Talk:Event of the mubahala

Linkage

I was playing 5ctj and... I think these two should link to each other... being essentially... yeah... what I see as things relating to the same event. I didn't fully read the link I'm posting so forgive me if I'm being ignorant on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mubahila 71.240.69.83 (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources

@User:Sa.vakilian I'm going to improve the article using the secondary sources. This way, the article has a good chance of being kept. Please help by introducing facts from authentic secondary sources. Mhhossein (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Mhhossein, Madelung describes the event in his work , "Succession to Muhammad" pages 15 and 16. You can add the story and remove original research tag. Thanks.[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 12:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Mhhossein (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Move proposal

@sa.vakilian I think we'd better move the page to "Verse of Mubahila" because the verse, its interpretation and circumstances of its revelation are much more important. By the way, we can keep the hadith section. Mhhossein (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@I agree with you, but let's ask @MezzoMezzo as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Sa.vakilian: and @Mhhossein:, sorry for the delay. I'm not sure to be honest - if the issue includes both verses and traditions, then choosing one over the other seems sort of subjective. This article also deals not only with the associated ayat and ahadith but also the event in Najran itself. Would either of you be amicable to something like "event of Mubahala"? I'm just thinking because the Mubahala article is about the concept in general and this article is about a specific incident. This is just the first suggestion off the top of my head; I can't recall similar articles about significant religious events in other faiths which are recorded in primary religious texts. If we could think of some, it might give a sort of precedent for the specific naming of such articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Salaam @Sa.vakilian and MezzoMezzo: Thanks for your smart response. "event of Mubahala" is a good choice. But consider that, Mubahala article is not focusing on the concept. It is mainly talking about that specific event, as I figured out. I think Mubahala and the current hadith of mubahala article have almost the same subject (not same content) so that we'd better even merge them. Mhhossein (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Salam Alaykum, I agree with moving this article to "event of Mubahala" but disagree with merging with Mubahala. Mubahala is a general concept which may happen in different occasions. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Walaikum as salam guys. I think all three of us agree on the name change. I would prefer not to merge for the reasons Seyyed stated, but Mhhossein, I have a suggestion. How about we take some time to work on both articles, and then after a certain period of time revisit whether the content is too close for separate articles. Would that be alright with you? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Good idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian and MezzoMezzo: I like to emphasize that Mubahala is mainly focusing on the event not the concept, although the lead and the title of the article verify your claims! So, we'd better at least exchange materials of both articles to have an article focusing on the concept and an article focusing on that special event of mubahala (prophet vs christians!). What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah man, that makes sense. Just give me a few to take a look at both more closely, I (like you I'm sure) have been a bit caught up with various projects. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's first merge Eid al-Mubahila in this article and then speak about Mubahala.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with Seyyed's idea for merging Eid al-Mubahila in this article. Mhhossein (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the articles Eid al-Mubahila, Mubahala into Event of Mubahala. Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

---

@Sa.vakilian and MezzoMezzo: I read all of the three inter-related articles (Eid al-Mubahila, Mubahala and Event of Mubahala). As I told you before, there are repeated materials in these three articles and we could exchange materials between them. On the other hand, I tried to merge them into one article under the title "event of Mubahalah" in my sandbox. This article is a summation of those three articles. If we conclude to have this article, the former Mubahala will not have nothing new except the The Quran and Dialogue subsection and Eid al-Mubahila will be entirely useless. In whole, I'm proposing to have this article instead of the former three articles. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I agree to merge them but your draft is not coherent.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Thanks for your attention. By the way, how can I improve the coherency please?

@Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein:, this double ping is a cool feature. Anyway...I dont' know. Can I take a day or to to peruse the sandbox merged version? I'm honestly on the fence here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian and MezzoMezzo: Sure, why not? I'm looking forward to receive your feedback. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Salaam Alaykom. It seems that sa.vakilian is in agreement with merging. Now, I'm still waiting for your response. Mhhossein (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein:, let's do this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Mhhossein (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Qur'an and Dialogue

@Hadi.anani: Salaam. The parts you added is long and tangentially related to the article. Also the topics would better change. So, please summarize the paragraph under "Qur'an and Dialogue" and choose a better name for them. Mhhossein (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Authenticity of Reported Dialogue Among The Visiting Christians

I have a question:

Who relayed / reported the conversation the Christians were having amongst themselves to the Muslims? There is no named person who shared what was being discussed in the Christian tents. My reason in pointing this out is that one of the teachings of Yeshua HaMashiach is the following:

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [Luke 6: 27-28]

The same message was later repeated in the letter to the Romans:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. [Romans 12: 14]

I wonder why the Christians from Najran would have agreed to call down curses on Muhammad, or anyone else for that matter, as this is against the teaching of Christ and not in the Way of love. This begs the question as to who relayed / reported the dialogue the Christians were having.

