Talk:Ashtiname of Muhammad

Disputed???

Who and where this has been disputed? There is not a single detail of this except claim? --75.82.177.42 (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read what has been said bellow and its not good enouh for a claim. If this document was indeed disputed by Muslim scholars that would be easily found online. I went and look for any and had trouble finding any information on that. So ether provide more information and sources about dispute or remove claim. --75.82.177.42 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The section under History of this document directly contradict this claim saying that authenticity has been confirmed. Can we please be more serious about this? this document has high importance in Religion of the world. It has been cited by many Muslim scolars and christian alike to prevent animosity among faiths. --75.82.177.42 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources"

It's explained here that this document almost fell into oblivion, but then put back into spotlight thanks to Feridun Ahmed Bey : http://www.lastprophet.info/covenant-of-the-prophet-muhammad-with-the-monks-of-mt-sinai

Before that, this document is very well-known in Islamic world, acknowledged by thousands of Islamic scholars from all schools / mazhab.

"among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret"

It may very well an addition to the original document, like the Golden Seal of Sultan Selim I; as explained in above link. Sufehmi (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Entire text?

Is this really the entire text? It looks much longer on the picture, doesn't it?

It would also be nice if the article be expanded, with more analysis and explanations on the context in which it was written, and its importance for Muslims. The sources also need to be discussed: I think it was preserved in a Christian monastery in the Sinai, but is it also mentioned in the traditional Muslim sources (Ibn Ishaq, Al Tabari, etc.) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See the updates I've done on 10 December. Cavila (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Al Jazeera article

I just read an article on a news website that discusses this document. May be of interest to add stuff to the wikipedia article from this. http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Prophet-Muhammads-promise-to-Christians.html

This link is not working, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I had no knowledge of this document's existence and was surprised by its contents. That's when i did the wikipedia search. Timothyn7 (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Authenticity debate

The Siniaticus article referenced in notes 1 & 4 makes no mention of the document's authenticity having been questioned. I am not surprised, but cannot find a clearer citation yet. Yunuswesley (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It actually does, but it comes in a footnote (no. 9 to be exact), with a reference to an article by Jean-Michel Mouton (listed also in the "Further reading" section). I'll see if I can clarify this in the footnote, but I don't have access to the book containing Mouton's article (Le Sinaï durant l’antiquité et le moyen âge, 1998). Cavila (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From Google translate

The existence of the monastery of St. Catherine was threatened several times during the medieval period. The monks had to repeatedly deal with the now Muslim environment around them not to disappear. The mighty walls of Justinian still surround the monastery today were probably a guarantee to protect against Bedouin but insufficient in truth. To survive, they had to use various strategies to legitimize the existence of the monastery under Muslim law. One way was the development, from the ninth century, a discourse on the passage of the Prophet of Islam in Sainte-Catherine. Muhammad still single camel would have stayed at the monastery; monks would then tipped his prophetic future and reportedly asked him a number of privileges. This legend is used to explain the show, even today, in the entrance of the monastery at the bottom of a document to which contains the handprint, that of the Prophet of Islam who was considered illiterate. This is according to a centuries-old tradition, a copy of the act by which Muhammad had granted protection to the monastery.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/le_sinai_medieval_entre_christianisme_et_islam.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMouton%2527s%2B(Le%2BSina%25C3%25AF%2Bdurant%2Bl%25E2%2580%2599antiquit%25C3%25A9%2Bet%2Ble%2Bmoyen%2B%25C3%25A2ge,%2B1998).%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources"

It's explained here that this document almost fell into oblivion, but then put back into spotlight thanks to Feridun Ahmed Bey : http://www.lastprophet.info/covenant-of-the-prophet-muhammad-with-the-monks-of-mt-sinai

Before that, this document is very well-known in Islamic world, acknowledged by thousands of Islamic scholars from all schools / mazhab.

"among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret"

It may very well an addition to the original document, like the Golden Seal of Sultan Selim I; as explained in above link. -- Sufehmi (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the authenticity section as right now, it only cited the notorious Islamophobe Robert Spencer. Someone who has more time can write a section using this article from Rice University: http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/7/2/15. 66.86.132.102 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The letter contains the term sultan, which wasn't used as a title until centuries later. It has a minaret pictured - which weren't built until the 9th century. It is clearly a forgery.

Achtiname

There needs to be some discussion of this odd name, especially since it doesn't occur in the titles of any of the listed sources. I presume -name is the Persian suffix, as in Shahnameh, but what does the first part mean, how did it come to be used for this document, and who uses it? Languagehat (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't turn up in the actual titles for the simple reason that the sources each cover a broader topic : ) The Persian word is more commonly transliterated as ahtiname (also akhtiname) I think and from the sparse references I've seen while rewriting this article, it appears to be a term used, in the context of Ottoman government and administration, to refer to an official document, such as a charter or treaty, issued to record a "decree, testament, oath" (I'm guessing that -name could also mean "book" as in Iskendername and like you said, Shahnameh). So the term seems to have more to do with relations between Sinai and the Ottoman sultans (since the 16th century) than the putative earlier history of this document. But for an adequate definition of ahtiname to be included in this article, I'd have to dig out good sources for this - if only I knew where to find them (see also the sources provided under 'further reading' if you have access). Cavila (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha! It seems that ahdname ( 'ahdname) or ahidname, rather than any of the above, is the word most commonly used in modern English to refer to an Ottoman document which grants privileges or protection to a foreign people. See our article at ahdname. Knowing that really helps to track down reliable sources, both for the word as such and for the topic at hand. Cavila (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I'm glad I asked! Thanks for following up on this. Languagehat (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why the discrepancy is still reflected in the article ("Achtiname" in the title, but "Ashtiname" in the intro and elsewhere)? natemup (talk)

Can a dead man authorise an Achtiname?

