Talk:Itmam al-Hujjah

This article was nominated for deletion on October 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Who unveils of truth

There is written in the lead "which is used when the unveiling of truth by a Messenger of God" and then the "messenger" is defind as " Unlike prophets, messengers are assured of success. All messengers are prophets but not vice versa" and refered to Spositiop.

I don't agree with this. Although qur'an has " و ما کنا معذبین حتی نبعث رسولا" It means The God doesn't punish people untill who sends a messenger to them, but how do you find all of the "messengers" should be "prophet". For example when Mahdi emerges there is "Itmaam-i-hujjat" but he is not prophet. I think we should refer to Tafsir--Sa.vakilian 07:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced this quote. Secondly, not all people believe that Mahdi is coming, as Qur'an is silent on this very issue. Even Jesus' second coming is doubted, detailed argument can be seen at Jesus_in_Islam#Second_coming. This argument can be more seriously dealt under differences between Shias and Sunnis. Because I can't find any source from Shia side that would not believe in Mahdi. But Sunni Tafsir like Tadabbur-i-Qur'an denies it altogether. This whole argument is based on Qur'anic assertion that "God and his Messengers will always prevail", as I quoted the exact verse from Qur'an on the article and it does not say that anybody else will prevail as well. I am not asserting that whether Mahdi is coming or not, but explaining with context to Jihad in Prophet Muhammad's time. But if you have secondary Shia source, you can incorporate in it. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or leave it open for all the Muslims, as this article is specifically discussing punishment of nations. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't discuss about my example. I want to say this claim (Roosol(messenger)=Nabi(prophet)) should based on Islamic scholars. I think we can't say all of the messengers are prophet. Also it means we don't see a messemger and Rasool allah was the last one. --Sa.vakilian 09:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement implies that all messengers are prophets but not all prophets are messengers. Which means that if Muhammad is seal on prophets then he is also seal on messengers as well hence neither messenger or prophet can be after him. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about prophet, but I told you should see Tafsirs and show that scholars says that a massenger should be a prophet and Rasoolallah was the last rasool.--Sa.vakilian 11:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many Muslims regard the messenger with Sharia while prophets are without Sharia.[1] Our article even asserts that Jesus was messenger, for which Qur'an told that Jews were given with the verdict that they will pass their lives as subjugations to the believers of Jesus. This difference is because, this very term is actually coined by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to explain Jihad in Prophet Muhammad's (sws) times. But even some western sources agree with this definition of messenger. I put an external reference, which is an islamic site, but it gives the same explanation for difference between messenger and prophet. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, I know this definition. I have a definite question. See the Ayat which I wrote above. Please show me some Tafsirs which tell this "Rasool" should be prophet too. It doesn't mean I disagree with you. I just want a good article with verifiable resources. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I atleast couldn't find in The Meaning of the Qur'an (tafsir). If I'll find such a reference, I'll put it on the article. TruthSpreader^Talk 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, Khalifa, the Qur'an only guy, did'nt he say he was a messanger but not a prophet? --Striver 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the people who claimed to be messenger, said that there is seal on prophecy. But they didn't believe that all messengers are prophets so they used this excuse to claim themselves as messengers. But Qur'an says that messenger of God do prevail, which doesn't fit with their life, so they are nullified automatically.TruthSpreader^Talk 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mizan

The book Mizan appears to be a religious tract rather than a reliable source, and the article accordingly adopts a very distinct POV, going so far as to state what God wants and does as fact.Proabivouac 05:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This term is an Islamic term, so definitely it would have an Islamic POV. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, this article clearly says that this is asserted by Qur'an. So I do believe that if something is mentioned in Qur'an, it can be presented in the encyclopedia under the umbrella of Islam. And definitely, it would have its own POV. There is also one academic source, written by John Esposito, in the article, which gives the same notion. It is stated very clearly that it is Qur'an that asserts it. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move

move to Itmam al-hujjah or Itmāmu-l-ḥujjah or Itmāmu-l-ḥuǧǧati for consistent transliteration (we don't want aa for ā; why the -i-?). dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article

Useful to have more articles on Islamic concepts. Each view of this concept from within Islam should be carefully described. Appropriate sources would be leading Islamic writers. Itsmejudith 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question/suggestion

Good that the article was kept. So you make it clear that it is acceptable for a "messenger" to wage war on those who refuse to accept the truth, i.e. kill them if they don't convert. But then you quote Armstrong as saying that after Muhammad's death, this stopped. You need to make it clear that (at least according to what you're saying, though it appears that many Muslims disagree with you) forced conversion (i.e. if you don't convert you die) is only allowed when there is a "messenger" on earth. Arrow740 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate! there is a difference between what people think today, what people thought yesterday, and what they did! You need to understand these very basic concepts separately in history. I have even written under Jihad article that Muslims differ on whether religion can be spreaded anymore by sword or not and I have given verses which are interpreted differently. However, the concept mentioned in current article is exclusive to Itmam al-hujjah. TruthSpreader^Talk 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither your answer nor the article is clear. Arrow740 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Shehzad Saleem quoted for an interpretation of a non-Muslim text? Arrow740 18:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem is simply presenting an Islamic POV, as article is about an Islamic term. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of lies and half-truths. Get a Jewish and Christian interpretation on those Bible quotes to maintain NPOV. Arrow740 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and Christian and Jewish bits have no relevance in here. We may mention that Muslims see precursors in the Bible but no more.

