Talk:Islamic honorifics/Peace be upon him

How to send Compliments to Prophet

Darood or Salwat

Darood is equal to Salawat or in english this term is used as (PBUH) - there're many different ways of making compliments for Prophet Muhammad(SAW) which is mandatory for all Muslims to recite these compliments whenever the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is spoken, or receited, or read, or written, however these compliments are in two forms Long and Short forms - Normally when people 're not talking religious issues rather political or academic issues they recite short form to deliver their lecture quickly however in religious lectures mostly Scholars prefer to recite long form or when offering prayers . This is why i have posted this article to define the " Darood-e-Abrahimi " so that it could be essentially included in any article related to pharse like PBUH or SWT or SWA - or Attributes after the name of Muhammad. See the origianl Article updated now with Sunni References and Hadith clarifying this issue.--www.mahdi.ms 15:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

With all do respect, saying Sallaallahu alayhi wa sallam and as-Salat al-Ibrahimeeyah are different. There are neither used interchangably linguistically nor Islamically. They are two different things. as-Salaat al-Ibrahimeeyah is part of the tashahud. As such, it should be included on articles on Peace be Upon Him. ZaydHammoudeh 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between Salawat and Salaam

What is the difference between Salawat and Salam ? Is there any Azkar that has both Durood and Salaam in Salah ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verycuriousboy (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Shiite and Sunni Muslims View of Salawat.

Well, the Sunni and Shiite conflict originally started from this very point. Sunni Point of view is that whenever we say, read, or write, Prophet Muhammad, we only send compliements to Muhammad and not to his family as well - However Shiite View is we should not only send compliements to Muhammad but also to his family and those compliments come in two forms, Short and long. which actually is described clearly in this article. And even though All of the Muslims irrespective of their Sect do belive in " Darood-e-Abrahimi " - However the dispute is, wether should we send compliments to Muhammad alone or we should send to both Muhammmad and his family. As Ali (AS) was the head of Prophet's family after his death and Husband of Muhammad's daughter Fatima (AS) and father of Imam Hussein (AS) who scarificed his life along with his family members and friends at Karbala - Iraq on 10th of Muharam an event which marks great sacrifice of the Son of Ali and and Grandson of Prophet(SWT) to save Islam from the terrorist rulers, Imam Hussein was Killed along with his family members and friends in a masscare by Umayyad's family leader Yazid (See Banu Umayya) - Therefore Sunni Muslims 're quite hesitating to recite complete Salawat as it contains Prophet's Family, it is quite bitter fact, that Imam Ali who was the head of Prophet's family after his death did not succeed him and this event lead to division of Islam into two major Sect Shiite favoring Ali and Sunni not favoring Ali for the successor of Muhammad (SWT) --www.mahdi.ms 15:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is simply absolutely untrue, and a distortion of the Sunni position. The Sunni point of view is that, a minimum, one should send prayers of the blessing and peace of Allah to the beloved Prophet. In addition to that, it is praiseworthy to include his Family and Companions, as is established in the hadith, and the countless examples of Sunni scholars who use this form in their works.

The Sunnis regard it an obligation to love the Prophet's Family. The typical Sunni Friday sermon recites the praiseworthiness of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Hamzah, Fatima az-Zahra, Hasan, Husayn, as well as that of the Prophet's wives and all of his Companions. The difference between the Sunnis and Shia is not that either side condones or favours Yazid's behaviour, it's that the Shia are excessive in their criticism of the people praised by Allah and His Messenger. The Sunnis instead may say who was in the right or the wrong, but will never go around calling the Companions hypocrites, sinners or apostates as the Shia do.

May the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon the best of creation, the beloved of God, Ahmad, and his Family and Companions. Artichoke84 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Darood-e-Abrahimi (Short or Long)

