Jump to content

Talk:Isra' and Mi'raj/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Similarities

What about the similarities with other stories such as the Zoroastrian Book of Arda Viraf, or Dante's Inferno? Perhaps worth mention? Khiradtalk 15:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets merge Isra and Miraj

Lets merge Isra and Miraj, as they both happened on the same night and are very related. 172.147.89.10 21:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge Mai'raj into this article

Looks like Mai'raj was created without knowledge of this article. I agree it should be merged into Isra and Mi'raj, and then turned into a redirect. --Elonka 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OBE

Seems like he had an Out-of-body experience. The similarities are striking. --Der Eberswalder 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Authenticity of Painting

The painting appears to be Korean, even unto the cloud designs used. The facial characteristics of those portrayed also appear to be Korean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.92.250 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Acutally,Persian and Arab paintings of that period resemble Chinese and Korean paitings of that period, partially cuz Arab traders spread Islam in the Asian continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.123.31 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remove portraits in Islam articles , Islam prohibited this type of portraits and its misleading non Muslim people Anasalhan (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

this could be used to expand the article in a more technical maner. --Striver 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


'Prophet' Muhammad

Saying 'prophet' Muhammad violate the Wikipedia style guide just like Jesus 'Christ'. Just say Muhammad and Jesus is enough.Opiner 06:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is cool. I agree, please check your talk page. Almaqdisi talk to me 06:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. thanks. Here is the style manual it is mostly pretty reasonable and has some good tips.Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)Opiner 07:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

I changed all the quotes to Yusufali's translation. I have no preference which translation is used, but I thought they should all be the same one. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dream Citation

http://web.archive.org/web/20080127190018/http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=2375

Based on an archive of the link (the original is no longer up), I don't think the usage is justified. The person answering the question (presumably the 'Islamic scholar' referred to) made no mention of a dream and in fact says:

I do not have any problem with accepting that since everything is in the control of the Almighty and He can allow anything to take place.

129.31.206.198 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Could some fluent Arabic speaker add a note saying where the words "Isra" and "Mi'raj" come from? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

This article violates Wikipedia conventions on naming. The common English name is Night Journey, and this should be the name of the article. Historicist (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image of the Taj Mahal

Is it not more appropriate to have an image of the Ka'abah or the Al-Aqsa mosque or some other defining place or image instead of the Taj Mahal? The Taj Mahal cannot be called just Islamic - it is a confluence of Islamic, Persian and Hindu architecture. Taj Mahal wnwek (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking too. BTW the taj mahal was built by an Indian sufi ruler. Sufis are a branch of Islam that we concider have deviated severly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.123.31 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand that what a monument made by a Muslim ruler Shah Jahan has to do with Islamic culture. I would request it to be changed by some other image like that of Al-Masjid-ul-Haram or Al-Masjid-un-Nabwi or Al-Masjid-ul-Aqsa. Thanks to Wikipedia in anticipation. 

                                           Ahmad 123456p (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Disturbing amount of POV

There is a lot of bias in this article, including terms like 'PBUH', which is against Wikipedia guidelines (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)), and the written style which seems to be in favour of the Muslim belief that Muhammad's journey actually happened. This requires a major rewrite, unfortunately I don't know much about the subject otherwise I'd have done it myself. Matt7895 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please remove the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from all the articles in Wikipedia.

Could you please remove the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from all the articles in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.133.69.201 (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is for all people, and isn't censored by religion. Matt7895 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
While I appricate that many/most Muslims do not wish to view images of Muhammad the consensus is that images can remain in the various articles. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia:Options to not see an image. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Could I get an audio pronunciation of Isra wal Mi'raj in classical Arabic a la the one for Ahmadinejad's name (though that one is in Farsi, but I mean in the form of an audio clip attached to the article)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.3.214 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What is exactly the disagreement in this story?

All Muslims belive that the story happened correctly and clearly, but the disagreement is neither Muhammed went up physically or spiritually. And the proof of the reality of the story that when he came back, he could descripe the appearance and datailes of Alaqsa Mosque to his companions and his relatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.200.8 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


The disagreement is that it's a completely ridiculous story especially when one considers that Muhammad never stepped foot in Jerusalem. Was Muhammad riding a unicorn with Xenu? Newspapers that publish the night journey myth in articles about Jerusalem lose all credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.67.171 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The Night Journey to the farthest mosque in Jerusalem could not have happened as there was no mosque in Jerusalem at the time of Mo, how could there be. Islam did not reach Judea for a long time after Mo's death. The Koran does not even mention Jerusalem. The story of the Mo's horse being tied up to the Western Wall in Jerusalem was an invention of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.239.95 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

One contention is that the Isra and Mi'raj hadith are inconsistent with the Quran

Qur'an 17:1
Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless, - in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).

Hadith of the Night Journey and Ascension narrated on the authority of Anas ibn Malik - a well-known sahabi (companion) of Mohamad


The passage in the Qur'an states that Mohamed went no further than the 'farthest' mosque - the 'farthest' mosque was his destination where he saw God's signs; i.e., his journey stopped at the Farthest mosque. It does not state that Mohamed went from the 'farthest' mosque to Heaven - where God's signs were revealed.

