Talk:Hijrah

Vandalism ?

Zora, before starting to jumping around and yelling "vandalism", consider that the hijri year and the event of hijra are two totaly different things, one an event, and the other a dating built on the event. Both articles are now goin to be expanded by me and do no longer fitt on a single aritcle, even if it was ok to compres two different issues on the same article. I am not done with working on them, and are not going to be done in a few days.--Striver 06:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Source

Reading this page (and other related pages) it is not at all clear what aspects of the discussion are derived from the Koran or other Muslim tradition and what parts are agreed upon by secular historians. The impression is given that both are in complete agreement. More references would be helpful. Sammy1339 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The cited reference, Shamsi, discusses all available sources, mainly statements by the followers of Muhammad who accompanied him or by compilers of those statements who interviewed those followers. There is some disagreement among the followers themselves, which presents a problem for any modern researcher. The dates given in the article are the conclusions of Shamsi, a Muslim historian. Secular historians generally don't give any detail so they are ignored. A prime example of disagreement is that Muhammad arrived in Medina on 8 Rajab. But does that mean that he arrived in the neighborhood of Medina or the city itself? Shamsi opts for Quba', a small town in the neighborhood, which would make the discordant statements agree. An even greater disagreement is noted in the article, that the dates given by the followers of Muhammad may have been in the lunisolar calendar used at the time of the hijra, and they may never have been converted into the lunar calendar which began ten years later, which would shift all dates by three months! However, they gave their statements after the lunar calendar had been adopted and intercalary months had been forbidden by Allah, so it is generally assumed that all dates have been converted. This article would be very unwieldy if all of the discordant data cited by Shamsi was included. Note that Shamsi's article is 71 pages long! — Joe Kress 08:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Somebody (not me) proposed a merge. Is it ok if i merge this article into the other two? --Striver 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you create an alternate article with a non-standard name (Migration to Medina) when the English name for the event is Hijra? — Joe Kress 22:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"hijra" in it self is a bit problematic. There are several hijra events, "migrations", to Abyssinia, the one after the blockade, to Ta'if and finaly the one ot medina. And it gets worse considering that "hijra" also denotes something that has nothing to do with a migration, a calendar system. I wanted separete the actual historical event from the later theoretical desicion on how to count years. Both the actual event and the dating system are broad topics, and it does both a disservice to have them on the same article. Did that answer your question? --Striver 00:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No respons in two weeks? Im removing the tags. --Striver 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hijra is a standard English term for the move of Muhammad and his followers to Medina; therefore, it must be the title of the article. Pecher ^Talk 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Julian Calendar?

Why are the corresponding dats written in the Julian Calendar and not the Gregorian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs)

Because Wikipedia requires that all dates before October 15, 1582 be given in the Julian calendar, which was used exclusively in Europe at that time. See WP:DATE#Different calendars. — Joe Kress 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Gregorian dates are important to metion to explain away confusions, see comments below. Chrislamic.State (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Guess what you forgot to mention the first "Flight"

I am amazed at who is writting Islamic history, how could you forget the first hijirah? The flight to Ethiopia? or is this not supported by the Arab council of Scholars?--Halaqah 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Common mistake, any source ?

I read with interest : "The Hijra is celebrated annually on 8 Rabi' I, about 66 days after 1 Muharram, the first day of the Muslim year. Many writers confuse the first day of the year of the Hijra with the Hijra itself, erroneously stating that the Hijra occurred on 1 Muharram AH 1 or 16 July 622."

Any source to support this claim I find this important since so many people (even the Encyclopedia britannica) say that the Hijra occurred on the 16th of July 622 and this marks the beginning of AH 1. Or am I misunderstanding something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 August 2008

The source for Hijra dates in September is the reference cited in the article by Shamsi, who exhaustively studied all Muslim sources. See the discussion in Source above. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opnion, the statement is inaccurate. For millions from the Sunnah Wal Jamaah sect, the Hijra is NOT celebrated anually on 8 Rabi', but on 1st Muharram. - "saibog@yahoo.com" 211.25.207.222 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is only those who follow the opinion of Al-Biruni who consider the 8th of Rabi'1 to have been the date the Prophet arrived at Quba' near Medina. The Gregorian 16th of July 622 corresponded to the 26th of Rabi 1 while coincidentally, the 1st of Rabi 2 corresponded to the Julian 16th of July which became the 1st of Muharrram (although the original 1st of Muharram that year was on April 18/19). Quite a puzzle to unravel. There seems to be a need for a more clarifying section written in simpler English to assist the layman.Chrislamic.State (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Significance?