which is more considered by Sunni Muslims as optional instead of mandatory as considered by Shiite Muslims. Now the point is, the Darood-e-Abrahimi which itself is not controversial and accepted by all of Muslims contains the words " Muhammad and his family and Abraham and his family " so wherever we see Prophet name either of Muahmmad or Abraham these names 're followed by the word " Family " belong to them, so it makes sense that whenever we send compliements to Prophet Muhammad(SWT) we must send compliments to his family as well.It's not as simple as it may seems. Actually this is very point which makes the different between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Since Family of Muhammad was not chosen as the successor of Muhammad(SWT) as he died, and this lead to split between Muslims One who favoring Muhammad's Family's Head Ali 're known today as shiite Muslims. Therefore they want to send compliements to Muhammad as well as to its family. Hope this clarifies how complicated actually every point is in Islam as simple it may seem. See the origianl Article updated now with Sunni References and Hadith clarifying this issue. --www.mahdi.ms 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Allaah explains in the Qu'ran, in the translaiton of the meaning, ""Allah sends His Salah on the Prophet (Muhammad), and also His angels (do so). Oh you who believe! Send your Salah on (i.e. ask Allah to bless) him (Muhammad) and greet him with the Islamic way of greeting (i.e. as-Salaam Alaykum, which means peace be upon you)" (33:56) " This verse is the origin of the Phrase of the general salawat not salawat al-Ibrahimeeyya. Unless you disagree with the Qur'an, then the matter is clear as Muhammad is singled out. ZaydHammoudeh 04:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me from wrong when i meet an english person who has just converted to Islam and not very much familiar to Arabic language right, When i meet him, i say to him " May God keep you in peace and bless you " instead of saying " Aslam-o-alikum wa Rahamtillahey Barakatayhu " - Which way is Islamic and which way is not, saying in Arabic or English? Is Arabic language is the standard for communication among Muslims , and we must adher to this rule ? Prove me brother ? - Prophet of God Muhammad(SWT) was sent to Arab therefore he was supposed to speak Arabic what if he speaks english and people merely understand him, so for Islam it's more important you teach Islam than teaching Arabic.--www.mahdi.ms 05:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Urdu or Arabic does it make difference at all ?

Well, brother, it really makes me concern that when actually we're talking about religious issues we should be neutral and unbiased, and logical as this is what our religion teaches us in every way of life, - Darood is an Urdu word and Salawat an Arabic, and it makes me curious how actually did you know that Darood is Urdu word for Salawat ? - and How come it is even more difficult to search a Urdu translation than Arabic  ? By all means Arabic is one of the most difficult languages of the world, i rather like English - which is much more easier for one to explain its point of view, when i say God is the Greatest, or when i say " Allah-oh-Akabar " which way people understand me more ? - And Which way i get more rewards from God. I guess both way i get the reward equally, this is where we Muslims have made great mistakes, we could not learn Quran and sayings of Prophet Muhammad because we always discourged people not to learn them in other languages other than Arabic, and believe me even if i spend my whole life i cant' learn Arbaic i bet ? - Therefore it is not imperative to learn arabic to learn Islam. Arbaic is not our common language but Islam is our common religion brother. I hope you get my point. --www.mahdi.ms 04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons why Arabic in this article is the preferred language. For instance, the phrase originates from Arabic, and Arabic is the language that Allaah revealed the Qur'an in and the language His Messenger spoke. Two, if we want to expand it to numerous languages, it becomes a slippery slope. If we chose to put the urdu name, then it should also be written also in Turkish, and Bengali, and then also Chinese and then English, and then French etc. etc. It unnecessarily and inappropriate expands the scope of an Arabic phrase to languages that are unrelated as it is an Arabic phrase. The appropriate place for the Urdu version would be the Urdu version of Wikipedia (assuming they have one).