It is quoted in al-Tafsir of al-Tha’labi: When they were alone, they asked al-'Aqib... so we can see this source testifies they spoke amongst themselves. How can anyone have known what they were discussing "when they were alone?" If they were alone, who then is the person(s) who testified or bore witness to what they actually decided to do and say the next day? --HafizHanif (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

According to whom

@Mild Bill Hiccup: I noticed your useful edit here. Can it be said that the statement can be attributed to "Sidney H. Griffith" as the Ref suggests? Mhhossein (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Unclear lead

I think the lead regarding "the call" and "evocation" is unclear, instead of specifying the invocation is the calling of a curse plainly and simply (what is later eventually mentioned). I find this unwise and not useful, and possibly misleading for the casual reader who would only read the lead as a summary of the article's meaning / definition.

So I think it prudent to insert clarifying words found in the body of the article to explaining clearly what mubahala is, which would shed light on the significance of the event.

Also, I had mentioned concerns some time ago that went unanswered by those who follow this article. Perhaps after reading this talk page entry my concerns can be responded to. -- HafizHanif (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

HafizHanif: Thanks, but can you tell me where is it mentioned in the body? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a serious question Mhhossein?

It is defined and mentioned in the first and second sentences here, the Quranic verse in the third paragraph here, and found in the first portion of the first sentence at that second link, first sentence second paragraph here. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Updating and maintenance

This article has been on my shortlist to correct and clarify.

I'm going to perform:

- citation updates (removing poor or unqualified citations)

- clarify what the 'event' really was about prior to Islam / Muhammad

- showcase its historical significance

- make such clarifications in the lead and body of article

Anyone interested is welcomed to discuss and assist in pulling out what scholarship and historical dates have to show. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Going to also be removing repetitions. It seems specific perspectives have been woven into the article over time, a manner of arguing over minutiae, so highlighting the basic narrative is what I'm going to do. I think contrast, since it was a Muslim - Christian event, should be highlighted. I placed the citations in the lead into the body of the article. If other editors would like to elaborate the minute differences or arguments between the two branches of the religion, feel free to do so in their proper section. In other words, please do not weave into the article a Shia- or Sunni-leaning viewpoint. -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

HafizHanif: Thanks for the attempt, but your mass edit is not really acceptable and there are points which you apparently missed while editing. Now, I'll revert the edits and we'll consider them step by step. Mhhossein ^talk 17:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To respect your effort, I reverted myself and we'll re-add those what should not have been changed. Your comments are welcomed. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please identify what is unacceptible. Regarding sourcing the lead, typically leads are not sourced when their summary is found and elaborated in the body of the article. I did include citations in the body of the article supporting the lead and expanded on what those sources highlight (please see and read sources). I removed certain words in the lead (and citations) and elsewhere in the article because they are worded ambiguously, and somehow avoid using the actual definition of curse, which are clearly identified by Islamic scholars. I proceeded to highlight the historical background of the term and extrapolated its significance related to the 'event' according to Tafsir (the closest to unbiased historical references, although biased on its face). I think the repetitions need to be edited out, unless the issue is mentioning how Shia and Sunni exegesis differs, then perhaps a link to such an article would be wisest rather than elaborating such arguments in the article. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with some of your removals and know that we usually avoid citations in the lead. However I cant find any parts of the lead supporting the "core differences" and "Christians refused to deny their faith" in the body. Your removal of Al-Mizan was not correct as it was reliable enough. Tell me if I'm doing anything wrong. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The divinity of Christ is the core difference. In Islamic theology, Christ is only a man (albeit called a "pure boy" and believed to have been sinless his entire life) and another prophet in a long line of prophets. In Christian theology, Christ is the culmination of prophecy (old testament fulfillment) and, while also being a prophet, is understood to be much more existential as their writings explain. The difference is quite substantial, which is the reason for their refusal to deny their faith (the Christians refusal to deny their beliefs). I think I see how it can be misunderstood the way it is written when looking at the citation. As the event is mentioned, Muhammad demanded they submit and accept his explanation of God and Christ, correct? They refused to accept the manner Muhammad expressed Christ, thus refusing to deny what they believed about Christ. Maybe it should be written differently, yes?

