Talk:Muhammad's first revelation

message: I noticed that the article uses two different spellings for Mohammad's name. I am not sure which one is the correct one or, if both are, which is more preferred. Not being a Muslim I wouldn't want to make a change that could be disrespectful to Muslims. Any clarification would be appreciated. ---> Benseac 14:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are correct. However, mostly accepted spelling is Muhammad and many Muslim Govt. have offically adopted it. I suggest to change all Mohammad to Muhammad in the article. -- A. L. M. 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the input. I'll make that change to standardize the name in the article. ---> Benseac 14:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Mahomet? This appears to be the traditional form in most western languages. French and Polish wikis use it (see here and here), and Italians have a local variety, Maometto. Mohammad is closest to original Arabic, however, since a voiceless pharyngeal fricative triggers allophonic lowering of /u/ to /o/. Aminullah 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that for an English Wiki, the more "English" version of his name should be used. ---> Benseac 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is this "more English" form, then?Aminullah 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "English" version per se, but Muhammad is the most standard scholarly transcription.Proabivouac 19:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That I can't answer, which is why I asked the initial question. There were two forms of his name in the article and, for the sake of consistency, I asked which one was the more correct. I don't know what the preferred spelling is in English and I didn't want to use a spelling that is less correct or accepted than another. If the choice that was decided is incorrect then by all means change it. ---> Benseac 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 2004 Oxford English dictionary gives Mahomet, Mohammed and Muhammad as equally acceptable. But Muhammad is most often used by Muslims themselves. Aminullah 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You'll see different spellings as different writers attempt to reflect either the written form of the name or the sounds as the writer hears them.  Put simply, written Arabic uses the vowels A, I, and U, so no transliteration that tries to reflect the written form will contain an E or O.  However, just as in English, those vowels are pronounced in all sorts of ways, including ways that we normally represent with E and O, so those trying to write the name as they hear it may use those vowels.  (And the French make liberal use of 'OU' as well.)  In this case, Muhammad is preferable, as it best reflects the written and spoken form.  With all due deference to the Oxford, Mahomet would be equally acceptable if you are writing for publication in an 18th century European journal. Hiernonymous (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Muhammad vs. Mohammad

message: In the section on the first revelation, one writer has very carefully laid out Muhammad's age at the revelation to the day.  However, as nobody knows exactly when Muhammad was born, that calculation is a case of high precision and low accuracy.  Not sure what it adds to the article, but I'm not going to jump into anything potentially controversial until I've watched the article a bit longer.
Hiernonymous (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Muhammad's age

message: The main reason I added the POV tag to this article was that much of it seems to be stated as fact, for example: Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. or His wife Khadija used to provide him with simple food and water, and then he would head directly for the hills and ravines in the neighborhood of Mecca. (this is not the only example of the events being reported as fact). However, not all people believe this to be true, so perhaps many areas of the article should be rephrased, for example:
It is claimed, or many Muslims believe. Cliff12345 (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The first sentence states: "Muhammad's first revelation was the event in which Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel who revealed to him a verse from the Quran." That sounds like it actually happened. That is way POV. I've edited to be less of a statement of fact and more alleged event.  Such a statement is not Wiki appropriate and wouldn't fly on ANY alleged prophet's page like say Joseph Smith. I'm suprised people aren't keeping this better cleaned up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.18.70 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The first sentence stated as a fact?

message: Assalamualaikum, Can I ask you devote some times to this article in order to check it generally. I think that it includes some long quotations or some sources are not reliable! I am going to create the article about مبعث, unfortunately, my time limitation doesn't let me edit both articles! Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing , I agree with you. I think even the title is wrong. I will try to do my best. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , You said you are going to create the article of مبعث but this article seems to me about the same topic also both the Persian and the Arabic articles of مبعث are linked to this article. As I said the title is wrong. There is no second revelation so that it would be called first revelation (there are also a lot of mistakes and rambling in this article) and BTW its called البعثة النبوية in Arabic which means the Prophetic Mission of Prophet Muhammad according to this source . we can just rename this article and fix it's errors instead of creating a new article because IMO that would cause a chaos because both the article in Persian and in Arabic that are linked to this article are about مبعث. Thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a million! As I have searched the Prophetic Mission does not happen at the same time as Muhammad's first revelation (e.g Ja'farian's book about a lifetime of the prophet. There are a lot of ideas about the first revelation at various time and places (رمضان، رجب....). In the other hand, the disscussion led us to create an independent article named Divine designation of Muhammad as a prophet or Prophetic Mission! Saff V. (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing is necessary 

message: The Laylat_al-Qadr article correctly explains that the date for Laylat al-Qadr does not appear in the Quran, though Shia's 'generally conclude' it's the 23rd. The first paragraph of this article states, as fact, that it's the 17th of Ramadan. Both cannot be true. Could someone else with more knowledge than I weigh in here please? Itsfini (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you to the anonymous user that's gone in and added considerable content on this point. I don't suppose anyone has any references for it, because, at the moment, it reads rather like it might fail NPOV and/or WP:NOR ? I'm happy to tidy up the article once they're in because this singular point is quite dominating the article at present. Itsfini (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

text: This is getting silly again. We now have an introduction that says (1) it was on Friday 6th August, followed by a sentence saying (2) 6th August was a Thursday, followed by a sentence saying (3) it was Monday 10th August. We then have a MASSIVE three sections of the article explaining why it was the night of Monday 13th December. I do not, for one minute, expect an agreement to be reached here except, can we all agree that the date is clearly disputed? I suggest moving all of this discussion out of the introduction and into a (smaller) Date subheading that explains the different interpretations without taking over the article. Itsfini (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone in and made this change. Itsfini (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Date