Talk:Moses in Islam

Umang

Untitled
It would be sensible to include references to which sura is being described, every couple of paragraphs or so. The reader can't tell what of this legend is actually incorporated in the Koran (Qur'an) and what is the legend that has developed round it. Wetman 14:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. 29 Jan 06

About Musa's death.
There is no single verse in Quran that states that Musa went to a mountain and never came. Quraan didn't mention his death, but according to Prophet Muhammed's talks, Mussa was confronted by the angel of death who at that time appeared when he was about to take people's souls, since Musa was strong, he beat the angel of death, and the angel went without taking Musa's soul.

Then God told Musa to put his hand on a goat's skin, and the number of goat hairs his hand will cover will be the number of years he will live, but then Musa chose to be near God, and he chose to die. Since then, the Angel of death is invisble.

This is the Islamic story of Musa's death, and I am sure of it, so plz change the info on the page. thx

right, but you need a link to a credible source. and remember to sign your post with four tildes(~ ~ ~ ~) 75.72.25.219 (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Firawn,Pharoah giving up?
The claims about the first borns of Egyptians dying, the son of the Firawn dying and Firawn giving up his defiance is unsubstantiated in Islam as far as I know. If nobody comes up with references I am going to delete them. --Abdousi 05:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also noted that, so I deleted it. 29 Jan 06

Musa/Moses
I added a section "Musa in Judao-Christian thought" because... well, this should link back to Moses, the Christian version with a little blurb as that article links here. Granted, I think 95+% of the editors here know him as Moses but, I don't think this should be only about Islamic thought... and yet Moses be about Mostly Christian and then link here... does that seem right? This is primarily Musa from Islamic thought but from this perspective we acknowledge that Christians and Jews are part of this tradition as well. Does that seem sensible? gren グレン 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this need a separate article?
It seems to me that, unlike the case with Jesus/Isa, the Muslim view of Moses/Musa is virtually identical to the Judeo-Christian view, except that they use different names. Would not a brief section in the Moses article outlining Muslims views, and where they differ (if at all) from Judeo-Christian views, be sufficient? As it stands, the story outlined here is virtually identical to the story given in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and in later Jewish legendology. john k 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should remain separate at least for now until the factual errors are corrected. (of which there are still quite a few and I am not sure if this is all Islamic or rather as you pointed out taken from the Bible, which is, of course, to some extent, also a valid Muslim source). In the end one can see how similar the stories are.
 * I belive this articel must be merged with article moses! i see no reason why it should be seperate! all arabic texts i know (old testement/bible/quran) use the same name (موسى) which is translated to moses, by all AFAIK. the stories are very similar and there is no dought that they all talk about the same person.--Mayz 02:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs a separate article because there is much more information that can be added. Stories of Musa's life are recounted more in the Qur'an than any other prophets and do differ from Christian and Jewish stories. This article should have more information, not merged. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there are enough differences between the Biblical and Qur'anic accounts that these articles should remain seperate. This also allows more scope for adding later interpretations, cultural references, art and literature. Each article can refer the reader to the other for comparison. Tom Harrison Talk 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still belive this article should not exist! the figure "Moses" has an article, other articles shouldnt be variants of how the name is written! so if a separete article about moses in islamic texts can be written, and cant possibly be merged with the main article due to its size, then so must be it titled, ie, moses in islamic texts or moses in islam or somthing similar!--Mayz 00:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Moses in Islam
This article ought be retitled "Moses in Islam", with a prominent link back to the Moses article across the top.

Along with reconciling it to the standards of an English-language article, it would bring in a broader mix of editors, and help curb blatant POV such as "Musa is a prophet of Islam", "the stories of his life", etc. Also, this article could benefit from more copy editting; more traffic can only help the situation.Timothy Usher 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How is "Musa is a prophet of Islam" POV? Surely it's clear from the context that this describes the religious view of Muslims. Or am I missing your point? Tom Harrison Talk 15:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We cannot say that Moses (here called "Musa") was a Muslim, which is entailed by calling him, without qualification, a "Prophet of Islam".