The citation's link regarding "refused to deny their faith" is not currently working (not sure why), so I'm going to edit in a working link: en.journals.sid.ir/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=126868. The mention is literally :"because of the Christians refusal of accepting the Prophet's call, the two sides agreed to mubahala and to pray God to distinguish the truthful from the liar." This quote is from the summarized abstract.

Regarding removing al-Mizan's citation in the lead: the phrase "where the call was extended to the sons and women" is unclear and ambiguous for someone learning what Mubahala means or what the event signifies historically. For someone arriving to this article for the first time, reading 'the call' and it being "extended" to Muhammad's family would make no sense to them. This is why I mentioned (and edited the article as such) that this 'event' later turned into an ongoing internal argument of standing between Shia and Sunni, beyond the issue of difference regarding Christ after meeting with the Christians. This is why, now looking again at the lead, I think the issue of "praying to God to curse the liar" should be expressed in the first paragraph, since this is the historical reality the citations / scholars are explaining (mubahala preceding Islam and thus influencing Arabic culture and Islamic thought). Later the issue of standing should be highlighted. This is why I removed that phrase and citation. It wasn't that I didn't find the information or citation valuable, but confusing in the lead as it was previously expressed. That citation I think would best fit in the Hadith section and/or Modern understanding section.

Regarding the phrase "The effort of the meeting was to clarify the core differences between the two religions", this is what transpired. This is why I wrote it in that manner. Muhammad was calling the Christians to Islam, to accept him as prophet, and to agree with his explanation of Christ. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that should be written in form of "They refused to accept the manner Muhammad expressed Christ, thus refusing to deny what they believed about Christ'" or in any other forms in explicit accordance with the sources. Otherwise, in the current form, we are committing OR. "refusal of accepting the Prophet's call" is nor equal to "refused to deny their faith", the latter being a more general concept. You may adjust the reader's understanding of the 'event' and will need to mention Shia and Sunni faith in this regard. In fact, write "the call was extended to the sons and women" in any sensible form possible. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll copy and paste your suggestion and edit that in. I'll also clarify the lead to better reflect the citations in the body.

What does "the call was extended" actually mean, in other words? As it currently is in the lead is unclear. The "call" to Islam? If so, Muhammad's children were already Muslims, so the call extending to them makes no sense. It then must be the "call for God to curse the liar", correct? If so, then the clear term "curse" needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph / sentence, because as it is, it is too ambiguous. I edited that portion and clarified what the call is. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I remember now why I deleted the al-Mizan citation; it goes to a .org (www.almizan.org), which doesn't qualify per wiki standards, correct? Also, the specific citation is not highlighted or pointed to any particular page there (so I or perhaps you can find a qualifying source elsewhere). -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful edits. 'The call of mubahala' is intended. In other words, children and women participated in mubahala, too. Reliability of the source has nothing to do with .org or .com. The author of Al-Mizan is Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i who is a well known Shia scholar. For reassurance, we may cite to a hardcopy of the book, instead. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll concede the use of that source unless others mention an issue. I do think having a book source, journal, or something more than a website ran by a single individual does give weight to what you are citing. I do notice that particular source does lean a bit toward one branch of Islam, correct? However, having read through it, I found some useful parts I'll edit into the article to broaden the historical context.

I do think the lead is now a bit over-worded; too much detail. Partly my fault. What do you think? The rest of the article is where the detail and specifics are usually highlighted and explored. But to not continue going back and forth, I'll also concede as it currently is, adding a single line to encourage readers look into the rest of the article for more information. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The Al-Mizan source is by a well known Shia scholar and you may reduce the probability of POV and increase accuracy by making proper attributions. AFAIK, online digital version of all volumes of the book is not available. I think the lead needs to be concise but accurate. In fact, it should be the representative of the whole article. I prefer to see your attempt on this. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I worked on summarizing the lead with the highlights, and added content regarding the Christian response. What are your thoughts on introducing more of the Sunni view to contrast the Shia claim of Ahl al-Bayt? -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Sunni view certainly is needed to balance the article if there are opposing views. Btw, when working on such articles, please consider breaking such mass edits into three or more parts. Tracking and possible modifications are easier in this manner. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I do tend to make edits as a whole in reading the entire open editing field, my apologies. I concentrate better doing it in this manner than piecemeal, to eliminate excessive edits and compiling too much history. Do you have any sources to include in the article regarding Sunni views? I notice the section about the family is mostly copied and pasted (format and exact words) from another website, and I'm not sure if this qualifies and is possibly plagiarism. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Breaking the mass edits into three of four parts was a suggestion. Anyway, the material of which website do you think was used verbatim? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Ahl al-Bayt" section. I've seen a similar layout and word-for-word of the bullet points, but now can't find those websites. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you please reword the uncited paragraphs of "Ahl al-Bayt" using Al-Mizan website? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Hossein, I am a bit surprised you edited the spelling of "Najran" (which was proper and not an issue) but ignored the vandalism by an anonymous editor (which was an improper edit by them, and is an issue). --

