Talk:Prophets in Islam

I found a reference for "the Resolute" and am suggesting another spelling. I'm trying to find out how many messengers there are. Is it three? That seems like an important number. Jonathan Tweet 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I marked some of these statements as needing citations. I can't readily find a clean, generally accepted definition of rasul and nabi.

Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam distinguish between a "rasul" (messenger) and a "nabi" (prophet). Both are "divinely inspired" recipients of God's revelation. However, messengers are given a message for a community in book form^{[citation needed]} and, unlike prophets, are assured success by God^{[citation needed]}. While all messengers are prophets, not all prophets are messengers (see also Itmam al-hujjah).^[1][2][3]

1. [1]

   John Esposito(2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.20
2. [2]

   Amin Ahsan Islahi. Tadabbur-i-Qur'an, vol.8, p.273
3. [3]

   Rasul and nabi

Jonathan Tweet 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement above implies that there is no prophet/messenger distinction in Judaism and Christianity, yet we read somewhere else in the article (Distinction between Prophets and Messengers section): "According to Uri Rubin, the Qur'an, as in the New Testament, ranks apostles (rasūl) higher than prophets (see 1 Cor 12:28-31; cf. Eph 3:5; 4:11). "

Isn't there a contradiction...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.46.242 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Muhammad was the last Prophet of Allah as stated in the Quran

Whenever 'Isa or Jesus is linked on the article, it links to "Islamic view of Jesus" - yet other prophets are not linked to the same kind of page even though those pages exist, such as "Islamic view of Moses" or "Islamic view of Noah". Should they all correspond, i.e. all should link to their own "Islamic view of -" rather than to just the prophet? Also, the ability of choices, such as in the table for 'Isa and Adam/Eve "Main articles:"?

Modenadude 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that there was a split between Islamic view of Jesus, Christian views of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus. Jesus is the main article, which also includes the historical view. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical name of Muhammad is Paraclete? This is from what/where? I have the feeling that there is no common agreement on this point, considering the different religions views of one another.

While it is commonly accepted that there is about 124,000 (according to some 125,000) prophets, I have never heard of 224,000 messengers. As a subject under the Pillars of Faith, Muslims are required to know the 25 Messengers i.e. the list/links of the wiki pages on each the messengers at the end of the article. Also, since it is stated in there that 124,000 came from Hadith Sahih, care should be taken in translating it and the word used. It must be remembered at all times that a nabi (prophet) is not placed under any responsibility to spread their teaching. A rasul (messenger) however is tasked by God to spread whatever he is taught to others in his community, race or in the case of Muhammad - to mankind and the entire universe as evident in (21:107) We sent thee not, but as a Mercy to all Worlds.

I believe this is the standard interpretation of nabi and rasul by Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Thus, I think 124,000 messengers is erroneous unless the arabic text of the hadith can be reproduced for verification.

There are 124,000 prophets, not 224,000 prophets. This is a well know fact among all Muslims. It should be corrected. I do not know why Wikipedia is being stubborn about it. As far as verification is concerned, it is Wikipedia's job to confirm this fact. 70.177.230.155 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Irfan Mufty-Jameel.

You say it's "Wikipedia's job to confirm this fact," which is correct, but I think you're confused about what Wikipedia is. There is no independent person on Wikipedia making these judgements--all of the research and citation of articles is done by editors like you and me. As for that specific number, please take a look at the citation. If you search in the book, you'll see that the author explicitly uses the number 224,000. That source appears to be a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. However, if you have a reliable source that states 124,000, we can probably find a way to work that in, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I like to see this chart broken as section, much easier to edit and cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. I am integrating my understanding of Christian prophecy with Islam. I have several questions I would like to see included (addressed) in this article.

Firstly, the most famous book of prophecy among Christians, though little understood, is that of "St. John the Divine" (a name of Catholic origin) or "John on Patmos" or "John the apostle Jesus loved" - author of "the Apocalypse of iEsous Cristos" -- an approximation of the Greek "the Revelation of Jesus Christ," A.K.A. Revelation (often miscalled "Revelations.")