If the 'farthest' mosque were in Jerusalem (Al Aqsa), then God's signs would have been revealed to Mohamed in Jerusalem. But they were not revealed to Mohamed until he got to his destination - and according to the Quran his destination - the Farthest Mosque - was in heaven because that's where God's signs were revealed. Thus the Isra and Mi'raj hadith are inconsistent with the Quran.

It is interesting to note that in the English translations of the Quran the word "Al Aqsa" is parenthetically added to 17:1 by the publisher/editor - it is not part of God's alleged own words in the original Arabic. Also, there was no Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem at the time of the Mi'raj as Jerusalem didn't fall to the Muslim's besieging army until the Caliphate of Umar, some 5 years after Mohamed's death Siege_of_Jerusalem_(637). Muslims attempt to counter this by stating that a mosque is "any place of prostration" to god and therefore at the time of his journey Soloman's temple, the place where Al Aqsa now stands, was Mohamed's point of departure for heaven. Well, firstly, if this is to be accepted, 'Al Aqsa' cannot be used - even parenthetically - because as said before, it didn't exist at the time of the Mi'raj, so if anything, 'Solomon's Temple' should be added parenthetically. Secondly, this assertion does nothing to address the contradiction between the Quran and the Hadith in terms of the location of the Farthest mosque.
This hadith disagreement with the Quran has important implications on the Islamic claim on Jerusalem as a holy site, for according to the Quran and the chronology of events leading to the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, Al Aqsa can not be the Farthest mosque - and this is the ONLY nebulous allusion of 'Jerusalem' in the Quran. Howard.Thomas (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

When it is added in paranthesis, shouldn't that give you a clue that it means something. Like Today's mosque called Al Aqsa. How could you take this fussing about words to say there is inconsistency. when the real word, not in parenthesis, clearly means the farthest mosque. So your just taking a word within parenthesis in translated version & trying to make a case about it. That is just funny. Furthermore, your claim that muslims invented the law that they can pray anywhere after prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) death, is truly ignorant. Not only it was established during his lifetime that we can pray anywhere clean, or should I say Islamicaly pure but another rule was established as well that wudo can be done using dirt/sand, known as Tayammum, under special circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.193.58 (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

“When it is added in paranthesis, shouldn't that give you a clue that it means something.” >If it is added parenthetically it simply means the Publisher assumes the passage needs clarification. It is the /Publisher/ of the particular Quran that has decided to add the clarification; what his grounds are, or who originally claimed that 'the farthest mosque' was Al-Aqsa, no one knows. Again, the Quran simply states 'farthest Mosque' - and no more. I have stated above why, reading the Quran, it doesn't make sense to place the farthest mosque in Jerusalem. And of course, a further point to counter Al Aqsa being the farthest mosque, is that there were 'places of prostration' further away than Jerusalem. You can't get any farther away than Heaven. And logically, the 'farthest mosque' is located in heaven, because that is where Mohamed saw the signs of god - not in Jerusalem.Howard.Thomas (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire paragraph considering the location of the 'farthest mosque' is a joke. In the Hebrew Wikipedia they were professional enough to quote all the assumptions and suggestions of early Islam Sages, including the idea that the 'farthest mosque' was in Medina, that it was in Kuffa (the Shiah tradition) and of course that it was simply a spiritual description of a heavenly mosque above Mecca. Somehow in this article the only possibility existing is that the 'farthest mosque' is the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, it was forgotten - as mentioned here twice – that this mosque in Jerusalem was built years after Muhammad's death, and that this tradition was first mentioned by Al Buchari only 200 years after Muhammad's Isra. I spare my time and barely touch articles in the English Wikipedia that deal with Muslim narrative because somehow it is always "re-corrected" in less than 24 hours. I think that you, the editors of English Wikipedia, should ask yourselves whether you do all you can and make sure that all information is delivered unbiasedly. Tamarah (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Makkah, NOT Mecca

The holiest city in Saudi Arabia is MAKKAH. That's the way it is spelled in all of Saudi Arabia in English; and it's official, according to the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So, let's spell it correctly, please.

I am aware that many media outlets in the U.S.A., including the "New York Times" and "Newsweek" misspell the name. They do it knowingly and purposefully. I don't know why. They are just displaying their arrogance, not their stupidity; because they know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow Straight (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy, per WP:COMMONNAME, is to use the most common spelling in English-language sources. If/when major media outlets change their own spelling, Wikipedia will probably follow suit. In general though, Wikipedia follows usage in outside sources, we don't lead. If you'd like to get things changed, I recommend contacting the news sources. I'd also recommend that you adopt a more courteous tone, as calling them "arrogant" and "stupid" isn't likely to be persuasive. --Elonka 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Time Slowed Down

Could someone also write about that, time slowed down and door knob was still moving as when he had left and when came back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.193.58 (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Night Journey Nonsense

Adults have to be seriously messed up in the head to believe that a mass murderer of Jews and other non-Muslims, Mohammed, rode a horse up into the sky after he died. I wish South Park would spoof this ridiculous mythical story the same way they did the Church Of Scientology. There is no evidence that Muhammad ever visited Jerusalem nor any cities in the Kingdom of Israel. The Koran never mentions Jerusalem, never mentions "palestine" bit DOES mention the Jews and Israel at least 50 times!