 * There was no qualifier before I'd added one. The only context to which you could be referring (unless I'm missing something which is possible) is the mere fact of its appearance in this article rather than in Moses - which pretty much proves my point about it being a POV fork, at least in its current title/version.


 * The very title of the article, besides being inappropriate for an English-language encyclopedia, is unacceptably POV - we cannot say he was a prophet in the title (even though you and I might agree on this point). It also violates Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).Timothy Usher 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen the style page for Islam-related articles. Certainly we'll need to follow that, unless there's a very important reason to deviate. The article is in a sense a POV fork, but it's a real-world POV fork, caused by differing views about Moses. Wikipedia didn't create the fork. To me, 'prophet of Islam' means Muslims regard him as a prophet. "Muslims believe Musa to be one of the prophets of Islam" looks fine. I'd like to avoid 'purported' stories if we could. As far as the title, maybe, 'Musa (Islamic prophet)'? Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, purported was unnecessary.


 * However, "Musa (Islamic prophet)" is even worse than the current title. The question is whether Moses was an Islamic prophet, which implies that he was a Muslim.  This is not factually accurate, as being a Muslim entails not only monotheism, but also acceptance of Muhammad as God's messenger.


 * What this is all about, in the Qur'an and on wikipedia, is establishing the legitimacy of Islam's claim to Abrahamic succession by retroactively declaring previous historical figures to have been Muslims, and in the process delegitimizing Judaism and Christianity.Timothy Usher 02:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see this page as describing the Muslim understanding of Moses. We may say things like 'Musa was a prophet' or 'Musa was a proto-Muslim'(apologies for incorrect terminology), as long as we make clear that they are statements of Islamic religious belief. I'm open to considering other suitable page titles. I'd like to hear what others think of your suggestion, "Moses in Islam." Tom Harrison Talk 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Timothy has tried this before and I said no. I agree with Tom about the title and removing "Muslims believe". The name Musa is a name like Moses is. Due to length, and the fact that this article describes an important prophet of Islam means that the article can be named Musa. Moses in Islam would mean "Moses in Christianity", "Moses in Judaism". Musa on his own is a prophet of Islam and important enough to have an article.


 * Also about the "Muslims believe", since the article already says "prophet of Islam" it makes it clear that it's an Islamic belief.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It won't be clear at all. If we do things the way you suggest, many readers will be very confused.
 * We cannot have a "POV article" wherein POV is declared on top (and only interpretatively/implicitly), and what follows is hence exempt from WP:NPOV guidelines.
 * Please see the discussion on Talk:Isa to fully appreciate the strangeness of the "Musa on his own..." claim. There is no "Musa on his own..."  What differs isn't who the ideas are about (Moses vs. Musa), but who holds them.
 * Nor is it quite the case that "The name Musa is a name like Moses is." - they are both names, but one is standard English and the other is Arabic.Timothy Usher 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you cannot say Moses is considered a prophet of Islam without qualification, as the vast majority of non-Muslims do not consider him so. Merely mentioning Islam does not suffice, much less does the use of Arabic translations in place of standard English. Can there be anyone who believes that Moses was not a prophet of Islam, but Musa was?

