Talk:Abu Lahab

Its appear that this article is solely based on Islamic sources. How about other sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.168.246 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no non-Islamic sources about Abu Lahab. He was an opponent of early Islam. He was not in any other way a notable person, and no non-Muslim ever bothered to write about him.

That doesn't mean the basic facts about his life are wrong. It only means we need to be aware of the writers' bias.Petra MacDonald 02:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra MacDonald (talk • contribs)

Copyright violation?

It appears that there may be a copy right violation with this page.... http://66.240.115.245/ad101/Muhammad/Chapter60.htm . I have not taken further action because I do not know whether the work in question is in the public domain... Striver can you verify that it is in the public domain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement --GNU4Eva 15:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The name of the book seems to be "The Millennium Biography of Muhammad"

I found this:

http://www.freewareppc.com/religion/millenniumbiographyprophetmuhammad.shtml

Want me to seach more?

--Striver 15:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It can be downloaded here:

http://66.240.115.245/ad101/Muhammad/

--Striver 15:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a fan of the Pickthall Translation

The translation is precise but not as accurate as one would wish it. Unless there are objections I wish to replace it with a better translation which I will post here for approval (two week silence is approval). Angrynight 17:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

^^

A Better Translation

Well responding to the above comment, I reccomend Mohammad Asad's translation (www.geocities.com/masad04/) because he has the least errors in my opinion. Or Shakir too, (www.quransearch.com). But someone else can do that, I'm not good at these things.

Wa Sabaha

The claim that Mohammad never told a lie in his life is pure conjecture and strikes me as being too strong. The following is the statement in question "The People responded that they would, since Muhammad had never told a lie in his life." How can we be sure that he never has told a lie, and what is a definition of a lie anyway? I would recommend replacing it as follows: "The People responded that they would, since Muhammad was known to be honest." Honest can be replaced with "extremely honest" or "truthful" or any other term that can indicate that he was a person of high moral standing to satisfy everyone in question. It just strikes me that "never told a lie in his life" would be hard to prove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.56.5 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ibn Sa'd renders this: "We have never found you telling a lie," i.e., it's the subjective (and probably hyperbolic) impression of the audience, not an objective fact (http://www.soebratie.nl/religie/hadith/IbnSad.html#Book 48.4).Petra MacDonald 22:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra MacDonald (talk • contribs)

In similar vein, I think we should avoid such unprovable statements as "Allah wrote ..." The neutral "It was written ..." is factual; it does not deny Allah's authorship, nor does it affirm it.Petra MacDonald 23:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra MacDonald (talk • contribs)

claim of muhammad within confines of an encyclopedia & 'actual statement according to extant quran primarily'

11:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC) muhammad was not 'told by the quran'. all be it for an encyclopedia muhammad can only 'claim' that god instructed him, however the quran in some sense represents a component of gods command unto muhammad. we must note that the quran was 'revealed' unto muhammad. regardless of whether or not the quran was extant on earth or in heaven before muhammad revealed it to the early muslims in saudi arabia in mecca and medina. hence he was told by a messenger of god, per his claim, through whom the quran was revealed to muhammad, that is maintaining the claim of god's independence.

again, muhammads instruction was to take the quran, thus he was to be the messenger of god, who revealed the quran to those people. during the revelation of the quran some instruction from god was indued within the quran iteself, this however is subsequent to the enstatement of muhammad as a messenger of god on earth. thus keeping within historical bounds as per requirement of the encyclopedic definition.

my point that the article, if presented as a claim for 'encyclopedic political reasons', should at least be accurate with respect to the claim and not presenting false misnomers.11:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.154.152 (talk)

perhaps to surmise and conclude: muhammad was a messenger of the quran hence had already recieved instruction of his duty before the quran was entirely recited by him. that is from an encyclopedic perspective muhammad could not have been told 'by the quran', aswell as from a religious perspective (ie baring the 'actual claim' made in the quran itself) that muhammad was instructed and chosen by god to be a messenger and to reveal the quran, and further instructed during the revelation of the quran though subsequent to his enstatement as a messenger of the quran!. ie it was 'god that told him' through proxy, the message he was to be messenger of, and where to take the message that was the quran.

muhammad was told the quran, by god through an angel. this is the claim. regardless of sufficiency of verifiability of god for an encyclopedia; muhammad 'told' the quran, to the people!

thats as clear as i can make it 80.3.154.152 (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

/* After death */ Section removed.

How can anyone know what happened to Abu Lahab after his death?! Just because some collection of Hadith gloats about how Abu Lahab is being tortured after death doesn't mean that we can make it a basis of a whole Wikipedia section on Abu Lahab. Also, the section is question is written by someone that is obviously lacks objectivity, since it includes the statement "our beloved prophet Muhammad" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.56.5 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a statement such as, "Muhammad claimed that the dead Abu Lahab was now in Hell," & etc. The prophecies are a standard part of the Islamic tradition. There must be a way we can incorporate the tradition, as it is a neutral fact that Muhammad claimed this.Petra MacDonald 02:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra MacDonald (talk • contribs)

Religion of Abū Lahab?

Could an expert in this field clarify in this article what Abū Lahab's likely religious beliefs and/or affiliations were? He may have been standing for an earlier religion of the Quraysh tribe or Mecca region. This article depicts him only as standing against the new Islam. The article about the Quraysh describes them as polytheistic without further specifics. -- econterms (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Almost everyone in Mecca worshipped the standard Arabian pantheon, and there is nothing to show that Abu Lahab was an exception. His original name, Abdul-Uzza, indicates that his parents were devotees of the goddess al-Uzza. The religion of a person who lived in Mecca before 610 is only interesting if it can be shown not to have been Arabian polytheism.Petra MacDonald (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

He was pagan. He followed Arab polytheism just like most of his time. Ishan87 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is Abu lahab

Who is abul haque 119.152.226.15 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)