The Prophet said told us pray as he prayed. He prayed in the Arabic language so it is part of the creed of Islam to follow the Muhammad's commands including praying in Arabic as he instructued. ZaydHammoudeh 04:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Already raised same point see above this section',and brother with due respect, i am gettin' an impression that you're actually from an Arab State, hence you love your language more than the logics of Islam, -- Dont' forget Prophet had said " Arabic and Non-arabic are same they have no superiority to each other and one Who is more beleiver in God, is more superior in the books of God " --www.mahdi.ms 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the future on wikipedia, it is better not to ask people personal questions or delve into their personal lives; that is the more professional and appropriate behavior. I can say though that i am not from an Arab state; I am from the United States. However, it should be noted that you are misquoting the evidence. What you are referring to is what He said concerning Arabs and non-Arabs; referring to the race not the language. For instance the words of Allaah in the Qur'an are infallible. Any attempt to translate it will find it frought with errors as it was done by a human who can never claim perfection. Similarly, the keys to understanding the ahadith as well as the Qur'an is the Arabic sciences as one can not understand them without knowing the enytomonolgy, linguistic, and conventions of Arabic. ZaydHammoudeh 06:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very much offended the way you have explained this critical issue, lacking of logics, and Islam discourges everything which is lacking of logics, ——— Islam is the religion of Logics and Justice, Knowledge of Logics today may be called " Science " and Knowledge of Justice today may be called "Democracy" and Muslims 're lacking both Science and Democracy am i right ? and you 'hv been sampling too much the blood of the lamb, - by asking 're you from Arab, it's obvious i was asking you, that you're originally from Arab and Arabic is your first language right ? - I am the guy who did read Quran in Arabic but i never knew what i actually read as I actually learnt how to recite those words of Quran which're written in Arbaic this is what all Non-Arab Muslims do therefore many of Muslims 're pretty much unaware of the teachings of Islam and today this ignorance has lead ignorant Muslims to extremisim and terrorisim, → I wonder if you really have knowledge of Islam or just read the original text of Quran in Arabic ? - Did you read in Quran where Allah or God says " Learn and Teach Quran " - Please quote me any single verses of Quran where Allah or God says " Learn and Teach Arabic " - Arab always take pride of their language as the language of Prophet Muhammad(SWT) and Holy Quran, it is very much right, however language of Islam is not arabic - it's any language which can help people understand the teachings of Quran and Prophet Muahmmad(SWT). See the origianl Article updated now with Sunni References and Hadith clarifying this issue.--www.mahdi.ms 15:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Using Salaam Alaykum for peace be upon him

I more commonly hear the form Peace Be Upon You, that is Salaam Alaikum. Is that appropriate to link to from here? Drernie 00:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Drernie, Peace be upon him is a loose translation of the Arabic term, salla Allahu alayhi wa salaam. According to the literal translation, you are right that it would mroe appropriately correspond to Asalaam Alaykum. However, the common usage of the term is different than its literal translation. ZaydHammoudeh 22:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it required to say Peace be upon him

((رَغَمَ أَنْفُ رَجُلٍ ذُكِرْتُ عِنْدَهُ فَلَمْ يُصَلِّ عَلَيَّ))

The salawat - PBUH is required for every muslim to recite upon hearing prophet name is mentioned. It is not just a normal forms of respect but required, as was mentioned in hadis (prophet saying).Yosri 18:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is only what you believe. --Pipifax 14:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Rasoolullaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said : “May that person be destroyed who refrains from reciting Durood on me when I am mentioned in his presence” (Tirmidhi) Yaminulzaman (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

POV

Is it NPOV to include the formula after mention of Muhammad within normal article text (not direct quotes)? Is there a Wikipedia policy on that? -- Error 02:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#Islamic_honorifics should not be used in article text rather it should be deleted. meco 07:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

PBUH for post-Muhammad Prophets

I sometimes use PBUH for folks after Muhammad (pbuh?), because I note their prophecy and also because (quite frankly) I was showing my independence from orthodox Islam. Thus, Joan of Arc (pbuh) winds up "pbuh-ed", as does Oya-Sama (pbuh) of Japan, and Amina Wadud (pbuh?)... and also polytheistic oracles (pbut- peace be upon them). 204.52.215.107 16:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The use of the honorific "salla Allahu alayhi wa salaam" or in English, "peace be upon him" is one only used on the dead. According to the rules of the statement, it is not to be use for those who are alive like Aminah Wadud. ZaydHammoudeh 17:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration peculiarities

wassalam gets 3.5 times more Google hits compared to wasallam. Which one is wrong? --194.226.235.251 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm... neither are wrong. Since it is a transliteration, spelling differences happen. However, for the purpose of this encyclopedia, the most common spelling should be used. --Maverick 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Salla Allahu alayhi wa salaam

I think it is a good idea to merge it with Salla Allahu alayhi wa salaam as was suggested. The one on the other link is pretty bare and this has a lot more explanation. Are there any other thoughts? ZaydHammoudeh 19:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. __meco 19:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Turned into Jewish-Islamic article