Because of this myth Jerusalem is often called Islam's 3rd holiest city. The 3rd holiest city myth only came about after Israel was founded in 1948. Coincidence? I think not. Yet we never hear about the 4th & 5th holiest cities in Islam. They probably exist in Israel if you asked a Muslim cleric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.67.171 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SAWW

I've edited this page to change occurences of "Prophet Muhammad (SAW)" to "Muhammad", and to remove "(AS)" honorifics from other names. This is in keeping with the Manual of Style, in particular WP:MOSISLAM. I quote the relevant parts of the MOS below:

Muhammad

There are several honorifics for Muhammad which should generally not be used in articles. The Muhammad in Islam article discusses these honorifics in more detail, the most common ones being:

  • The Prophet or (The) Holy Prophet (including with a lowercase 'h') in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad" — recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet, Muhammad" if necessary.
  • PBUH, or the fuller "peace be upon him", after Muhammad or other Islamic prophets — recommended action is to remove.
  • SAW, SAWW, saws or the fuller version Sallallaho Alaihi Wa alihi Wasallam, variants of PBUH, sometimes used after "Muhammad" — recommended action is to remove.

Angels and prophets

An angel or a prophet has the honorific:

  • AS or the fuller Alai-hi-as-salam, for example, Jesus (AS) – recommended action is to remove.

As you can see, I have taken the recommended action in each case. However, my edit has been reverted by Hell in a Bucket. I would like to see my edit stand. Hell in a Bucket, could you please explain why this situation warrants a deviation from the MOS? 130.95.77.97 (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A recommendation is exactly that, a recommendation not a mandate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
So, the MOS is pointless, then, and shouldn't be taken into account? Do you have any other reason for not taking its recommendation? This isn't just a style issue, it's a NPOV issue, and WP:NPOV is more than just a recommendation. 130.95.77.97 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, can we move this discussion outside this quote? Having it in here is going to be confusing for anyone else who wants to contribute. 130.95.77.97 (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Go for it not sure why it ended up there anyways, I just don't find this to be a problem. I think it's trivial, in this case it's just saying he's a prophet (which he is, not debating the accuracy), it doesn't strike as not neutral. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
(moved the discussion outside the quote). There are two issues at play here, I think.
The first is simply the MOS guideline: I think we should follow the MOS where it is reasonable to do so, unless someone can express a compelling reason to ignore it. Do you disagree?
The other issue is that this particular MOS guideline exists partly for NPOV purposes. There are three things that I have changed, and I'll address each individually:
  • Framing Muhammad's name everywhere it appears in the article as "Prophet Muhammad" (note the capitalization of the word 'prophet') is not simply stating that he is a prophet of the Islamic religion: this usage is honorific. As the MOS recommends, when he is first mentioned, it is stated that he is an Islamic prohpet: this is the simple statement of his status that you seek. The other usages throughout the text are not informative (we wouldn't refer to a mechanic named Joe as "Mechanic Joe" every time his name appears in an article), but are there to convey respect for the guy --- this is the POV aspect --- we are an encyclopedia, not a religious institution, and it is not up to us to decide who should be respected or otherwise.
  • Similarly, placing (SAW) after his name literally means (correct me if I am mistaken here; I am not an Islamic scholar) "May Allāh honor him and grant him peace", an explicitly religious sentiment and clearly POV.
  • (AS) is placed after the name of some individuals in Islam, and stands for "Peace be upon him", which is a lovely sentiment, but clearly not NPOV.
I don't understand why you are so opposed to this edit. Do you have any actual reason to prefer the old version over the new one? How does it improve Wikipedia to include these honorifics? The policies and guidelines would seem to fall strongly in favor of the new one. 130.95.77.97 (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I have once again reverted this because as I have stated above the honorific does not damage a Neutral POV. If it had all the other honorific, peace be upon him etc I would say definitely we should remove some of them but merely referring to him as a prophet is not an egregious thing that has to be pared down to present the same thing. I am not a muslim but I believe we can still give them or any religion the respect of some sort. I did find it a bit odd that you immediately ran to an admin when I didn't reply immediately and an inactive one at that, very strange you picked that one out of the mass that are active which I think raises some questions about the connection there. And again as a last point, the MOS is a reccomendation only and not a mandate, sometimes commonsense will help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to put this up for RfC, because I think we have reached somewhat of a stalemate. (I'm not sure if 3O is appropriate here, because, as you mention, there is a third editor who has made a revert).
(To clarify, I know fl personally and mentioned this discussion to them in casual conversation, but did not ask them to intervene on my part. They acted of their own volition, and furthermore, unless I am mistaken, any user could have made that revert (so I'm not sure their adminship is relevant)). 130.95.77.97 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments on the use of ṣalawāt in this article

