Talk:Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib

change

Striver, you changed the title in such a way that you lost the 'ayin' characters. no doubt there are several ways to transliterate the Arabic, using Abdu'l-Muttalib or `Abd al-Muttalib, but Abd-al-Muttalib is not correct by any standard. If you don't fix it I'll go back to the old version. Cuñado - Talk 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page. Cuñado - Talk 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cunado19, nobody cares about the aynd, not in Ali, not in A'isha not nowhere. Please change the page back. --Striver 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the MOS. If does not have a primary transliteration (basically common enough to be considered English) then it doesn't need to follow any standard. If there is primary then it is standardized. I doubt that `Abdu'llah ibn `Abdu'l-Muttalib is a common household name. If you can find 70% of references writing it as Abd-al-Muttalib then you're welcome to change it. Cuñado - Talk 23:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You want 70? That is 350 out of 500? Ok, lets see: Your version: one hit, my version: 506 hits. that makes it 506 out of 507 Can you change it back now? --Striver 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib: 188 hits

Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Muttalib: 504 hits

Abdullah ibn Abdul Mutalib: 17 hits

Or just for Abdu'l-Muttalib, Abdul Muttalib 48,100 hits

Abd al-Muttalib 45,800 hits

Abdel Muttalib 894 hits

Abdul Mutalib 40,200 hits

Abd al-Mutalib 186 hits

Abdel Mutalib 2,750 hits

The rule is not that whatever version gets the most hits wins, it's that if there is no primary transliteration, then a standard version should be used. It also states that web searches are a poor way to check. For an article that is supposed to be academic, it irritates me to use sloppy transliteration. Considering that the 'ayin' characters look a little ackward, we could replace them with the ‘ ’ characters maybe? Cuñado - Talk 06:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

revert

Im reverting the name per this --Striver 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I could'nt. can a admin do it? --Striver 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Why is it getting moved? Striver, we have been fighting over page titles for months. Why are you against everything I do? Cuñado - Talk 09:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not personal, and its not only me, we just think its a bad idea. I know it is more accurate, but it is ugly. --Striver 01:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I already commented on that poll. That doesn't mean you can go around changing anything with authority. Your proposal is wrong. It should be Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Muttalib. Do not change it to your proposal which is completely wrong. Learn how to use the dashes. Read the MOS. Cuñado - Talk 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just look at ‘Abdu’llah (name): most people named Abdullah have those ticks in the articles' titles. Let's be consistent. --tyomitch 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Striver, I'm the one who recently changed all those articles. Cuñado - Talk 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then this is the other way around. Neither Ali (name) or Umar (name) or Abd-al-Rahman (name) or whatever other names starting in `ayn have the tick in titles. Just the two exceptions are ‘Abdu’l-Hamid (name) and ‘Abdu’llah (name), both edited by Cuñado. --tyomitch 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And to be fair to me, Abd-al-Rahman (name) was created by Striver. For this argument, referencing other wikipedia pages is very irrelevant. Just as we don't use them for referencing information. Do you have any experience, information, or preference? Cuñado - Talk 06:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference would be Abdu-llah bin Abd-ul-Muttalib and Abd-ur-Rahman, respectively. (That would highlight Abdullah being two Arabic words, rather than one.) But I'm putting consistency over preferences here, because currently each page in Wikipedia seems to follow its own interpretation of the MOS. At least to me, the current inconsistency is more annoying than any particular way of transliteration.

As for experience, I've just been processing Category:Articles needing Arabic script for quite a while now, and I've encountered more ways of transliterating Arabic in Wikipedia than I can remember. People are getting particularly creative with diacritics, and the troublesome letters like ض or ظ end up as the most obscure diacritic characters, almost as obscure to a layman as the Arabic characters themselves. Thus, I'd rather limit the strict transliteration to one occurrence in the lead paragraph, avoiding it completely in both the article body and title.

I didn't yet get into a debate on pecularities of tranliteration, however. So, I'm new to this seemingly old feud between Striver and you. Are there any other participants that I'm unaware of? --tyomitch 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support now. The title ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib is inconsistent even with itself: how come the hamzat-ul-wasl of Allah is assimilated in ‘Abdu’llah, but the one of ibn is not?
  The other downside of the current title is that it presents ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib as being split into ‘Abdu’l and Muttalib, rather than (correctly) into ‘Abd and al-Muttalib --tyomitch 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of people insisting on Arabic when they have no idea what they're doing. If you want Wikipedia to look like a bunch of idiots are running things, then just leave this page as its current title of Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib, because that is not correct to anybody on earth. To answer your questions, Allah is a contraction of al-Ilah, and the hyphen is always omitted, it's just done that way. It does begin with an alif under a hamza, which is always omitted when written without a preceding word, but always included when combined with the previous word. The noun `Abd, plus the definite nominative marker "u", plus the second element, Allah, the beginning hamza of which is elided by the preceding "u". We get... `Abdu'llah. But in the case of al-Muttalib, the hyphen is not omitted. All the same grammar rules follow, which brings us to `Abdu'l-Muttalib. Put a "son of" in there and we get `Abdu'llah ibn `Abdu'l-Muttalib. If you follow the ALA-LC standard of not assimilating the nominative marker "u" (the way it's pronounced), then you have option number 2: `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. Outside of these, you're making up your own version, despite the efforts of thousands of academics over the last two centuries.

