Talk:Prophets in Islam

message: Separate this article into 2 parts.
"Backwards arab view of prophets"
and "logical consistent view of prophethood, with Quranic proof"
then let the reader view both views.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.234.40 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: separate

message: Nabi comes from old semitic world. "reveal".
Rasoul means messenger, or someone that delivers a message.
Can someone please get rid of the retarded middle age scholars who believe that a messenger is superior to a prophet.
There are no more prophets, Muhammed was the seal of the prophets(Quranic verse), but never does the Quran mention no more messenegrs.
Anyone can be a messenger, all they have to do is preach the word of God.
As far as prophets not being messengers... what kind of crazy stuff is that??? Every prophet is by definition a messenger... !
Can someone please purge this place from wahabbis, salafis, sunnis, shia and all the rest of the middle age scholar worshipping freaks out of this page. And coherently re-write this article truthfully?
e
can the person above please be civil and not use ad hominem attacks? the mistake you mention may simply be a translation problem
Tydoni (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Retardation 

message: Have you ever seen that Messenger is always a Prophet?
Do you know that Mohammed is  prophet and he is Messenger of Allah. (Puntori 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is at least three messengers(Rasul) in Quran that we have no verse to show that they are prophets(Nabi) also: Hud,Saleh and Shoaib.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messenger and Prophet 

message: I found a reference for "the Resolute" and am suggesting another spelling. I'm trying to find out how many messengers there are. Is it three? That seems like an important number. Jonathan Tweet 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolute 

message: Whenever 'Isa or Jesus is linked on the article, it links to "Islamic view of Jesus" - yet other prophets are not linked to the same kind of page even though those pages exist, such as "Islamic view of Moses" or "Islamic view of Noah". Should they all correspond, i.e. all should link to their own "Islamic view of -" rather than to just the prophet? Also, the ability of choices, such as in the table for 'Isa and Adam/Eve "Main articles:"?
Modenadude 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that there was a split between Islamic view of Jesus, Christian views of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus. Jesus is the main article, which also includes the historical view. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 14:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic view of - 

message: While it is commonly accepted that there is about 124,000 (according to some 125,000) prophets, I have never heard of 224,000 messengers. As a subject under the Pillars of Faith, Muslims are required to know the 25 Messengers i.e. the list/links of the wiki pages on each the messengers at the end of the article. Also, since it is stated in there that 124,000 came from Hadith Sahih, care should be taken in translating it and the word used. It must be remembered at all times that a nabi (prophet) is not placed under any responsibility to spread their teaching. A rasul (messenger) however is tasked by God to spread whatever he is taught to others in his community, race or in the case of Muhammad - to mankind and the entire universe as evident in (21:107) We sent thee not, but as a Mercy to all Worlds.
I believe this is the standard interpretation of nabi and rasul by Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Thus, I think 124,000 messengers is erroneous unless the arabic text of the hadith can be reproduced for verification.
:There are 124,000 prophets, not 224,000 prophets. This is a well know fact among all Muslims. It should be corrected. I do not know why Wikipedia is being stubborn about it. As far as verification is concerned, it is Wikipedia's job to confirm this fact. 70.177.230.155 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You say it's "Wikipedia's job to confirm this fact," which is correct, but I think you're confused about what Wikipedia is.  There is no independent person on Wikipedia making these judgements--all of the research and citation of articles is done by editors like you and me.  As for that specific number, please take a look at the citation.  If you search in the book, you'll see that the author explicitly uses the number 224,000.  That source appears to be a reliable source per Wikipedia standards.  However, if you have a reliable source that states 124,000, we can probably find a way to work that in, too.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Messengers and Prophets 

message: I like to see this chart broken as section, much easier to edit and cleanup.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Prophet Mohammad maybe the last prophet, but there is no fact in Qur'an to be the last messenger also! This claim maybe different with the orthodoxy of Islam, I know, but we have no verse in Quran for that, to be honest! Please contact me for lots more info about this and any kind of unification between Islam and Christianity.--تسلیم (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart of Messengers and Prophets 

message: In the intro, could the word "sharia" be replaced by a more common one, perhaps with a footnote recommending the reading of the sharia article? "Law", "rules"?
TIA, --Jerome Potts 04:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sharia" 