Please refer to Revelation 10 for the specific charge "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." and specifically in the "Latter days." As an expert of this prophecy I vouch to you that this is specific in chronology, though difficult to discern out of the context of a comprehensive study. I and by general consensus of studied Christians and students of Islam (it is my understanding) see this prophecy is within sight of the present time. Is there a reason, to the expert in the applications of Islam, why this John should not be a messenger of primary import on this table?

Secondly, I conclude with very great certainty of mind and reason, that this charge to prophesy is soon to occur. If it fails to occur -- if there fails to be such a prophet of note as resembles this prophecy perfectly -- then the (Latter days) prophecies themselves must be false. As is often the case between law and practice must occur confliction and psychosis. We must bravely stand up in this to reassure each other -- and this matter is of particular import. Could anyone address authoritatively how this prophecy of prophecy yet to come comports with the claim that Mohammad should be the last prophet and messenger? Since this is a common prophecy between us (and one I am attempting to unify between us) I am particularly concerned about it, and in your response something truly generous will be most appreciated.

I am author of UUNIS.org which is under intensive development off-site. Please consider it.

Sincerely, Xgenei (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Prophet Mohammad maybe the last prophet, but there is no fact in Qur'an to be the last messenger also! This claim maybe different with the orthodoxy of Islam, I know, but we have no verse in Quran for that, to be honest! Please contact me for lots more info about this and any kind of unification between Islam and Christianity.--تسلیم (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Submitter to Truth: I suppose by making this request i am challenging you to consider certain things that are of common interest. Yet I do not claim to know when and how the divisions of faith can be unified. I believe they will, and I think rather soon -- beginning within a handful of years. But I know that the discussion of faith should be far more vital than it is. And this should begin with making clear that the Latter Days prophecy is something that is already dominant in Western history, though remarkably, no one seems to be conscious of it. That is one of the tasks for UUNIS.org. And I am asking you to consider certain facts that I believe also concerns the Muslim family. Some few of these ideas I am asking to have explained authoritatively and documented here.

So however I can support this effort I am willing to do so. Please let me know, or proceed on your own and I will pay attention. Sincerely, Xgenei (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In the intro, could the word "sharia" be replaced by a more common one, perhaps with a footnote recommending the reading of the sharia article? "Law", "rules"?
TIA, --Jerome Potts 04:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some inconsistancy in the table about whether to use the Arabic or Islamic name. For example, 'Nuh' is referred to as 'Nuh' in the body text, whereas 'Ibrahim' is referred to as 'Abraham' and 'Lut' as 'Lot'.

To me, it would seem more logical to use the Arabic name, but whichever it should be consistent. Ged UK 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is good. It makes sense to mention the Arabic name first, then the Jewish/Christian name for clarification (for example, "Ibrahim (Abraham)". Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Article image currently links to the JP Mohammed cartoons? Vandalism? Andersa (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Guys,

Justice as a purpose of messenegers left in the related section. As Quran said in 57:25

لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنا رُسُلَنا بِالْبَيِّناتِ وَ أَنْزَلْنا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتابَ وَ الْميزانَ لِيَقُومَ النَّاسُ بِالْقِسْطِ وَ أَنْزَلْنَا الْحَديدَ فيهِ بَأْسٌ شَديدٌ وَ مَنافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَ لِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ وَ رُسُلَهُ بِالْغَيْبِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزيز

Progressive Muslims translation is this:

We have sent Our messengers with proofs, and We sent down with them the Scripture and the balance, that the people may uphold justice. And We sent down the iron, wherein there is great strength, and many benefits for the people. All this in order for God to distinguish those who would support Him and His messengers, on faith. God is Powerful, Noble.

