Talk:Hadith of pen and paper

Shia POV

>>In another report it is stated that the first person replying, Umar by implication, said that Muhammad was delirious and talking non-sense.<< Give a reference pertaining to this statement, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's a Shia's point of view.

Here is the hadith with reference to the delirious statement: "Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is?" After that Ibn 'Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn 'Abbas, "What is (about) Thursday?" He said, "When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah's Apostle deteriorated, he said, 'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.' The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet. They said 'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is talking delirious (non sense)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). The Prophet replied, 'Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you are asking me.' Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying: ' To Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.' The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn 'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!.

  °    Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 468 and Volume 4 hadith 393173.28.168.108 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohibadad (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 

>>This reply caused a great commotion resulting in Muhammad rebuking Umar for calling him ill and sending him and his partisians out of the house. When ibn Abbas recalled Umar's behavior sixty years later it agonized him so gravely that it caused him to cry [1].<< The references to Bukhari hadiths that you give at the end of this paragraph neither shows that Umar and his partisians ALONE were ordered out of the house, nor does the hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas imply in any way that he was moved to tears by Umar's actions alone. I'm amazed to see how trivial it is to find contrived text with no contextual relation to it's references on Wikipedia, What a Shame! -Hassan

>>The will was written. It was not written on the Thursday when the sahaba argued in front of the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet did not die until the following Monday. The commandment to write a will is clear in the Quran. The complete will is related in many Shia books naming each of the 12 Imams as well as the the name of the first Mahdi of 12 Mahdis to come after the 12 Imams. I will compile the references and the text of the will and edit the article.173.28.168.108 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohibadad (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing PROD status

Though there is definitely need for improvement in the encyclopedic nature of this page, to remove it wholesale would deprive many users (such as myself) a valuable source of information about a religion we do not know about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.169.151.18 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 August 2007.

Thanks for your message and the PROD will not be re-instated. However, please do read up on the policies of What Wikipedia is not and No Original Research which dictate what is not allowed. If you can improve this article, then please do so as, although it will not be PROD'ed again, it can be taken to Article for Deletion. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Muhhamed's literacy

It is important that I make this clarification, the widespread belief of Muhhamed being illiterate is reffering to pre-prophethood life of Muhhamed and not during his message. This is obviously a lengthy topic needing books to clarify due to the large number of fabricated hadiths (or sayings of the prophet). However , it is sufficient to say that Muhhamed, while he may not have been a lettered man , did write and read throughout his prophethood.It is also important to mention that the hadith of the pen and paper is 'mutawtir' , meaning it has been linked as an undeniable event due to its many chains of narration in both sunni and shia books. 98.209.3.180 (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a general belief that Muhammad was illiterate?! So if he was illiteratre, how come this hadiths tells that he wanted to write something?! Assuming that he was no illiterate: does that mean that he himself wrote down the Koran? Or is this hadith a big hoax?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.133.241 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

Recent additions do not seem at all trustworthy to me. They are mostly editor's opinion, and if backed by citation it is only citation to a website whose trustworthiness is questionable. It seems to me that it would be safer to revert back to the version of 12 June. If we do that, it would be best to get rid of the bullet point formatting in the section on Shia view, as it is not necessary.

In addition to its many provenance problems, the current version gives undue weight to a minority POV within Islam.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The current version has all of these problems, which I why I have been adding tags. Edward321 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor who is adding this stuff does not seem to understand the difference between a religious primary source making a statement and his/her inference from it. This set of edits shows the problem. These inferences by the editor are not allowed under Wikipedia policy.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A also agree with this assessment. Edward321 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits have illusory sources:

• This one does not mention the Hadith of the pen and paper.
• This one is a Wiki.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What secondary sources say

Page 134 of The Ascent of Society: The Social Imperative in Personal Salvation, by John S. Hatcher, pub Bahai Publishing, 2007, ISBN 978-1931847520 covers this hadith. In summary it says that the Koran contains the fundamentals of Islamic law and belief but that these were distorted or perverted after Mohammed's death in part due to the conflicts over succession to spiritual authority and by hadiths (some of which were genuine and some not). It describes this hadith as follows: "According to Shi'ih belief, as the Prophet Muhammad lay on his deathbed., he asked for pen and paper, presumably to confirm what he had already stated clearly to his followers by the pool of Khum - that Ali was to be his successor in authority; however, Umar objected, saying that with the Koran they had all they needed, and no will was penned. This began the schism in the wineskin of Islam between the Shi'ih and Sunni."