message: There seems to be some inconsistancy in the table about whether to use the Arabic or Islamic name. For example, 'Nuh' is referred to as 'Nuh' in the body text, whereas 'Ibrahim' is referred to as 'Abraham' and 'Lut' as 'Lot'. 
To me, it would seem more logical to use the Arabic name, but whichever it should be consistent. Ged UK 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency is good. It makes sense to mention the Arabic name first, then the Jewish/Christian name for clarification (for example, "Ibrahim (Abraham)". Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming consistancies 

message: Article image currently links to the JP Mohammed cartoons? Vandalism? Andersa (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article image 

message: Dear Guys,
Justice as a purpose of messenegers left in the related section.
As Quran said in 57:25
لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنا رُسُلَنا بِالْبَيِّناتِ وَ أَنْزَلْنا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتابَ وَ الْميزانَ لِيَقُومَ النَّاسُ بِالْقِسْطِ وَ أَنْزَلْنَا الْحَديدَ فيهِ بَأْسٌ شَديدٌ وَ مَنافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَ لِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ وَ رُسُلَهُ بِالْغَيْبِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزيز
Progressive Muslims translation is this:
We have sent Our messengers with proofs, and We sent down with them the Scripture and the balance, that the people may uphold justice. And We sent down the iron, wherein there is great strength, and many benefits for the people. All this in order for God to distinguish those who would support Him and His messengers, on faith. God is Powerful, Noble.
Please add Justice as a purpose of messengers also. Thanks --Submitter to Truth (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justice left in the purpose of messengers! 

message: "Krishna, (also mentioned in some books of Hadith"? Which ones?  Шизомби (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krishna in Hadith? 

message: Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective  —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  no criticism section? 

message: Apart from the evidence of the Quran, there is one reference which is controversial among the commentators. There is a tradition reported from the Holy Prophet (sa) which speaks of an Indian prophet by name. In his words:
 
There was a prophet of God in India who was dark in colour and his name was Kahan.1 
Now anyone acquainted with the history of Indian religions would immediately connect this description to Lord Krishna, who is invariably described in the Hindu literature as being dark of complexion. Also, the title Kanhaya is added to his name Krishna. Kanhaya contains the same consonants K,N,H as does the name Kahan  .  There is no denying the fact that the Holy Quran makes it incumbent on every Muslim not only to believe in all the prophets, but it also clearly informs us that in every region of the world and in every age, God did raise messengers and prophets.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.104.78 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krishna In The Hadith 

message: The Holy Prophet (PBUH) also said: "Kanna filhindhi nabiyyun asvadhul lavni ismuhoo Kahina - A Prophet appeared in India. He was black in complexion. His name was Kahina". This saying (Hadith) is found in the book 'Firdowsul Akbar' by Hazrat Thylami. The word Kahina denotes to Sri Krishna who is also called as 'Kanayya' and 'Kannan'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.104.78 (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krishna In The Hadith:The Arabic Translation 

message: I am currently reading Imam Abu Hanifa's Al Fiqh al-Akbar. In the section regarding belief in the Messengers, he states that Shith (Commentary and translation as 'Seth'), was given 50 scriptures. 
I believe an addition should be made, as well as a page on the Islamic view of the Hebrew Prophet Seth. M2k41 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shith (Seth)

message: Currently, the introduction reads "While every rasul is a nabi, not every nabi is a rasul."
This is in conflict with the later statement: "Islam regards Jesus as a rasul (and sometimes as a nabi) ". Clearly if every rasul is a nabi, the "sometimes" would not be necessary. Also, the table in section 3 lists several people who are marked as rasuls but not nabi. This conflict needs to be resolved. Ordinary Person (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rasul, Nabi 

message: How about Shem,Aram,Apollonius of tyana,Balaam and Zulqarnain(which was either Alexander the great or Cyrus the Great)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.39.199 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:    Other Prophets 

message: Dear friends,
Torah or Torat is not assigned directly in any verse to Moses in Quran. And it is very clear because some parts of Torah was written after the death of Moses by Joshua or other prophets. So Quran confirm Totah as a holy book but never assigned it directly to Moses. The book that assigned directly to Moses is only the scrolls of Moses(Suhuf Mossa) we have a lot of this common misunderstanding in the edits please pay attention.--تسلیم (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah is not assigned directly to moses in Quran 

message: There appeared to be some bias and subjective portrayal in the Muhammad section. I have rectified it so that it is a lot more impartial.41.86.96.159 (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophets and Messengers in the Qu'ran 

message: mOHAMMED ISNT THE MAHDI ... NOR IS HE THE MESSIAH ... THE MAHDI IS A DIFFRENT PERSON FROM MOHAMMED  THATS HARAM!20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MAHDI>?