Please read and respond to this point before reverting again.Timothy Usher 21:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether someone has an opinion of if he's a prophet of Islam or not doesn't matter. The point here is that he is a prophet in Islam. I would agree with you if it just said that without saying the religion. But I changed it to "in Islam" to make it clear. I think that solves it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "It's like saying that "Christians believe that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity"
 * No, it's not. To say Moses is a Prophet of Islam is to suggest that he was a Muslim.  That's POV, as I imagine you're well aware.
 * "Whether someone has an opinion of if he's a prophet of Islam or not doesn't matter."
 * Sorry, but it does. I don't believe Moses (or Musa, as you'd have it) to be a Prophet of Islam.  Adminship doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily declare other POV's irrelevant.  See WP:NPOV.
 * "I would agree with you if it just said that he is a prophet without saying the religion."
 * It does that as well, in the title of this article.Timothy Usher 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again you are assuming bad faith and I was trying to solve the problem peacefully. It's exactly the same thing as saying that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. Your argument that people will now think that he's Muslim is ridiculous. Also I changed it to "considered a prophet in Islam" so you wouldn't have a problem with it now. Check the article before discussing the older edit. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't solve it. You cannot unilaterally declare an issue solved.  The only thing that "solves" it - for you, for now - is WP:3RR, as you are well aware.  Shame about the readers, and the article.


 * Re faith - when a Muslim editor does *exactly* what I'd been advocating re translations, you agree it's good faith, but did not offer me the benefit :of the same presumption. Did you think this wouldn't be noticed?Timothy Usher 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See your talk page.Timothy Usher 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Yet when I advocated the same changes, you weren't so sure.Timothy Usher 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)"
 * What? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Moses is Nationality isn't Israelite it's Islam. So I suggest you on putting Moses is Nationality as Islam. JohnnyDab31353 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

impressive
who ever went and got all those page references did a great job. very helpful.

The drowned (Firawn's,pharoah's) body from the parting of the red sea exists, is preserved and kept somewhere?
From the section 'God calls Moses', the end of the alst paragraph.

"Here Moses used his staff to part the ocean that allowed the Israelites to pass through, then the (Firawn,Pharaoh) also followed but the ocean closed on him drowning and killing Firawn and his entire army. and now (Firawn,Pharaohs) body can be seen in musuems all over the world plus scientist have proved that Firawn died from drowning and were shocked because his body was preserved in such a manner after all these years which is like a miracle, and god also states in the quran hus body will be preserved as a sign for future generations."

Tha bits above in bold. Where did the statement come from, what backup / proof is there; are there any references available?

God or Allah?
This article uses the English "God" frequently and only once uses the latin translitteration of arabic "Allah". Since "Allah" is the definite article "al" before "ila" (god) it seems to me that the one use of "Allah" could be changed to "God." Of course, I don't want to change it and start any fights, so I'm posting here first. 05:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.55.53 (talk)

Merge
This needs to be merged with the regular article Moses. Since Muslimes recognize the Bible that Jews and Christians use, having a separate article is a nuisance and unhelpful as pointed out by many previous editors above, long before me. What are we waiting for? Student7 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Islamic view of Moses → Moses — This duplicates information in standard article Moses. This is the same Moses, using the same resource as the other two religions do. —Student7 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy close this is not a move request, it is a merge request, it should be listed at WP:PM, NOT WP:RM. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per above, the guy wants a merge not a move Little Professor (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed my own tag as per information above. changed to merge Student7 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