The bits from Karen Armstrong about forced conversions is ridiculous and most probably a misrepresentation of what she wrote

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to add biblical meaning of these verses. But if you want to check Armstrong's book, you are more than welcome. Because these are the exact wordings from her book. TruthSpreader^reply 10:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad for her, since it is utter nonsense (if she indeed wrote this). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please can some editor who is a Muslim or who is otherwise knowledgable about this term help me in this, as I am trying to understand this:

"Completion of truth", in Islamic thought, means that someone rejecting this truth has no excuse
This completion only comes about after a messenger (as opposed to a prophet) has put forth this truth in a book to his (or a) people
Someone rejecting this truth afterwards will be punished by God for it, in one way or another.

Have I understood this correctly or am I erring in something?

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one is responding, I assume that my take is correct and will proceed based on this assumption. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late resonse! The answers are:

People who reject the Prophet (mainly who challenge the prophet himself in his life i.e. polytheists of Arabia) have no excuse (hence you are right)
This completion is mentioned (not with this exact term but with very similar words ^[Quran 9:1]) that Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger, which is the surah talking about killing of all polytheists in Arabia and subjugation of People of the Book. And this Surah came after mecca had been conquered, means people actually had all the time to question the prophet (10 years in mecca and 10 years in Medina). And now God said that polytheists will be killed at sight ^{[Quran 9:29]}.
Someone rejecting prophet in his life is not only punished in this life but also in after life. The quran is full of examples of those people (whome prophet are sent) who rejected Prophets of God and how God destroyed them and how they will be treated on Judgement day.

TruthSpreader^reply 12:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TS, for the reply. I won't bash the messenger (you) for the despicable content of the message. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid from attacking other people's belief. Comments like despicable content of the message are not helpful at all. Thank you! TruthSpreader^reply 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to take back. Killing a certain group of people at sight is indeed despicable. I did not attack any other Wikipedian (or any other human being for that matter). Whether you identify with this order to kill is indeed your own business, not mine. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TruthSpreader, you've made a big point of sharing your beliefs all across Wikipedia, which as we see contain some elements which others might find controversial, and I think Str1977 has the right to weigh in with his own, whether founded in religion or not. I agree that such conversations are rarely helpful; however, you invite them when you describe doctrines from the standpoint of advocacy.Proabivouac 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum, where we discuss each others beliefs and weigh them. We are here to edit articles, not to make comments on others' beliefs. If you believe that someone has said Islam has despicable content of the message, please bring forth you reliable source, otherwise, please don't make useless and unnecessary comments. TruthSpreader^reply 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment, "Wikipedia is not a forum, where we discuss each others beliefs and weigh them." You might reconsider your userpage and incessant discussions about your beliefs in light of this realization, as they may inspire comments by others. Per your comment, "please bring forth you reliable source," simply attributing the beliefs you outlined above rather than expressing them as your own might have avoided this exchange.Proabivouac 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP is not a forum and hence I have not opened up some huge discussion on this. I merely stated that I think "killing on sight" any certain group is a despicable stance. I also clearly stated that I do thank TS for his reply anyway and that I do not blame him for the content of the explanation. After all, I was looking for a truthful exposition of the concept. However, I was indeed a bit shocked by the blunt way TS stated it. Finally, my comment probably was not "helpful". So what? Is any word here supposed to be "helpful"? (I, for my part, can still remember who started to use this term big time, do you, TruthSprader?) On the other hand, it was in no way insulting or offensive, so there is no need to shout about this.

As for my edits, which TS largely reverted under the blanket of a minor edit, I think they are needed to make this article readable, focusing the article on the actual concept. This article is not about forced conversion or the use of warfare (making the issue that most of what was included in that vein was of substandard quality) but about this specific concept. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case I'd not made this clear, I find it deeply hypocritical that TruthSpreader has spent so much time on Wikipedia discussing (and frankly promulgating, per username) his opinions about religion and snaps at you here for expressing your own.

Who is the one who popularized the use of "helpful?"Proabivouac 09:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pro.

I have no actual problem with TS promoting his views in so far it doesn't disrupt WP and its articles (which is why we are here). However, if he does so he must cope with others expressing their take on these views (if indeed he issue above is his view ... I am still assuming good faith on this). I did not actually express my own views (not that that would be wrong in any way) but merely commented on the issue above.