Wasn't Muhammad dead when the Arabs conquered Egypt??? -- Wayunga (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Seven years dead at its beginning. Which, as you've noted, makes this sentance problematic, "The document claims that sometime after the Arab Conquest of Egypt, the Prophet had personally granted by charter the rights and privileges to the monastery" 58.84.237.195 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no reference in the document to "after the Arab conquest of Egypt", so this has been removed from the article. I have read elsewhere that representatives of the monastery met with Muhammad in 625 AD in Medina (source reference needed, so I did not add this), and this document was prepared as a result of that meeting. The achtiname references the fact that Christians were already Muhammad's citizens, but it makes no implication whatsoever that the Christians living in the monastery are citizens of the Muslim community yet. Again, a very big difference. The entire wording of the document has a tone of adamant tolerance, as if to make it very clear what WILL happen to other Christians and sacred sites (including the monks and the monastery) if and when Muslims acquire jurisdiction over Christian citizens. Finally, given that this monastery holds more original Christian historical documents and codices than any other in the world (besides the Vatican library, per the Wikipedia link on the St. Catherine’s monastery), it makes a lot of sense in hindsight why this letter would have been addressed to this monastery by Muhammad for archival purposes above all others.--Dsschmidt (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Orientalist translation...

The words that caught me were "Careful guardian of the whole world". No Muslim, let alone their Prophet would assume this title. According to Muslims, the Guardian of all that was and would be is God and God alone. For those who can read Arabic, this phrase is not there. So, why was this translation used for the enlightenment of the masses when there are simpler, more eloquent translations available? Richard Pococke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pococke) lived and died about 400 years ago, an age when the Quran was referred to as 'The Satan's book' by the Church.

I am sure the keeper of this wiki must have gone to great lengths to find out this ancient piece of wrongly translated material. Question arises, and rightfully, why?

I am just wondering, in this day and age of internet and easy access to information, I wonder why such colloquial English has been used. Is it for the improvement of the English of the common reader or to better his knowledge?

Plus, the term "Achtiname" is something I have never heard being used in English for anything other than this charter. Why not simply call it a charter for the common reader like myself?

Even the Anton F Haddad translation is lacking the flowing fluidity of the original. Surely there must be a better and simpler translation for today's times.

Internet anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:2980:52F:48DB:650A:AB07:55AA (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It may have been the available translation that was free of copyright. There were similar problems on article "Athanasian Creed" in a purely Christian context, as you can see at Talk:Athanasian Creed... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

if one is good, two must be better?

Does the article really need two full translations? —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Biased and inaccurate

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and an example of why Wiki gets a bad name as a scholarly source. It is poorly written and biased, making no mention of serious and extensive questioning of the authenticity of the Ashtiname.

This article should be flagged and tagged as disputed and biased.

174.20.134.159 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

citations

An example of this bias is the statement that Spencer's statement that the document is not cited in contemporary historical sources has been refuted. The earliest such source cited as a refutation dates to 785. A source from 150 years later is hardly contemporary. And the disputed document itself does not count as a citation.Bill (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Spencer a Zionist? Is it relevant anyway? Mcljlm (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashtiname of Muhammad. 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/20140811102951/http://humanitiesportal.com/FA/ArticleView.html?ArticleID=192651 to http://humanitiesportal.com/FA/ArticleView.html?ArticleID=192651

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) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashtiname of Muhammad. 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/20131113095907/http://www.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=68 to http://www.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=68

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for other sources

A huge portion of this page is based solely on the writings of Dr John Andrew Morrow, who does not appear to be affiliated with any institution. He is also the owner of the "Covenants of the Prophet" page that is repeatedly referenced throughout. I don't mean to cast any suspicion on his translation work, but I tried to find other sources, either in English or in Arabic, that study the document in question, and I've been unable to find many. If anyone can find some, I think it would contribute a lot to the article, which is very shaky as it stands. Dragoon17 (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Only the Covenant given to St Catherine deserves the name & the entire article?

John Andrew Morrow discusses a whole number of such Covenants, and he suggests that the one with the Armenian Christians of Jerusalem might be the central one between Muhammad and Christendom as a whole:

"… the new Muslim authorities considered that the first Bishop of Jerusalem had been James, the brother of Jesus; that the Armenian Patriarchate was located on the site of his home; and that the Armenians preserved his relics. Consequently, they concluded that Bishop Abraham was the successor of Bishop James, and thus the only truly legitimate bishop in Jerusalem." (Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Armenian Christians of Jerusalem, p. 446).

This might be a biased p.o.v., Morrow aka Imam Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam might well have a certain agenda, however, from here to dedicating the entire Covenant of Muhammad article (see lead, where this is offered as another name for the document) to just the one written for St Catherine, might be seen as a stretch. Am I missing something? Arminden (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References