List of references in the Qur'an
I notice other articles on Islamic views of Hebrew characters contain lists of the significant references to that character in the Qur'an -- but this article doesn't (and it would be really useful for me right now if it did!). Has there been any discussion to adding a list of significant passages that deal with Moses/Musa? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See eg Biblical_narratives_and_the_Qur'an, which could be a basis for adding such material. Jheald (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If this differs from the Judeo-Christian view, it should be specifically noted somewhere. A pending change to merge is listed above. Student7 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Title "Islamic view of Moses"
Title given to this article of such a importance does not seems at all suitable in my view.The topic's start with 'Islamic' does not make any sense as no one search with word 'Islamic' ,it will start with either 'Moses' or 'Musa' .Any islamic fellow want to serch for Musa does not get any where.If any one want to come from Main article 'Moses', he can always be redirected from there, but one if start with search of  'Musa' will not find any serch result ,hence topic should start with Musa  and "Musa( Moses)" is best title possible for the topic ,may pl.agree and discuss further.--Md iet (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We should get rid of all the images of Moses
The title is "Islamic view of Moses", so why does the article have all those pictures that obviously depict Moses from the Christian perspective? Images of prophets are forbidden in Islam, so this article should be devoid of any images. 211.25.129.2 (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, that persian image has nothing to do with Islam..It does not represent the Islamic view of Moses, so it should be removed. Kiwix (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, so you cannot remove content based on it being "forbidden in Islam." Peter Deer (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok you can say that but what about the picture when searching asiya bint muzahim (given the title of one of the best women to have lived in Islam)-someones bloody put a picture of ariana grande there! Its entirely disrespectful-its not only one picture you need to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.190.181 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be quite a ridiculous thing to do, seeing how manuscript images, and such were allowed under the rulingship of the Caliphs and throughout the Golden age of Islam. Of course this was pre-Wahhabiyyah reign, Wahhabiyyah being a new age a new way, nothing to do with historical Islam. So there is no reason for you to be removing such manuscripts, your idea and view of Islam may be completely different from others who follow the historical religion.--MuslimKnight786 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

List of promonent prophets
A template is prepared for prominent prophets.

This will help at a glance view link between them. Hope this is also of prime importance in this article. If there is no further suggestion on this, we may include this in this article.--Md iet (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no further suggestion for the template. Hope this seems OK for inclusion.--Md iet (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your patience waiting for responses is appreciated. It looks like you put a lot of work into that diagram. My only question is, can the diagram be made smaller, more compact? It seems like it would dominate any article you put it in. It would be nice if there were a way to shrink the padding within the boxes and shrink the length of the connecting lines. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to make it much smaller due to it using the familytree. However on the line "{{familytree/start" add "|style=font-size:xx%" will reduce it somewhat. By the way, why not link to Islamic view of Abraham, Islamic view of Adam, Islamic view of Noah, Islamic view of Moses, Islamic view of Jacob and pipe to Ishmael. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Audience applause for you CBW, appreciating the efforts made by someone with special help from Joren. Your suggestion will go long way I hope.--Md iet (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Template squeezed in font-size as suggested and Overall width also reduced .Hope Amatulic, now it’s OK.--Md iet (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I woudn't make the font any smaller than that. Actually reducing the font has such a minimal effect on the size that you may as well make it a notch larger. I just did this.
 * One more thing you could do is remove some of the white boxes. Jacob, for example, doesn't need to be there. Wouldn't it be enough to have a dotted line from Isaac? Similarly you could have a dotted line directly from Ishmael to Muhammad. If the point is to emphasize the six, it should be enough to show how they connect, not selected relatives they connect to.
 * Also, "applause/sausage" was suggesting replacing the links you have with the "Islamic view of..." links instead. In the context in which this template would appear, that would make the most sense, rather than linking directly to Adam, Moses, etc. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, Jacob and Abadullah are deleted from template. These will not affect family links as one major link is still available in between. The further linking is done for Islamic as well as general article. Thanks Amatulic, this has really made template more concise and well connected.--Md iet (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Height further reduced by removing not needed.--Md iet (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added in between names. Also it might work as shown at Template talk:Six Islamic Prophets which cuts out the links to the non-Islamic views. By the way Abdul Muttalib is a disambiguation page. Given the dotted line between him and Muhammad I figure you want his grandfather, Shaiba ibn Hashim, rather than Abd Allah ibn Abd al Muttalib. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Look more symmetrical and prominent.Link for Abdul Muttalib also corrected. Thanks CBW,--Md iet (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Further spell correction done by Joren, thanks. Hope this correction will continue for betterment. For the present it seems that template is ready for inclusion in all related articles.--Md iet (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or this template can now be displayed as a flat box like navigation templates at the bottom of an article by setting a paramter "navbox=yes" {{Six Islamic Prophets|navbox=yes}} {{Six Islamic Prophets|navbox=yes}} which may be less intrusive in certain circumstances -- PBS (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This template can also be displayed with the list collapsed by adding the parameter "expanded=no" {{Six Islamic Prophets|expanded=no}} {{Six Islamic Prophets|expanded=no}} -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't there a German version of this article? Where did it go?
? 24.25.237.226 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the English language Wikipedia and has no control over the German version. You need to go to the German language Wikipedia and ask there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2
– The article i want to move to Musa is Islamic view of Moses. As Islamic view of Moses depicting the Prophet Musa in Islam so i believe the name of the page should also be depicting the way it is spelled and understood in Islam. While the Islamic view of Moses would be treated as a redirect to the page Musa and Page Musa should be move to Musa (disambiguation). As the Prophet Musa is a prominent figure in Islam therefore majority of the places and names of person are named after Him as also show in Musa (disambiguation) page. So i believe the primary topic should be Islamic view of Moses and the disambiguation page Musa should be moved to Musa (disambiguation). Please provide your opinion regarding the move with justification whether positive or negative. Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Islamic view of Moses → Musa
 * Musa → Musa (disambiguation)
 * Procedural close; I'm consolidating these requests on Ibrahim's behalf. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abraham in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Visiting devil accidentally by Prophet Moses according to Islam
Once Prophet Moses saw devil (Prophets can see devil) was crying very much. He said, why you are crying? Devil answered because God doesn't forgive me. Prophet Moses said, I ask your forgiveness from God. He discussed it with God, Allah said ok I forgive him but he has to say that I'm not better than human. Prophet oses told devil. In answer Devil said no I'm better, I am from fire and human from soil.

