Talk:Aslim Taslam

What's missing

This article needs

• The original Arabic script of "Aslim Taslam"
• A sourced translation by a scholar of Arab language
• The information when, where and to whom Muhammed used this phrase
• Information whether, when and by whom the phrase was used through the centuries. Is it really a notable phrase?

Pjacobi 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it needs all of that. Could we put this article on a high priority list, or something similar? I don't know if it's a notable phrase, but considering that it was used recently against the pope, and that it has been used by mohammed himself, that makes it notable in my book. I mean, it's not every day you hear the words of mohammed being used against the pope. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:49, 29 Sept, 2006 (UTC)

I think the Article should be changed to an article about the Prophet's letters to the leaders of the tribes and the neighboring nations. The phrase was used in some letters, but not all of them.--Sibahi_talk 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the use of this word to the pope should at least be mentioned somewhere as trivia perhaps. It shouldn't be removed, but it shouldn't be a vital part of the article either. This article should focus more on the letters sent by Muhammed, why he said Aslim Taslam and so on. EliasAlucard|Talk 11:21, 30 Sept, 2006 (UTC)

Is there any knowledge if any of the original letters survive eg. in the Pope's library? 16.05.07

I don't know about the Pope's library, but the original letter sent to Munzir ibn Sawa Al Tamimi (former ruler of Bahrain) can be seen in the National Museum of Bahrain. --MK 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What should be deleted

The incident of Imad Hmato using the phrase should be deleted. There is no sign of any notability of Imad Hamto, so what he's saying about the Pope is just an anecdote. --Pjacobi 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's part of the papal controversy. If we remove that, it would be pointless to link to this article from the Benedict islam crisis see also entry. They're partially connected that way. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:52, 29 Sept, 2006 (UTC)

As a part of the controversy, it is surely mentioned on that page. This page can give the reader background information about this phrase (unfortunately it's not very good at this for now, but we can always hope for some orientalist to the rescue). --Pjacobi 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could "call for help" from the Arabic Wikipedia? I'm sure the phrase is more known over there. It might even have its own entry in Arabic? By the way, it's not even mentioned on that page other than in the see also section. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:01, 30 Sept, 2006 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia don't have an entry for Aslim Taslam. Whatever, there's an article about the Prophet's letters ( here ) with the full texts of some of them. I can translate it to English, but this wouldn't be a sourced translation. I am not interested in politics and I never was, so I don't who Imad Hamto is and I can't say anything about the anecdote mentioned. I can also check the exact wording of the letters from the original sources. However, I will be waiting for a response before doing anything. --Sibahi_talk 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A translation is better than nothing at all. I'm sure other arabic Wikipedians can proofread your translation and improve it if needed. EliasAlucard|Talk 11:21, 30 Sept, 2006 (UTC)

Letters of Muhammad

While I was searching for this phrase, I found out that the Arabic Wikipedia has an article about letters of Muhammad that used this phrase, see ar:رسائل محمد (unreliable translation). By the way, the phrase is not a warning, I think it means "become a muslim to be in the right way". ~MK (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you can't accept Wikipedia as a reference, here's another article [1] (also Arabic). ~MK (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sibahi above also volunteered (reluctantly) for translation.

A most important question is, whether there is a scholarly debate about the letters and their interpretation. Then we can reference this as source, instead of interpreting ourselves (strictly forbidden) or taking interpretation from newspapers (not that strictly forbidden, but results is bad articles).

Is there perhaps a different transskriktion into the Latin alphabet in wider use than "Aslim Taslam"? It just seems impossible to find serious stuff from websearching for "Aslim Taslam"?

Pjacobi 11:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am looking for translated editions of the books cited as sources on the Arabic Wikipedia. I may not be able to do it this week, but when I do it I will move the article to "Letter of Prophet Muhammed" and rewrite the whole article. As for the scholarly debate, personally I doubt there is any debate among Sunni Scholars - at least - about them. Whatever, if I found any it will be in the article. --Sibahi_talk 13:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pjacobi 13:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I started working on it, make any changes you feal necessary : User:Sibahi/Lettes_of_Muhammed and leave your note on the talk page --Sibahi_talk 17:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The two articles already contain identical information, only in reversed order. Therefore I think it best to merge the derivative Lan astaslem into this article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This was the answer of the tribes, who got the Muhammed's messages? Are you sure? Do you have references? I've deleted it here. --Pjacobi 12:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talkin about? It is, to my knowledge, a modern day phrase derived (negatively) from "Aslim Taslam". Do I have references? For what? Sorry, but your posting doesn't make sense. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Read our defintion of the lemma: Aslim Taslam (Arabic: أسلم تسلم) ("submit to Islam") is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammed to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives. So if you want to included something about an answer, I'm looking for your references, that this answer was given by those chiefs in Muhammed's time. --Pjacobi 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand and neither do you.