The article says nothing about the significance of the event. Why are the Islamic years counted from this, and not for example from Muhammad's Birth, or Death, or from his first or last revelation? -- 92.229.143.191 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Date conflict

Since the addition of the section "Muslim account of Muhammad's Hijra" there are now two somewhat different dates for Muhammad's arrival in Medina. The date quoted in the new section (around September 622) results from the conventional (but erroneous) method of converting Islamic dates to Western dates which neglects the fact that intercalary months were used before 10 AH. The date quoted in the first section ("Hijra of Muhammad") is three lunar months earlier which accounts (probably correctly) for the intercalary months inserted between 1 AH and 10 AH. AstroLynx (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed --AsceticRosé 05:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not fixed yet.

Dates in the table

The conversion of dates in the current version of the article [1] into Gregorian is obviously wrong, it doesn't correspond with the correct days of the week. For example 13 June 622 was actually SUNDAY, yet the table falsely shows Thursday for it, and 1 July 622 was THURSDAY, not Friday. The dates need to be fixed. Khestwol (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The dates in the table are indeed messed up. 'Day 9' should probably read 'Day 5'. AstroLynx (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that much of the confusion arises from the attempt to give Gregorian, instead of Julian, calendar dates for the key events of the hijra. This is silly - no one (except for some Mayanists) uses Gregorian calendar dates for events before 1582. AstroLynx (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dates Sorted

I have got hold of the cited sources (a very intense but interesting and inexpensive book) and have inserted the Julian dates alongside the Gregorian dates. I thought it would be best to keep only the Julian dates as cited in the book, but seeing how many confusing coincidences there are between the Gregorian dates and Julian dates I see now how it makes sense to keep both published here in order to cross-reference them against each other for all to see how and where exactly the confusions arose. Chrislamic.State (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The supposed dates for the Hijra as they are currently listed are not consistent and are certainly not those proposed in the cited paper by Shamsi (1984), nor those proposed by Fazlur Rehman Shaikh (2001). Perhaps it would be less confusing if two tables were given - one with the chronology proposed by Shamsi (1984) and one with the chronology proposed by Fazlur Rehman Shaikh (2001). AstroLynx (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

AstroLynx, I'm confused about recent date changes. Previously, the source Fazlur Rehman Shaikh (2001) was used to count Hijra from 17 June — 2 July 622 in Julian Calendar, and now the same source is being used, after this edit by 87.81.147.76, to say that Hijra occurred from 9 May - Monday 24 May 622 in Julian Calendar. Do you have Fazlur Rehman's book? What dates does he actually provide in his book? And is there any special reason we should stick to Fazlur Rehman Shaikh? -AsceticRosé 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not make the recent changes which have again messed up the dates. I have Fazlur Rehman's book and can easily insert the dates proposed by him. My proposal is to give the dates listed by Shamsi (1984), who assumes that the calendar used in Muhammad's days operated on the same rules as the current Islamic calendar, and those of Fazlur Rehman (2001), who assumes that the calendar was kept in approximate synchrony with the seasons by inserting an intercalary month when this was deemed necessary. AstroLynx (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vgent, I didn't say that you made the recent changes. Probably my wording was not clear. I was actually asking information from you because your are for long involved in date-related issues of the Prophet's immigration. So what are the dates provided by Fazlur Rehman and Shamsi (1984)? Do they provide Julian or Gregorian dates? Which one should be preferred here -- Julian or Gregorian? The book is nor available on Google Books. So, it would be nice if you present those informations here on this talk-page so that we can see and use them to prevent regular mess-up. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 09:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

