Talk:Medina

Article comment

The following comment by 202.156.2.202 is moved from the main article page before a reversion:

"When the Jews refused to convert, the qibla was changed from Jerusalem to Makkah." The aforementioned statement is incorrect.In actuality, the order to change the Qibla was ordered by Allah as in the Quran and not due to refusal of the Jews to convert to Islam.

rhyax 08:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the truth. I can confirm this. I have got a certified copy of the original tape.

Why was it reverted?

I made some corrections to the text yesterday, but it has been reverted. I corrected the paragraph on naming, putting the correct full official name "al Madina alMunawwarah". I also updated the estimated population to match the number published by the Medina provincial governate. Finally I corrected the paragraph regarding the prophet's mosque: The kind chambers (the prophet's apartment) was not originally part of the mosque, it was incorporated into the mosque 90 years later as part of the mosque's fourth expansion. Can you please reinstate the changes?

changing of the Qibla

On the issue of the changing of the Qibla, I see that the sentence should be removed. Wikipedia aims to take a neutral stance, so any hypothesis (however reasonable to a western reader) should not be stated in such an unequivical manner. Best to just state the empirical fact without any of the perceived reasoning for the change (ie. The direction of the Qibla was changed in the year XXX . full stop). Or at least integrate into the paragraph a sentence that clearly shows that it is disputed by muslims. In any case why is this in the Medina page? It should be on the page about Islam.

Can you folks sign and date these entries? I have no idea how old this discussion is. Anyway, Medina has nothing to do with the Qibla. It might warrant a mention on Mecca, and of course it should feature on Qibla, but not here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

All Islamic sources record the tribes breaking the treaty. However, I will put in the exact text from the Banu Qurayza article if you feel that is necessary.Heraclius 14:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I included a sentence that exhibited concern over the fact that the only sources there are are Islamic ones written 2 centuries after the event. This means that the event itself may have been quite whitewashed and we will never know the truth.Heraclius 15:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno has just removed the info I added calling it irrelevant. Ironically, Zeno's version contains no mention of the execution of the tribes, making it very POV.Heraclius 05:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

While some of it was relevant, the part about the judge was trivia, and certainly didn't belong in a small article like this about the city. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I still think Sa'ad ibn Mua'dh is relevant as the article was made for a reason and it should be linked to, even in the historical section of a city.Heraclius 05:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to have anything to do with the city, even if there is an article about him. Can you explain why he is important to the city? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Muslim histories he knew enough about the city to be appointed a judge over the fate of one of the tribes and he also was an ally of one of the tribes.Heraclius 05:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim histories say nothing about the city, just about his relationship with the tribes. Trivia. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Being a chief of the one of the most powerful factions in the city warrants a mention.Heraclius 14:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dome of the Prophet

The page called the Dome of the Prophet "Gumbat-e-Khizra". But is that not the Persian name? If so, there is no conceivable reason why it should be used since Arabic is both the language of Islam and the only local language. I changed it to "Qubbat an-Nabi", which I believe to be the correct Arabic equivalent. If I am wrong, I apologize.

could you also write why the holy cities of medina and makkah are off limits to non-muslims

because you're not muslims

History

Begining of the third para in the History section just does not make any sense. Which tribes were hostile and to whom? Alsandro 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Peace be Upon Him

Is it really necessary to add this after each instance where Muhammad is mentionned? It seems redundant, and it makes for a less agreable reading.

I didn't change it in order not to offend anyone, but I was wondering if it was necessary. I saw no such redundance in the Muhammad article itself.

• saying this in the text is not NPOV! It is a religious statement for an encyclopedia that should not have religious sentiments. Pastorwayne 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah i think it's too much, in arabic we have to say that but when it comes to writing in arabic there is a small block of words that says that, but in english you don't have it so i guess it's fine --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why has this been nominated for a neutrality check?

Why has this been nominated for a neutrality check? The article deals up facts and nothing else. Is it safe to assume that someone doesn't like the information being made easily known?