I don't want to add anything. The section was already there when I came along.

Also, this answer is not an answer (I will don't be as condenscending and quote the text in the article to you) but a quote inspired by this. Hence there is a link. We might as well have to articles one dealing with "Aslim Taslam" and another with the other - then the info on either should be separated with only a small link. However, since I proposed the merger I will not let unilaterally be simply destroyed by you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of the merge tag constitutes vandalism in my book. Next time I will report you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The merge tag is removed because the article in question has nothing to do with the topic of this article. I repeat: This article is about letters send by Muhammed and not about the WTC attacks. At the other article it's the other way around. --Pjacobi 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not the one that can dictate that. I have reported your vandalism.

And no: the article is about a Arabian phrase (which is contained in these letters). We have such "modern reference" section in countless articles.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Trying a longer explaination: This article is about something about 1400 years in the past (but it would be fine, if evidence of later -- not modern -- use of the phrase, and scholarly discussion about Muhammed's letters be included).

But of course it cannot be ignored that it was created out of the article Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, to give not only a translation, but also the historical connations of the phrase.

By now it was decided at Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy that the statement by Imad Hamto isn't relevan tenough (or not even verifiable) to be included there. So it should also be dropped here.

Pjacobi 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is maybe similar that Khaybar Khaybar recently went through AfD and was then merged to Khaybar#Trivia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi,

• your AfD was conclusively rejected.
• the article is not about an event 1400 years ago but about an Arabian expression. Such an article includes the origin (the event 1400 years ago) but also modern appearances (the B16 controversy) and references (the Fallaci term)
• contrary to what you say, it was not "decided at Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy that the statement by Imad Hamto isn't relevan tenough" - it was simply removed and has stayed removed. I approve of that removal since we cannot cover every random Muslim voice. However, the occurence is well relevan tenough in an article on that Arabian expression.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No. --Pjacobi 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

(Just to demonstrate how silly your last post was) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume further arguing is futile. Wikipedia has been startec to write an encyclopedia but now ends as an attempt to create a backup copy of the internet. Sort of. --Pjacobi 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads of states

Unlike stated here, two of the references do mention "heads of states". See here and here. Nonetheless, "kings and rulers" is ok. "Emperors" could also be used. --Filius Rosadis 18:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmh, FR, no, the wording "heads of state" is not contained in these sources. Not surprising, since it is a modern wording. Only the narrative section presenting the sources contain these words. But I am happy that you like my alternative. Emperors could be included as well but I was opting for a more general term and against using three terms. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference #1 in the current text points here and here. Relevant text says The Prophet then selected some of his very competent companions as ambassadors to kings and heads of states. Some of them are listed below... --Filius Rosadis 21:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are these sources? I think not! These are narrative sections.

I would be interested in the corresponding Arabic word and what it literally means.

PS. Rulers is actually better then heads of state, as two governors are involved that are only lieutenants of their Emperor. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the "narrative sections" before editing, you'll avoid further mistakes. --Filius Rosadis 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What mistakes are you talking about? I am not aware of any on this page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

INSULTING REPLY REMOVED Filius Rosadis 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I do make mistakes! But what was my mistake on this page? I honestly don't know. Your mistake on this page was using insulting language, which I duly removed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post

The Jerusalem Post can be considered a reliable source on current events and happenings. However, since when is this newspaper an expert on historical concepts of any kind? Can someone provide some sort of reasoning that suggests this.Bless sins (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the point from this article?

Why is this article here? What is the significant thing about "Aslim Taslam"?

This is fairly uncommon phrase in the Arabic/Islamic culture. Most Arab/Muslims have never even heard it before. I demand the deletion of this article for the lack of any significance or point. HD1986 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't want to bring up the issue of religious fanaticism because I'm not a believer in Islam and because I thought this page was too obviously absurd to need to bring that up anyway.

But thinking again, to excavate such a sentence that is hardly known in Islamic teachings, make an entry about it, misinterpret it in such a disgraceful way, and then relate it to a totally irrelevant issue is too much for me; I would be dishonored to continue discussion with such people who do that. HD1986 (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have added a section to show how common the phrase is in the Islamic culture specifically delivered to world leaders. Cherylyoung (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)