F.A. Shamsi ("The Date of Hijrah", Islamic Studies 23 (1984): 189-224, 289-323 (JSTOR link 1 + JSTOR link 2)) assumes that the calendar used by Muhammad operated on the same rules as the current Islamic calendar. He gives the following chronology for the key events during Muhammad's hijra:

Day	Islamic Date (Julian equiv.)	Notes
Day 1	26 Safar AH 1 (Thursday) (9 September 622)	Qurayshite Meeting and departure from Mecca
Day 5	1 Rabi' al-Awwal (Monday) (13 September)	departure from the Cave of Thawr
Day 6	2 Rabi' al-Awwal (Tuesday) ([14 September])	at Umm Ma'bad's camp
Day 12	8 Rabi' al-Awwal (Monday) (20 September)	arrival in Quba'
Day 16	12 Rabi' al-Awwal (Friday) (24 September)	first visit to Yathrib (Medina)
Day 26	22 Rabi' al-Awwal (Monday) (4 October)	finally settles in Medina

[The Julian calendar date for Muhammad's arrival at Umm Ma'bad's camp is not actually given by Shamsi but of course follows from the other dates]

Fazlur Rehman Shaikh, in his Chronology of Prophetic Events (London: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 2001), pp. 51-52 & 129-131, assumes that the calendar was kept in approximate synchrony with the seasons by inserting an intercalary month when this was deemed to be necessary. His dates for events in 1 AH are thus three lunar months earlier than those computed from the proleptic Islamic calendar.

Day	Islamic Date (Julian equiv.)	Notes
Day 1	1 Rabi' al-Awwal AH 1 (Thursday) (17 June 622)	conference of the Quraysh leaders
Day 5	5 Rabi' al-Awwal (Monday) (21 June)	departure from the Cave of Thawr
Day 12	12 Rabi' al-Awwal (Monday) (28 June)	arrival in Quba'
Day 16	16 Rabi' al-Awwal (Friday) (2 July)	entry into Yathrib (Medina)

On p. 130, Fazlur Rehman lists other dates for the arrival of Muhammad in Quba', as proposed by modern scholars, ranging from 31 May 622 to 22 November 622.

All dates are in the Julian calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

For all these dates we need only present the academic consensus (Perceval, Shaikh and Hideyuki Ioh) which is discussed lightly here Islamic_calendar#Pre-Islamic_calendar. Bulgarios (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me but all the authors you cite give Julian calendar dates, not Gregorian. AstroLynx (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi AstroLynx, sorry for delay response. I really appreciate you for presenting Fazlur Rehman and F.A. Shamsi's works.

AstroLynx and Bulgarios, I have the following proposal: in the article, the dates given by Fazlur Rehman will be used, and as AstroLynx mentioned below that Nearly all historians (a few Mayanists excepted) use Julian calendar dates before 1582 and it is common WP practice to do likewise, using Julian dates will be the best option. Using Julian dates will also be comfortable from the viewpoint that Fazlur Rehmanhas has presented the dates in Julian format. There will be a note below with saying On p. 130, Fazlur Rehman lists other dates for the arrival of Muhammad in Quba', as proposed by modern scholars, ranging from 31 May 622 to 22 November 622 to inform the readers that other views are available about the dates.

Bulgarios, I see the ip Special:Contributions/87.81.147.76 is being disruptive. Don't edit war with it and present your views here. I've already warned the ip. -AsceticRosé 16:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

OK it seems there is an approaching consensus here then. This will be my answer for the discussion below this too. I agree with User:AsceticRose's suggestions. Bulgarios (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This will also work for me. AstroLynx (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good, still let's not overlook the Gregorian use of some non-western trained scholars such as Naeem Siddiqui. With that in mind wouldn't it be a good project to set dates in all early Islam calendars to the standard presented by User:AsceticRose? Bulgarios (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I see, with the change of dates, there are other things to do. (1) The section name Hijra of Muhammad is erroneous. This section actually deals with date-issues. It should be renamed accordingly. And, this section should be transferred below because most readers want to know the details of events, not the complex issue of dates. (2) The lead should be expanded to summarize the body of the article. (3) With the insertion of Fazlur Rahman's dates, some adjustments may be needed in other parts of the article to remove discrepancies.