Summary of issue: Hell in a Bucket and myself can't seem to come to a consensus as to whether or not to implement the following in this article:

  • Use of 'Prophet Muhammad' rather than 'Muhammad' throughout the article text.
  • Appending '(SAW)' after Muhammad's name, throughout the article text, to abbreviate "sallallahu alayhi wasallam", or, translated into English, "may Allāh honor him and grant him peace."
  • Appending '(AS)' after the names of various Islamic figures, throughout the article text, to abbreviate "ʿalayhi s-salām", or, translated into English, "peace be upon him"

In the above discussion, I have argued against the inclusion of these honorifics by appeal to WP:PBUH and more generally to WP:NPOV. Hell in a Bucket has argued in favor of their inclusion by appeal to WP:UCS (HiaB, please do correct me if my summary of your position is inaccurate).

Note: I have not requested 3O here, as a third editor, fl, has performed a relevant revert, so I am not sure a 3O is appropriate 130.95.77.97 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

On this point I agree with 130.95.77.97 (SAW) and disagree with Hell in a Bucket (AS). The guideline (AS) is clear: "In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations." WP:PBUH
I find all of the many (SAW) and (AS) bits in this article quite distracting, annoying, and unencyclopedic. In short, they make the article (AS) harder to read. Furthermore, many Muslims (SAW) (if the Wikipedia article on honorifics is correct on this point) find the use of an abbreviation (AS) for an honorific (SAW), instead of the full statement, to be disrespectful. We (AS) should not be trying to appease various viewpoints (and therefore possibly offending others (AS) by adding extraneous elements (WTF) that are detrimental to the goal of spreading knowledge. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The only thing I was suggesting keeping was the part that says Prophet the other is as I mentioned above where it starts getting out of hand, we don't need peace be upon him or the like. Other then that I think that 130 accurately states my ideas here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2013 sa(UTC)
Ah, apologies for the mischaracterization of your position; I assumed from the fact that your re-additions applied to all three of these honorifics that you intended to keep all three of them. Nevertheless, I continue to support the implementation of the MOS recommendations, and therefore oppose the use of "Prophet Muhammad" over "Muhammad" 130.95.77.97 (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is customary in Arabic and other languages such as Persian (the majority of whose speakers are Muslim) to send peace and blessings to all prophets and holy persons. However it is not so in English, so by doing so you're trying to adapt the English language to this custom and I vote against it. If you look at the article on the the prophet you will see the same convention is used. I'm sure Muslim reader will remember to send their salutations as they read these article even without the abbreviations. Bkarjoo (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I am going to remove these honorifics for now. 130.95.77.97 (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Having a request for comment for 24 hours doesn't exactly scream consensus, I'm not interested in pushing that further but I do think that it is pushing the envelope a bit. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are unsatisfied, then, by all means, let's engage in further discussion. I don't mean to imply that a final consensus has been reached. What would you like to discuss with regards to this issue?
So far, as you mention, there is no overwhelming consensus, but it appears to me that the weak or incomplete consensus that does exist leans in favor of "Muhammad" (as per the MOS) rather than "Prophet Muhammad". I may not be reading your comments closely enough, but I still haven't seen any direct reasoning from you in favor of using the latter. Can I ask you whether you would regard it as an improvement to the article to use "Prophet Muhammad" rather than "Muhammad"? If so, what would that improvement be? 130.95.77.97 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I personally think saying Prophet Muhammad is a respectful thing for the Muslims but I'm not really interested in pushing it further. It happens sometimes what we want in the pedia is kept and sometimes it's not. No big deal I can move on. I don't have any personal problems here you've actually been a model example of what things should look like when there is a disagreement so my hat is off to you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries; and for what it's worth, it seems like there are a lot of editors who are quick to get hot-headed when there's a dispute, but you don't seem to be one of those people. It was nice to meet you :) 130.95.77.97 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone has deliberately changed the Arabic passage in the first line

Imagine my surprise when I read this:

The Isra and Mi'raj (Arabic: كان محمد الجنس مع الكلاب والخنازير.‎, al-’Isrā’ wal-Mi‘rāj), are the two parts

Will someone who has an Arabic keyboard please write al-Isra wa'l-Miraj instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.134.114 (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed an innacurate info

Sunni does not take position, the alegorical interpretation of Islam is done by Sufi mystics, which is common regardless of the branches of that religion. According to the concepts of Islam, there is a differences between the physical (ego bound) and spiritual body, one perishable the other imperishable, and the physical body can not cross heavens, it will contaminate it. The experience of the prophet was entirely spiritual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquote / actual background

We need less quotes of primary sources and more actual background - the topic is not about one legend but basically three and it has seen various research based on the historical critism. Dantes Inferno and other literary works is probably inspired by parts of the story. That said, we should have less of a prayer book and more of an actual article about this topic. Polentarion Talk 09:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Physical journey in lead

Why is this in the lead? The Quran is the first reference and Surah 17 Ayat 60 stats it was a vision. Ascensions in Islam (like other religions) is solely spiritual. This is confirmed with other events described in the Quran. For example, in the next Surah (18), Al-Kahf (The Cave) correlates to Plato's Allegory of the Cave are exposed telling us that the essential is impermeable to any physical perception. As it is unfolded in this Surah, Ayat 60-82 tells that Moses journey toward illumination wasn't a physical event at a top of a real mountain. The source is an anonymous servant with no name or social position. This person will later be identified as Al-Khidr. Original Islamic literature reject any attempt to mix the temporal physical experience (Moses) with the spiritual realm (Al-Khidr) making of Muhammad experience as solely spiritual, because Islam only recognize the spiritual world as real, and the physical being temporary and mere illusion.