I'm surprised the bit I've just removed has made it into your additions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that any RSs makes the connection between "the liar being revealed as the one dying within a year of the invocation" and the deaths of Muhammad and Fatima. The implied conclusion that the Islamic tradition "coincidentally" identifies them as liars is one of the oddest WP:SYNTH violations I've come across. Eperoton (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the correction, thank you. I'll have to find a proper citation where the connection is mentioned, or at least implied..I think I've seen one but have lost track of it. The dates of this event and Muhammad's death have been realized since the earliest times, but other reasons have been argued in denying the obvious (Muhammad didn't actually invoke the curse since the Christians refused to participate, being one). I'll dig those up and continue expanding the article. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A source has to explicitly state it: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." By the way, I've clicked on the refs and there are also problems with sourcing for the remaining passage. Let me fix that. Eperoton (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, I appreciate your help and corrections. Out of curiosity, what are your personal thoughts regarding the dates and timing of the curse, the traditional belief (death within the year), and Muhammad dying a short time later? -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this episode closely before, and what I see so far doesn't seem qualitatively different from many other stories elaborated in classical commentaries to elucidate obscure Quranic passages. I'm not sure why this episode has attracted your attention, but I don't see a way of interpreting these passages in question the way you did. There's no suggestion of death as an impending judgement on the dispute. In the quote Muqatil's tafsir attributes to the Christians, they don't expect Muhammad's demise even if he's the one lying: "We will not produce anything through his trial of cursing. [...] By Allāh, if [Muḥammad] is lying, cursing him won’t do any good." Eperoton (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Several things:

- All writings related to this specific event (or point in time) are from later accounts and from arguably biased sources (all portraying the legitimacy of a man and a religion).

- The various accounts of what was said from the Christian side are different with only the conclusion being the same (did not participate).

- Whether or not death actually occurs and thus revealing who was lying (or wrong), or if such curses actually 'work', is an aside, what is more important is people's perceptions and beliefs about such matters (and this is what the dogmatic development of this particular event has expanded to and capitalized on - the Shia supremacy argument being one, a method of shutting down Christian arguments another since the Christian is restricted from cursing others).

- For the ancient follower of Muhammad, the believer in the new religion, and believer of the tradition of mubahala (the cursing tradition now being adopted into a religious method of Islam), witnessing Muhammad die after having preached that God commanded a curse to be imprecated would be quite significant.

The question is; would the timing of events be obvious enough to those people back then as it is today to a thinker and researcher now looking back.

Another question; if one believes in God, would God had proven the truth from the lie by allowing that man to perish, as a clear sign, according to what those people in that culture believed?