Hard pressed by time, I will still try my best to improve the article. Others' cooperation will be appreciated. -AsceticRosé 17:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is scope to include Gregorian dates besides the Julian one. All we need is to insert one or two more columns with the heading Gregorian equiv. (by xxx) -AsceticRosé 17:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I have time to give your recommendations a bash. Bulgarios (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist of the to-dos discussed

1) Fazlur Rehman Shaikh's dating system

Started

2) Julian calendar dates

Started

3) Note about other views on dates. "On p. 130, Fazlur Rehman lists other dates for the arrival of Muhammad in Quba', as proposed by modern scholars, ranging from 31 May 622 to 22 November 622"

Done?

4) The section name Hijra of Muhammad is renamed and, transferred below

Done

5) lead expanded to summarize the body of the article.

Done

6) With the insertion of Fazlur Rahman's dates, some adjustments may be needed in other parts of the article to remove discrepancies.

Started

7) General removal of Gregorian dates except for clarity in tricky areas.

Done

I have a question about Naeem Siddiqi's date of 23 September 622. According to this page his date is for the 8th of Rabi' I which would make it a Gregorian date, but according to P.130 of Fazlur Rehman Shaikh's book, it is Julian corresponding to the 11th of the lunar month rather than the 8th (three days out being the difference between Julian and Gregorian dates in the year 622). It seems Faizur made a mistake here right? Bulgarios (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

For Muhammad's arrival at Quba', Fazlur Rehman (p. 130) cites Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (Life of Muhammad, Calcutta, 1982, p. 129) as giving Monday 20 September 622 CE and Naeem Sidiqqi (Muhammad, the Benefactor of Humanity, Delhi, 1983, p. 265) as giving Thursday 23 September 622 CE. Fazlur Rehman may not have realized that Naeem Siddiqi's dates were Gregorian instead of Julian (the linked website, at least, is not clear on this). I am not too familiar with modern Islamic names but it would not surprize me if Abdul Hamid Siddiqi and Naeem Siddiqi refer to the same person. AstroLynx (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we need Gregorian dates?

Of late, several editors have been adding Gregorian calendar dates to the Julian dates related to the principal events of the Hijra. Do we really need those? Readers are usually confused enough about the relation between the Islamic and Western calendars (the edits made to this page during the last few months shows that some editors are equally confused) and I do not believe that adding the Gregorian calendar dates will help in reducing this confusion.

Nearly all historians (a few Mayanists excepted) use Julian calendar dates before 1582 and it is common WP practice to do likewise. In order to make the page more accessible I would like to propose to use only Julian calendar dates. AstroLynx (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, as a common reader I find the Gregorian dates more relevant than the old Julian calendar dates. It certainly saves time checking these dates on a calendar converters. From a strictly academic point of view (most readers on these topics are not academically trained) as long as each date is clearly labelled as Julian so that readers do not confuse these dates with the Gregorian calendar dates, I think it would be fine.

Most online calendar converters actually give Julian dates before 1582 so I fail to see your point here (perhaps you should look at some other date converters). Giving Julian dates is the WP norm and it makes it easier to compare or check with dates given in the scholarly literature. Giving Gregorian dates is also very inconvenient if you are looking at pre-1582 events mentioned both by Christian authors (who will be using the Julian calendar) as by Islamic authors. AstroLynx (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the WP manual of style which you mentioned before. Just like I said the Gregorian dates are more useful for common readers. Wikipedia is not an academic reference work yet. It is not assumed by common readers (the majority audience) unfamiliar with WP style and academic convention that the dates prior to 1582 are not Gregorian. Clearly there has been a lot of confusion in this article until now precisely because some of the Gregorian and Julian dates for some of the events in the sequence can be misunderstood for each other. Otherwise like I said, it should be made clear at every instance that Julian dates are being used in this article because as I see it there have been many edits on both sides of the argument so far in this article and discussion causing confusion. Bulgarios (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

On a related topic, may I ask User:AstroLynx are these also your edits here? Bulgarios (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Your link doesn't work for me. AstroLynx (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh how strange it did not paste everything. Here it is again Special:Contributions/87.81.147.76 Bulgarios (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No, those edits are certainly not mine. Have a look at some of the discussions during the past few months on [2] and you will quickly realize that we are quite different persons. AstroLynx (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good, I just did not want to assume the worst before double-checking. I noticed when I first started using Wiki that I could be logged out sometimes between edits until I ticked the stay logged in for 30 days box.