Plain facts: 1) Hebrew is older than Arabic; 2) Judaism is older than Islam; 3) Islam most likely copied this practice from Judaism. The only problem now is the way in which the templates follow each other. Every edit to the upper sections of the page will lead to a change in the positions of the templates. Now alternatively, we could also make Peace be upon him a disambig and create Peace be upon him in Islam and Peace be upon him in Judaism. I would not prefer this due to the difficulty involved in changing a huge number of links. If anybody prefers that solution, we'll do it. I see no reason for it, since we are talking about exactly the same expression used in exactly the same manner, and after all, Arabic and Islam have some of their origins in Hebrew and Judaism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Logical inferences are unacceptable in lieu of verification. The term Shalom Aleichem, for example, may very well have its roots in medieval Spain, at which time the Jews partially were under Islamic rule. Nobody disputes that much of Rambam's philosophy comes from Muslim philosophers, etc. It is not "out in left field" to think that a particular phrase that Jews use isn't affected by Islam.--Meshulam 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Jewish books written long before Muhammad was born also write alav hashalom. Rashi also writes it, and I don't think he was influenced by Islamic thought. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing that. I was just pointing out that what seems logical to you is not necessarily verified on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is a logical inference that says exactly the opposite of what you have claimed which is equally acceptable. Islam was founded in the 600s. That's before Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, etc. So if you find that alav hashalom first popped up in the times of the gaonim, then you'll likely also find that a very compelling argument exists that it originated with Islam. That argument would also not be verified to Wikipedia's standards... --Meshulam 14:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I should first note that "Peace be upon him" is only a very rough transalation of the meaning of the Arabic phrase, "sallallahu 'alayhi wa salaam." Second, it is grossly inappropriate to state in your plain facts section that "Islam most likely copied this practice from Judaism" as stated above because that is definitely not fact but rather conjecture. Similarly, Peace be upon him is not even the real meaning of the phrase. We have a phrase in the Arabic langauge that means "Peace be upon him", and that is the phrase, "'alayhis salaam" Given these linguistic facts, I think there is no longer ambiguity in the phrases. It might be worth expanding the article to reflect that. ZaydHammoudeh 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, given this article is primarily dealing with Islamic subject matter and Islamic centered to make judaism the more prominent feature in terms of a side bar as well as placing its information first. I am not 100% an expert on wikipedia rules but it seems an attempt to put POV through an indirect route. ZaydHammoudeh 16:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ZaydHammoudeh about the prominence issue. Not being an expert in Arabic, I must also rely on his translation. (Incidentally, what does "sallallahu alayhi wa salaam" mean?) This creates a problem, however. The article purports to be about the Muslim phrase "peace be upon him," and then explains a term that ZaydHammoudeh claims does not even mean "peace be upon him" (which is really "alayhis salaam" in Arabic, apparently). So the article is named incorrectly, in that case. Perhaps something should be done about that. Regardless, I believe that ZaydHammoudeh or someone else who is more knowledgeable about the Muslim aspect of this article (the bulk of the article, that is), should change the article to accurately reflect the subject matter, and should move the Jewish segment of this article so as to accurately reflect its prominence in the article. --Meshulam 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked it all out: we now have the old article Peace be upon him moved with its history to Peace be upon him in Islam; we have Peace be upon him in Judaism; and we have Peace be upon him (disambiguation). Looks perfect to me now, I hope everybody agrees? --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed a huge number of (Islamic) links that now pointed to Peace be upon him (disambiguation). Some are still left as redirects to Peace be upon him. Obviously I am not going to turn the redirect Peace be upon him into anything other than the disambig page. If anybody has time to fix some more redirects, go ahead. I'll add a small top link template to the top of this page. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Long/Short Version Without Proof

No evidence is cited in this article for including the salawat on the Prophet's noble family. Although it is something of merit, it is unrelated to this article and is actually POV. The article has numerous evidences for its current form. It will be reverted until evidences of the other forms is included. Moreover, it should be noted as per the talk page on Darood-e-pak that as-Salat al-Ibrahimeeyah is not analogous to this as there is no proof. ZaydHammoudeh 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging darood-e-pak / PBUH (Islam) - Difference of Opinion

