Talk:Seal of the Prophets

message: The wording in this article is a gross violation of Wikipedia norms. Phrases like "all linguists and commentators agree" (when adjacent sections discuss ambiguities in wording) are bombastic exaggerations. Words of Prophet Muhammad are presented in a way suitable for a devotional Islamic publication, but not in a neutral encyclopedic article aimed at a general reader ("His words are authentic and a proof in itself"). There are many more instances of unacceptable style in the present version of the article, and it is clearly in a need of major revision. 
Disbalanced presentation: the "academic view section" is at least 20 times shorter than the presentation of orthodox Islamic view. Different views of the subject have to brought in balance, in accordance with Wikipedia neutrality policy. 
"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistent impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)
In addition to that, a number of references only specify the name of the author, not giving precise information on where and how the statement has been made. This is an unreliable and unacceptable style of referencing. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased unencyclopedic wording, unclear references

message: I have added  tag because the reference is not verifiable. Please provide complete edition you are referring to along with the name of publisher.  
 
--Abrar Ahmed (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibn al-Arabi's quotations un verifiable 

message: This is a scholarly topic requiring historical and theological material. Do not include hate material just because you do not agree with one of the editors. SaifullahKhalid
:Same Goes to you . Khalidkhoso 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate Material 

message: Please see WP:Quotes for the usage of quotes. If you would like to add material to articles, it's up to you to do the work. You can't just dump a bunch of stuff into the article and expect someone else to do the work. 
If you would like to add a quote, I suggest that you evaluate if the article has enough quotes already, if not, you want to evaluate your quotes and select the one or two that best illustrate the point you are trying to make. Then you can add them to the article, properly cited, and properly integrated into the article.--Editor2020 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I propose to remove the banner, and merge with Ahmiddyya section 90.192.59.155 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic is also a concept within mainstream Islam too.Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree, but which heading will be chosen?Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree--88.111.123.155 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not mainstream Islam 

message: Available on http://archive.org/search.php?query=Futuhat%20Makkiyah%20AND%20collection%3Atoronto (Arabic)
http://archive.org/details/Futuhat-ul-makkiyyah-UrduTranslation (Urdu)
Tahira Shah (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibn al-Arabi's references 

message: I am about to add a new section to this article "Contradictory views". This will hold views of muslims from seventh till the nineteenth century who did not hold prophethood to be final. I will be including Ibn-e-Arabi, Hazrat ayesha and Nawab Siddique Hassan Khan. I neither engage in, nor condone edit wars. So please give your views about this addition here. I will not add till the new year so 5 days are time enough to debate this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoubtedly you will be gathering these views from Ahmadi literature. Be aware that you cannot decisively make statements about the beliefs of the Muslims in question without references to reliable third-party sources (see WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:Identifying reliable sources#Quotations). For example, with regards to Ibn Arabi: Due to the complexity of his writings, one quote could easily be used to show that he did not believe prophethood to be final, while another quote, even from the same work, could be used to show the opposite. Likewise, the statement of `A'ishah recorded in Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah is interpreted in accordance with the doctrine of finality by classical scholars, while it is interpreted differently by Ahmadis. Even Western academics come to different conclusions (see the papers of Friedmann and Rubin referenced in the article). So you cannot present either interpretation as the final word on the belief of `A'ishah.--Axiom292 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be providing at least 100 scholarly sources, and I do not aim to use even a single Ahmadi source so I don't think WP:Identifying reliable sources#Quotations will be hurt, also WP:PRIMARY does not apply to direct quotations from history like books of Hadith and traditions.WP:NPOV will be kept in view ofc. Thanks for the input.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read each of these hundred sources yourself? Or are you referring to them through a secondary source (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT)? If there is any dispute would you be able to provide the relevant passages to show that your interpretation is correct and not out of context? Actually direct quotations are exactly the sort of thing that WP:PRIMARY is about. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."  If you could provide some examples of what you want to include it would help us come to a decision.--Axiom292 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Axiom292 I have read them myself. I also scanned the pages. should I upload them somewhere on wikipedia? or someplace else? Please give your opinion. ty FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @FreeatlastChitchat That would not be necessary unless there was some dispute over the accuracy of some claim or quote. Again, can you give an example to show the type of content you wish to include? Thanks.--Axiom292 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: sure an accurate example will be from the book "Tahzir ul Naaas" by Allama Qasim , founder of Deoband school of thought. He explains the Quranic verse in which the word "Khatam-an-Nabiyyin" is used and then writes on page 25 of his commentary that "Even if a prophet comes after the Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW, even then his rank as being 'Khatam an Nabiyyin' will not be effected". I have the scanned copy of the relevant pages to show that this quote is directly from him.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this is not an acceptable use of a primary source. A single out-of-context quote is not sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion on a person's beliefs, unless it is so explicitly clear and self-explanatory that it requires no interpretation. For example, "It is my religion and belief that after the Messenger of Allah SAW, there is no possibility for there to be another prophet. Whoever hesitates on this, I consider him a kafir" (Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi, "Aqidah-yi khatm-i nubuwwat", Munazarah-yi Ajibah, p.144). If you had actually read Tahzirun-Nas, you would see that in the passage you have quoted, the author is writing about intrinsic/essential prophetic sealship (khatm-i nubuwwwat zati), which would remain unaffected even if, hypothetically, a prophet was to come after the Seal of Prophets. Nowhere does the author deny chronological sealship (khatm-i nubuwwwat zamani), but rather he affirms it as a necessary consequence of essential sealship. For a summary and explanation on Nanautawi's views see Khalid Mahmud's introduction to Tahzirun-Nas, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri's al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad, or Manzur Nu'mani's Faisalah kun munazarah.--Axiom292 (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory views 