BTW You can see we are reaching a consensus above with User:AsceticRose on the dates issue too. Bulgarios (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Good news. AstroLynx (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No Bulgarios, the ip is not AstroLynx, rather a different person. AstroLynx always edits with his own account. -AsceticRosé 17:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Greetings. I'm not impressed with Bulgarios' claim that the Hijra began on a Thursday. F A Shamsi says that Hazrat 'Abd Allah b. 'Abbas contemporaneously reported that it was Monday. al - Hakim says there is a tradition handed down the generations that it was Monday. Muhammad b. 'Abd ul - Barr gives Monday. Unless someone can give a good reason for not following these reliable sources I'll revert back.

Again, in his original edit he gave Gregorian dates which he took from Fazlur Rehman Shaikh's book and which are wrong. Given that he is wrong in the most fundamental aspects of chronology his dating is not to be relied upon - he is not a reliable source. Looking at the table, Day 1 is given as 26 Safar and Day 9 as 1 Rabi 'I. But eight days from 26 Safar is 5 Rabi 'I. The table is consistent with Hegira happening on the traditional Sunday night - Day 9 is Monday, Day 16 is Monday, Day 20 is Friday. But if Day 9 is Monday, 1 Rabi I then Day 16 is Monday, 8 Rabi 'I, which I had, not 12 Rabi 'I as inserted by Bulgarios. If Day 20 is Friday, Day 30 cannot be Friday, and if Day 20 is 5 July Day 30 cannot be 16 July. You people have completely messed up, and it will not be long before I revert to the correct version. I trust this explanation will satisfy AsceticRose, who has just messaged me on my talk page. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:87.81.147.76, I am very sorry you feel so much negativity about me. I would like to invite you to outline a Shia view section here on this talk page which could be included in the article since I have noticed some of the dates you have been inserting are significantly different from those in the Sunni sources and general academic consensus. Please do not forget to provide a source for your dates. I am genuinely and sincerely interested to see the official Shia perspective on this if it is different. Kind regards. Bulgarios (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that for clarity we need both Julian and Gregorian dates. Khestwol (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with Sunni v Shia. The errors I pointed out are still there. It's a matter of simple arithmetic, adding an interval to dates in different calendars which are the same day and getting two dates which are not the same day. I don't know why you people keep saying that the difference between the reformed and unreformed calendars in 622 was three months. That difference applies after eight years (99x29.53=2923.47 days, 8x365.25=2922 days). There were ten years between the Hegira and the reform, so AH 1 began four months before the epoch, i.e. 19 March.

Most sources agree Muhammad left Mecca on a Monday, so he left his house on the previous Thursday. Both Fazlur Rehman and F A Shamsi agree on this. Traditionally, Muhammad left his house in the last week of Safar, so the dates are: Thursday 27 Safar (13 May) leaves house and Monday 1 Rabi al - Awwal (17 May) leaves Mecca. The journey takes a week and he reaches Quba' on Monday, 8 Rabi 'al - Awwal (24 May). He enters Yathrib on Friday, 12 Rabi 'al - Awwal (28 May). This is the date established by Dr Muhammad Hamidullah, although he expresses it as 31 May (Gregorian). The people who say Muhammad left Mecca on a Thursday are referring to the day he left his house. [3] confirms he left his house on 27 Safar and reached Yathrib on Monday, 8 Rabi 'al - Awwal.

Again, The Sealed Nectar, Safi - ur - Rahman Al - Mubarakpuri (Riyadh, 2002) says on p. 205:

The Prophet had thus left his house during the night on the 27th of Safar, during fourteenth year of Prophethood.

On p. 206

They confined themselves to this cave for three nights, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Source: Fathul - Bari 7/336.