I actually had made corrections into this article PBUH(islam) yet i actually wanted to have an article darood-e-pak to better explain some conflicting issues even among muslims in regard to this pharse, and also PBUH is no longer being used for sending compliments to Prophet Muhammad(SWT) and now there are different words which 're being used like SWA and SWT depending on either Shiite or Sunni Muslims, It is very much clear that Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims have very different point of view on this issue as well, and i infact had made the effort to merge some sections of Darood-e-pak into PBUH (Islam) but those were deleted over and over again by user: ZaydHammoudeh - and infact he first sent me messages which gave me an impression as if he is the official Moderator designated to moderate Islamic articles as it's only been 10 days or so since i joined Wikipedia - I have given all the references of Sunni Books instead of Shiite Books so that fellow Sunni Muslims do not arise objections to this article of " Darood-e-pak " -But User: ZaydHammoudeh still had the intensions to object this article without being logical and and infact he has been very ridicolous on this topic - As in general common sense it should not offend any of the believers of Islam to send compliments to Prophet Muhammad(SWT) along with his family - And his family is very much respected by Sunni Muslims as well while Shiite Muslims not only respect them but also consider the Family of Muhammad (SWT) as the legitimate successors of Muhammad(SWT) as well. And i tried to prove the legitimacy of the article "Darood-e-pak" by quoting references of Sunni Muslims Books with a purpose that No Sunni Muslim make dispute over this, i even could quote Shiite Books references on this too - But I rather didn't want to be considered biased by fellow Sunni Muslims brothers. Trust that clarifies. --www.mahdi.ms 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahdi, please do not lay insults on others. It is neither good manners nor appropriate. Moreover, it is not wikipedia style for the use of such extensive bolding in the talk pages. It is loud and for those of us with bad eyes, such large amounts of bolding makes it difficult to read and even to an extent painful.

Regarding messages that I had sent you, most were because you repeatedly signed the articles you editted. This is neither wikipedia convention nor standard style. Moreover, common sense is for the Muslim to follow the commands of Allaah and His Messenger. I noticed when you editted this article, you removed the Qur'anic verse which if you read it clearly states that Sallallahu alayhi wa sallaam applies to the Prophet specifically and not his family. It seems conspicuous to remove this proof when it so strong. Furthermore, the ahadith you mentioned were misquoted extensively. The ahadith mentioned refer to as-Salat al-Ibrahimiyyah not sallallahu alayhi wa salaam. I will get the entire version of the hadith and prove it. The ahadith I mentioned you conspicously removed as they conflicted with your view. I fully accept and acknowledge that some of the hadiths you stated were authentic albiet misused. Quoting evidence is not sufficient if it is only partially quoted and also simultaneously misapplied.

What is more, it is extremely rare, assuming it even occurs for mainstream Sunni Muslims to use subhannahu wa ta'ala for Muhammad. I have never seen it, heard it, nor even heard of it ever. Such a trend of change as it was asserted would be clear if had occered. In contrast, I hear Sunni Muslims from all over the world use sallallahu alayhi wa sallaam on a daily basis. ZaydHammoudeh 16:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Brother, I still cant' understand what exactly is your point of view - However if you read the article Darood-e-pak i did mention Quranic and Hadith references and all of the Hadith references are of Sunni Books instead of any Shiite Books. You did acknowledge they're correcct but being misquoted ? I still can't understand what exactly do you mean by sayin' that? - Secondly, I ask you very simple question " Why 're you annoyyed when i say that it's imperative to send Compliments to Muahmmad(SWT) as well as to his family " ? --- While God not only send Blessings to Abraham but also to his family and ultimately the Family of Abraham is the Family of Muhammad as those're descendant of Prophet Abraham, as Muhammad(SWT) is descendant of Prophet Ishmael - You believe that Darood-e-Abrahimi is correct - and Hadith i quoted are correct too But still confusing me that they 're being used wrongly ? - Everything is crystal clear - And there is no confusion what actually those reads like - Either you say those 're wrong hadith or just accept it instead of confusing me with making comments like they're misquoted. If those Hadith does not mean what i am saying. And why it's not important to send compliments to Muhammad(SWT)'s family ? Please explain. - And brother, what is practiced by some group of people does not constitue the rules of Islam, even Osama bin laden is another Muslims but his actions can not constitue the rules of Islam, rather his actions and thoughts are very much cotradictory to Islmaic rules which 're based on logics and Justice.--www.mahdi.ms 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked that you please not use as many bolds. It hurts my eyes. Plus this is not the standard style. I think this is something small to ask especially given it not what is done in general on talk pages. The verse you mentioned has nothing to do with sending the salaah on the Prophets family as an obligation; in contrast, the verse I mentioned includes the Prophet only and it is unambiguous. Your statement that it is obligated is much different than saying something is good. It is good to fast often outside of ramadan but it is not required. To say something is obligated takes evidence from either the Qur'an or authentic sunnah. It is not an issue of annoyance or anger or anything of the sort. It is an issue of stating the facts correctly and it is the view of the scholars of Islam, Shia and Sunni, that we can only something to be forbidden or obligated if Allah did it.

