Talk:Event of the mubahala

message: I was playing 5ctj and... I think these two should link to each other... being essentially... yeah... what I see as things relating to the same event.  
I didn't fully read the link I'm posting so forgive me if I'm being ignorant on the subject.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mubahila  71.240.69.83 (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkage

message: @User:Sa.vakilian I'm going to improve the article using the secondary sources. This way, the article has a good chance of being kept. Please help by introducing facts from authentic secondary sources. Mhhossein (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mhhossein (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources 

message: @sa.vakilian I think we'd better move the page to "Verse of Mubahila" because the verse, its interpretation and circumstances of its revelation are much more important. By the way, we can keep the hadith section. Mhhossein (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @I agree with you, but let's ask @MezzoMezzo as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey  and , sorry for the delay. I'm not sure to be honest - if the issue includes both verses and traditions, then choosing one over the other seems sort of subjective. This article also deals not only with the associated ayat and ahadith but also the event in Najran itself. Would either of you be amicable to something like "event of Mubahala"? I'm just thinking because the Mubahala article is about the concept in general and this article is about a specific incident. This is just the first suggestion off the top of my head; I can't recall similar articles about significant religious events in other faiths which are recorded in primary religious texts. If we could think of some, it might give a sort of precedent for the specific naming of such articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Salaam  Thanks for your smart response. "event of Mubahala" is a good choice. But consider that, Mubahala article is not focusing on the concept. It is mainly talking about that specific event, as I figured out. I think Mubahala and the current hadith of mubahala article have almost the same subject (not same content) so that we'd better even merge them. Mhhossein (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Salam Alaykum, I agree with moving this article to "event of Mubahala" but disagree with merging with Mubahala. Mubahala is a general concept which may happen in different occasions. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Walaikum as salam guys. I think all three of us agree on the name change. I would prefer not to merge for the reasons Seyyed stated, but Mhhossein, I have a suggestion. How about we take some time to work on both articles, and then after a certain period of time revisit whether the content is too close for separate articles. Would that be alright with you? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I like to emphasize that Mubahala is mainly focusing on the event not the concept, although the lead and the title of the article verify your claims! So, we'd better at least exchange materials of both articles to have an article focusing on the concept and an article focusing on that special event of mubahala (prophet vs christians!). What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah man, that makes sense. Just give me a few to take a look at both more closely, I (like you I'm sure) have been a bit caught up with various projects. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's first merge Eid al-Mubahila in this article and then speak about Mubahala.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I  with Seyyed's idea for merging Eid al-Mubahila in this article. Mhhossein (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: Salaam. The parts you added is long and tangentially related to the article. Also the topics would better change. So, please summarize the paragraph under "Qur'an and Dialogue" and choose a better name for them. Mhhossein (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Qur'an and Dialogue

message: I have a question: 
Who relayed / reported the conversation the Christians were having amongst themselves to the Muslims?  There is no named person who shared what was being discussed in the Christian tents.  My reason in pointing this out is that one of the teachings of Yeshua HaMashiach is the following:
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [Luke 6: 27-28https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+6%3A+27-28&version=NIV]
The same message was later repeated in the letter to the Romans:
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. [Romans 12: 14https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+12%3A14&version=NIV]
I wonder why the Christians from Najran would have agreed to call down curses on Muhammad, or anyone else for that matter, as this is against the teaching of Christ and not in the Way of love.  This begs the question as to who relayed / reported the dialogue the Christians were having.  
It is quoted in al-Tafsir of al-Tha’labi: When they were alone, they asked al-'Aqib... so we can see this source testifies they spoke amongst themselves.  How can anyone have known what they were discussing "when they were alone?"  If they were alone, who then is the person(s) who testified or bore witness to what they actually decided to do and say the next day?  --HafizHanif (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity of Reported Dialogue Among The Visiting Christians 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: I noticed your useful edit here. Can it be said that the statement can be attributed to "Sidney H. Griffith" as the Ref suggests? Mhhossein (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to whom 

message: I noticed a contradiction here between sources. More soon ... Leo1pard (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be worth reading regarding the plural usage. Regarding the ezsoftech I am not saying that you have an unnecessary but one that seems to be unreliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Conflicting sources|WP: Conflicting sources]] 

message: Does anyone know of any reliable sources that mention the fact that not long after this mubahala cursing incident Muhammad and his daughter died, not to mention that decades later Ali was assassinated, Husayn murdered and Hassan removed (and poisoned to death, according to Shiites) from any leadership role within the nascent Muslim empire? This could be an interesting avenue to explore since Muhammad staked his legitimacy in this cursing incident yet it seemed to backfire, which would prove his illegitimacy. Such info could be added if reliable sources could be found. --121.189.72.182 (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point! I actually edited in this narrative, using sources that show dates and the deaths as you've mentioned (see article's edit history), yet it was removed due to apparent 'synthesis'. I do think there exists scholarship that points these things out, some of which I thought did, but I guess they didn't pass the opinions of other editors. Notice also certain objections (and the dialogue) in this talk page that I've raised. What are your thoughts? -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your input. Strangely, this very 'backfire' comment of mine was deleted not long after i added it initially. Some editors seek to silence when their beliefs are threatened. I will get back to you on your question once i have concluded my conflict with User:Emir of Wikipedia. --121.87.204.75 (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  Likewise, i thought i had come across a source that mentioned the 'backfire', but i can't find it so far. It's pointless to try and include it without reliable sources because it would be removed speedily. --121.87.204.75 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and this is why I included the various testimonies regarding what happened...and notice how they differ. All narratives are from Islamic sources, so bias is a constant. I'm sure there is at least a notable suggestion by a scholar that can be cited as to the deaths of Muhammad and child within a year. With that, it can be included into the article, hopefully in the lead. I'll be looking as well. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional possible content: curse backfires on Muhammad 