This adherence to the critiques of pure rationality is similar to what was later exposed in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in the West. Documented for centuries by Arab and Persian scholars who have described what later Kant presented as a paradox (Turkic Sufi literature largely later incorporate Eastern mysticism to this) of the mirror reflection. As told in Islamic texts the inner reality which is whole and experienced is not the same as what the mirror shows, restrained to physicalism and constructs. This knowledge is cross cultural, and reported elsewhere in other religions even those considered having nothing in common with Islam. In the East, Buddha's last encounter against the illusion of Mara (physical and material) paved the way to his own ascension. See the Monomyth and Joseph Campbell heroes journey, it is a step prior to ascension after the hero become only spirit. The Hindu have the Maya (illusion) to describe the same spiritual vs physical dichotomy, alas with Greek mythology with the way Perseus was able to slay the Medusa while looking at the reflection from the mirrored shield.Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok like, first, this isn't a personal reflection site, but second, the literal nature of this event is accepted by the larger Muslim community. We can't discuss personal issues about the Platonic Cave nature of the Quranic events while writing an article reflecting the beliefs of 1.6 billion people who explicitly do not think this was a metaphor. Ogress 07:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your feedback. As you can see, I have not edited the page, I just assessed an element in it (comparativally). But I can see why you saw it as personal reflections, I apologise. I realise now that the way I wrote my reply made it seem as if the experience was merely a metaphore. This was sure not my intention. Just to clarify, in the case of a spiritual journey, it is viewed as more real than plainly physical by most (if not all) religions across the world. The Quran is accepted as the ultimate reference by Muslims, and it does stat it was a vision (of divine nature). The next Surah presents Moses, I gave this as example, because his story is more known in the West than Muhammad's experience. All other references I provided were to further confirm that those elements presented in the Quran are archetypes (the alegory of the cave being just one example) also present in other cultures throughout the ages (with little contact between them). This give weight to the genuine nature of the Prophets experience and further confirm the spiritual nature of the journey. Physical journey's are not cross cultural because they are prone to cultural biases, while spiritual experiences transcend those limitations (To refer to Carl Jung own writings). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ogress, I am commenting here to the message you left. [1] I am at lost, since I believe my clarification further confirmed I was distinctly opposed to a wording in the lead (It has been described as both a physical and spiritual journey) as seen in the title of my original text. I just presented it in talk, prior to editing mainspace. The problem is that there is a source there, modifying it would require to remove it.
It is Joseph Campbell (and others) who has made the comparative study not I. Reference to Muhammad can be found on the interviews he gave for the PBS loaded on youtube, where Prophet Muhammad is explicitly given as example (note I did cite this author in my original reply above), if you can not have access to his book.
You can find here [2] a paper presenting Sufi perspective on the journey. Note how the event is described as a spiritual voyage. While the article stats once spiritual and physical, it does further clarify as spiritual physical. It is therefor misleading to plainly claim as spiritual and physical without any sort of clarification. Because they are referring to the spiritual body here. Note it states an ultimate state of Tawhid was achieved. The union between the Physical and Spiritual from Allah dual aspect (Zat and Sifat), which Islamic literature describes as dissolution of the physical entirely (distinction between Batin (Islam) vs Zahir (Islam) (temporary)). Any reader from the West will be mislead reading physical here, as it assumes a form of physicalism. But as the article stat, it was beyond space and time. This distinction is important because it distinguish ascension in Islam and Christianity. Christ in Christianity had to die, get rid of his physical body prior to ascension. In Islam, the physical persona is not even given any importances, even foreign to the prophet, equated with material luxury and pride.
I wasn't aware my comment would have generated such reactions. Now I see, I should have worded it differently. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The statement in the article is cited to a reliable source. (It is also well-known.) Your attempts to explain differently is not reasonable for the reasons I have already stated. We do not write what we want things to be, we write what they are, and the fact of the matter is that the Night Journey is presented as both a physical and a spiritual voyage. We can't change that just because you think it's wrong. Ogress 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, you note in you reply for the reasons I have already stated. But I thought that your reply was mainly under the assumption that I was presenting the experience as solely a metaphor. Furthermore, how can one single source specific to one single discipline be accepted as sole holder of truth against materials of several hundred years and scholastic comparative publications? Isn't this serious selection bias? I also think you are assuming my position to be more polar than it actually is. I did accept physical being included if it was with a clarification. Just to quote from my last reply: It is therefor misleading to plainly claim as spiritual and physical without any sort of clarification. Because they are referring to the spiritual body here. But added that for those who know little about Islam (Western readers), they will assume physicalism, when this is contrary to the underlying principles presented in Islamic literature.