My statement regarding the use of Subhannahu wa ta'ala was to refer to your statement that no one uses sallallahu alayhi wa sallam anymore. I meant to imply that no scholar as far as I have read made such a statement. You stated, "PBUH is no longer being used for sending compliments to Prophet Muhammad(SWT) and now there are different words which 're being used like SWA and SWT depending on either Shiite or Sunni Muslims" so I was saying in my extensive studies had never even heard of nor has it been mentioned by anyone. However, my point was sallallahu alayhi wa salaam is still extremely common so this can't be the case.

Regarding those hadith, just because it is mentioned that something is good, that doe snot make itobligatory or part of the standard salaah and salaam on the Prophet. The prophets family, including his wives who are the mothers of the believers, are very honorable people. May Allah grant them paradise, ameen. These are general ahadith and not obligations. In addition, most of them refer to how to send the salaah and salaam in the tashahud not in general times anyway. ZaydHammoudeh 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I alread made it clear in sub-section Sunni and Shiite dispute over Salwat - That For Sunni Muslims it is optional to include Prophet Muhammad's Family while for Shiite it's mandatory to include Prophet Muhammad's Family when sending compliments to Muhammad(SWT). So if you believe as Sunni Muslims believe i dont get offended, everyone has the right to freely choose his faith and belief - That's why i created Darood-e-pak article seperately since you were deleting the changest over and over again - So we both go side by side by having two different articles however it's impertative that we mention that which one is reflecting Sunni point of view and what is reflecting Shiite Point of view.

This user is a Shi'a Muslim.

--www.mahdi.ms 11:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth (I have had this page on my watchlist since the name changes etc a few weeks ago), I agree with Mahdi. Make two articles: one about the Sunni, one about the Shia point of view. I have used such a solution once on the Dutch Wikipedia, and it solved all problems behind a discussion which had been going on for months and has taken op 600 kb (no joke) of talk page. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

All prophets

صلى الله عليه و سلم is not used after mentioning the name of all prophets but only after the name of Prophet Muhammad. Please correct. After mentioning the name of other prophets, Muslims say عليه السلام. Note: The exact translation of عليه السلام is Peace be upon him. --Meno25 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistranslation

صلى الله عليه و سلم does not mean "peace be upon him" in Arabic, it means "god prayed on him and saluted". This gross mistranslation needs to be adressed.

Your suggested "translation" is not English. You can't pray on people (although perhaps omnipotent beings can come to think of it), and if you don't include a direct object of salute, it sounds like God has joined the Army. Wegesrand (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed move. 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 move debate was not to move. Lox (t,c) 08:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Peace be upon him (Islam) → Peace be upon him — Jewish "Peace be upon him" honorific is covered under Honorifics for the dead in Judaism. Since it is more of a general article I feel the disambiguation page Peace be upon him is unnecesary. This has the same end result. -- Cat ^chi? 11:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. The current situation, with a disambiguation at the unqualified name, is by far the best solution. To use the unqualified name to refer to the usage by either faith is unjustified, and is asking for trouble. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Acceptable alternatives to the current situation would be:

• Have two separate articles, and the disambig where it is. This is compatible with the status quo, and just means restoring the one previously at Peace be upon him (Judaism), now redirected.
• Have one article, dealing with both faiths. I feel it's better to have the two, but in terms of being a good encyclopedia, this would be fine.

There are two problems with moving the article on Islam to the unqualified name, or even redirecting the unqualified name to it:

• First and most important, this is unencyclopedic. The phrase is used by both faiths; There's no reason to prefer the usage given by one.
• Secondly, it's provocative. We risk wasting a lot of time with further discussion if we side with Islam in this way! IMO there is also a smaller risk of this if we were to attempt to combine the material on the two faiths into one article.

Peace be upon him (Islam) is a good topic, and while not a perfect article it stands every chance of improving. Let's not put unnecessary obstacles in this path. Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Ave Maria

There is perhaps a similar use of the expression in Christianity, which is found in the Ave Maria. When Mary receives the Lord, she is blessed with the peace of Christ. Hence, the term Dominus Tecum (the Lord is with thee) in the Ave is comparable to the blessing found in Judaism and Islam. Another similar use is the liturgical blessing of the peace of Jesus during the holy mass. ADM (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No; that is if the translation as Peace be upon him (subjunctive) is in any way correct. The Ave Maria contains the words "Dominus tecum" not as an addendum to the name of Mary, but because repeats the words of the angel Gabriel as reported in Luke's Gospel; and in this case the words have always be understood as indicative, i.e., "the Lord is with thee" (in the sense that she is full of grace, blessed amongst women, etc.)