My dilemma; finding such a report / testimonial that survived the burning campaigns and revisionist effort. -- HafizHanif (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This assumes that what we have here is a report of an actual event with possible tendentious shaping rather than a story invented to explain an obscure passage, where the idea of an alternative outcome simply doesn't occur. It may be a correct assumption or not. In any case, even stretching the commentaries into hypothetical scenarios, any subsequent death would have significance only if the mubahala was carried out, which it was not. I'm not going to pursue this further because I think we're really getting into WP:FORUM here, but I can't resist noting one other thought that just occurred to me: in their reasoning, Muqatil's Christians construct a passable decision matrix with an infinite loss in anticipation of Pascal's Wager! Eperoton (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was a bit busy with real life. There would be no such a long thread if there were a source connecting the incidents. Thank you every body. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you Eperoton (talk) pointing out the obvious even further. Again, and as already explained, what people believe is what seems 'real' to them. This is evident in every part of life (politics, science, religion, self identity, etc.). As to whether reality or Providence would do, allow, reveal, etc. (regardless if people believe in God or not), will be interpreted according to people's perceptions of what is true. If the reports are to be taken seriously, or at least recollecting an actual event, albeit with embellishment, we then see the logical interpretation of events as they've been understood. On one hand, taking the story as actually having occurred, Muhammad does initiate the curse by claiming to be revealing God's will and words, and that God now asks people to be cursed (contrary to Christian ethics, which is never mentioned in this one-sided accounting). It is like a fight was about to break out, but only one party was the instigator / belligerent, thus only that party was the one having an issue, and the one who fell into dishonor (regardless how they perceived their actions as 'just', 'granted by God', whatever). Thus, the issue and perceived outcome was brought upon himself, and history isn't without its share of irony. But alas, this isn't a forum as you mentioned, and the things derived from this event point again to the obvious (this story's elaborations most likely were an effort to make sense of Muhammad's poetry and as a support to his claimed legitimacy and that of his relatives; an attempt to build a dynasty that is still being contested today within that ideology). Cheers. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding OR and Christian ethics disallowing cursing others, I'm glad you brought that up. You asked earlier why this particular event has my attention. Well, I found it surprising, as the narrative explains, the Christians of Najran would even consider entering a cursing contest. As with much of my research into Islam, earliest Islamic writings occurred in a vacuum of sorts, without regard to outside perspectives, historical realities or broader cultural notions. The Arabic stamp is still present in its jurisprudence today, as the cursing origins (Semitic / pre-Islam) show. But I understand and must heed the rules of only deriving what is explicit in source...so I hope you can forgive my overreach in trying to contrast what is unbalanced. -- HafizHanif (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad I could help keep this article in line with the cited sources. It sounds like we agree that the last bit I tagged is currently unsourced, so I'll remove it. I look forward to seeing any other interesting insights on this subject you find in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, looking into this a bit further, I don't understand why the lead states that Muhammad "invoked a curse". It looks like the sources state that he proposed carrying out the mubahala, but that it wasn't actually carried out by anyone. Am I missing something? Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have explained how the logic runs either way to produce the same outcome. Depending on who is interpreting the verse in question, and whose Hadith and Tafsir is being followed, the answer is yes and no. Imagine that. This is why I extrapolated the contradictions in the Hadith and why I highlighted the significance showing who actually perished (speaking to the belief system that the lying party will die before the year ends, as cited). This being an ignored reality historically and date-wise, and one which I think should be reverted and edited similar to what is mentioned in parenthesis in this excerpt from another wiki article. Notice the historical fact is without citation yet viable as rationale goes:

During the June visit, the children said the lady told them to say the Rosary daily in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary to obtain peace and the end of the Great War. (Three weeks earlier, on 21 April, the first contingent of Portuguese soldiers had embarked for the front lines of the war.) The lady also purportedly revealed to the children a vision of hell, and entrusted a secret to them, described as "good for some and bad for others".[4]

The above is from the third paragraph, first - third sentence, under the "Marion apparition" section at the Our Lady of Fatima page. My suggestion, just like a historical fact is placed within cited material to grant concept of time and dates of significant events in this portion I share, Muhammad's and Fatima's dates of death should be included in parenthesis in either the lead or in the modern view. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The same is argued regarding the Christian concept of cursing (which is widely and obviously forbidden). Do we only work in a vacuum according to ancient perceptions or do we edit articles according to modern contextual perceptions? Or both? Do we only adhere to legend and biased narratives? I think also reverting the fact that cursing others is forbidden in Christianity, written in parenthesis, would grant the balance this article has been missing since inception (reading through its history). -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd like to return to a proper policy-based discussion now. As far as our mandate in article main space goes, we should reflect what the RSs explicitly state and no more. Please let me know if I missed where the cited sources state that Muhammad invoked a curse. Otherwise, this assertion is OR and we need to take it out. Eperoton (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Do as you please and perceive. When I've found the qualified scholarship I'll edit back in and cite what I've already mentioned. Cheers. -- HafizHanif (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think I see a possible source of confusion. Griffith writes that the Quran "invokes malediction and curse". Here "invoke" is used in the sense of "allude to" rather than "pronounce", but when the word is applied to Muhammad the more natural reading is a formal invocation. I'll need to take a close look at the sources when I have a bit more time, and do let me know if you think I'm misreading any of them. Eperoton (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is quite an issue of interpretation, and as we can read from the reports, interpretations vary even after inception of 'inspired' writings are put to paper (or memorized). I appreciate you looking into it further, I was hoping for some help in navigating the confusion over these matters. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)