Talk:Treaty of al-Hudaybiya

message: This article should be merged with Treaty of Hudaybiyya or vice-versa.Timothy Usher 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge these articles

message: Why does the text from the treaty say "Muhammad (SAW)"? --AW 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? --AW 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad (SAW) ? 

message: I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewis is a well known academic. Misdemenor (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: The Aftermath section states:
Muhammed considered the Banu Bakr attack a breach of the treaty, citing one of the clauses of the treaty: "an attack on an ally of the party, will be considered an attack on the party itself"[...]
but the Treaty section is written as if it contains the full text of the treaty.  This clause does not appear in the treaty, as it appears in the Treaty section.  It would be good if a knowledgeable person could clarify this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.75.165 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty and Aftermath Conflict 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. 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/20080502032523/http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=461 to http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=461
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) 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hudaybiyyah treaty was not respected by Mohammed.
Two years after it was signed (when his army grew to 10K)
Mohammed conquered Mecca.
Hudaybiyyah treaty was mentioned as a reason how come Egypt or the PLO were allowed to sign agreements with Israel even though Islam cannot allow independent non-islamic countries on a ground once belonged to muslims.
When i read this article i'm feel like it is trying to show it not as it is.
It is misleading, it is pro-islamic. It has an agenda to hide the uncomfortable parts.
It says "how islam can be spread not by the sword" - well, it was spread by the sword when Mohammed was strong enough, then he threw the treaty out the window.
And this smart way Islam misled the people of Mecca? it happens right now and right here in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.30.181 (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of the article 

message: Umar's questioning of the prophet's diplomacy is mis-characterized in the article as a cause of distrust. What is recorded in the Hadith in terms of questioning (), is a rhetorical instrument in the Arabic language. When Umar asks “Are you not the true prophet of God?” - that doesn't mean he's doubting it, instead he's building up a logical argument to his question. As if he's saying "Since you are the true prophet of God, why then, are you making this concession?". This is a common rhetorical device in Arabic, and it does not mean he's casting doubt on the belief.
Mmkaram (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umar's Opposition as a Title needs to be refined 

message: An IP editor claims that the following cited statement is original research:
:This has even been recorded in Sahih Muslim.
Please could they explain why they believe this to be the case.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Sahih, Volume 3, mean volume 3 of the edition advertised here. Since the seven volume set has about 4,000 pages, the pagination must be by set rather than by volume.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that cited text is original research