On p. 213

On Monday, 8th Rabi 'ul - Awwal, the fourteenth year of Prophethood ... Allah's Messenger arrived at Quba'. Source: Rahmatul - lil - 'Alamin 1/102. It was on that day that he reached fifty - three years of age.

On p. 214

Allah's Messenger stayed in Quba' for four days, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Source: Ibn Ishaq. see Ibn Hisham 1/494. He has clearly stated that he arrived at Quba' on Monday and departed from it on Friday (Zadul - Malad 2/54.55). He built the Masjid in Quba' and prayed in it. This was the first Masjid founded upon piety to be built after his Prophethood began. On the fifth day, Friday, he mounted by the Order of Allah, along with Abu Bakr. He sent a message to Bani An - Najjar, his maternal uncle, to come and accompany him and Abu Bakr to Madinah. He rode towards the new headquarters amidst the cordial greetings of his Madinese followers who had lined his path. He halted at a place in the valley of Banu Salim bin 'Awf and there he performed his Friday prayer with a hundred others. Source: Sahih Al - Bukhari 1/555 and 560. Zardul - Ma'ad 2/55 and Ibn Hisham 1/494.

A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims Ce. 570 to 661 by Sayyid Ali Ashgar Razwy [4].

Muhammad ibn Ishaq

"The Messenger of God arrived in Quba on Monday".

S. Margoliouth

On Monday the 8th of Rabi - I of the year 1 A.H. ... the Prophet reached Kuba, now a great place for gardens and orchards ...

On the Friday, the Prophet rode from Kuba towards Yathrib, and is said to have performed service in the Wadi Ra'unah. (Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London, 1931).

The First Year of Hijra

According to the investigations of the late Mahmood Pasha al - Falaki of Egypt, the day when Muhammad Mustafa, the Messenger of God, arrived in Quba was Monday, 8th of Rabi - I of the year 13 of the Proclamation ... On the following Friday, 12th of Rabi - I ... the Messenger of God left Quba and entered Yathrib ...

The Life of Muhammad: Muhammad Husayn Haukal (2008) - [5]

p. 187:

Muhammad reached Quba, two leagues from Madinah, and stayed there four days with Abu Bakr being constantly with him. It was a Friday, and Muhammad performed his prayer in Madinah at the mosque situated in the valley of Ranuna. Six and a half miles south of the city. [Tr.].

87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the introduction of Gregorian dates. They only serve to confuse. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Of the authors who assume an intercalated calendar during Muhammad's lifetime, only Muhammad Hamidullah assumed that there were four intercalations between 1 AH and 10 AH (apparently in 3, 4, 6 & 9 AH, but his 1969 paper is not very clear about this). All other authors, Caussin de Perceval (1843), Amir 'Ali (1954), Muhammad Asad (1980), Fazlur Rehman (2001) and Hideyuki Ioh (2014), assume that there were three intercalations in the same period.

I assume that you are referring to Hamidullah's 1969 paper in The Islamic Review & Arab Affairs, vol. 57, nr. 2, pp. 6-12 (available online here) which was also summarized by Fazlur Rehman (pp. 22-24) in his discussion of Hamidullah's thesis. AstroLynx (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that link User:AstroLynx. Still, the dates researched by User:87.81.147.76 visible [here] (?1 Muharram? = Friday 19 March, ?23? Safar = Sunday 9 May, ?24? Safar = Monday 10 May, ?1 Rabi I? = Monday 17 May, ?8? Rabi I = Monday 24 May, ?12? Rabi I = Friday 28 May, ?22? Rabi I = Monday 7 June) seem to be original. The days and Julian dates provided are genuine, but the correlation with Lunar month days according to the system described in Hamidullah's work is out. Meanwhile although Hamidullah's table on page 9 of that work you provided is supposed to be of Gregorian dates, cross-checking his claim 21 March was a Sunday and 31 May was a Monday in 622 reveals these are actually Julian -another case where someone obviously did not realize the academic convention on pre-1582 dates- and still do not agree with the system he himself described, but it was 1969 after all and he probably had to rely on tables rather than a computer. Nevertheless, they are still different from those researched by User:87.81.147.76. There must be another source, although the point is probably moot now anyway. Bulgarios (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Western dates given in Hamidullah's 1969 paper are in the Julian calendar. Although the title of the paper suggests that they are Gregorian the word 'Gregorian' should here be interpreted as 'Western'. This is a commonly made mistake (also on WP) and should be avoided. In 1969 only printed conversion tables were available and these were always computed according to the Julian calendar for dates before 1582.