message: what does this word mean? I assumed it was a misspelling and changed it to practical. if this word was the correct one for the context please make its meaning more clear.
Tydoni (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pickthal

message: The word "Nabi" should be referenced in the definition, right in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Also in the lead there are some other words used, but not explained/translated -- Tomdo08 (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section: "Nabi" 

message: After use of prophets names should for respect and religious reason some form of respect not be used. i.e. after prophet mohammed peace be upon him(pbuh)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.57.249 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the section on Islamic honorifics in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for more information. SeaphotoTalk 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic honorifics

message: source is unreliable and both these are mythological figures so how can they be called prophets
buddha can be prophet as he is a historical figure whose teachings brought peace and happiness to billions but how to call krishna and rama as prophets when the hindus keep changine their gods every 500 years.tomorrow they will call shivaji a god
no muslim can consider them as prophets.yeah maybe ahmaddis do call krishna a prophet but ahmaddis are not considered muslims and gitas teachings contradict teachings of abrahamic religions there is one verse in gita which says all human beings are uneual and god himself created castes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.130.249 (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It does state in the subsection Other historical figures have been at times been regarded as prophets, but debate surrounds this matter - And this is evidently true. Source is highly reliable, I don't see why it isn't. It is your POV to state that these are mythological figures whereas buddha is a historical figure. Thanks. Ahmadis may not be considered Muslims but according to Wiki standards they are.--Peaceworld 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Krishna and rama not prophets

message: I would like to dispute the assertion in the opening paragraph which claims that Jesus 'told of the coming of the final law-bearing prophet and messenger of God, who would be named Muhammad.'
Which part of the New Testament would be used by Muslim scholars to support this claim please? 
Christian Elms (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this for the general improvement of the article or for personal knowledge?--Peaceworld 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' prediction of Muhammed? 

message: I'm removing the list of prophet that're uncited and UNRELATED with Islam. Please keep the topic focused...    ~ AdvertAdam  talk 01:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe those were people considered by some prominent muslims as prophets. I will reinstate. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing your edit, Advert. Which Prophets did you remove? Peter Deer (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this "Prophets of the world" or "Prophets of Islam"? 

message: The Name needs to be changed to "Prophets in Islam"
  --Anonymous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.141.3 (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the Name of the Article 

message: Ooooooooooookay so I went and slogged through the internet and verified what sources I could. 
* I checked the source supposedly claiming Aristotle was a Prophet, it did not say anything of the sort, removed it.
* I removed all entries unsourced for long periods of time (they can be re-included with sources)
* I checked the source for Laozi/Lao Tsu, nothing saying he was a prophet, removed it.
* I'd suggest a double-check of the Confucius source by someone else, it seems to say several other people are potentially Prophets, but I'm not finding any explicit mention of the possibility of Confucius himself. I suspect I am just overlooking it, however. I switched the Original Research tag for a more appropriate "Verify" tag.
* Looked at the Mani source. It's a description of the (and I kid you not) "oriental heresiarch" perspective of Mani, and he's synthesizing Marcus Dods' quote of Hyde in the preface to Stothert's translation of St. Augustine's criticism of Manicaeans, and he's even referring to this as "a careless repetition of an old blunder of two good scholars, Fabricius and Wolff". This is one of the muddiest sources I've ever seen, I'm axing it, I dunno if that's exactly the right thing to do but it seems like it's a misleading use of the source and not very encyclopedic so I'm going to be bold and remove it. It's also apparently been crammed into the same ref markup as another source, "Mani, seine Lehre and seine Schriften", if someone could check on that it'd be good. The only version I found was in Arabic and German, it was a scan and not in anything I could automatically translate...oy gevalt...yeah no clearing this one up entirely is more than I can chew, I'm tagging it.
* I laid waste to all the weaselyness with great violence
* Checked the Socrates source, it is genuine, removed tag.
I'm definitely hoping to reinclude some of the ones I removed as unsourced (I know, for instance, that there's sources for Zarathustra and Krishna somewhere, and should I regain such energy as to find them I'll include them myself.) I'm gonna go do something that isn't sifting through an ocean of PDFs and style guidelines for a while. Peter Deer (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Historical Prophets Section 