As for your second question: I am talking about the early Bush administration, which called any comment it didn't like "unhelpful". This was soon echoed by none other than Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But the usage of the term has so exploded that TS probably doesn't know. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bush admin: indeed. Hadn't thought of that.Proabivouac 09:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TruthSpreader can use his own talk page to discuss whatever he wants. But article talk pages are not religous forums. --Aminz 09:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallohoho, Aminz. You just broke your own standards by commenting on something not related to editing the article. I made a remark that was well justified about a homicidal view. No one here turned it onto a "religious forum" (at least not me). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Dhimmi

Status of Dhimmi was initially made available to people of the book + Zoroastrians. Later it was expanded to Hindus, Sikhs and others by Muslim jurists. Should we include this info?--Aminz 10:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits

The first thing is that Christians never considered Jews as Dhimmis. Hence, stating that Qur'an considers jews dhimmi just after Jesus is absolutely wrong(they were explicitly made dhimmis in Muhammad's time, and even after Conquest of Mecca). Secondly, the verse ^[Quran 9:5] is not mentioned in Mizan. Rather verse 9:29 is mentioned to show the punishment after itmam al-hujjah (which happened in the last three years of Muhammad). Hence, if you really want to say that polytheists were given four months of respite, you must state that it was the final respite, and not the first one (but in any case, you need a secondary source to include it). Thirdly, I am restoring the lead section, as it should summarize the whole article, and not merely give the definition of this term (which is explicitly associated with Messengers). And finally, I am changing References to Bibliography, as now we are not citing all the references. TruthSpreader^reply 14:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TS,

Firstly, I will take out the reference to dhimmis then from this unhistorical discourse.
Secondly, what do we care about what Mizan wrote. Sura 9,5 is clearly Muhammad's order to kill the pagans. But we can use both side by side. Why must I state that it was the final respite. Are you suggesting that what Muhammad did was right in any way? Do you think you can prove that by saying that is "only" the final respite? Also you may not be aware that you are using quite POV-laden language, when you write "exoneration" ... for what? Is this an attempt to justify the threats? Also, Linking "Polytheists of Arabia" to Arabian mythology is nonsensical
Thirdly, I will retain the "Messenger" in the intro, but the Shia issue is (yet) to undeveloped (and unintelligible) to warrant a place there. The Hanif sentence is completely irrelevant.
Finally, what we are talking about is a concept and not a mere term. This is confirmed by your argument under "Thirdly".

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with your current edits, but just as a comment, verse 9:29 is translated wrong in all the three translations at USC website. The verb used in Qur'an is "Qital", which means to kill. And this is why verse 9:5 is redundant in this case. But in any case, I leave both on the page. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TS, good that we agree on this. Regarding your comment, I am in no position to comment on these translations. In any case, I think we can keep both passagesl, as the first one is clearly addressed to the Meccans. I do not know whether the two were uttered by Muhammad at the same occasion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the segment "punishment by people as of 4th Feb 2014

I quote, as of 4th Feb 2014,

"Punishment comes through human hands, if the Messenger has migrated from his people to another place, where he has achieved political sovereignty and a considerable number of followers. The Messenger consolidates his power and trains his followers and prepares them for battle, so that he is able to root out the disbelievers and establish the supremacy of his religion.[6]"

I think this is problematic because this "punishment" sounds as if, given a society disbelieved after clear proof, Muslims can move somewhere else, build power and destroy the disbelieving people. This is not the case.

Firstly, the migration was a result of the Meccan society being hostile to the Muslims in Mecca, which the Muslims endured for some years until Muhammad (peace be upon him) received permission from God (glorified and exalted is He) to migrate to Yahtrib (Medina). The quote above makes it sound like it was all part of Muhammad's plan (peace be upon him) to "consolidate his power...and prepares them for battle," but this is not true. First, according to Muslims, Muhammad gives the call to arms only after he (peace be upon him) was divinely inspired to do so. This also means that if God did not say anything about Mecca, he (peace be upon him) would not have plotted to take back Mecca unless God permitted or instructed him to do so (peace be upon him). Secondly, Mecca was being taken back, because they had been driven out of their own homes by force i.e. conditions were deliberately made unlivable, they had been persecuted. The condition to fight that Muslims learn from the incident of taking back Mecca is the fact that the early Muslims were kicked out of their own homes, not merely to punish people that disbelieve. In fact in Islam, it is hoped that disbelievers will eventually believe, and if not, perhaps their children will.

Secondly, in Medina where it is true that the Muslims did consolidate power, they had peacefully coexisted with non-Muslims. There were mutually agreed upon terms that protected this peace. This is proof that Muslims should tolerate the existence of non-Muslim groups on mutually agreed terms rather than plot their destruction (what the quoted section suggests). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.109.182 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Itmam al-hujjah. 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/20061115065145/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/martitl2y2.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/martitl2y2.html

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) 00:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Itmam al-hujjah. 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) 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]