message: "Of the ten qirā’āt (readings, methods of recitation) regarded as authentic – seven mutawātir and three mashhūr – "
The linked page describes the first term as only applying to verses, not pronounciations. The second term is not described in the page it links to. Both links go to the same page, discussing the ahadith specifically and exclusively, whereas this is supposedly about a Quran verse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.36 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information in redirect 

message: There is a paragraph looking like a mathematical derivation in the Bahá'i section. It doesn't seem to be meaningfully related to the rest of the article and doesn't end up making a relevant point. I think it should be deleted.
131.111.184.8 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maths in Bahá'i section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khatam an-Nabiyyin. 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/20141012043119/http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=114432 to http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=114432
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) 09:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Khatam an-Nabiyyin. 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/20140606204827/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202024354/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php
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) 20:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The term Khatam an-Nabiyyin was copied from the Old Testament, Book of Daniel 9:24,  in which Daniel used thaf exact world: Khatam, and the same expression:
 to "seal"  the vision/prophecy and seal the prophet.
Seal does not mean "last" in this term,  but to fulfill, to confirm that, that's the prophet amd the prophecy.
The phrase was added to the Quran, probably because Christians are obsessed with this Chapter of the Jews Bible (some, until this day)... Ronmar24 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khatam an-Nabiyyin is copied from Bible Book of Daniel 9:24 

message: In June 2020 your edit added a "Pakistan" section at the top of the article. I'm not sure where the section belongs, but certainly not at the top of the article. A5 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan 

message: Ahmadiyya school of thoughts translate Khātam al-Anbiyā’ (خاتم الأنبياء‎; or Khātim al-Anbiyā’) as a “GREATEST”. 
If Muhammad pbuh is the GREATEST of all Nabees and Rehmat-Ul-Lil-Alameen (Merciful and compassionate to all creation not just human) as well then doesn’t Khātam al-Anbiyā’  along with the foregoing title of Rehmat-Ul-Lil-Alameen nullify the prediction of any Nabi of a rank lower than GREATEST after Him (pbuh)? 
I don’t know much about Ahmaddiya’s version of belief but I believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was neither GREATEST as explained above nor had the title of Rehmat-Ul-Lil-Alameen and this is very well known to the believers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad -Right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.125.141 (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khatam an-Nabiyyin 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below.  Dekimasuよ! 04:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Khatam an-Nabiyyin →  – This subject already has a clear and overwhelmingly prevalent English WP:COMMONNAME for which it is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this being Seal of the Prophets, which bests "Khatam an-Nabiyyin" or "Khatam al-Nabiyyin" on Google Scholar by 64,000 hits to 250 (combining 160 for one spelling, 90 for the other), and also crushes both on Ngrams. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. PepperBeast (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Support. Is that how I vote? A5 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . Normally the "support" or "oppose" is bolded, but I would suggest reading WP:NOTVOTE; we don't make decisions by the number of editors in favour or opposed to an option, but by the strength of argument - as such, it is useful for you to explain why you support this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 May 2022