Talk:Farewell Sermon

Can anyone plese indlude a link to a site which has the last sermon in arabic?

"Final" prophet

This seems to be the subject of a dispute. I put "final" back in, in accordance with the page Prophets of Islam which the word immediately after "final" links to, and also in accordance with the sermon itself (no prophet or apostle will come after me). If there is still disagreement, why not discuss it here or on that page rather than edit warring? -Dan 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim that he was the final prophet of Islam is disputed by some Muslims and among others, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The NPOV solution for Wikipedia I believe is not choose a side in this discussion. -- Karl Meier 09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadiyyas believe that the second coming of Jesus came in the form of Hazrat Muhammad, the Mahdi. Further, Ahmadi's are not Muslim, in much the same way that Christians are not Jewish - Though they share most of the same Prophets, there are a different religion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact is that they don't believe that Mohammad was the last prophet. They only believe that he was the last "law-bearing prophet". Another fact is that they call themselves Muslims, and that does, from a neutral point of view make them as much Muslims as any other sect that call itself islamic. -- Karl Meier 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add a section on the Amahdis, go ahead, but stop screwing around with perfectly legitamate text! --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what I want is the text to be neutral. I don't want it to advance any POV above any other POV (Sunni, Shi'a, Amahdis or whatever). Unless you make some serious suggestion to how NPOV should be archieved on this article, I'll have to revert your POV editing again. -- Karl Meier 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Karl, if you must, though I wish you wouldn't do that sort of thing. I'm not up on Ahmadiyya, or the general practice around this place on whether they or other sects that call themselves islamic are in fact qualified as such or not, etc, etc. As I see it, the sermon -- which after all is the subject of this article -- does explicitly claim finality, at least as it stands now. Maybe you could expand on Ahmadiyya dissention? Would it be possible to cite an alternate interpretation, or an alternate text, or that they reject the sermon altogether as unreliable, or I don't know what? How useful is it to edit war over "final" in the intro, while leaving "no prophet or apostle will come after me" unchallenged? -Dan 14:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think we need any of the "final" or "prophet" POV-stuff. I don't think there is any doubt which Muhammad the article is talking about, and I don't think there is any need to clarify it, so let's just stick to the most neutral possible way, and that is simply to say: "Muhammad". -- Karl Meier 20:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of cource we need to disambid the name in the first mentioning. I added "traditional" to exlcude the Bahai and such.--Striver 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? What other Muhammad do you think the readers might confuse the Muhammad we are talking about with? As I see it, in this article it's obvious, and there is no need to clarify it when mentioning him here. -- Karl Meier 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Muhammad is the most comon name in the world, i would argue that there is a need to disambig. --Striver 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we still on about this? I'm afraid I'm still not seeing it. How about "whom Muslims believe to be the final prophet"? (basically what the lead section of the Muhammad article has -- admittedly there is controversy over that article, but not, as far as I can see, over this issue). Really, to me it seems like "of Islam" captures it, so it's unnecessary extra words, but honestly, either way, not a big deal, let's get over this. 192.75.48.150 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation of translation

Incidentally, the translation of the text as it stands could also probably use some citation. In fact, for all three slightly different versions. -Dan 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone trying to understand the origins of this speech within Islamic literature, this is very frustrating that it is not properly cited. What book does this come from? It seems that it is not from the Qur'an, but for someone who is not very well versed in Islam, this is a very confusing and frustrating article. - Joseph 1/7/2012

What about the translation provided in Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq? It's found on pages 650-2 of the 2004 edition. Barakitty (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge

No need to have duplicates. --Striver 12:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, merge. Shijaz 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, merge where? We have this article (The Farewell Sermon), The Farewell Pilgrimage, and Hujjat Alwada'e. The tags don't make it clear what's to go where. 192.75.48.150 13:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hujjat Alwada'e needs to be redirected to here.--Striver 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My arabic isn't that great, but isn't that really the farewell pilgrimage? Or are we merging those too? 70.30.114.134 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Then it needs to be redirected to farewell pilgrimage... actualy, it seems like Hujjat Alwada'e needs to be merged into both farewell pilgrimage & sermon. --Striver 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have merged it into the pilgrimage. There didn't seem to be any new information about the farewell sermon (as opposed to Ghadir Khumm). 70.30.114.134 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Text

I propose to move the original text to Wikisource.Bless sins 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What original text? I have looked at several online versions of the sermon. Some of them contain passages about Arabs, non-Arabs, white people and black people being equal. Others don't contain any such passage. Many of them contain a passage about striking women, which is omitted here. This does not seem to be the correct text. [1] Paul B 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bless sins--OsamaK 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Verifcation failed (no footnotes tag, failed verification, and others tags added)

I have added a "no footnotes tag".

The sermon that is on wikipedia as of march 2011, does not even have a source. it links to a website were it is hosted. but that website does not give the original source.

furthermroe, there is a reference in the main article saying that the farewell sermon is just many different Hadith placed together. In that case it should be removed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research or similiar

unless somone can state the exact source. or anyone might as well join many different quotes of muhammad together, and make up 1 single quote and an article about it. by doing this, you can make it as if muhammad said whatever you like him to say--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fake quote-I think article should be deleted

the identical article should be deleted if no primary sources are found the identical article to this "Khutbaul wada" has been nominated for deletion, same criteria also applies here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khutbatul_Wada%27

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it explained to you that the event is notable enough for an article ? Why do you insist on deleting it then ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry, meant other article should be deleted, but this one should have its quotes removed, as the primary sources cant be verified as discussed in notice board--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I may delete the article and references, they are blatantly false, for example citation was used for Sahih Bukhari 1623 for the posted sermon. This is was that source actually has

Sahih Bukhari 1623. Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle (SallAllaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam) (got) his head shaved after performing his Hajj.

Please don't post sources that haven't been properly checked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.135.1 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As the exact text of the Sermon has not be reliably sourced, the text has been removed. If the text is to be restored, please only do so if a reliable source (preferably a peer-reviewed journal or published book, and preferably NOT a website that cannot be verified as reliable in itself) can be provided. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete fake content

People keep constantly adding back the quote of a well known farewell sermon by S H Faizi, which is actually fake and not the words of Muhammad.

Every time this popular farewell sermon is added back, please delete it. As it was discussed here before (see deletion log) when this article was nominated for deletion, that the quote should be removed because they are fake.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead - can we talk about the controversy? Can we say who says it is fake and why? Secretlondon (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

its fake because it doesnt have a primary source, it first appeared in a 20th century book by S H Faizi--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Miconceptions2. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that discuss this quote, and its first appearance? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence 1 this is where i gave evidence its fake. but more evidence its fake is found here: Evidence 2 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of those sources qualify as a WP:RS though. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Found citation for older source here. Maybe someone can check Rehatsek's 1898 translation as well since there is some talk of Guillaume borrowing from Tabari?Barakitty (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

FULL OF BAD/SUSPICIOUS EDITS

Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari are NOT the "earliest" sources and have NEVER been considered authentic within Islamic tradition. The authors themselves say they DID NOT AUTHENTICATE the reports they recorded, they basically recorded everything people said. The ahadith collection contains the AUTHENTICATED reports and PREDATES Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari. There are more hadith books than simply the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim which are the most rigorously authenticated, but not the earliest. Additionally the earliest tafsirs or commentaries (including, for example, Tafsir Ibn Abbas and others which record commentaries of Muhammad's companions) also cite the sermon and corroborate the hadiths.