message: I'd like some clarity as to what is disputed regarding a recent edit I made. Is it the dates of birth and death? Would dates be important in this article? I think so. The issue of timing between the curse and the man's death has been discussed, so let's gather a consensus as to a) agreed-upon date of death for the man, and b) why would date of death be unreasonable to be include seeing they are only 27 visible characters.
(c. 570 AD – 8 June 632 AD)Elizabeth Goldman (1995), p. 63, gives 8 June 632 CE, the dominant Islamic tradition. Many earlier (primarily non-Islamic) traditions refer to him as still alive at the time of the invasion of Palestine. See Stephen J. Shoemaker,The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be better in the article about Muhammad. The length of 27 characters is not the issue. Does the source which has not had a page number given for over three years like the later death date to the curse? Many issues. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually in several other wiki articles; Kaaba, Christianity and Islam, Dawah, Muhammad's wives, and History of the Quran to name only five. I think including it would show this event (Mubahala) occurring at the tail end of Muhammad's religious campaign. Since this is the first official encounter with Christians (and likely the only official encounter of Christians with Muhammad), the historicity of it occurring prior to his death is notable and important. As to your question, what is another date of Muhammad's death? And are you asking that there is another date associated with this event of Mubahala with the Najrani? -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. If those articles have problems we can fix them later. Even still what is in those articles? I search on Kaaba and nothing matched the word "Goldman". Whether it occurred at the tail end is not for us to judge but the reliable sources. I am not saying any date of death, but I am saying that we should not mention the date of death unless a source links it to Mubahala. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you are confused. Those articles I shared mention Muhammad's year of death. I mentioned them to show there is no issue including the year of his death in this article. I simply cited a source that mentions the year for those who would have contention (as we can see). The issue is not Goldman's citation. And now you desire 'date of death' to have a link to Mubahala in order to allow it? You are quite confused. A person's date of death is mere reference to grant people an understanding of events happening during that person's lifetime. For example: 'did this event (any event) happen early in someone's career, or in the middle, or near the end?'. Such a date of death would allow such information to be gleaned at a glance. I've already expressed this in my prior response. It is logical. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After 3 days silence, by tacit agreement adding date of death (common in other articles related to the central character). If you have any other issues, by all means present them here so they may be discussed. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Have you at least recognized your confusion? Is that confusion resolved? What, then, is the issue? How does a date of death, found in a plethora of other articles where a main character (in this case, the central character) usually includes 'when' they existed (or at least died), and as also exemplified in the articles I mentioned as examples? You can quote your objections as you like, but your reasoning is faulty per evidence already present in many wiki articles. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping Emir of Wikipedia. It's simple! This is not a bio article and we don't need such a thing in the article. --Mhhossein talk 17:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , , are either of you going to remove, then, the date of death for Muhammad in the many articles where it is found as mentioned in Mhhossein's most recent edit? Secondly, would you Mhhossein care to adjust the Islamic date and year to coincide with those sources that date the event in western times? -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "many article" may be addressed in a later time, but certainly not now. The islamic date is Dhu'l-Hijja, 10 AH, should I change it? --Mhhossein talk 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course certainly not now, because it is a none-issue there as well as here. You asked about changing the Islamic date. I find it interesting you give a range of three years with three sources regarding civilized years. Which one is it? Cannot the civilized year/date be agreed upon? Or is it the Islamic date that is the confusion? You feel fine editing in three options, and then ask me about changing the legendary Islamic date? -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it's not that complicated. The sources are sure that the event happened in Dhu'l-Hijja, 10 AH. There are three sources with slightly different western timing. So what? Where's the contradiction? --Mhhossein talk 07:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onus, clarity, disputed material 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Event of Mubahala. 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  tag to http://www.almizan.org/tafsir/3-61-63/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814141005/http://almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume6/6Imran2.asp to http://almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume6/6Imran2.asp
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) 02:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article has been too much edited to simply revert them, but I just want to note that the following edits were made by sockpuppets of a banned user:  by ,  by ,  by . ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock edits 

message: Way too many unreliable sources on this page. I hope to edit the article in the near future with the aim of improving its prose and replacing or removing such sources. Albertatiran (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary or poor sources 

message: @Albertatiran: Hi, you have changed the title and I think the current one is not really fitting WP:TITLE. The previous one, i.e. "The event of Mubahala", was both concise and recognizable. Do you know any other notable Mubahala events being recorded in the history? Mhhossein talk 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , for some reason, I can't move the page to "Event of mubahala". I'll place a technical request for that tomorrow. Albertatiran (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title