The physical body is the realm of the Zahir, the world of changing appearances (equivalent to Mara in Buddhism, Maya in Hinduism). But Islam announces the dissolution of the physical world prior to attainment of paradise (mind the paradise Muhammad visited that night), which is the realm of the Batin. Batin is solely spiritual, because it transcend cultures, space and time. The achievement of complete Tawhid under Islam is only possible with the spiritual body. If that was not the case Islam would have been incorporated into Christianity. As this is the fundamental distinction between both religions. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, my apologies for having not checked this prior. But doubtful the source used was claiming spiritual and physical, I checked (Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 482.)

The relevant quotes about the journey on that page:

"Muhammad, like Jacob, “dreamed” he ascended a ladder (miraj) to the heavens where he met with God."

In the case of Muhammad’s miraculous journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, Ibn Ishaq directs the reader to a tradition from Aisha in which it was said that only Muhammad’s spirit had journeyed to “the distant place of prayer.”

For measures of transparency, you can check the entire work here [3] as well as the page.

The word physical was assumed (but not textually there) by the editor who added it. But those are assumptions of an editor on Wikipedia. He imputed claims to the source, when the source says nothing of the sort. If I missed something, please do correct me.

Also, this journey in the referenced work is described starting on p.454, see that the neoplatonian allegory reference is also presented. But nothing explicit about the physical nature there to.

From here, I need your guidance. tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are schooled in Islam, you must know that the qubbat al-sakhrah at the Dome of the Rock is believed to be the literal place where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended, and that the al-Aqsa Mosque is literally called that because of this event, as it is believed to be the "furthest masjid" (it may not have been a mosque-mosque, but it was certainly the site of a masjid, a place of prayer). Yet you keep making statements that the mi'raj was a vision. I understand this is one perspective, but it's absolutely impossible we remove the statement that this was a metaphorical or dream vision in Islam, as it's simply understood to have literally happened. I'm unclear why this is difficult to understand unless you have never met Muslims or read Muslim literature, which you obviously have. You can read an introduction at Muslim Matters. Here's a scholarly source: Britannica. I could go on and on, because this is a very common understanding of the event. I know you don't agree with this interpretation, but nonetheless it is what people widely believe and that is all that matters in cases like this. Ogress 17:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, mind that you are referring to Isra. I am stating this because you call it Miraj. While your mistake was probably unintentional, other readers might forget two distinct events are being discussed here.

To quote one sentence of your last reply: but it's absolutely impossible we remove the statement that this was a metaphorical or dream vision in Islam, as it's simply understood to have literally happened. It seems you are interpreting physical as meaning real. Something real is not necessary physical, in fact in all major religions it is the opposite. I did cover this in my first comment bringing up the critique of pure reason and Kant paradox (present also in Islamic literature) and that one does not equate the other. Muhammad being really there is not the same as claiming any physicalism by the usage of weasel wording such as physical. I thought I did clarify this neatly in my answers.

This is amply covered in other texts treating also several other religions of all ages and cultures and a core correlate of the Monomyth. Mind that myth here does not mean fake or unreal, as Joseph Campbell does, as a Jungian, present those as real as events as what is called physical. Just as further reading, Carl Jung does write how the characters presented in the The Red Book (Jung) had autonomous existences not constrained by the conscious (rational) mind. As far as China, for instance how the Old/Great man, the masters of Liu Yiming were real, the same way as the immortal Qin Gao was assuming the same role as Al-Khidr or when the later succeeded in his quest for immortality (aka ascension). Muhammad experience of the divine described here escapes any sort of physicalisms (therefor transcend cultural boundaries). The knowledge accumulated for over a millennium through Arabic, Persian and Turkic literature clearly presents this as such. Can they all be said unreliable, when the material is confirmed thousands of kilometers as far as the first Chinese alchemical text (Cantong qi). It certainly can not be reduced to one or two weasel words. Certainly not with a word which was misappropriated by materialistic science with modern connotations and which unlike the experiences all cross-cultural is specific to an elite.

Your first source does use physical, it seems it was just posted by someone. While what you describe is accurate (qubbat al-sakhrah, al-Aqsa Mosque), you forget to mention that for those believers there is little separation between their inner and outer reality. And the very reason I criticized the use of the term physical is because most readers of this page are Westerns (and for them physical implies real and spiritual, unreal). More importantly, the second link you provide, Britannica just like the Encyclopedia of Islam avoids using this term.

