Talk:Farewell Sermon

message: This seems to be the subject of a dispute. I put "final" back in, in accordance with the page Prophets of Islam which the word immediately after "final" links to, and also in accordance with the sermon itself (no prophet or apostle will come after me). If there is still disagreement, why not discuss it here or on that page rather than edit warring? -Dan 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that he was the final prophet of Islam is disputed by some Muslims and among others, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The NPOV solution for Wikipedia I believe is not choose a side in this discussion. -- Karl Meier 09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahmadiyyas believe that the second coming of Jesus came in the form of Hazrat Muhammad, the Mahdi. Further, Ahmadi's are not Muslim, in much the same way that Christians are not Jewish - Though they share most of the same Prophets, there are a different religion. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact is that they don't believe that Mohammad was the last prophet. They only believe that he was the last "law-bearing prophet". Another fact is that they call themselves Muslims, and that does, from a neutral point of view make them as much Muslims as any other sect that call itself islamic. -- Karl Meier 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to add a section on the Amahdis, go ahead, but stop screwing around with perfectly legitamate text! --Irishpunktom\talk 09:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what I want is the text to be neutral. I don't want it to advance any POV above any other POV (Sunni, Shi'a, Amahdis or whatever). Unless you make some serious suggestion to how NPOV should be archieved on this article, I'll have to revert your POV editing again. -- Karl Meier 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Of cource we need to disambid the name in the first mentioning. I added "traditional" to exlcude the Bahai and such.--Striver 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? What other Muhammad do you think the readers might confuse the Muhammad we are talking about with? As I see it, in this article it's obvious, and there is no need to clarify it when mentioning him here. -- Karl Meier 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering Muhammad is the most comon name in the world, i would argue that there is a need to disambig. --Striver 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Final" prophet

message: Incidentally, the translation of the text as it stands could also probably use some citation. In fact, for all three slightly different versions. -Dan 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of translation 

message: No need to have duplicates. --Striver 12:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My arabic isn't that great, but isn't that really the farewell pilgrimage? Or are we merging those too? 70.30.114.134 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok. Then it needs to be redirected to farewell pilgrimage... actualy, it seems like Hujjat Alwada'e needs to be merged into both farewell pilgrimage & sermon. --Striver 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged it into the pilgrimage. There didn't seem to be any new information about the farewell sermon (as opposed to Ghadir Khumm). 70.30.114.134 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I propose to move the original text to Wikisource.Bless sins 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What original text? I have looked at several online versions of the sermon. Some of them contain passages about Arabs, non-Arabs, white people and black people being equal. Others don't contain any such passage. Many of them contain a passage about striking women, which is omitted here. This does not seem to be the correct text.  Paul B 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bless sins--OsamaK 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text

message: I have added a "no footnotes tag".
The sermon  that is on wikipedia as of march 2011, does not even have a source. it links to a website were it is hosted. but that website does not give the original source.
furthermroe, there is a reference in the main article saying that the farewell sermon is just many different Hadith placed together. In that case it should be removed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research or similiar
unless somone can state the exact source. or anyone might as well join many different quotes of muhammad together, and make up 1 single quote and an article about it. by doing this, you can make it as if muhammad said whatever you like him to say--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifcation failed (no footnotes tag, failed verification, and others tags added)

message: the identical article should be deleted if no primary sources are found
the identical article to this "Khutbaul wada" has been nominated for deletion, same criteria also applies here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khutbatul_Wada%27
--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't it explained to you that the event is notable enough for an article ? Why do you insist on deleting it then ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

text: As the exact text of the Sermon has not be reliably sourced, the text has been removed.  If the text is to be restored, please only do so if a reliable source (preferably a peer-reviewed journal or published book, and preferably NOT a website that cannot be verified as reliable in itself) can be provided. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake quote-I think article should be deleted

message: People keep constantly adding back the quote of a well known farewell sermon by S H Faizi, which is actually fake and not the words of Muhammad.
Every time this popular farewell sermon is added back, please delete it. As it was discussed here before (see deletion log) when this article was nominated for deletion, that the quote should be removed because they are fake.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead - can we talk about the controversy? Can we say who says it is fake and why? Secretlondon (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: its fake because it doesnt have a primary source, it first appeared in a 20th century book by S H Faizi--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Miconceptions2. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that discuss this quote, and its first appearance? Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence 1 this is where i gave evidence its fake. but more evidence its fake is found here: Evidence 2 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of those sources qualify as a WP:RS though. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Found citation for older source here. Maybe someone can check Rehatsek's 1898 translation as well since there is some talk of Guillaume borrowing from Tabari?Barakitty (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete fake content

