Talk:Bilal ibn Rabah

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssial. Peer reviewers: Knightsofren94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilal Document?

Is the Bilali Document related to this?--Striver 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC) No. Bilali was a slave in America in the 1800's. Bilal ibn Ribah lived in the 600's and was a contemporary of Mohammed.75.2.1.107 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bilal was never a slave. He was a Barrister. Do your reseearch. Dr. John Henrik Clarke did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.15.93 (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the picture

It is against Islamic Law to portray oneself in a painting or in any hand drawn sketch. Thank You!

Is Bilal ibn Rabah a different sahabah from Bilal ibn Harith? BelalHaniffa (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC) plz remove pictures from all the muslim pages. it is against the teaching of islam to draw picture of living thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.197.53.127 (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures should stay

Despite the fact that many Muslims believe they are prohibited from depicting living things, we shouldn't have to follow those guidlines here on wikipedia. The historical representation of Muslim figures deserves mention and, where relevant, examples of those depictions should be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That’s absurd. Not that I agree with the prohibition on images. But deeming a painting from the 15th century to be relevant to a 6th century person is bizarre. Who does that? Temple3 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Name

The article spells his name as "Bilal ibn Rabah". That is what I have learnt too. Why is the title "Bilal ibn Ribah"? -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move

"Bilal, son of Rabah" is not his name. I moved the page back to what it was. I also believe that such a move should be discussed in the talk page. Unflavoured (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do Not try to re-write history!

It is obvious that from the name it self, "Bilal al Habashi", Bilal was of an Ethiopian Origin. "Habashi" or "Habesh" Refers to today's Ethiopia. Trying to change this to other country is nonsense. Please let's try to use this media sensibly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilalalhabashi (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. "Bilal was an Arab" or even Afro-Arab is not the popular version of events. He was as per above an Ethiopian. That is known the world over and actually because he is Ethiopian is why he is significant and notable in Islamic history. But one bad reference labels him as Afro-Arab and the link dishoneslty says "Arab", then why not put Afro-Arab?--41.177.4.184 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs more sources/Validation

This article needs to be validated by sources. Especially, the sections Living with Muhammad, Migration, After Muhammad, and Legacy. Unsourced material can be deleted, so please cite the sources for these sections. Thanks Zabranos (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Bilal being a Shia

Historical documents from both western and nonwestern sources point out that Bilal never gave Abu Bakr Bay'ah (oath of allegiance). Since he refused to give bay'ah to Abu Bakr he is not considered Sunni. A person like Khalid ibn al-Walid or Umar are considered to be Sunnis because they gave bay'ah to Abu Bakr. In addition, Bilal is seen as a shia of Ali. This term refers to being both a companion of Ali and one who fallows Ali's teachings. Hence he is a Shia. Khalid ibn Waleed is not seen as a shia of Ali because he opposed Ali and did not follow his teachings. Zabranos (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The word "Sunni" does not appear in the infoboxes of Khalid ibn al-Walid or Umar. So for consistency we should also remove "Shi'a" from this article's infobox. This would also be more accurate as reliable sources do not refer to him as Shi'a. In fact, only one of your sources is reliable, The Medieval Islamic Civilization, and it does not claim that he was a Shi'a. The other sources are just expressing "Shi'a beliefs" and therefore cannot be used for stating objective facts. It is also a long held belief, even in Shi'a circles, that his refusal to give bay'ah (assuming it was true) does not imply that he favored Ali in any way. So for now, I think removing "Shi'a" from the infobox will be more consistent with the other articles mentioned and more inline with neutral and reliable sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If Shia sources are not reliable then delete all the Sunni sources including onions from Sunni scholars because they are not reliable as well (if you want to be just and fair). Delete Janneh, Sabarr. Learning from the Life of Prophet Muhammad: Peace and Blessing of God Be upon Him. Milton Keynes: AuthorHouse, 2010. Print. ISBN 1467899666 Pg. 235 (for being a sunni source), Al-Rassooli, Iq. Lifting The Veil: The True Faces of Muhammad and Islam. Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse, 2012. Print. ISBN 1468582186 Pg. 168 (for being a sunni source), Abdul-Rauf, Muhammad. Bilāl Ibn Rabāh: A Leading Companion of The Prophet Muhammad. Indianapolis, Indiana: American Trust Publications, 1977. Print. ISBN 0892590084 Pg.5 (for being a sunni source), and al-Suyuti's Tarikh al-khulafa (for being a sunni source) because as you pointed out Shia sources are not reliable therefore Sunni sources are also not reliable.