Please add Justice as a purpose of messengers also. Thanks --Submitter to Truth (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Krishna, (also mentioned in some books of Hadith"? Which ones? Шизомби (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

KRISHNA WAS MENTIONED IN THE HADITH.THE SENTENCE OF THE VERSE WAS: THERE WAS A PROPHET OF IN INDIA,HE WAS DARK IN COMPLEXION AND HIS NAME WAS KAHAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.74.75 (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the evidence of the Quran, there is one reference which is controversial among the commentators. There is a tradition reported from the Holy Prophet (sa) which speaks of an Indian prophet by name. In his words:

There was a prophet of God in India who was dark in colour and his name was Kahan.1

Now anyone acquainted with the history of Indian religions would immediately connect this description to Lord Krishna, who is invariably described in the Hindu literature as being dark of complexion. Also, the title Kanhaya is added to his name Krishna. Kanhaya contains the same consonants K,N,H as does the name Kahan . There is no denying the fact that the Holy Quran makes it incumbent on every Muslim not only to believe in all the prophets, but it also clearly informs us that in every region of the world and in every age, God did raise messengers and prophets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.104.78 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your going to have to source that tradition because it is definitely not part of Bukhari or Muslim as far as I know. If you can source it, you can't prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.113.155 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) also said: "Kanna filhindhi nabiyyun asvadhul lavni ismuhoo Kahina - A Prophet appeared in India. He was black in complexion. His name was Kahina". This saying (Hadith) is found in the book 'Firdowsul Akbar' by Hazrat Thylami. The word Kahina denotes to Sri Krishna who is also called as 'Kanayya' and 'Kannan' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.104.78 (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

is this book"firdowsul akbar" by hazrat thylamia certified hadith book, as we know just ther are six "sihah e sitah" certified hadith books.please increase our knowlege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashir Shah 39.41.148.233 (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am currently reading Imam Abu Hanifa's Al Fiqh al-Akbar. In the section regarding belief in the Messengers, he states that Shith (Commentary and translation as 'Seth'), was given 50 scriptures.

I believe an addition should be made, as well as a page on the Islamic view of the Hebrew Prophet Seth. M2k41 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Sheeth was a Nabi, so was Yusha bin Noon... They both should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.81.176 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the introduction reads "While every rasul is a nabi, not every nabi is a rasul."

This is in conflict with the later statement: "Islam regards Jesus as a rasul (and sometimes as a nabi) ". Clearly if every rasul is a nabi, the "sometimes" would not be necessary. Also, the table in section 3 lists several people who are marked as rasuls but not nabi. This conflict needs to be resolved. Ordinary Person (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Shem,Aram,Apollonius of tyana,Balaam and Zulqarnain(which was either Alexander the great or Cyrus the Great) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.39.199 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

as the history also proves "Zulqarnain" was the "Cyrus the great" from iran "as per Quraanic Script" who expanded his kingdom east and west of iran and not the "Alexander the great" who only expanded is kingdom to the east of Maqdonia Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashir Shah 182.177.5.115 (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear friends,

Torah or Torat is not assigned directly in any verse to Moses in Quran. And it is very clear because some parts of Torah was written after the death of Moses by Joshua or other prophets. So Quran confirm Totah as a holy book but never assigned it directly to Moses. The book that assigned directly to Moses is only the scrolls of Moses(Suhuf Mossa) we have a lot of this common misunderstanding in the edits please pay attention.--تسلیم (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC) You are right , in Quran word musa has been occured 136 times and taurah word 18 times, no where is written that musa pbuh alone was given taurat but all the prophets governed with taurat in 5:44. There is a similar word "Torah" in hebrew which means "instructions" and arabic word taurat has meaning " Law". The quranic word taurat doesnot mean a book given to Musa pbuh. At-taurat is an attribute of Al-kitab in Quran. All the prophets in quran have Al=kitab 2:213 and prphets in plural governing with taurat 5:44. --Farrukh38 (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There appeared to be some bias and subjective portrayal in the Muhammad section. I have rectified it so that it is a lot more impartial.41.86.96.159 (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to delete this section, most of it is wrong and there is no point in having this section. The Qu'ran refers to these people and does state what there rank is but the truth is they are all prophets. We cannot just say that one person is a prophet and not a messenger. It just doesn't work like that. Also, the table shows that Muhammad(SAW) is not an Imam. But Muhammad(SAW) has been given the title 'Imaam of the prophets'. And on the Night of Ascent he led all the prophets in prayer. I think this table is confusing people and giving them the wrong information on this subject.

