Talk:Bilal ibn Rabah

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 ^[1] — 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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

Too opinionated with statements like:

Birth and early life

1. Should the nobles of the Quraish have simply wanted to belittle him for being of an African background, they would have simply made of his race, not his mother as in Arab custom, ethnicity is determined by the father, indicating that his father Rabah was an Arab by race and not an Abyssinian captured as a war prisoner, supporting the latter opinion.
2. However, this can be challenged by the fact that Bilal was seen as an Abyssinian by historians but other notable people such as Usama bin Zayd who are considered as Arab despite of having an Abyssinian slave mother, favouring the former account.

Bilal's appearance'

1. There were attempts by European authors to minimize the African origin of Bilal in their writings and present them as facts. One such author who is still quoted as a source was a Sir William Muir. Sir William Muir was a Scottish orientalist, who is known to have made many inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and sometimes just complete falsehoods concerning the Islamic Prophet Muhammad and his companions.

Rather than clutter this talk page, I think that's enough. This article needs a total re-edit to meet our NPOV guidelines. Tamsier (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding to my post above, the more I read, the more problems I see. How this article got a B rating is beyond my comprehension. Too many huge claims about his wife and descendants which are not supported by any credibile source, and in fact, to the contrary. He was not given a wife by his Arab companions because of his identity and slave roots. There is no credible source that claims he had descendants/a wife. The Mali Empire claim is a recent addition when these African nations converted to Islam in mass especially in the 19th century during the Muslim marabout jihads. After converting many of the Muslim griots fabricated genealogists of certain Muslim families by trying to attach them to an Arab lineage, thereby to the Quresh clan, and thereby to Muhammad himself. This is what scholars like Professor G. Wesley Johnson describes as "Islamic legitimacy." Tamsier (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the article is inappropriate on many levels. However, there is a report on Bilal's wife that is as credible as anything else in the text. Ibn Sa'd, The Companions of Badr, page 182 records:

'Affan ibn Muslim reported from Abu Hilal from Qatada that Bilal married an Arab woman of the Banu Zuhra.

While this is very little information, it needs to be acknowledged and dealt with before claiming that Bilal never married. Petra MacDonald (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bilal bin rabah Al habashi calligraphy Masjid an-Nabawi.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)