Talk:Ashtiname of Muhammad

message: Who and where this has been disputed? There is not a single detail of this except claim?
--75.82.177.42 (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed???

message: Is this really the entire text? It looks much longer on the picture, doesn't it? 
It would also be nice if the article be expanded, with more analysis and explanations on the context in which it was written, and its importance for Muslims. The sources also need to be discussed: I think it was preserved in a Christian monastery in the Sinai, but is it also mentioned in the traditional Muslim sources (Ibn Ishaq, Al Tabari, etc.) ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the updates I've done on 10 December. Cavila (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire text? 

message: I just read an article on a news website that discusses this document.  May be of interest to add stuff to the wikipedia article from this.
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Prophet-Muhammads-promise-to-Christians.html
This link is not working,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Jazeera article

message: Wasn't Muhammad dead when the Arabs conquered Egypt??? -- Wayunga (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a dead man authorise an Achtiname? 

message: The words that caught me were "Careful guardian of the whole world". No Muslim, let alone their Prophet would assume this title. According to Muslims, the Guardian of all that was and would be is God and God alone. For those who can read Arabic, this phrase is not there. So, why was this translation used for the enlightenment of the masses when there are simpler, more eloquent translations available? Richard Pococke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pococke) lived and died about 400 years ago, an age when the Quran was referred to as 'The Satan's book' by the Church.
I am sure the keeper of this wiki must have gone to great lengths to find out this ancient piece of wrongly translated material. Question arises, and rightfully, why?
I am just wondering, in this day and age of internet and easy access to information, I wonder why such colloquial English has been used. Is it for the improvement of the English of the common reader or to better his knowledge? 
Plus, the term "Achtiname" is something I have never heard being used in English for anything other than this charter. Why not simply call it a charter for the common reader like myself?
Even the Anton F Haddad translation is lacking the flowing fluidity of the original. Surely there must be a better and simpler translation for today's times.
Internet anyone?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:2980:52F:48DB:650A:AB07:55AA (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been the available translation that was free of copyright.  There were similar problems on article "Athanasian Creed" in a purely Christian context, as you can see at Talk:Athanasian Creed... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientalist translation... 

message: Does the article really need two full translations? —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  if one is good, two must be better? 

message: This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and an example of why Wiki gets a bad name as a scholarly source. It is poorly written and biased, making no mention of serious and extensive questioning of the authenticity of the Ashtiname. 
This article should be flagged and tagged as disputed and biased. 
174.20.134.159 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased and inaccurate 

message: An example of this bias is the statement that Spencer's statement that the document is not cited in contemporary historical sources has been refuted. The earliest such source cited as a refutation dates to 785. A source from 150 years later is hardly contemporary. And the disputed document itself does not count as a citation.Bill (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ashtiname of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811102951/http://humanitiesportal.com/FA/ArticleView.html?ArticleID=192651 to http://humanitiesportal.com/FA/ArticleView.html?ArticleID=192651
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ashtiname of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113095907/http://www.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=68 to http://www.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=68
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: A huge portion of this page is based solely on the writings of Dr John Andrew Morrow, who does not appear to be affiliated with any institution. He is also the owner of the "Covenants of the Prophet" page that is repeatedly referenced throughout. I don't mean to cast any suspicion on his translation work, but I tried to find other sources, either in English or in Arabic, that study the document in question, and I've been unable to find many. If anyone can find some, I think it would contribute a lot to the article, which is very shaky as it stands. Dragoon17 (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for other sources 

message: John Andrew Morrow discusses a whole number of such Covenants, and he suggests that the one with the Armenian Christians of Jerusalem might be the central one between Muhammad and Christendom as a whole:
:"… the new Muslim authorities considered that the first Bishop of Jerusalem had been James, the brother of Jesus; that the Armenian Patriarchate was located on the site of his home; and that the Armenians preserved his relics. Consequently, they concluded that Bishop Abraham was the successor of Bishop James, and thus the only truly legitimate bishop in Jerusalem." (Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Armenian Christians of Jerusalem, p. 446).
This might be a biased p.o.v., Morrow aka Imam Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam might well have a certain agenda, however, from here to dedicating the entire Covenant of Muhammad article (see lead, where this is offered as another name for the document) to just the one written for St Catherine, might be seen as a stretch. Am I missing something? Arminden (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only the Covenant given to St Catherine deserves the name & the entire article?