[User:Mjesfahani|MansourJE]] (talk) 12:27 16 July 2015 (UTC) "family tree with prophets on right" is intended to convey. It seems to have been introduced several years ago. My guess is that it's intended to refer to some sort of diagram and is a placeholder of some sort, but is now obsolete. I'm going to delete it, but if someone cares to restore it, perhaps they could explain what it means a bit better. Wcoole (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

2.147.214.57 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

God is not really Allah.
"God" is a regression of Gotan, that includes a second tree, where one becomes "God". This is not part of the original Gotan religion, neither Islam. Gotan though is like Allah, and Ragnarok, Vàlhàll and Hél corresponds to Judgement day, Jannah and Jahannam. On the islamic side, Allah is not associated with secs, or their sufism either. Clearing this up, the "christian" distortion of a second tree, hallucinogenic drugs, and claims of being "god" has many similarities to the pantheism of the sufis, and may be seen as irreligious conflicts, and really conflicts of sectarian regressions, rather than the original religion, which is culturally corresponding. Which indeed, in religion science, if prophets really talked about the same deity, then it would be so.

I suggest that all articles that deal with Allah, not use the regression "God". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

mussa
he was a very repectful man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.120.240 (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses discussion
Hi, please see Talk:Ishmael. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Musa(prophet)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Musa(prophet) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Imran and Amram
These are two completely different names. why are they used interchangeably? I understand they sound similar, but they're not the same, this is exactly why the author of qoran got it mixed up 121.200.6.85 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

MAJID
Majid 39.48.25.128 (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

But also Who is The Firaun (Pharoah)
Some people say it’s Ramses II but this is a bit confusing……………………………………….. Mathsmaster707 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Pharaoh in Islam" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharaoh_in_Islam&redirect=no Pharaoh in Islam] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing Image File
under the "Escape to Midian" and "Prophecy", the Image file of Midian Mountains and Mount Sinai is missing, but the caption and source is still displayed on the page SiWa12 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Repaired. Thanks for letting us know. — Trey Maturin™ 10:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this paragraph.
For example, this "His revelations, such as the Ten Commandments, which form part of the contents of the Torah and are central to the Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Christianity." is not a sentence. Kriegman (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)