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) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari are NOT the "earliest" sources and have NEVER been considered authentic within Islamic tradition. The authors themselves say they DID NOT AUTHENTICATE the reports they recorded, they basically recorded everything people said. The ahadith collection contains the AUTHENTICATED reports and PREDATES Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari. There are more hadith books than simply the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim which are the most rigorously authenticated, but not the earliest. Additionally the earliest tafsirs or commentaries (including, for example, Tafsir Ibn Abbas and others which record commentaries of Muhammad's companions) also cite the sermon and corroborate the hadiths.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.100.148 (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tabari is a much better source that "Ahmad H. Sakr". As for you saying that Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari "have NEVER been considered authentic within Islamic tradition", this is not true. They are well known respected sources. See their Wikipedia pages. These are valid Islamic sources and cannot be removed. --Gene90 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of bad/suspicious edits 

message: Smacks of POV. It is highly debatable that Muhammad was speaking to ALL mankind and not just to Muslims. For example, Muhammad in his last sermon used the word "pre-islamic' two times, and both times he did so he was differentiating between non-muslim and muslim [who were the people he was speaking to of course]. Also keep in mind that Muhammad banned ALL non-Muslims from Arabia when he on his deathbed just a few months later, and to this day the cities of Mecca and Medina are off limits to non-Muslims... A person who would do that, seems very unlikely to make a speech for all mankind, for sure he was speaking only to Muslims. 
"Universality of the speech" is POV. 107.222.205.242 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The more important problem is that the "Universality of the speech" section is original research (WP:OR). I have taken it out. --Gene90 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universality of the speech 

message: I have been trying to find a source for the popular version of the sermon, beginning with, "O People lend me an attentive ear," commonly appearing on websites and posters. This sermon has been labeled a fabrication and attributed to S.F.H. Faizi, based on the "research" of some anti-Islam writer. I have not seen Faizi's book Sermons of the Prophet myself, but it appears that this is not actually the version appearing in Faizi's book. Faizi's version is much longer, quoted here from the 1991 edition of Sermons of the Prophet. As for the version beginning with "O People, lend me an attentive ear," the earliest occurrence that I can find is this forum post from 1992. The author of the post writes: "The following is the translation of our Prophet's Last Sermon.  This is from an authentic source (ISLAM Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar, published by The Muslim Educational Trust, London, UK)." Islam: Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar was first published in 1980. I found a pdf of its 8th edition (2006) online. The sermon in the book (pgs.116-117) is noticeably different from the forum post. Parts are missing from the book and vice-versa, and other parts are worded differently. For example, it begins, "O People, listen to my words carefully..." But at the same time some parts are exactly the same, word for word. It is possible that the sermon posted online could be from an older edition of Sarwar's book. It is also possible that it is a combination of different sources. Besides this forum post citing Sarwar, no webpage cites a source for this sermon (other than citing other webpages). Axiom292 (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Faizi" version 

message: I read in the article that "The narration is translated by I. K. Poonawala in The History of al-Tabari, vol. IX: The Last Years of the Prophet (1990), as follows: '...Treat women well, for by virtue of their vows and responsibilities they have bound themselves to your homes(‘awānin) and entrusted themselves to you. "
This is completly false. Poonawala translates: "Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves. " (https://books.google.it/books?id=SWPQfmdf5J4C&pg=112&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22treat%20women%20well%22&f=false)
Please correct. No WP user has the right to change a quote from a book. --93.150.139.45 (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: re the words of a 'direct quotation' not corresponding to the words of the citation. This is now fixed. Speedrailsm (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  what's going on there? I have returned to this article to notice  that someone changed again the Poonawala's translation. I read now in the article "for they are [like] prisoners ('awan) ". Poonawala translates "domestic animals" and not "prisoners". Is this normal for Wikipedia? --93.150.194.218 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poonawala's translation  

message: The article is poorly sourced and is not good. I will improve it by adding reliable secondary sources, removing primary ones  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiksome (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You added "The sermon was delivered in front of more than a hundred thousand Muslims" without giving a source. The Bassiouni and Curtis sources you added were undue in such a limited context, and would have to be attributed even if we had a longer section on the more notable and significant forms of later influence. You outright removed primary sources, but did not replace them. I therefore reverted your edit. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly sourced

message: According to your own references, the citation of Sahih Muslim for the "Farewell Sermon" is not correct.  It should be: Sahih Muslim, Bk. VII, Hadith 2803
See Sahih Muslim (Internet Archive - 1), pgs. 701 ff.
See: Sahih Muslim (Internet Archive) - 2, pgs. 440 ff.
Mwidunn (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sahih Muslim reference Is Wrong