Jump to content

Talk:Sahih Muslim

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

Different people?

[edit]

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

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

Notes Section

[edit]

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

Requested quotation of Style guidelines

[edit]

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

Structure of the article

[edit]

The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since these can inhibit the flow of the text. By the same token, paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length.

Articles generally comprise prose paragraphs, not bullet points; however, sometimes a bulleted list can break up what would otherwise be an overly large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. Bulleted lists should not be overused in the main text, but are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom.

Headings help to make an article clearer, and comprise the table of contents; see Wikipedia:Section, which users can choose under 'Preferences' to view (the default) or not to view. Headings are hierarchical, so you should start with == Header == and follow it with === Subheader ===, ==== Subsubheader ====, and so forth. The 'second-level' == Header == is overly large in some browsers, but that can be fixed for individual viewers with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed (see help:User style).

Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.

The degree to which subtopics should appear in a single article or be given their own pages is a matter of judgment and of controlling the total length of the article.

Between paragraphs and between sections, there should be only a single blank line. Multiple blank lines unnecessarily lengthen the article and can make it more difficult to read.

Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Structure of the article

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

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

Edit

[edit]

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

Controversy

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

Who says that we have to use it? We can use the Islamic one because that's what the subject is.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the article is to speak in a language the average Wikipedia user understands. If anything, place the Gregorian date next to the Hijri. Supertouch (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with WP:DATE "Dates can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars is provided, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both Islamic and Julian calendars. Where a calendar other than the Julian or Gregorian is used, this must be clear to readers." Peter Deer (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first comment. Comming up with the islamic calendar makes no sense and looks confusing. This is the year 2018 and Mohammed died in 632 AD.46.93.254.201 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for verfication/evidence?

[edit]

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

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

Scientific arrangement of themes and chapters.

[edit]

I don't understand the use of the word "scientific" in this context. "The author, for example, selects a proper place for the narrative and, next to it, puts all its versions". It's a process called editing. Nothing specifically related to science. 217.162.132.79 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy: Hadith predicting war between Muslims and Jews

[edit]

One of the most controversial passages in Islamic scripture is in this Hadith collection, regarding predictions of the last hour:

6985. Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. http://theonlyquran.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=41&chapter=16&hadith=6982

This is in the Covenant of Hamas, article 7: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

This should probably be in the article. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sahih Muslim. 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) 02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism missing or way too short

[edit]

How could Sahih Muslim and Bukhari have known what Mohammed have said? Both lived 250 years after Mohammed and the arab culture was based on oral communication. Early Quran scriptures even lacked vowels because the arab language wasnt fully developed therefore no writing culture being detectable and no original sources for his hadiths to find. Imagine if we would start today to write about the founding of America in 1776 and what the most important leading figures have said and in contrast to Muslim we have book printing, a writing culture and technological help today, Muslim and Bukhari not. Also why do you need hadiths if the Quran claims to be final word of God? Neither Bukhari nor Sahih Muslim were prophets and their work sanctioned by God. 46.93.254.201 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Whabbi, Salafi, Berelvi and Deobandi?

[edit]

Which one is the right sect? 2001:8F8:1361:1C0A:5D2B:7972:1A95:CAE8 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahih_Muslim&oldid=1262648440"