--MFHEagle123 12:32, 29th October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

I'm not going to suggest deleting it, because that list is actually what I came to the article to find, but I have to point out an error: In the chart, Adam (Adem) is not "checked" as a prophet, but if you click on the 'Islamic view of Adam' article, in the first paragraph it states that he is indeed a prophet of Islam. Since I know not which is correct, I'm not going to make the change myself, but someone better versed in the subject should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skabbonica (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

mOHAMMED ISNT THE MAHDI ... NOR IS HE THE MESSIAH ... THE MAHDI IS A DIFFRENT PERSON FROM MOHAMMED THATS HARAM!20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)88.201.1.30 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

what does this word mean? I assumed it was a misspelling and changed it to practical. if this word was the correct one for the context please make its meaning more clear.

Tydoni (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Marmaduke Pikthall was one of the translators of the Qur'an into English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.248.244 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "Nabi" should be referenced in the definition, right in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Also in the lead there are some other words used, but not explained/translated -- Tomdo08 (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

After use of prophets names should for respect and religious reason some form of respect not be used. i.e. after prophet mohammed peace be upon him(pbuh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.57.249 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the section on Islamic honorifics in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for more information. Seaphoto^Talk 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that the commonly accepted Islamic view is that all prophets are messengers? some seems to have placed for all of them. As far as I remember this wasn't like this maybe like a month ago...--Peaceworld 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This article turned to a joke of dump-box, lol. I had this argument with these new western movements, using a verse from the Qur'an that all prophets had a message. As an example, definatelly Isaac and Ishmael are prophets, but they aren't messengers whom received their own revelations; they just spread the message of Abraham (Scrolls of Abraham). Someone told me that Aaron is not a prophet because he didn't receive a devined message, but the Qur'an clearly states him as a prophet.

Anyways, that's a big no-no and there has been many manipulation with sources, and needs clean-up. This article had 36k visitors last month, alone. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

source is unreliable and both these are mythological figures so how can they be called prophets buddha can be prophet as he is a historical figure whose teachings brought peace and happiness to billions but how to call krishna and rama as prophets when the hindus keep changine their gods every 500 years.tomorrow they will call shivaji a god no muslim can consider them as prophets.yeah maybe ahmaddis do call krishna a prophet but ahmaddis are not considered muslims and gitas teachings contradict teachings of abrahamic religions there is one verse in gita which says all human beings are uneual and god himself created castes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.130.249 (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It does state in the subsection Other historical figures have been at times been regarded as prophets, but debate surrounds this matter - And this is evidently true. Source is highly reliable, I don't see why it isn't. It is your POV to state that these are mythological figures whereas buddha is a historical figure. Thanks. Ahmadis may not be considered Muslims but according to Wiki standards they are.--Peaceworld 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to dispute the assertion in the opening paragraph which claims that Jesus 'told of the coming of the final law-bearing prophet and messenger of God, who would be named Muhammad.' Which part of the New Testament would be used by Muslim scholars to support this claim please? Christian Elms (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Christian Elms

Is this for the general improvement of the article or for personal knowledge?--Peaceworld 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all prophets are messengers. All messengers are prophets... The table below charts the twenty-five named Qur'anic prophets. This isn't true: all of those listed are both. If the text intends to say "Not all prophets are necessarily messengers", then it should say that. Oh... or is the suggestion that some unspecified number of unknown and unnamed non-messenger prophets exist? If we know nothing at all about these unknown people, how can we say anything about them?

Also, given that all are (and this is not going to change) the column in the table listing prophethood and messengerhood are pointless.

Also, the "Book of God" bit is an easter egg and should be fixed. All those appear to be sourced to "Qur'an 6:89"; if that is what it means, it should say so William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I assume AGF for whoever did the table, but it badly needs a restructuring. Also, reg. your concern, I removed the first sentence of this section a while ago, since it is already dealt with in the subsequent sub-section - that sentence did seem quite a bit odd.

