Talk:Sīrah

message: Muhammad is not the only prophet in the world. The title assumes that he is. Title should be changed to something neutral like Biographies of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. I don't think you would want to use Biographies of Muhammad, because there have been many thousands of notable Muhammads. Zora (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'd call this something like Biographies of the Prophet Muhammad or something similar. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you make the change? I am embroiled in roommate drama right now and have no energy to spare. Zora (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, please - the title should change.  This page could remain as a stub, pointing to the various pages of prophetic biographies extant. 111.193.179.65 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad title 

message: It is written from a pious Muslim POV, uses pious interjections, and needs a complete rewrite. The hadith template should go too. Hadith are not sira.
Zora 13:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not? Isn't the book a colection of matn? Or is it writen like a cohesive narrative?--Striver 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is a mess 

message: I think we should move this to "Sira", and use "" template to link to the disambig page.Bless sins 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: move to sira

message: fixed the language in the intro up to be less informal. Also, the introduction refers Sharia as Islamic Sciences. I'm 95% certain this is incorrect. Anyone care to comment 130.225.202.73 16:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been done. Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  slight changes and a question 

message: Here's a piece from NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA, By W. N. ARAFAT. From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,(1976), pp. 100-107:
"One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories. "
 
9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied.
10. d. 179.
11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12.
12. ibid, I, 16. Faro0485 (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: there is a text at the top of the page " "Sirat" redirects here. For other uses, see Sirat (disambiguation). "
The said disambiguation page doesn't exist. So what's the point in having this text at the top of the page? shouldn't it be removed? Jay (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sirat(disambiguation)

message: I certainly do not have detailed knowledge of this stuff, but it seems odd to me that the article states that that the sirat was written 150 years after Muhammad died, yet according to the article Ibn Ishaq died in 150-153 AH, 140 years after Muhammad died?
It does say that he collected the oral traditions, so perhaps someone else wrote it afterwards? Still, the article should make this clear.
Babloyi (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of the biography 

message: This entire article and related articles rely solely on Orientalist scholars many of whom are outwardly hostile to Islam. Should at the very least be balanced by contemporary Muslim scholars as well.￼ 113.211.119.150 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire post only quotes from Orientalists