Unlike you I respect the view points of other people, schools, and scholars (Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Christian, Jewish, western, and nonwestern). And I never claimed that "The Medieval Islamic Civilization said Bilal was shia. I said that historical documents from both western and nonwestern sources point out that Bilal never gave Abu Bakr Bay'ah (oath of allegiance). Read the first sentence. So get your facts straight before accusing someone of saying something.

As for your clam that he did not favor Ali here is a statement by Bilal showing his respect, love, and support for Ali.

It is documented that Bilal said: "“The Holy Prophet (S) and Ali are not equal, because the Prophet is most excellent of all the creatures. Ali is also in the view of Allah better than all after the Messenger of Allah (awj), because when the roasted bird was brought for the Holy Prophet (S) he prayed: O Allah, send me one who is most beloved to You so that he can share this bird with me. So Ali (a.s.) arrived and joined him.And Ali is most resembling the Prophet because the Almighty Allah made him as his brother in religion; therefore Abu Bakr cannot hope from me that which you people state, because he knows that Ali is superior to him and Ali has more right on me. It is so because it is Ali who saved me from divine punishment. And due to his love and for considering him superior to others I became eligible for perpetual bounties of Paradise.”-----"A Detailed Biography of Prophet Muhammad"

Bilal: “I shall not say the adhan for anyone except the person whom the Holy Prophet selected as his successor.”

Bilal: “I ought to put up with their condition (exile to syria) and remain patient while I am away from my master Imam Ali and his faithful companions."

Bilal:“O’ Prophet of Allah! After you the world has become dark and Imamate has been converted into caliphate and it has been usurped by people who are not fit for this position. O’ Prophet of Allah! I have come to know that your daughter is not in good health. O’ Prophet of Allah! Your successor Ali is staying at home. By means of his silence he is preserving the exaltation of Islam and the unity of the Muslims. O’ Prophet of Allah! I have just returned from my journey to Syria. I had been exiled there……….” ------- Joshua Charbonneau

However, I will respect your opinion for the time being and not revert your edit. Zabranos (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation Tool

For anyone who wants to cite information correctly use Easybib.com. Its a simple and easy to use tool that cites books, magazines, websites, newspapers, and other materials in MLA format.Zabranos (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bilal Ibn Rabah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100720142403/http://www.usc.edu:80/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.359

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

How Bilal was bought by Abu Bakr.

The story that is more authentic is where Umayyah and Abu Bakr talk about gold. The story of Abu Bakr giving three of his slaves for Bilal is considered not authentic. Here is the source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.45.238 (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear 24.56.45.238, do you have a source that is not a blog? The assertion is currently very strongly referenced. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A better question yet, is why is the story about the trade for 3 slaves being cited as the truth over the Quran version? If this page is supposed to reference Islam, then the primary source should be Islam, everything else afterwards is considered a opinion.

This defies any logic within Wikipedia standards. If I were to talk about Judaism, I would refer to the Jewish scriptures first before anything, because I'm asking about Judaism from the Jewish perspective, if you want to add opinions from others about Judaism that's fine, but you wouldn't startoff and only reference Judaism from others. Marccarran (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

After use PBUH which means Peace be Upon Him after Mohammad (PBUH).

 Not done: We do not use such honorifics in the encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

CE

Toddy1, I agree with Ishan87: CE is more appropriate here. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmies Ishan87 (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead image (moved from user talk page)

• 
  Bilal.jpg
• 
  Bilal_RA_arabic.png

Hello Apaugasma! The image you reverted at the Bilal ibn Rabah Artical I wanted to add that image I want to ask can't i change the historically significant Edit? Thanks. James Bond7350 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Striking block-evading sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi James Bond7350! I moved your message here because it concerns the article, and other editors may be interested to participate in the discussion.

As I explained in my revert, the currently used image (File:Bilal.jpg) appears to be taken from an Illuminated manuscript and has a high historical relevance, while the proposed image (file:Bilal_RA_arabic.png) appears to be modern user-generated art. I think that historical images are more like the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. (see MOS:LEADIMAGE) That's why I prefer the older image, but others may disagree. Basically, if you can convince other editors on this talk page that the proposed image is better, this may lead to a consensus to change it. Of course, we will need you to argue why the proposed image is better. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

MMRBilal 2402:4000:B11D:F1E5:79F6:4432:6C05:EDEE (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Imagery is not used out of respect for island for the companions of prophet(S) in Wikipedia. All of them are given calligraphy There's no reason to make an exception for this page. Plz respect this. Ishan87 (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In respect for Islam* (got autocorrected) Ishan87 (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As I also explained in my last edit summary, this is not a good reason to change the image. Established practice on Wikipedia is to use images of early Islamic figures (see, e.g., Muhammad, which has no less than seven images of the prophet) where appropriate and where they're available. Community consensus is that Wikipedia is not censored: Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. [...] Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. (see also Talk:Muhammad/FAQ)