Also, regarding the Book of God, I suppose what the editor wanted to reference was not just 6:89, but the full text from 6:84-89. I will try and redo the table over the next few days.. ~ Shaad lko (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, do we really need the table? A simple list of Prophets mentioned in the Quran by name should suffice. Shaad lko (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Using table is a good idea! » nafSadh did say 18:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

hmmm... Table has many factual errors - Prophets David, Zakariya, and John the Baptist (Yahya) were not Messengers - it lists everyone as a Messenger. Also, the columns "Leader or Patriarch" and "Messiah" can best be removed - actually every Prophet is a leader in some sense. At best, it can have 5 columns - Name, Messenger or not (since everyone will be a Prophet by default), Recipient of Book or not, Nation to which sent, and relevant Quranic verses in which mentioned. Shaad lko (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes! this table needs to be corrected. As Adamrce mentioned, this article was good but someone has messed it up a lot. The problem is, I could not trace down to a reasonably good version. So, we'll need to work on it to remove factual errors. » nafSadh did say 03:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Leader/Patriarchs column can be kept, column Prophet is not redundant. Column Messiah is indeed not needed. » nafSadh did say 05:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's how the table used to look like before: 1 Some were messengers and others were not. --Peaceworld 22:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, see replies on the next section» nafSadh did say 13:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion section is forked from the previous section.

Table Men of God in the Qur'an at Prophets of Islam#Prophets and messengers in Islam has some problems and I think some edit will be helpful. *The table had a column Messiah with single entry qualifying that (Jesus) - I've removed it, coz' Messiah is not a generic aspect of prophets but a special case

• There is a redundant field, called prophet - it shall better be removed, some cares can be taken for citations given in that column
• Messenger column has serious factual inconsistency. (All prophets are somewhat carrier of GOD's message but the term Rasul (which traditionally is translated as messenger) applies to few of them. Even the term, risalah do not testify someone being a Rasul, i.e. if someone is noted to be doing the job of risalah (carrying message) it do not necessarily mean that he is a Rasul.) There are un-cited notions of messenger in the table, which failed any kind of verification (that I've done). I had prior knowledge about them not being Rasul and later I researched (keeping away my prior knowledge) for the information to verify the claim (in this table) of them being messengers but failed to find any source. - I suggest remove all unverifiable claims of messenger immediately

Shaad lko and I had some talk in previous section. I think there are other editors who are concerned in this field. » nafSadh did say 06:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks nafsadh - more work to do yet! Also, regarding Leader/Patriarch column, my point was that the Quran does not create any other differentiation ^{[Quran 2:285]}, so someone should tell us what do these convey? If the intention is to list all adjectives with which the particular Prophet has been mentioned in the Quran, then that can be done, but the only distinction in Muslim belief I am aware of is between Nabi (Prophet) and Rasul (Messengers). By the way, on that count, Zakariya was definitely the Patriarch of Bani Israil during his time, while the entry for him is not there on the table. Shaad lko (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For leader/patriarch Wikipedia counts for general NPOV, so we need to do a bit of research. for Zakariya, I agree with you, though it'll be better to add citation.

table columns I am thinking of removing Prophet and leader/patriarch column and add a Notes column. Citations about prophet-hood can be in Notes section. Leader/Patriarch/Messiah and other attributes can be noted on that column.

Prophet citation the citations given in Prophet column can be moved notes column or in row header (after name). I suggest removing redundant prophet columns » nafSadh did say 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)I prefer ‘S’ to be capitalized in nafSadh ! :)

Okay nafSadh (:)), another disconnect is the article Prophets and Messengers - should this be merged into the main article here? Or should we use that article to specifically focus on differences between Prophets and Messengers. Currently, that one reaches a different conclusion. Actually, all three articles (this one, Prophets and Messengers and Prophets in the Qur'an should be coherent between themselves and maybe focus on different aspects. Shaad lko (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the topic is out of scope of this section, I'm commenting: All 3 articles can be kept, but coherence shall be assured. All articles need improvement in some extent. » nafSadh did say 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PeaceWorld for providing a link showing how the table used to look before. That table had a problem, it classified some as messengers only but not as prophet. But the rule is every messenger is also a prophet (or being prophet is a pr-condition to be a rasul).  » nafSadh did say 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a To-do list to this Talk Page - this can be the main article, with the other 2 focusing on different aspects.. Shaad lko (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any references here claiming that the common consensus of Muslims is that all messengers are prophets. Need references. Also please find secondary sources for the relevant people as prophets/messengers. Quoting the Qur'an is not enough.--Peaceworld 12:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

