Talk:Muhammad's first revelation

The first sentence stated as a fact?

The first sentence states: "Muhammad's first revelation was the event in which Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel who revealed to him a verse from the Quran." That sounds like it actually happened. That is way POV. I've edited to be less of a statement of fact and more alleged event. Such a statement is not Wiki appropriate and wouldn't fly on ANY alleged prophet's page like say Joseph Smith. I'm suprised people aren't keeping this better cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.18.70 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Night of power

Can someone explain to me how this is separate from the Night of Power? --Russell's teapot (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's the same event. I think this article should be merged with Night of Power.

What should be understood is the 'first revelation' article speaks to the claim that Muhammad had an encounter and support for that claim. The 'night of power' article is largely the development and dogmas growing from the claim, and thus goes into how the religion formed around the claim or what developed since (traditions).

At a glance, it is understood why it may seem the two are the same...since this is how religions are often understood from within, but not when looked at objectively. Perhaps within one of the articles (first revelation) there can be made a section summarizing the dogmas / traditions developed from the claim (with a link to 'night of power' page), and the like done at the 'night of power' page. Otherwise it would be an issue of syncretism by conjoining two articles assuming both being about the same thing, which they are not when looking closely. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing is necessary

@SharabSalam: Assalamualaikum, Can I ask you devote some times to this article in order to check it generally. I think that it includes some long quotations or some sources are not reliable! I am going to create the article about مبعث, unfortunately, my time limitation doesn't let me edit both articles! Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing Saff V., I agree with you. I think even the title is wrong. I will try to do my best. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., You said you are going to create the article of مبعث but this article seems to me about the same topic also both the Persian and the Arabic articles of مبعث are linked to this article. As I said the title is wrong. There is no second revelation so that it would be called first revelation (there are also a lot of mistakes and rambling in this article) and BTW its called البعثة النبوية in Arabic which means the Prophetic Mission of Prophet Muhammad according to this source . we can just rename this article and fix it's errors instead of creating a new article because IMO that would cause a chaos because both the article in Persian and in Arabic that are linked to this article are about مبعث. Thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a million! As I have searched the Prophetic Mission does not happen at the same time as Muhammad's first revelation (e.g Ja'farian's book about a lifetime of the prophet. There are a lot of ideas about the first revelation at various time and places (رمضان، رجب....). In the other hand, the disscussion led us to create an independent article named Divine designation of Muhammad as a prophet or Prophetic Mission! Saff V. (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Date

The Laylat_al-Qadr article correctly explains that the date for Laylat al-Qadr does not appear in the Quran, though Shia's 'generally conclude' it's the 23rd. The first paragraph of this article states, as fact, that it's the 17th of Ramadan. Both cannot be true. Could someone else with more knowledge than I weigh in here please? Itsfini (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you to the anonymous user that's gone in and added considerable content on this point. I don't suppose anyone has any references for it, because, at the moment, it reads rather like it might fail NPOV and/or WP:NOR ? I'm happy to tidy up the article once they're in because this singular point is quite dominating the article at present. Itsfini (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is getting silly again. We now have an introduction that says (1) it was on Friday 6th August, followed by a sentence saying (2) 6th August was a Thursday, followed by a sentence saying (3) it was Monday 10th August. We then have a MASSIVE three sections of the article explaining why it was the night of Monday 13th December. I do not, for one minute, expect an agreement to be reached here except, can we all agree that the date is clearly disputed? I suggest moving all of this discussion out of the introduction and into a (smaller) Date subheading that explains the different interpretations without taking over the article. Itsfini (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone in and made this change. Itsfini (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Western date, Monday 10 August 610 (Julian), attributed to Mubarakpuri in the first paragraph is impossible in any version of the Islamic calendar. It was full moon and can thus never be the 21st in any lunar month. AstroLynx (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Putting PBUH after Muhammads name

Can we please put PBUH after Muhammad's name please? The Spotty Cow (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, use of pbuh (other than in titles or direct quotations where it already appears) violates Wikipedia's core policy of strict neutrality as generally described in WP:NPOV, and is specifically dealt with in MOS:PBUH (click on the highlighted links for details). Wikipedia's neutrality means it does not wish peace upon anybody.

UrielAcosta (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is said in one of the wikipedia pages so you are violating your own policy? And I'm saying it as it is a respective thing to call my Prophet and I find it disrespectful when someone does something like that to him.

I would be grateful if you could fulfil this please . The Spotty Cow (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not Wikipedia, it's Wiktionary, and it's not a rule for editors to follow, it's just a dictionary definition of a word - just as, for example, Mahound is a word defined in wiktionary, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can say that Muhammad is a demon worshipped by Muslims. Wikipedia is neutral, and neither respects nor disrespects anybody. Therefore, your explicitly stated desire to add pbuh as a mark of respect demonstrates exactly why it must not be added, and your reference to "my prophet" demonstrates exactly why it violates neutrality: he may be your prophet, but he is not Wikipedia's, therefore he may not be treated as a prophet by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does have an explicit rule for editors and it's MOS:PBUH, which clearly says it should not be included and should be removed if it is.

UrielAcosta (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)