I think you may be mislead as to the reason why the great majority of our articles on early Islamic figures contain calligraphic rather than pictorial images: this is not because we follow Islamic iconoclasm, but simply because no good pictorial images are available (which in turn is a consequence of Islamic iconoclasm). For historical subjects, images with high historical significance (whether they're calligraphic or pictorial doesn't matter) will generally be preferred, but unfortunately these are often not available (on Commons or similar) for Islamic topics. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ishan87: you have again reverted to the calligraphic image, yet have failed to reply here. Is there any argument you have why WP:CENSOR should not apply here? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing images is not helpful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Assalamualikum sir,

I believe using pictures is helpful but indeed it is not of Islamic teachigs. I recommend to use pictures without faces or any backsides or war scenes.

Thankyou XUnknown Entity (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That image doesn't have any significance in history in general or depict the person correctly. I'd still suggest you put back the calligraphy at the box, and if you still want to keep the drawn image, use in some other section of this article with blurring the faces. There are plenty of images of islamic prophets and other companions drawn by many that u can find in the Internet, y do u think they aren't used in Wikipedia and most of the major sites or media in general? Simply in respect to the religious group and since it's offensive to us. Ishan87 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

what, images cannot change history... How?

The oldest pictures can change how we think.

Hadrat Bilal was tall and slim yet in picture he appears fat. ASTAGFRULLAH. please fix it XUnknown Entity (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't mind my change till the discussion is over Ishan87 (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"It's offensive" is just not a valid argument on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Apart from that, changing the lead image again after having been reverted by multiple editors and before a new consensus is forged here on the talk page is considered disruptive. Please don't do that again. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it backwards brother. You can literally check classic & middle age islamic history texts. The page itself is literally named "Ibn"(ابن) and not "bin"(بن) 4 a reason. I also removed the use of persian ahruf because it's not used in native Arabic. As 4 the disrespectful argument, I already put it aside and left it up 4 u guys 2 decide. I did keep the drawn image but moved it to the Adhan section where it fits better. The calligraphic image makes it fit with other sahaba pages so I restored it in the box. Hope u understand bro. Ishan87 (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This talk page section is titled 'Lead image'. You did change the lead image again without consensus, and on the basis of an argument that is just not valid. One option would be to ask for a third opinion, though WP:CENSOR is policy and so does not leave much room for discussion. In the meanwhile, I strongly suggest you self-revert.

As for the issue with the Arabic letters: I am very familiar with medieval Classic Arabic texts, but I suspect that you are not. I'm not sure what you mean with 'Persian ahruf', but what you removed in changing بِلَال بِن رَبَاح to بلال ابن رباح are called ḥarakāt and are very much a part of classic Arabic writing. With regard to ابن vs بن, you're confused by the fact that the most common transliteration is indeed ibn. But this modern convention does of course not change the spelling in actual Arabic letters. I'm not sure how to go about showing you that, but let's start with the obvious: why do you believe the Arabic article has بلال بن رباح for a title? Or why do any number of arwiki articles (e.g., ar:عمر بن الخطاب, ar:علي بن أبي طالب, ar:جابر بن حيان) use the بن spelling? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to remove the image File:Bilal.jpg from the infobox. Some articles have an Arabic calligraphy png/svg/jpg instead of a proper picture, but that is because no suitable picture has been agreed on (probably because no suitable picture is available). My understanding is that the picture was created a long time ago by Muslims for Muslims. If some modern Muslims find looking at the picture offensive, the solution is to wear a blindfold. Nobody forces you to look at Wikipedia.

We cannot censor Wikipedia so that it does not offend anybody. It would not be an encyclopaedia if we did. Virtually everything offends somebody. There are fanatics who object to anything that mentions Islam. They even object to the names of places with "Allah" in the name and want those articles renamed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Why can't we have both? It looks weird for Bilal to have a painting but no caliography, when almost all the other major Sahabah have caligraphy. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

you should place (S.A.W) after the prophet Mohammed (S.A.W) every time you mention his name. Please make this change ASAP. Thank you. Hassan him (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Please make this change as and may Allah give you rewards. Hassan him (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't use honorifics of that sort. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This picture should be removed

1.Copyright infringement: If the picture used on the Wikipedia page of Hadrat Bilal infringes on someone else's copyright, it should be removed to avoid legal issues. XUnknown Entity (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of Allegedly Concerning the Status of Bilal’s Mother

The source quoted by the author of the article never uses the word allegedly to discuss the royal ancestry of Bilal’s mother. It’s a gratuitous insertion intended to cast aspersions on the events. No bueno. Check the source. Temple3 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)