Talk:Sīrah

Bad title
Muhammad is not the only prophet in the world. The title assumes that he is. Title should be changed to something neutral like Biographies of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. I don't think you would want to use Biographies of Muhammad, because there have been many thousands of notable Muhammads. Zora (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'd call this something like Biographies of the Prophet Muhammad or something similar. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you make the change? I am embroiled in roommate drama right now and have no energy to spare. Zora (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please - the title should change. This page could remain as a stub, pointing to the various pages of prophetic biographies extant. 111.193.179.65 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
According to the article on Muhammad, he died June 8, 632. Ibn Ishaq supposedly died (d. 768), according to that article. According to this article, Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" is the earliest traditional biography, and was written less than three hundred years after Muhammad's death.

Why three hundred years if he died 768? The dates don't seem to make sense. I will see if I can figure out the facts here.

The original book written by Ibn Ishaq is lost. Ibn Hisham wrote "Sirat Rasul Allah" entirely based on the original book.But he did leave outsections that he thought were too scandalous and injurious to Muhammad's reputation.

spelling and intro
we find sira and sirah, and the intro with sirat nabawiyya is confusing to non Arabic speakers. Needs fixing.

Page is a mess
It is written from a pious Muslim POV, uses pious interjections, and needs a complete rewrite. The hadith template should go too. Hadith are not sira. Zora 13:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not? Isn't the book a colection of matn? Or is it writen like a cohesive narrative?--Striver 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

move to sira
I think we should move this to "Sira", and use "" template to link to the disambig page.Bless sins 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC) comment on suraZikrullah 09:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

slight changes and a question
fixed the language in the intro up to be less informal. Also, the introduction refers Sharia as Islamic Sciences. I'm 95% certain this is incorrect. Anyone care to comment 130.225.202.73 16:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been done. Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

criticism
Here's a piece from NEW LIGHT ON THE STORY OF BANU QURAYZA AND THE JEWS OF MEDINA, By W. N. ARAFAT. From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,(1976), pp. 100-107:

"One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories. " 9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied. 10. d. 179. 11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12. 12. ibid, I, 16. Faro0485 (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sirat(disambiguation)
there is a text at the top of the page " "Sirat" redirects here. For other uses, see Sirat (disambiguation). " The said disambiguation page doesn't exist. So what's the point in having this text at the top of the page? shouldn't it be removed? Jay (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dating of the biography
I certainly do not have detailed knowledge of this stuff, but it seems odd to me that the article states that that the sirat was written 150 years after Muhammad died, yet according to the article Ibn Ishaq died in 150-153 AH, 140 years after Muhammad died?

It does say that he collected the oral traditions, so perhaps someone else wrote it afterwards? Still, the article should make this clear.

Babloyi (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Entire post only quotes from Orientalists
This entire article and related articles rely solely on Orientalist scholars many of whom are outwardly hostile to Islam. Should at the very least be balanced by contemporary Muslim scholars as well.￼ 113.211.119.150 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)