Now, you can search other sources, but such search is called a selection bias. I don't suffer from such a bias, because the only thing I ask is a clarification if physical was to remain. I really don't know what to add more though, but we clearly are in an impasse here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr You ignore other people's comments, instead doubling down on being very firmly wrong. You can write as many essays as you like; it does not change the fact that an epic shedload of Muslims believe the miracle of the Night Journey was absolutely literal and it's both thunderously obvious to anyone who is Muslim as well as cited out the metaphorical ass and easily discoverable through the simple act of googling. Ogress 07:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, I replied you but then removed it [4]. I realized that I never actually presented my proposition. It was to replace physical and spiritual with Transpersonal as it avoids completely either terms. Currently, the Transpersonal article needs improvement, what about I improve it and expend it, and I submit the proposition of the change back here. It is the closest English term which correspond to Islamic literature. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You keep pushing this. First, I absolutely did not remove your comments. Second, that's a jargon term associated with a cult; it also is incorrect. You've been banging this pot under that username over a year, give it a rest. Ogress 00:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Where did I claim you removed my comment (I claimed I did, and even posted the link of that removal)? I will take the blame once more for being misunderstood and be the one to drop the stone. I will not refrain you from your right to word articles the way you want them to be worded. It is with humility I accept any accusations leveled at me from the beginning to the end. I will take note and change accordingly my behavior. tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • nonsense. We can speak of Islamic tradition, but to describe this as a physical journey in unencyclopedic. We can discuss the Muslim tradition that regards this as a physical journey.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi Gregory, it's not I but Ogress who stated this. I documented that Islamic tradition has it that it was not a physical journey, I even gave a passage from the Quran. The conflicts stems from the fact that in the West physical is considered as real and spiritual as unreal while Islamic tradition (like other traditions) has it that it's the physical world which is an illusion (temporary). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose move to English title

As per standard practice in this English encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Isra and Miraj: The Miraculous Night Journey

The Israa and Miraj refer to, two parts of a miraculous journey that Prophet Muhammad took in one night from Makka to Jerusalem and then an ascension to the heavens.

Israa is an Arabic word referring to Prophet Muhammad's miraculous night journey from Makka to Jerusalem - specifically, to the site of al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem - as referred to in Surah Al-Israa in the Quran.

It is believed to have been followed by the Mi'raj, his ascension to heaven. According to some of the Hadith scholars this journey is believed to have taken place just over a year before Prophet Muhammad migrated to from Makka to Madina, on the 27th of Rajab.

Muslims celebrate this night by offering optional prayers during this night, and in many Muslim countries, by illuminating cities with electric lights and candles.

Following is the translation of the first verse of chapter 17, Al-Israa, from the Quran that refers to this journey, followed by a detailed explanation of the verse by Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi.

Holy is He Who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Makka) to the farther Mosque (in Jerusalem) - whose surroundings We have blessed - that We might show him some of Our signs 1. Indeed He alone is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. (Quran 17:1)

1 This is a reference to the event known as Mi'raj (Ascension) and Isra' (Night Journey). According to most traditions - and especially the authentic ones - this event took place one year before Hijrah. Detailed reports about it are found in the works of Hadith and Sirah and have been narrated from as many as twenty-five Companions. The most exhaustive reports are those from Anas ibn Malik, Malik ibn Sa'sa'ah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari and Abu Hurayrah. Some other details have been narrated by 'Umar, 'Ali, 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, 'Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, and 'A'ishah among other Companions of the Prophet .

The Quran here only mentions that the Prophet was taken from the Ka'bah to the mosque in Jerusalem, and specifies that the purpose of the journey was such that God might "show him some of His signs". Beyond this, The Quran does not concern itself with any detail. However, according to Hadith reports, Gabriel took the Prophet at night from the Ka'bah to the mosque in Jerusalem on a buraq.* On reaching Jerusalem the Prophet along with other Prophets offered Prayers. (Al-Nasa'i, Sunan, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Fard al-Salah wa Dhikr Ikhtilaf al-Naqilin...' -Ed.) Gabriel then took him to the heavens and the Prophet met several great Prophets in different heavenly spheres. (See al-Nasa'i, Sunan, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Fard al-Salah' - Ed.) Finally, he reached the highest point in the heavens and was graced with an experience of the Divine Presence. On that occasion the Prophet received a number of directives including that Prayers were obligatory five times a day. (Al-Bukhari, K. Manaqib al -Ansar, 'Bab al-Mi'raj ; K. al-Tawhid, 'Bab Kallama Musa Taklima' - Ed.) Thereafter, the Prophet returned from the heavens to Jerusalem, and from there to the Holy Mosque in Makka. Numerous reports on the subject reveal that the Prophet was also enabled on this occasion to observe Heaven and Hell. (Al-Bukhari, K. al_Salah, 'Bab Kayfa Furidat al-Salah fi al-Isra' and Ibn Hisham, Sirah, vol. I, p. 404 - Ed.) Abdullah Naveed (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isra and Mi'raj. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isra and Mi'raj. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The Koran