“common consensus of Muslims is that all messengers are prophets”. All who carry message are not necessarily prophets - it is right. But, those who are mentioned as Rasul are indeed also prophet. Yes, there were no source here until you added the Dummies. But still it is not well cited :P » nafSadh did say 18:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ref No. 58 does indicate that Messengers are a subset of Prophets- in fact many more refs should exist... For individual Prophets, we will have to dig up references from works of exegesis. Shaad lko (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

that's not clear enough, i've added a sentence at the beginning of the section with ref.--Peaceworld 17:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your addition might be helpful » nafSadh did say 18:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Added secondary refs for prophets, removed Qur'an refs but still need refs for messengers section.--Peaceworld 20:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for secondary ref. But they are not all sufficient. Sorry! But Qur'an refs are important (and not primary source for this article). Can you plz bring them back!  » nafSadh did say 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quran citations are primary sources here. I have no objections to putting them back up since i don't think primary sourcing should be a problem if they are backed up by secondary refs.--Peaceworld 18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the list of prophet that're uncited and UNRELATED with Islam. Please keep the topic focused... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe those were people considered by some prominent muslims as prophets. I will reinstate. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your edit, Advert. Which Prophets did you remove? Peter Deer (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Name needs to be changed to "Prophets in Islam"

 --Anonymous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.141.3 (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

i also second that the topic "prophets in islam" should be read as "prophets of world" because every one of them was send for humankind/ bashir shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.6.149 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being in edit war between me and Shaad lko. But, I do not understand, why is it important to map biblical name of everything here in this 'Islamic' (this is not an article on comparison between Islam and Bible) article. Even mapping Muhammad with Paraclete is not a widely recognized concept. Mention on the Paraclete article serves the purpose well. All other names in parentheses on respective list are placed simply to refer to popular named of them. » nafSadh did say 05:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it had not yet reached the level of edit war :) since I had made just one revert, but anyhow I thought Nafsadh could have discussed it on this page before removing the Paraclete reference. I will try to find a reliable source and come back on this, but I see no reason to include the reference to Yahya as John the Baptist, Hud as Eber and Shuayb as Jethro yet deny the same in the case of Muhammad (all of these have a remark that the identification with Biblical Prophet is uncertain). Either we should include all Biblical equivalents or just remove them all. Shaad lko (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Shaad lko, you do realize that "Yahya", "Shuayb", etc. are their Arabic names, right? Saying that Muhammad should have "Paraclete" next to his name is like saying that Jesus should have "Messiah" next to his name. They aren't translations, they're stations that these Personages hold, and stations which are a point of contention and debate. What their names are in Arabic is not. Peter Deer (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do realize that and my analogy was improper - although the point I was trying to make is that there is no RS to connect Shuayb with Jethro or Hud with Eber, hence we have the note in the end that identification with Biblical Prophet uncertain. Shaad lko (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then I think you kind of answered your own question! If there isn't a reliable source then it's not fit for inclusion in the first place. However, I would point out that there ARE sources that can be cited referring to the Prophet as the Paraclete. However, I still do not think that is appropriate or encyclopedic to simply place as a title next to his name (like putting "God incarnate" next to Jesus, for instance, would not be neutral or encyclopedic, though we both know that innumerable sources could be found stating that position.) Peter Deer (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

yes I suppose there would be RS for Prophet Muhammad being Paraclete. Also, I got your point that it is a title, fair enough - thanks for that clarification and I guess this is something that can help in resolving the issue quite clearly. Though I'm not sure if nafsadh's objection was on the same grounds ! Shaad lko (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. He seemed to be feeling it was more an issue of notability for inclusion in the article. Actually, considering WP:MOSISLAM, if these are known by their Anglicized names (John as opposed to Yahya, for instance) that name should probably be the one displayed, with their Arabic one being mentioned in their respective biographical article. Any objections to simply removing the "parallels"?