Regarding IP 87...'s dates and claims, they are often based on his own original research, so it should not surprize you when they can not be verified. This IP (and his by now countless aliases) has a long history of trying to insert his own OR in WP. He still has not indicated which of the numerous publications of Hamidullah is his actual source for the claim that there were four intercalations between 1 and 10 AH. AstroLynx (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You only gave me one Hamidullah publication to work on. In note 30, there is a flaw in his logic. He posits a fourth intercalation before the epoch of the reformed calendar. This would mean that the unreformed 1 Muharram would be three months before the reformed one. The dates in the table on page 10 are consistent with intercalations in 624, 626, 629 and 631. 625, 626, 628 and 631 are theoretically possible so instead of casting unsubstantiated aspersions at other editors why don't you explain how you arrive at your conclusion that these are the intercalary years? This is obvious original research, which you delight in accusing other editors of without producing evidence. Hamidullah gives a date of 31 May 622 as falling within Rabi'I. Under the reformed calendar 30 September falls within Rabi'I. It's probably too difficult for you to work out that the difference is four months.

From June 569 to December 609 (forty years) Hamidullah posits fifteen intercalations. From December 609 to March 622 (thirteen years) he posits four intercalations. From March 622 to January 627 (five years) he posits two intercalations. From January 627 to March 632 (six years) he posits two intercalations. Then his arithmetic goes wrong. 17 June, 569 was Monday as claimed but that is in the Julian calendar. His date is Gregorian. The correct birth date is Monday, 12 Rabi'I, 2 June 570. For the first revelation, 22 December 609 is Monday as claimed, but that is in the Julian calendar. His date is Gregorian. The correct date is Monday, 27 Ramadan, 1 December 609. 610 contained an intercalation.

21 March 622 is Sunday as claimed, but that is in the Julian calendar. His date is Gregorian. For the entrance into Medina, 31 May 622 is Monday as claimed, but that is in the Julian calendar. His date is Gregorian. The correct date is Monday, 8 Rabi'I, 28 May 622. The occidental date Friday, 16 July 622 is Julian. For the Battle of Badr, 18 November 623 is Friday as claimed, but that is in the Julian calendar. His date is Gregorian. The correct date is Monday, 17 Ramadan, 14 November 623. 624 contained an intercalation. For the Battle of Khandaq (Trench), Saturday, 29 Shawwal, 24 January 627 is a Julian date. For the Last Pilgrimage, Friday, 9 Dhu'l Hijjah, 6 March 632 is a Julian date.

Hamidullah wants 12 Rabi'I, 632 to be a Monday. He calculates 12 Rabi'I to be Thursday, 4 June and he does this by overweighting 29 - day months. The occidental date Thursday, 2 Rabi'I, 28 May 632 is Julian. As Islamic days begin the previous evening, this leads to the desired Monday, 12 Rabi'I, 8 June 632 for the Prophet's death. 7 Shawwal, 3 AH was a Saturday. This is the Julian date 22 December 624. There was no intercalation in 625. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

622 CE

Please check the hijra dates in the article 622#Religion. Are they correct? Khestwol (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Khestwol, those dates don't agree with the Julian dates in Fazlur Rehman Shaikh's system nor with their Gregorian equivalent. User:AstroLynx, those should be the Julian dates according to WP Manual of style right? Bulgarios (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The only source linked to the Islamic dates on this page is Shamsi (1984) but they make no sense either with Shamsi's chronology (Julian or Gregorian) or Fazlur Rehman's chronology (Julian or Gregorian). Best to replace them with Fazlur Rehman's dates (in the Julian calendar) as we are doing the same here.

There are bound to more pages on WP related with the prophet Muhammad with similar problems. AstroLynx (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)