Talk:Hadith of the Quran and Sunnah

POV

Doesn't some of this text sound like it doesn't conform to NPOV? Especially the part after the "Scientific Method" and how it proves that Mohammed was inspired because he couldn't possibly know how to "follow the clues" in teh Qur'an? 68.198.153.137 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agreee, Also the Line "The Arabs, who had the most developed language and poetry in the world at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, were stunned to hear the Qur'an from an unlettered man." -This doesnt conform to standards here.

What? Ask any historian and he/she'll confirm that the Arabs had a developed language, great poetry, and thus a developed society. What standards are you talking about? Wikipedia provides the facts, and that line is factual.

No one is doubting here (yet) that the Arabs of that time had "a developed language", but the article text in question says "the most developed language". Quite a different story, and begs many questions.Sigil7 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More POV

I agree this is a terribly biased and unsupported text, some of which can not even be supported empirically such as that the anticipation of modern technology COULD not have been been inspired by any other then a higher deity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.208.162.21 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

^ no they actually had the most developed lang. and poetry in the world at that time. It is you who are biased.

According to whom? Compared to which other language? To which other culture's poetry? And please sign your posts with four tildes (~).Sigil7 01:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's do keep it civil in here. People such as myself are genuinely interested to find good information about Qur'an. NPOV means "neutral point of view". This article is not written from a neutral point of view. Although much of the content is generally known to be true (most people know that Islamic culture was the seat of much early learning in math, sciences, law, architecture etc), there are no citations provided.

Are you sure you are in the right article ? This article isn't about Islamic science (a mixed bag of nuts given 1/2 pseudoscience and 1/2 science and it all stopped after a few hundred years). Ttiotsw 06:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to wider statements made in the article about the regional culture. Remember we're talking about a time when science hardly existed in Europe, pseudo- or otherwise.

Apologia

This article reads like an apologetic -- an embarrassing exercise in unbridled hagiography.

--rasqual 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Need more clarity on name of Ramadan prior to revelation of Islam.

According to Ramadan article it was established in the year 638 and yet this article says that..

"The Prophet Muhammad used to retreat annually to a cave at the top of a mountain near Mecca during the Month of Ramadan where he meditated in seclusion. In 610 AD he was visited in the cave during his sleep ....etc etc etc"

It can't be "Ramadan" if the concept was invented after he had these visions. What was it called prior to being called Ramadan and more importantly why did he do that ? Was it local custom, Jewish or Christian (i.e. further influence of Waraqa bin Nawfal ) ? Ttiotsw 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe 'Islamic calendar' will help. ITAQALLAH 13:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not clear from Islamic_calendar#Pre-Islamic_calendar what calendar was used. Going to have to read more stuff. Given the older first month name was Nasi (month) and it then lost out to Muharram so it probably was based on the (Hillel II) "modern" Hebrew calendar and that may have coincided with Adar (which had a intercalary month too). Bit of WP:OR on my part as I've only glanced at this for a few minutes but the month 9 on from Adar (missing the intercalary month of Nasi which was eventually dropped) would make it wrap around and land on Cheshvan. This Hebrew month doesn't have fasts in it: maybe why that was picked so Islamic fasts didn't coincide with Hebrew ones ?. Like I said - all WP:OR for me but someone else must have worked this out !. Ttiotsw 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Exchanged two subsections

I've exchanged the Sunni and Shi'a points of view. The reason is that the link to Sahaba is directly accessable from the Shi'a paragraph, but not from the Sunni one, so it makes more sense to have it first (I cliked on the "all Sahaba are righteous" link in the Sunni one when I first read the article, it was confusing).

by the way, if this doctrine is for both Sunni and Shi'a, what is the reason for having the sentence "In other words, following the Qur'an and Sunnah is not a Sunni-specific doctrine"? Davidsevilla | Talk 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Quran and Sunnah → Hadith of the Quran and Sunnah – This article is not about the sources of Islam, it is about a specific hadith and the controversy surrounding it. Changing the title to include the word hadith makes that clear. This new title meets the five requirements of policy in Wikipedia:Article titles, namely: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. See Category:Hadith under "H". Bejnar (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Technically, the current title doesn't tell readers the actual topic of the article. In general, articles about hadith on Wikipedia have titles which start with "Hadith of..." MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Bejnar & MezzoMezzo Jason from nyc (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is this article about?

Honest question: What is this article supposed to be about? I entered "Quran and Sunnah" in the search engine and found this. I thought I find an article about the famous Salafi-Sloagan "Back to Quran and Sunnah"; isntead here is an article called "hadith of the Quran and Sunnah". So, it is an article about a hadith, that is about hadiths, or what is this supposed to mean? An article should be based on terms which are indeed explored in academic circiles, and not blog-entries about certain topics one wants to write about as this article currently looks like. I hope I am mistaken and one can explain me that the purpose of this article is.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Edit: THis article seems to be about a specific hadith about hadiths indeed. How is this hadith notable for an encyclopedia-entry? Do we want to make an article for any dispute among hadith?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge

This article should be merged with Hadith al-Thaqalayn as it's about a Sunni version of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn in which the reference to the Ahl al-Bayt has been replaced with the Sunna. Indeed, we read in Hadith al-Thaqalayn, "In some Sunni versions of the hadith, the word sunna appears instead of ahl al-bayt." Unlike Hadith al-Thaqalayn, this article is poorly and unreliable sourced (except the background section) which also strengthens the case for a merger. In fact, I can't think of any good reason why there should be two Wikipedia articles about the same hadith. Albertatiran (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it needed dealing with. Well done. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)