(note:) My objection ground was somewhat with notability to keep that in a NPOV table. Also, I think, as this article is mostly on Islamic perspective of prophets, frequent comparison with biblical depiction may better be omitted. Although exact name map (which are mostly due to difference of source languages) can stay; still reader can find more of these on respective articles. Uncertain mapping might better be removed. » nafSadh did say 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm seeing that the Jethro article and the Shoaib article refer back to each other. I'm thinking we should investigate to see if there is a clear sourced parallel between the two and potentially merge those articles AHH NO I WENT TO FIX ONE ARTICLE AND AM NOW WORKING ON TWO MORE HELP Peter Deer (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we could remove the Arabic equivalents in the well-known Prophets (Jesus, Moses, Noah, Abraham) but not sure how we can derive a consistent policy in this regard because, for the other Prophets there is a lack of consensus wrt the identification with the Anglicized (Biblical) equivalent. Also, in cases like Ismail, the Muslim view of him is quite respectful (being the direct forefather of Prophet Muhammad) while the name Ishmael could give connotations of being the son of a maid-servant. As for the link between Jethro and Shuayb, will have to research on that a bit - I believe there is no consensus on the lesser-known Prophets Shaad lko (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and, for the ones where it is clearly referring to the same individual (Noah, Ishmael, Moses, etc.) remove the Arabicized version. I'll wait on ones where there isn't a clear parallel and look into it. Peter Deer (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

the problem that I see now is that while the Anglicized names look much better, the inter-wiki links to the articles point to the general pages - either they should point to the pages that contain the Islamic view on those Prophets, or they should point to the relevant section within the "main" pages on the Prophets. The reason I would tend to do that is because this page being on the Islamic view on the Prophets would lose some of its purpose if the relevant section is not linked. Or is there a move to merge the Islamic pages of the Prophets with the general Prophet pages, like the possibility you mentioned in the case of Shuayb and Jethro ? Shaad lko (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think, instead of linking prophet names to main articles, we would better refer the reader to Islamic View of that Prophet. » nafSadh did say 17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Each of those pages has an "Islamic view of" link where pertinent, and linking just to the "Islamic view of" is not proper, as it is referring to the actual figure. Peter Deer (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the rationale of this article is to give the Islamic perspective on the Prophets. In that case, I would still go with linking with the Islamic view of the respective articles - if someone just wanted to know about the particular Prophet in general, why would he bother to come to this page anyway. Anyhow, would appreciate other editors' opinion on this too. Shaad lko (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooooooooooookay so I went and slogged through the internet and verified what sources I could.

• I checked the source supposedly claiming Aristotle was a Prophet, it did not say anything of the sort, removed it.
• I removed all entries unsourced for long periods of time (they can be re-included with sources)
• I checked the source for Laozi/Lao Tsu, nothing saying he was a prophet, removed it.
• I'd suggest a double-check of the Confucius source by someone else, it seems to say several other people are potentially Prophets, but I'm not finding any explicit mention of the possibility of Confucius himself. I suspect I am just overlooking it, however. I switched the Original Research tag for a more appropriate "Verify" tag.
• Looked at the Mani source. It's a description of the (and I kid you not) "oriental heresiarch" perspective of Mani, and he's synthesizing Marcus Dods' quote of Hyde in the preface to Stothert's translation of St. Augustine's criticism of Manicaeans, and he's even referring to this as "a careless repetition of an old blunder of two good scholars, Fabricius and Wolff". This is one of the muddiest sources I've ever seen, I'm axing it, I dunno if that's exactly the right thing to do but it seems like it's a misleading use of the source and not very encyclopedic so I'm going to be bold and remove it. It's also apparently been crammed into the same ref markup as another source, "Mani, seine Lehre and seine Schriften", if someone could check on that it'd be good. The only version I found was in Arabic and German, it was a scan and not in anything I could automatically translate...oy gevalt...yeah no clearing this one up entirely is more than I can chew, I'm tagging it.
• I laid waste to all the weaselyness with great violence
• Checked the Socrates source, it is genuine, removed tag.