message: During the discussion over the Paraclete issue, we ended up debating the issue of whether to link the names of the Prophets to their general articles or to the section which represents the respective Islamic view of the Prophets. The discussion was left unresolved in the Paraclete section on this talk page - I think we should wait for more input from others before hastening to change the article. Shaad lko (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As this article is dealing 'entirely' with Islamic views, links to "Islamic view" is more proper as it refers reader to articles of the same suite, while reader can easily end up to any article of her/his choice; editors' best action would be maintaining continuity of tone. » nafSadh did say 05:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the case of Adam, there is not an Islamic Views of Adam article anymore, it's been merged with the main Adam article (the actual encyclopedic content was scarce enough that this was the practical solution). Whether it links to the Islamic Views section of the main article or just to the top of the main article, I don't know insofar as policy is concerned. Peter Deer (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont think there's any such policy - maybe we just have to discuss and evolve one right here. Linking to the Islamic views section (rather than page) may be a good idea as it may give the reader the overall perspective as well as maintain continuity. Shaad lko (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I don't know of any reason not to, I don't object. Peter Deer (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to general Prophets page or Islamic view of Prophets section 

message: I propose that the Prophets and messengers in Islam page should be merged be with this article, the difference between messengers and prophets is more accurately explained in the Distinguishing between prophets and messengers section in this article. Besides, the Prophets and Messengers article has a number of problems including too many quotations, wrong tone and writing style, it is also has only Quranic references which you can see in it's respective article. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be for keeping (mostly) this version of the page, but using that title. Peter Deer (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Merge, for the reasons enumerated by Raymond Phoenix. Sopholatre (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This article used several  templates. This edit removed the corresponding . Ref/Note wouldn't have worked well in this case anyhow because backlinks aren't resolved well. In this edit I restored the removed note and changed the Ref/Note methodology to use a footnote group instead. I also combined the restored note with another note which had not been removed. I barely know anything about this topic, though, so I'm not sure I got the sense of this right. Please take a look at what I've done and fix anything which needs fixing. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref/note 

message: Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: I know nothing of this religion. I parse:
: Islamic tradition holds that God sent messengers to every nation.[3] Muslims believe that Allah finally sent Muhammad to transmit the message of the Quran, the holy book which, according to Islam, is universal in its message. The reason the Muslims believe the Quran is universal and will remain uncorrupted is because they believe that previous Islamic holy books, namely the Torah given to Moses, the Psalms given to David, and the Gospel given to Jesus, were for a particular time and community and because they believe that, even if the books were corrupted, many prophets were still to come who could tell the people of what was correct in the scripture and warn them of corruptions. Muhammad therefore, being the last prophet, was vouchsafed a book which, in Muslim belief, will remain in its true form till the Last Day.
to mean that, although previous (divinely inspired) texts were corrupted, that was OK, because subsequent prophets could correct them. But the Koran can't be corrupt, because there were no prophets after M to correct it. Is that right? Or is this some bod's OR? There's no cite William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption / lede 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
====Support====
*Looks okay to me. "Prophets in Islam", "Islamic Prophets" or "Prophets of Islam" (like Prophets of Christianity), makes no difference from what I can see. Osiris (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Looks okay to me. "Prophets in Islam", "Islamic Prophets" or "Prophets of Islam" (like Prophets of Christianity), makes no difference from what I can see. Osiris (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose – Many are prophets in other religions. Also, "prophets" should not be capitalized when not the first word of the title, since the title follows sentence case. --Article editor (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Different sects of a religion can have different core beliefs. I see no reason for this removal. --NeilN talk to me 20:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the single edit summary by 64.26.134.201 ("There is a consencus amongst all Muslims that Muhammad (Allah bless him) is the last prophet. Ahmadiyya differ in definition of Prophet. It like adding Muslim view in the topic of Trinity"), I don't see that Ahmadiyya are not identified as a form of Islam. At various times, certain people have considered Latter Day Saints, Seventh-Day Adventists, and even Catholics to be "not Christian", yet that doesn't mean their views on various Christian topics should not be included in an encyclopedic manner.  In fact, an encyclopedic addressing on Islamic views on the Trinity is probably quite appropriate.  If Ahmadiyya are considered a Muslim sect, then the statement in the edit summary is false.  78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, our Ahmadiyya article explicitly refers to them as Islamic. There's the question if the material places undue emphasis on the sect but that should be hashed out on this page rather than edit-warring to remove the entire passage. --NeilN talk to me 00:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Ahmadiyya content