Hey, both ibn and al-Muttalib begin with exactly the same letter alif-with-hamza-of-joining. I have absolutely no idea why the former gets rendered as "i" and the latter as "'". Care to explain? --tyomitch 08:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to correct the name, be my guest. I've run into too many people that have no clue what they're doing and sit there and argue and revert. I'm done watching this page for awhile. Cuñado - Talk 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I did revert your cut-and-paste move just because it's not the proper way of doing page moves; see WP:CPMV --tyomitch 08:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No votes after 2 relists. Scratching the entry. Duja 12:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib → ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib — The current name was the result of User:Striver changing the titles of several articles to conform to a form of Arabic transliteration which he made up. There are international standards which are well documented at the Arabic MOS, and Striver's use of the hyphens is wrong. Cuñado - Talk 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link not working

There is a link just before the section entitled, "See Also", which does not currently work, which I have tried to locate, but am unable to fix. Can someone please see to it? Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Abd Allah was sacrificed for God Hubal(?)

In this article it is given that father of Mohammad, Abd Allah died on a caravan trip between Medina and Mecca from an illness, at the age of twenty-five. However, in article Hubal in wikipedia it is given that Abd al-Muṭṭalib, his father had sacrificed him on the vault of Hubal in the temple in Mecca for the fulfillment of his vow. What is correct? Can any body explain? Pathare Prabhu (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Abdul-Muttalib thought of sacrificing his son Abdullah to Hubal but did not in fact do so. He sacrificed a hundred camels instead.Petra MacDonald (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Name

According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, it is not certain whether his name was Abd Allah. This - distinguishably Muslim - name may be a later fabrication by the biographers (who lived some 200-400 years later). His real name might have been a pagan name, later changed to Abd Allah ("slave of God") in order to further "Islamize" the prophet's family and origins. This is similar to the name Muhammad which is actually a title and not a name. Already Tabari states that the real name of the Prophet of Islam might have been Amin (chosen by his mother Amina) and that the title al-Muhammad ("The Praised One") was attributed to him later.

According to Christoph Luxenberg, the idea of Abd Allah being Muhammad's father is a later misinterpretation of sources. He reads Muhammad ibn Abd Allah as Aramaic Muhammadu Abd Allah (without the "ibn", as depicted in the oldest Umayyad inscriptions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque): "Praised be the Slave of God" - a distinguishably non-trinitarian Christian concept, referring to Jesus. That's part of the "Muhammad myth theory" put forward by scholars such as Günter Lüling, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Gerd Rüdiger Puin, Christoph Luxenberg, Ibn Warraq and others, which proposes that the word Muhammad which appears in the Quran 4 times is not the name of an Arab prophet, but a reference to Jesus. They derive the Quran from the Aramaic qeryana, a Christian lectionary book, with the purpose to Chritianize the Arab tribes and motivate them to fight against the (Zoroastrian) Persians in the Byzantine–Sassanid Wars of Heraclius (hence the celebration of Rom and Romans in the Quran, as well as the glorification of Herclius as Dhul-Qarnayn).

This should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.138.124 (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Allah is synonym of God only after the first revelation of mohammad. Before that, Allah was one of the icons of kaba. His name means "slave of Allah the icon" 212.174.131.15 (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)3210king.

Date of death

The infobox says he died in January 571. But Muhammad, who was born 6 months AFTER his father's death, was born "c. 570". If the infobox is correct, wouldn't that put Muhammad's birth at c. July 571? Either way, something doesn't add up here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It has always been difficult to calculate exact Gregorian/Julian equivalents for dates in the Arab calendar. "C. 570" was adopted for a long time. But more accurate calendar-conversions suggest that Muhammad was actually born in April 571.

Abdullah's date of death is only recorded as "before Muhammad was born". He died while on a business trip, not having seen his wife for at least 12 weeks, so he presumably died between October 570 and April 571.Petra MacDonald (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060223180356/http://www.sunnipath.com:80/Resources/PrintMedia/Books/B0033P0005.aspx to http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Books/B0033P0005.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sunni Muslims do not all consider him disbeliever

Sunni Scholars like Imam Suyuti has written several books to prove parents of the Prophet were believers and saved.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.184.26 (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

References

About the reference of Ibn Kathir (number 7)

What does the following mean? I don't find Abdullah's name there as mentioned in the referenced sentence:

"Then I saw an old man whose cheeks were very red and who seemed to have a star shining forth from his forehead. He had twisted around his head a black turban from beneath the folds of which his head-parting appeared, sesame seed in colour." (Some accounts give the wording as "sitting on a chair of black samzsim wood with a saddle cushion beneath it.") "In his hand he lightly held a rod. All around him sheikhs were sitting, their heads held down, and not one of them was saying a word. Information had reached me in Syria that this was the time for the arrival of the ummi (unlettered) Prophet, so when I saw this man I thought it was he. So I said to him, 'Peace be upon you, 0 Messenger of God!' He replied in anger, 'Stop that! No! I wish I were he.' I asked, 'Who is that sheikh?' 'That's Ahn Nadla, Hashim b. 'Abd Mans.' So I turned away, saying, 'Now that is glory! Not like that of the house of Jafna!'"

By this he meant the Arab kings of Syria of the Ghasszn tribe, who were known as the A1 (family of) Jafna. The office he was describing relative to Hashirn was that of the rijizda, namely the feeding of the pilgrims. "

How Abdullah's name is found here or even inferred from here is not clear to me. Kawrno Baba (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)