Talk:Sahih Muslim

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam: Hadith Start‑class Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hadith task force.

{{WikiProject Islam|class=start|Hadith=yes|Hadith-importance=low}}

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Different people?

Are these two different people or the same one?--Rayc 01:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sahih Muslim, a book, Imam Muslim the author MeltBanana 01:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Section

I removed the notes section because it is nothing but a person's point of view not a source. If you want to restore it please provide a fact based soruce and not opinion 4.142.78.191 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)eric[reply]

Requested quotation of Style guidelines

Striver, you said you failed to find anything in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style that deals with the criticisms I have made about excessive subdivision of articles due to insufficient material. You also asked for a quote. I am happy to oblige (bold emphasis added):

Structure of the article

The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since these can inhibit the flow of the text. By the same token, paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length.
Articles generally comprise prose paragraphs, not bullet points; however, sometimes a bulleted list can break up what would otherwise be an overly large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. Bulleted lists should not be overused in the main text, but are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom.
Headings help to make an article clearer, and comprise the table of contents; see Wikipedia:Section, which users can choose under 'Preferences' to view (the default) or not to view. Headings are hierarchical, so you should start with == Header == and follow it with === Subheader ===, ==== Subsubheader ====, and so forth. The 'second-level' == Header == is overly large in some browsers, but that can be fixed for individual viewers with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed (see help:User style).
Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.
The degree to which subtopics should appear in a single article or be given their own pages is a matter of judgment and of controlling the total length of the article.
Between paragraphs and between sections, there should be only a single blank line. Multiple blank lines unnecessarily lengthen the article and can make it more difficult to read.

Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Structure of the article

I hope you will now please reconsider your fondness for subdivision in articles whose length does not support it. --AladdinSE 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i see it now, you are correct. Thanks for informing me. Peace. --Striver 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

just added an article about him, i know what wiki says about articles and such but it is better than what is there at present, so until a real scholar comes along and directly quotes material from what he has read i dont see anything wrong with this for the time being. to many muslims come to this site and read the fitnah that is present here and believe it as true simply becouse it is a popular site. if i can edit this page so can anyone else and that is saying a lot!--Rami.b 08:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

There should be something in this article about "The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour". Considering it is arguably the most controversial passage in all of the Hadith, and perhaps in all of Islamic literature, I think it should be addressed. Frasor 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of this controversy, care to share? Supertouch (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an islamic encyclopedia, we use the gregorian calender.

Why are all the dates in A.H? This needs to be changed immediately. Zazaban 22:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that we have to use it? We can use the Islamic one because that's what the subject is.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the article is to speak in a language the average Wikipedia user understands. If anything, place the Gregorian date next to the Hijri. Supertouch (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:DATE "Dates can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars is provided, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both Islamic and Julian calendars. Where a calendar other than the Julian or Gregorian is used, this must be clear to readers." Peter Deer (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for verfication/evidence?

"However, it is important to realize that Imam Muslim never claimed to collect all authentic traditions as his goal was to collect only traditions that all Muslims should agree on about accuracy." Where is the evidence for this? Sahih Muslim in it's name/def means it is all authentic, -syedz_7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedz 7 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection is not valid wrt the text on which you have raised it. All authentic traditions would mean all authentic ones that abound - however, the text quoted clearly says that Imam Muslim wanted to collect only the subset of authentic traditions on which all Muslims could agree - I hope you appreciate the difference. As an aside, a book titled Sahih does not mean that it contains all authentic traditions, though we can leave that discussion for another day, so as not to confuse the issue here. Shaad lko (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific arrangement of themes and chapters.

I don't understand the use of the word "scientific" in this context. "The author, for example, selects a proper place for the narrative and, next to it, puts all its versions". It's a process called editing. Nothing specifically related to science. Preparing a scientific text need editing skills, but so does journalism, poetry, or writing down religious texts.