Actual analogies are the pious addition of "praised be his holy Name" (or "Who be praised for ever and ever") when speaking of our Lord, or "God rest his soul" when speaking of a deceased person (interestingly this means the same as "peace be upon him", but Islam reserves that for what they honor as prophets, we use it for all the deceased) or the (less frequent) addition of "in whose intercession we trust", "whom we use the occasion to ask for intercession", etc. after names of the saints.--2001:A60:15C7:F301:5407:276:F11:2696 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Might PBUH have filtered into Judaism from Islam?

Sephardic Judaism grew up in the Muslim countries of al-Andalus and perhaps Morocco. Since PBUH is common in Islam to honor the Prophets, I wonder if this slipped into Judaism as an honorific for, first, Moses, and, then, the dead in general. — Rickyrab | Talk 09:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, but anything is possible. Hail Allah PBUH (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Shikaka

This practice is very similar to the practice of kneeling everytime hearing the word Shikaka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.172.34 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Call Ace and the white bat! Sincerely 80.162.233.143 (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What Hail Allah PBUH (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette: Use by Non-Muslims?

I appreciate this may be a subjective matter, but I'm interested to know whether there is a general feeling or specific teaching on the use of these terms by non-Muslims as an attempt to show respect? For example, if I as a non-Muslim make reference to a Prophet in writing, would it be considered disrespectful not to use one of these terms? Or would using it be seen as pretentious or an affectation and thereby risk the greater offence? I'd appreciate any thoughts, and I suggest it might be worth addressing the question in the article: I occasionally see non-Muslim writers employing the term, though often in abbreviated form ('pbuh'). Thanks - MarcTac (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's considered polite, the same way as saying "Merci" rather than "Thank you" to a French-speaker as a non-francophone shows respect. Most contemporary Muslims living in Western society will not take offence if you don't say "Peace be upon him", it's just nicer to say "Peace be upon him" to show your respect. --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Unclear quote

The article quotes Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz as saying:

It should also be noted that the symbol used for it is regarded as disapproved by the scholars, who warned against it.

Does this refer to ﷺ or to something else?

2620:101:8003:200:D499:E52F:3C9F:C8B (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Received merge request 2:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC) at Proposed Mergers noticeboard: Merge Salawat (now redirected to Peace be upon him (Islam)) and Durood. Reason given: The articles seems to indicate that Salawat is Arabic of Durood. Also, sending Peace, Salutations, Blessings , etc on the Muhammad all usually refer to similar things, with some slight but significant difference in the meaning of the words. The difference comes in usage of different phrases. E.g.- one kind of phrase used after mentioning his name and another kind of phrase used in Salah. Rather a sub-topic should be used to mention the difference.

Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"}

Requested move 4 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the Islamic phrase is the primary topic. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Peace be upon him (Islam) → Peace be upon him – This article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Peace be upon him". The current disambiguation page is a WP:TWODABS situation. The Judaism honorific is only covered in a section of an article, and that article receives a lot less page views than this one. Almost every search result for "peace be upon him" is related to Islam. SSTflyer 12:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Google search results seem to support this conclusion. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support this does indeed seem to fall under WP:TWODABS.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I guess part of the issue here is that Muslims use the honorific in English more often than Jews do. The honorific alav HaShalom/aleha HaShalom ("Peace be upon him/her", in Hebrew) is quite common, but its translated use in English in a Jewish setting is less so. And I suspect, though I don't have a source, that the Muslim phrase is derivative from the Jewish phrase.

I suppose, then, that while I have a hard time going as far as "Support" on this, I would not object, provided that the Jewish version is actually hatnoted on the page and not simply relegated to the "see also" section. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support with Hatnote to Jewish Article as per Debresser and comment by StevenJ81. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, with hatnote to Jewish article, per above. This is clearly the primary topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Balance

Hello,

Is it necessary to have a whole section, 5 paragraphs with a lengthy quotation + a mention in the intro devoted to one unverified Wahhabi fatwa, with no mention of mainstream views? It feels slightly disproportionate vis-à-vis the other 97% Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.218.72 (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Qur'ānic Arabic

Hope this finds everyone well. On 25 December 2020, I removed the row 'Qur'ānic Arabic' from several of the tables of wordings. On 24 January 2021 @LissanX: rolled back that edit stating (correctly) that I had given no reason. I have now restored my edit (leaving in place LissanX's intervening edits) with a brief edit summary. I wanted to elucidate on that here.

