consensus, sourced quotes are generally retained here. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 03:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an
Who wrote the Qur'an?
 * Faithful Muslims believe it is the word of God.
 * Most non-Muslims believe that it is simply the writing of Muhammad.
 * A tiny, and extremely controversial minority believe that the Qur'an was invented centuries after Muhammad.

Wikiquote can't pretend that the Qur'an is authored by a third party (either God, or Muhammad's followers who allegedly forged it centuries after he died). Hence Qur'an quotes can't be lumped with quotes about Muhammad from third party sources.

Wheatsing 01:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One need not pretend to believe or endorse any particular view of the authorship of some particular quotes from religious scriptures to allow others to make their own assessments as rationally as they can — which they CANNOT do if information is simply REMOVED. It is better that some quotes be provided with controversial and disputable claims of provenence than that they simply be removed. One is NOT endorsing a literalist view on matters by adding those Qur'an quotes to the page, as quotes about Muhammad. I have a wide respect for the right of people to hold views I personally cannot accept or endorse — and have had personal discourse with people of many religious and anti-relgious faiths, and I fully believe that people should become familiar with MANY perspectives and NOT accept ANY narrow views because of authoritarian claims or presumptions, from ANY faction. I am sure most non-muslims would agree that Muhammad should be counted as the author, and most Muslms would assert Allah as the author — and I don't give all that much of a damn WHO people count as the author — but the quotes you removed SHOULD be provided here — and the LEAST presumptive placement was to place them as quotes ABOUT Muhammad — which they WERE — rather than OPENLY taking sides with a NON-NEUTRAL POV and saying they were quotes BY Muhammad. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 03:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Slight cleanup, and further suggestions
This page had been tagged for cleanup since March 2010, and still is, for though I did some relatively minor cleanup, some issues arose that I believe it appropriate to resolve with more extensive restructuring so that the Hadith eventually be sorted alphabetically by source (such as Al-Bukhari), without any division into Sunni or Shi'ite sections — but did not go so far as implement that at this stage, because there is further citation and clarification needed on many of these. Even were such Sunni and Shia sections retained, the quotes within them should probably be arranged alphabetically by source. Here is what I believe might be a more appropriate layout than that which currently exists:

Quotes
 * section for standalone quotes of Muhammad, taken from the various Hadith or modern sources, alphabetically by source, such as Al-Bukhari, WITHOUT anecdotal commentaries.
 * Final sermon

Quotes about Muhammad
 * EITHER arranged by alphabetically by author or source (as currently), OR perhaps divided into the following sections, if many anecdotal Hadith are added here:
 * Qur'an statements about Muhammad — (with no endorsement or denial of assertions as to authorship of Qur'an)
 * Hadith (any anecdotal Hadith not among the standalone quotes — those which involve description of incidents, and thus are more than simply quotes of Muhammad, arranged alphabetically, by source —Al-Bukhari, etc.
 * Opinions (statements of opinion arranged by author)

Such are my current suggestions, but I await further commentary before attempting any further cleanup at this point, and it is not likely I would do that anytime soon, for it seems there is definitely more sourcing work necessary. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 03:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced

 * Published sources should be provided before moving these back into the article


 * Piousness is here... Piousness is here (pointing to his heart).


 * You are all from Adam.. and Adam is (was created) from dust (earth).


 * Say what is true although it may be bitter and displeasing to people


 * The believer’s shade on the Day of Resurrection will be his charity.
 * From Jami` at-Tirmidhi?

qadyanis
"according to the Muslim belief throughout the world (agreed upon) Qadyani's are not Muslims."

hm. not a qadyani myself, and thank Christ I'm certainly no Muslim, but if I was a Qadyani I'd certainly take offense to that statement. I'd also request a citation for it.

Final sermon
Hi, I am afraid this section is problematic and need clean up.


 * It point the Wikisource page, but it's a disambiguation for two versions (Shia and Sunni accounts).
 * The translations seem to be very loose. For example,
 * It refers fingers in both hand, but none of two Wikisource accounts refers to "finger".
 * Also it refers "Adam and Eve" but none of two Wikisource accounts refers to Eve. Both refers only to Adam. (Perhaps it's similar of the modern Bible translation - where the original said "brethren", some modern translators like to say "sisters and brothers" instead.

It's also problematic which translation we render here is unknown. A volunteer? Or a modern translation? If the latter, it can be under copyrighted. Just for reminder. --Aphaia (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

David Hume

 * The admirers and followers of the Alcoran insist on the excellent moral precepts interspersed through that wild and absurd performance. But it is to be supposed, that the Arabic words, which correspond to the English, equity, justice, temperance, meekness, charity were such as, from the constant use of that tongue, must always be taken in a good sense; and it would have argued the greatest ignorance, not of morals, but of language, to have mentioned them with any epithets, besides those of applause and approbation. But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals? Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.
 * David Hume, Of the Standard of Taste, 1760
 * "insist on the excellent moral precepts interspersed through that wild and absurd performance." This quote is incomplete, Hume's explanation about this "performance" need to be in the quote. Rupert loup (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sira

 * I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.
 * Al-Tabari, Vol. 6, p. 110

The source isn't complete, please put the name of Al-Tabari's work so it can be verified. Rupert Loup 20:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 111. ( al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings) --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhai Bala
The removed quote is attribued to Bhai Bala, see here.

This is not a genuine quote by Nanak, and Bhai Bala's existence is disputed.