• The article was tagged after I asked about the "Peace be Upon Him" statements which were after each instance of Muhammad. It is has been removed now (not by me, but I do agree with it). Lunargent 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • it is important to all who follow islam to say these words when readina bout Prophet Muhammed. You can remove the "pease be upon him" and replace with "(SAW)" which means the same thing. it means Sallah wallahiwasalim... which in arabic means "peace be upon him"

• • • Why not write "Muhammad PBUH" ?Ummat 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Ummat

NPOV

I sectioned the article and spoted some pov. But i dont care enough to NPOV it. --Striver 01:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And those of POV are...? --The-pessimist 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First mosque

"The first mosque of Islam is also located in Medinah and is known as Masjid Quba" - this is incorrect. The first mosque of "Islam" is the Haram or the mosque in Makkah. The first mosque in the lifetime of Muhammad perhaps. --The-pessimist 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring history

I am concerned that the contributors have chosen to ignore significant aspects of history within this article. For example, the article gives the impression that Abu Sufyan was a military general bent on taking conquest of Medina, yet glaringly fails to mention that in 623 Mohammed took a band some 300 strong and lay in wait to ambush Sufyan's caravan. The caravan's leader - Sufyan - got wind of the trap, altered his course, and requested assistance from Mecca in response to this attempted and unprovoked attack. The Quraish were sent against Medina in direct response to the robbery attempt. 624 saw the battle at Wadi Bedr at which Mohammed was victorious, leading Abu Sufyan to vow revenge, an oath that would lead to future battles.

To further the pattern of ignoring history with the explicit purpose of spinning the history to the positive the histories of Afak, Asma and Kab ibn al-Ashraf go a long way towards explaining why the Jews of Medina, yet are dismissed only with "some Jewish tribes turned against him". The reasons why they did so are extremely important, yet are intentionally left out. One should note that it was in Medina in 624 that the qibla was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca.

The defeat of the Muslim forces in 625 at Ohod at the hands of Sufyan is completely ignored (intentional whitewash, hiding the bad to portray on the good?), and the entry on the battle of the trench neglects to mention that the slaughtered Jews were given the choice of conversion to Islam or death. Again, this is relevant information that should have been presented, but wasn't.

Madina not Medina

There is a town in Ghana almost at the outskirt of the Greater Accra Region of the country called Madina and not medina as indicated. Medina is in Saudi Arabia how could it be in Ghana or has anything to do with the country Ghana? It is from Madina that you get to Adenta and then to Somanya and the adjorning towns and cities. It will be of great prudence if this could be further edited and the corrections made to this.

Al-Madina(h) is the Arabic name for Medina. Some native Arabic-speaking or non-Arab Muslims most of the times call Medina by this name. - Qasamaan 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

This article is about the city of medina, and is in need of expansion. Currently it just tells the importance to muslims and the history, but says nothing about how the city functions. This needs to be added.--Sefringle 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit more on the history of the city, as hitherto it only related that there was strife and how Muhammad took over the city. But I agree that various important aspects of the current city need to be covered as well, about geography/topography, infrastructure, economoy etc. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IPA transliteration

The IPA transliteration is wrong. /æ/ does not occur as a short vowel in Arabic; it is usually /ɛ/. Also the short "a" in "munawwarah" is more like /ʌ/ as in "cut", and not like /ɑ/ as in "ball." Here is my suggestion: /lmɛˈdiːnɛl mʊˈnʌwːʌrʌ/.

Medina and non-Muslims

Is Medina off-limits to non-Muslims, or is that just Mecca? Josh 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in practice, Medina is also off-limits to non-Muslims. I think the verse that the rule is at least partially based upon is from chapter 9, verse 28:

"O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise."

I'm not sure if "approach the Sacred Mosque" includes the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, or it's meant to include the entire vicinity of Mecca and Medina.Furtfurt 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No , Mecca only , this text from koran talks about the holy mosque of mecca. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj" quotation

It seems like something's wrong with this sentence:

'Jewish Encyclopedia states that they did so "By calling in outside assistance and treacherously massacring at a banquet the principal Jews" Banu Aus and Banu Khazraj finally gained the upper hand at Medina.'

1. It should be changed either to:

a) Jewish Encyclopedia states that they did so "By calling in outside assistance and treacherously massacring at a banquet the principal Jews". Banu Aus and Banu Khazraj finally gained the upper hand at Medina.

or

b) Jewish Encyclopedia states that "By calling in outside assistance and treacherously massacring at a banquet the principal Jews Banu Aus and Banu Khazraj finally gained the upper hand at Medina".

2. Shouldn't "treacherously massacring at a banquet the principal Jews" be changed to "treacherously massacring the principal Jews at a banquet"? I'm not changing it only in case it's a literal quotation.

Can we get this article up and running?

As has been said before, right now as an article on a large, modern world city this is severely lacking. It entirely lacks sections on economy, demographics, and public services, among other things. I can try to get things jump started if no one else has the time but i'm already working hard on a few other articles. It might be easier if there can be a few of us that each looks up a little bit, because as it is this article just doesn't seem acceptable. MezzoMezzo 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you , but for some reasons i dont edit cities articles anymore , you can include this task to WP:KSA Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)