@Ogress: @HyperGaruda: I'm undoing two sets of counterproductive editing to this section. For years, the included verses of the Koran were referenced in proper fashion. Then, someone added external links to the body of the article, a no-go, especially since the article quotes the Koran. In addition, the section was subsequently tagged for not including analysis by 'neutral' scholars—which isn't necessary, because the text is simply reporting the Koran's version of a purported event—very straightforward. I'll be leaving messages at the respective editors' talk pages. Tapered (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? That's the correct cite format. In fact, it's SPECIFICALLY the Quran cite format. Ogress 03:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In addition, the Cite request is because an interpretation is being adduced OF the text that requires clarification; you should not remove this cite requirement. Ogress 03:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ogress: Please show a link for the format. And watch your language. Tapered (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You said some fairly unpleasant things about me and I've got to watch my language? Also, if you'd looked at the edits you'd've seen that it was a Wikipedia template... You've been here how many years and you're accusing editors of bad practice when you are actually being ignorant of the appropriate practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Quran Ogress 03:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't curse. You chose your handle well. (And to show how slow I can be, it puzzled me initially. Thought it was some variant of egress/ingress. All those wasted years in the trades!) Oh, and thanks for the link. As far is I knew, the ban on external links is nearly 'sacrosanct'—and I did check the policy before my edit. Looking at your edits gave me no clue that they conformed to anything resembling a guideline. The arcana of that template (and recognizing the edit as employing a template) is the sort of pedantic system one might expect fr/ theologians—do the Jesuits have an Islamic auxilliary?—but I've learned about bucking consensus (all genuflect!). Tapered (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
One more thing. IMLTHO the articles in Wikipedia concerning Islam and Islamic related topics are dominated by pedantic, theological minded folk. After becoming a bit acquainted with the protocol, it seems like one more way for said folk to extend their domination, and violate, at least in part, the spirit of a useful guideline—against external linking in the body of an article. Sincerely Tapered (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A straightforward description would be if the Qur'an literally said that those verses are about the Isra/Mi'raj. Since that is not the case, we are dealing with someone's interpretation that those verses describe the Isra/Mi'raj and not just any other journey, thus secondary references are needed that establish such a link. I see Ogress already reverted your revert. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Your tag is appropriate. Tapered (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Nature of Buraq

U have described Buraq as a winged mule type animal which is totally wrong concept and idealism. Actually Buraq is derived from Burq which means a collection of lights or combination of lights. Ur term gives a notion that the thing was an animal which is wrong.Actually Prophet Muhammad(S.A.W) travelled through time within the refrance frame light and events happen between the frames so time stopped relative to observer... Aejaz Ul Bashir (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at


Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq is WP:Fringe

Ibn Warraq a prominent Islamophobe, has zero education and credentials on this topic. His original research lacks any historical precedent, is not peer reviewed and is WP:Fringe storytelling. Ukalszda (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please review this source [5] as it makes it clear that Ibn Warraqs theories are WP:Fringe and not supported by any reputable sources. Ukalszda (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge Buraq into this article

The article Buraq, likely to remain a stub, should be merged into this article. ---Mpatel (talk) 09:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Buraq is actually quite an attractive article as it stands; I don't see any reason for merger. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Nah, I think it's fine as it is. Buraq is already on the edge of stub/not stub and I'm sure there is something somewhere to be added about the Buraq in art. gren グレン 11:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the intended merger as well as the statement that Buraq is likely to be a stub. I oppose the merger strongly & would like to request for support of expansion of that article. -- ĐõÇ §αмέЄЯ  21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Lailat al Miraj into this article

Resolved

It makes sense to add information regarding the celebration of Isra and Mi'raj into an all encompassing article.--72.25.66.28 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed. --Elonka 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove image depicting the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

The image attributed to Nizami needs to be removed as it is deeply offensive to Muslims in that it depicts the holy prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). 2001:5B0:2548:B888:7407:F497:3451:D87D (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR describes the policy in this case. — Jumbo T (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It clearly wasn't offensive to Nizami (a Muslim). The fear of religious imagery in Islam is a modern one. Besides, this is hardly a depiction - there is no facial detail; it's more like an abstract representation. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That Hijazi village …seriously ?

I am not a Muslim ; but I am Arabic speaking . The works of those travelers explicitly has 2 mosques  ; one that is "Al-Aqsa" (The farthrest) , and "Al-Adna" (the closest) . neither of them was pointing to a defined entity called "Aqsa" : they were pointing to an otherwise nameless mosque being far from each author's point of view.

There is no evidence the early Muslims believed the Al-Aqsa mosque was other than either in the Heavens , or Jerusalem , or both simultaneously . There is also no evidence that the inhabitants of this village either once , or now hold a tradition that either of their 2 mosques was indeed the mosque referenced in the Quran , and that the one in Jerusalem is "fake" .

It's a needless controversy generated from linguistic misunderstanding , and popularizing it is probably , if not undoubtedly , motivated by the on-going political problems in there for public relations and legitimization purposes . it's not worth mentioning it here ; since this virtually unheard of association only came very recently (from some 1950s in western circles I guess ?). I propose to delete it .

Thanks . 2.88.118.183 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You could well be correct, linguistically speaking. However, the more serious problem here is that the material is essentially WP:SYNTH since is attempts to speculate on the location of "Al-Aqsa" as defined in this page's subject, but based on a source that itself makes not mention of this page's subject. It also fall under WP:FRINGE and WP:ECREE. For now, it is removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

2600:4041:542C:BD00:35DD:34AA:87E6:8B5F (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) please remove all the pictures posted on this article as it is disrespectful to the muslim community.
 Not done: Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isra%27_and_Mi%27raj/Archive_1&oldid=1259595935"