There has been considerable discussion as regards to Bhai Bala's existence, particularly within the Sikh academic field. The reasons for this are:

Bhai Gurdas, who has listed all Guru Nanak's prominent disciples (in his 11th Var), does not mention the name of Bhai Bala (this may be an oversight, for he does not mention Rai Bular either). However Bhai Mani Singh's Bhagat Ratanwali, which contains essentially the same list as that by Bhai Gurdas, but with more detail, also does not mention Bhai Bala. There are a number of other anomalies, which Dr. Kirpal Singh has explicated in his Punjabi work 'Janamsakhi Tradition.'

Professor Surjit Hans also notes that the only role of Bhai Bala was to denigrate the name of Nanak and that Guru Nanak prophesizes about a greater bhagat (Hundal) to come.

Also in the Bhai Bala Janamsakhi are several language inconsistencies. For example, the Sikh salutation 'Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh' is used in the Bala Janamsakhi, however this term only gained currency during the reign of Guru Gobind Singh.

Among modern researchers, the identity (even his existance?) of Bhai Bala is as controversial as is the authenticity of the Janam Sakhi ascribed to him. Bhai Bala is mentioned neither by Bhai Gurdas Ji who has recorded the names of a number of Sikhs contemporary of Guru Nanak, nor by the authors of Puratan Janam Sakhfand Mi'harban Janam Sakhi, both older than Bala Janam Sakhi, the oldest available manuscript of which is dated 1658.

The source of the other content is from sikhwiki.org. The CC BYNC3 licence, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/, mandates that if the content is copied to wikiquote, attribution needs to made. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You have not explained on the talkpage why you insist on including a fake fabricated quote that is falsely attributed to Nanak on this page, without even clarifiyng that it is a fake. This is also a Top level article. This is among the two or three most important biography articles on wikiquote (together with Jesus). There are now three Nanak/Granth Sahib related quotes, and one of the quotes is a fabrication. (The other one is about Muslims, not about Muhammad. It should also be removed for this reason).--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? The author is saying that Guru Nanak said this but is being quoted within Bhai Bala. It is not fake. Please stop the lies.

Quote: ''The attitude of the Sikh Gurus towards the leaders or founders of other faiths and their sacred texts is unique and genuinely praiseworthy. For instance, the attitude of Guru Nanak towards Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was one of unbounded love and respect. In a verse which is given in the Janam Sakhi of Bhai Bala, Guru Nanak is stated to have said:''

''ditha nur muhammadi, ditha nabi rasool Nanak qudrat dekh ke, khudi ghei sab bhool.''

"I have seen the Light of Muhammad (with my mind's eye). I have seen the prophet and the messenger of God, in other words, I have understood his message or imbibed his spirit. After contemplating the glory of God, my ego was completely eliminated."

In the same spirit Guru Gobind Singh said in his Bacchittar Naatak ("The Wonderful Drama") that prophet Muhammad was a divine messenger and a great man of religion and faith. Indrooooz (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, sikhiwiki is not reliable as per WP:RS Indrooooz (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You have just said that the Nanak is quoted in Bhai Bala's Janamsaki. Exactly as I said. Now read what I wrote above about Bhai Bala. Also read this,and this and the wikipedia article about Bhai Bala. Also, there is no point in citing Wikipedia policies on wikiquote. WQ has its own policies.
 * This is a top level article, with more page views per day than most other Wikiquote articles have in 5 years. And here you want to quote someone whose existence is disputed and whose writings are considered to be fabrications? If you want, you can quote it in the DISPUTED section or you can create a new article on Bhai Bala and quote it there. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The dispute on the existence of Bhai Bala has nothing to do with this. Because regardless of whether he existed or not, the Janamsakhi of Bhai Bala is the main source for the biography of Guru Nanaks life. So if the Janamsakhi is authentic then this quote is not disputed. Indrooooz (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read on the authenticity of the Janamsakhi, and you can see that it was probably written by Guru Angad read here Janamsakhi Indrooooz (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

since it is quotes in the Janamsakhi it is authentic and not disputed. Indrooooz (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved to talk
This is Offtopic (about Muslims not Muhammad). If Indroooz wants he can move it to the article Muslim.


 * It is difficult to be called a Muslim; if one is truly a Muslim, then he may be called one.
 * First, let him savor the religion of the Prophet as sweet; then, let his pride of his possessions be scraped away.
 * Becoming a true Muslim, a disciple of the faith of Mohammed, let him put aside the delusion of death and life.
 * As he submits to God's Will, and surrenders to the Creator, he is rid of selfishness and conceit.
 * And when, O Nanak, he is merciful to all beings, only then shall he be called a Muslim.


 * Sri Granth Sahib. Attributed to Guru Nanak, 'Sri Granth Sahib,' page 141 line 11


 * , the quote which was moved to talk here should be removed from the article because it clearly is offtopic and is about Muslims and not about Muhammad. This was already moved to the talkpage, but it was also reverted by Indrooz here. Thank you. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

failed atttempt quote
add "O my uncle! by God if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I abandon this course, until God has made me victorious, or I perish therein, I would not abandon it." https://web.archive.org/web/20061128120537/http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Books/B0033P0017.aspx

File:Imam_Mahdi
This file in the page is irrelevant to Muhammad as it is a says "Muhammad al-Mahdi" (محمد المهدي), who is a separate figure regarded as the last Shia imam who will re-emerge on the Day of Judgement: It shouldn't be in this page —EmperorÖsmanIXXVMD (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)