Since this book is published by Bahai Publishing it may not be entirely neutral.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Literacy and Shia POV

1) Literacy: It was the norm in that era for people to call for pen, paper, and a scribe which is probably what the Prophet (S) intended to do. Just as Abu Bakr called for a scribe at the end of his life to dictate his will. (Regardless of whether or not the Prophet (S) was literate.)

2) Is it Shi'a POV that 'Umar said the Prophet (S) is hallucinating? No, it is in many historical sources and there are a lot of explanations from Sunni scholars about why this was actually a good action from 'Umar. Even the commentary of the 1980 edition of Sahih Muslim defends 'Umar's actions. Please...before just dismissing something as false, actually look at what is said! It is easy to research nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamma Draconis (talk • contribs) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hadith of the pen and paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213161050/http://www.schiiten.com:80/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/pen-and-paper.html to http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/pen-and-paper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

New edits

I'd like to improve the flow of the text, add a few new primary and secondary sources, and expand or clarify the Shia viewpoint in some places. I'll discuss major changes (if any) here on the talk page. Albertatiran (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing the name to "Hadith of Pen and Paper" seems grammatically correct. The hadith name is a proper noun (which should be capitalized) and the article "the" seems unnecessary. Albertatiran (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Addressing POV concerns

I'll hopefully work on this article in the coming weeks to address any POV concerns. Albertatiran (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Unconsciousness

@Albertatiran

Would it be ok if I added

"According to unreliable sources, the reason behind this was Muhammad being unconscious "

And hopefully another fellow Wikipedian would find a reliable source Belomaad (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Belomaad Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia. Obviously you're not here for that. Albertatiran (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Belomaad The article's lead is often a standalone summary of its body. So when the lead reads that it's "commonly believed...," you can see that's indeed the case in the beginning of the section "Debates" and in the section "Designation of Abu Bakr." I've reverted your unsourced and poorly-sourced edits, again. Seeing that this is the pattern across multiple articles (here, Umm Kulthum bint Ali, Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam), rather than an isolated incident, be advised that you may get blocked, hopefully indefinitely, next time that I report your edit-warring to ANI. Albertatiran (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Albertatiran I did write that the source is unreliable Belomaad (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for years never did I see anyone trying to beef with other users and attack them.

If you read the article I cited, you would have noticed that it is citing primary sources. So one would expect that there are academics who cited unconsciousness asa possibility. Other more experienced users will surely notice the need for a citation and add one accordingly. For now, this is what is available. Belomaad (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Belomaad Whenever available, we are expected to present a balanced summary of academic research. Obviously you are not here for that. Albertatiran (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

most of the article is citing Madelung who is paid by an Ismaili institution. I don’t believe there is anything balanced about citing the same guy over & over again.

You also resort to ad hominems rather than addressing the issue with my edits. I find this harassment unprofessional. I have never experienced such thing throughout Wikipedia Belomaad (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wilferd Madelung was a highly-reputable Oxford professor. He is cited a mere three times in this article. Feel free to introduce new reliable sources after reaching a consensus on the talk page. Albertatiran (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Albertatiran you will keep finding issues with whatever I do even if the source is reliable just like with [Imamate in Shia doctrine], [Origin of Shia Islam], [Occultation (Islam)], [Muhammad al-Mahdi], and [Hadith of the twelve successors].

You clearly have no respect for other people’s time and are just interested in wasting my time. Belomaad (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I cited scholars more reputable than Madelung who aren’t associated to an Ismaili institute, yet you decided to reject them. Belomaad (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Belomaad No, that's not the issue. Let's just wait for the outcome of ANI. Albertatiran (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References