First: The distinction between "Arabic" (whatever that is) & Qur'ānic Arabic here is entirely orthographic. In many cases, there is no distinction. The only information that the reader would glean from reading the two variants would be a knowledge of the distinction in how some vowels are represented in the muṣḥaf. This information does not actually pertain to the usage of the term عليه السلام or the other phrases addressed on this page. As such, I think it really serves primarily as clutter to the reader who is new to this topic.

Second: I don't think the Qur'ānic versions actually point to anything in real language use. The following phrases do not appear in the Qur'ān:

• عليه السلام
• عليه الصلاة والسلام
• سلام الله عليه
• صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم
• صلّى الله عليه وآله
• صلّى الله عليه وسلّم
• رحمه الله
• تبارك وتعالى
• عزّ وجلّ

This one does, tho:

• سبحانه وتعالى

(6:100, 10:18, 16:1, 17:43, 30:40, 39:67, & then 28:68 has سبحان الله وتعالى)

This one:

• رضي الله عنه

actually only appears in the plural: رضى الله عنهم

So of all the Qur'ānic Arabic versions given where there's a difference, in only one does that version actually occur in the Qur'ān. These "Qur'ānic" versions are not generally used in Arabic writing today. In fact, if you Google "عَلَيْهِ ٱلصَّلَوٰةُ وَٱلسَّلَٰمُ‎", you mostly get mirrors of this article. Google right now (from the Sudan, where I am—people in other countries may get different results) turns up fewer than ten instances of that spelling. If we go into Google Books, more instances show up, but I think they're all from the first half of the 19th century.

This being the case, I think that these orthographic variants give the aura of antiquity & religiosity, but do not reflect language use of a variety useful for any Wikipedia reader.

I hope that clarifies my reasoning. Take care! Pathawi (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Narrow Scope of this Article? Collapse it with Others?

The title of this article refers specifically to the phrase عليه السلام `alayhi s-salām, but then the article talks about a rather large number of other phrases of respect for prophets, angels, imāms, the companions, & God Himself, & in fact devotes most of its space to things not specific to this one phrase. As written, the content of the article does not match the title. There is also an article Islamic honorifics, which addresses every single phrase on this page except تبارك وتعالى. God in Islam has this last phrase, as well as all the other honorifics listed here.

It seems to me that we should do one of the following:

1. Remove everything not relevant to عليه السلام from this page & make sure that it's present on Islamic honorics.
2. Collapse this page into Islamic honorifics.

I don't think this page should have a title-content mismatch. I don't think we need this information duplicated in two or three separate articles. Thoughts? Pathawi (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi: Merging into Islamic honorifics makes sense to avoid unnecessary duplication. This article is qualitatively better in some respects than the latter, e.g. the transliterations there are bad (things like "Khadīejah (Radeyallāhu ′Anhā)"), so merging would really entail transfer of good material. In both pages, sources are weak, which is a problem in many Islam-related articles. I wonder why it's always either material from western Orientalists, or amateurs. Isn't there modern academic Islamic scholarship available in English? –Austronesier (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I suppose I should broadcast this to solicit more input.

There is of course modern academic scholarship on Islam in English. I've noticed that in some disciplines academics are more likely to edit Wikipedia than in others (Linguistics: yes; Anthropology: nope), & that there's a pretty large portion of the editing population that is resistant to any sources other than those that can be found thru Googling & accessed without a license. Articles on Islam see the impacts of both Muslims & Islamophobes who edit with specific interests that don't encourage them to engage good scholarship. Pathawi (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi: It reminds me a bit of the state of articles about human population genetics; lots of amateurs, lots of non-peer-reviewed content as long as its OA, lots of agendas etc. Btw, I tried some baby steps towards improvement in Tajwid, but I am not good at reworking articles from the scratch unless it's hardcore (but non-generative) linguistics. –Austronesier (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Peace be upon him into Islamic honorifics. The reasons are given in the above discussion (Talk:Peace_be_upon_him#Narrow_Scope_of_this_Article?_Collapse_it_with_Others?). I will post a similar thread on Islamic honorifics' Talk page. If that does not generate more discussion than the above thread has, I will seek additional opinions via an RfC. Pathawi (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)