I'm definitely hoping to reinclude some of the ones I removed as unsourced (I know, for instance, that there's sources for Zarathustra and Krishna somewhere, and should I regain such energy as to find them I'll include them myself.) I'm gonna go do something that isn't sifting through an ocean of PDFs and style guidelines for a while. Peter Deer (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

During the discussion over the Paraclete issue, we ended up debating the issue of whether to link the names of the Prophets to their general articles or to the section which represents the respective Islamic view of the Prophets. The discussion was left unresolved in the Paraclete section on this talk page - I think we should wait for more input from others before hastening to change the article. Shaad lko (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As this article is dealing 'entirely' with Islamic views, links to "Islamic view" is more proper as it refers reader to articles of the same suite, while reader can easily end up to any article of her/his choice; editors' best action would be maintaining continuity of tone. » nafSadh did say 05:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Adam, there is not an Islamic Views of Adam article anymore, it's been merged with the main Adam article (the actual encyclopedic content was scarce enough that this was the practical solution). Whether it links to the Islamic Views section of the main article or just to the top of the main article, I don't know insofar as policy is concerned. Peter Deer (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think there's any such policy - maybe we just have to discuss and evolve one right here. Linking to the Islamic views section (rather than page) may be a good idea as it may give the reader the overall perspective as well as maintain continuity. Shaad lko (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As I don't know of any reason not to, I don't object. Peter Deer (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the Prophets and messengers in Islam page should be merged be with this article, the difference between messengers and prophets is more accurately explained in the Distinguishing between prophets and messengers section in this article. Besides, the Prophets and Messengers article has a number of problems including too many quotations, wrong tone and writing style, it is also has only Quranic references which you can see in it's respective article. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be for keeping (mostly) this version of the page, but using that title. Peter Deer (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge, for the reasons enumerated by Raymond Phoenix. Sopholatre (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This article used several {{ref}} templates. This edit removed the corresponding {{note}}. Ref/Note wouldn't have worked well in this case anyhow because backlinks aren't resolved well. In this edit I restored the removed note and changed the Ref/Note methodology to use a footnote group instead. I also combined the restored note with another note which had not been removed. I barely know anything about this topic, though, so I'm not sure I got the sense of this right. Please take a look at what I've done and fix anything which needs fixing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing of this religion. I parse:

Islamic tradition holds that God sent messengers to every nation.[3] Muslims believe that Allah finally sent Muhammad to transmit the message of the Quran, the holy book which, according to Islam, is universal in its message. The reason the Muslims believe the Quran is universal and will remain uncorrupted is because they believe that previous Islamic holy books, namely the Torah given to Moses, the Psalms given to David, and the Gospel given to Jesus, were for a particular time and community and because they believe that, even if the books were corrupted, many prophets were still to come who could tell the people of what was correct in the scripture and warn them of corruptions. Muhammad therefore, being the last prophet, was vouchsafed a book which, in Muslim belief, will remain in its true form till the Last Day.

to mean that, although previous (divinely inspired) texts were corrupted, that was OK, because subsequent prophets could correct them. But the Koran can't be corrupt, because there were no prophets after M to correct it. Is that right? Or is this some bod's OR? There's no cite William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Different sects of a religion can have different core beliefs. I see no reason for this removal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Despite the single edit summary by 64.26.134.201 ("There is a consencus amongst all Muslims that Muhammad (Allah bless him) is the last prophet. Ahmadiyya differ in definition of Prophet. It like adding Muslim view in the topic of Trinity"), I don't see that Ahmadiyya are not identified as a form of Islam. At various times, certain people have considered Latter Day Saints, Seventh-Day Adventists, and even Catholics to be "not Christian", yet that doesn't mean their views on various Christian topics should not be included in an encyclopedic manner. In fact, an encyclopedic addressing on Islamic views on the Trinity is probably quite appropriate. If Ahmadiyya are considered a Muslim sect, then the statement in the edit summary is false. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, our Ahmadiyya article explicitly refers to them as Islamic. There's the question if the material places undue emphasis on the sect but that should be hashed out on this page rather than edit-warring to remove the entire passage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)