Talk:Farewell Sermon

"Final" prophet

This seems to be the subject of a dispute. I put "final" back in, in accordance with the page Prophets of Islam which the word immediately after "final" links to, and also in accordance with the sermon itself (no prophet or apostle will come after me). If there is still disagreement, why not discuss it here or on that page rather than edit warring? -Dan 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim that he was the final prophet of Islam is disputed by some Muslims and among others, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The NPOV solution for Wikipedia I believe is not choose a side in this discussion. -- Karl Meier 09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadiyyas believe that the second coming of Jesus came in the form of Hazrat Muhammad, the Mahdi. Further, Ahmadi's are not Muslim, in much the same way that Christians are not Jewish - Though they share most of the same Prophets, there are a different religion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact is that they don't believe that Mohammad was the last prophet. They only believe that he was the last "law-bearing prophet". Another fact is that they call themselves Muslims, and that does, from a neutral point of view make them as much Muslims as any other sect that call itself islamic. -- Karl Meier 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add a section on the Amahdis, go ahead, but stop screwing around with perfectly legitamate text! --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what I want is the text to be neutral. I don't want it to advance any POV above any other POV (Sunni, Shi'a, Amahdis or whatever). Unless you make some serious suggestion to how NPOV should be archieved on this article, I'll have to revert your POV editing again. -- Karl Meier 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Karl, if you must, though I wish you wouldn't do that sort of thing. I'm not up on Ahmadiyya, or the general practice around this place on whether they or other sects that call themselves islamic are in fact qualified as such or not, etc, etc. As I see it, the sermon -- which after all is the subject of this article -- does explicitly claim finality, at least as it stands now. Maybe you could expand on Ahmadiyya dissention? Would it be possible to cite an alternate interpretation, or an alternate text, or that they reject the sermon altogether as unreliable, or I don't know what? How useful is it to edit war over "final" in the intro, while leaving "no prophet or apostle will come after me" unchallenged? -Dan 14:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think we need any of the "final" or "prophet" POV-stuff. I don't think there is any doubt which Muhammad the article is talking about, and I don't think there is any need to clarify it, so let's just stick to the most neutral possible way, and that is simply to say: "Muhammad". -- Karl Meier 20:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of cource we need to disambid the name in the first mentioning. I added "traditional" to exlcude the Bahai and such.--Striver 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? What other Muhammad do you think the readers might confuse the Muhammad we are talking about with? As I see it, in this article it's obvious, and there is no need to clarify it when mentioning him here. -- Karl Meier 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Muhammad is the most comon name in the world, i would argue that there is a need to disambig. --Striver 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we still on about this? I'm afraid I'm still not seeing it. How about "whom Muslims believe to be the final prophet"? (basically what the lead section of the Muhammad article has -- admittedly there is controversy over that article, but not, as far as I can see, over this issue). Really, to me it seems like "of Islam" captures it, so it's unnecessary extra words, but honestly, either way, not a big deal, let's get over this. 192.75.48.150 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation of translation

Incidentally, the translation of the text as it stands could also probably use some citation. In fact, for all three slightly different versions. -Dan 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone trying to understand the origins of this speech within Islamic literature, this is very frustrating that it is not properly cited. What book does this come from? It seems that it is not from the Qur'an, but for someone who is not very well versed in Islam, this is a very confusing and frustrating article. - Joseph 1/7/2012

What about the translation provided in Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq? It's found on pages 650-2 of the 2004 edition. Barakitty (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge

No need to have duplicates. --Striver 12:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, merge. Shijaz 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, merge where? We have this article (The Farewell Sermon), The Farewell Pilgrimage, and Hujjat Alwada'e. The tags don't make it clear what's to go where. 192.75.48.150 13:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hujjat Alwada'e needs to be redirected to here.--Striver 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My arabic isn't that great, but isn't that really the farewell pilgrimage? Or are we merging those too? 70.30.114.134 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Then it needs to be redirected to farewell pilgrimage... actualy, it seems like Hujjat Alwada'e needs to be merged into both farewell pilgrimage & sermon. --Striver 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have merged it into the pilgrimage. There didn't seem to be any new information about the farewell sermon (as opposed to Ghadir Khumm). 70.30.114.134 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Text

I propose to move the original text to Wikisource.Bless sins 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What original text? I have looked at several online versions of the sermon. Some of them contain passages about Arabs, non-Arabs, white people and black people being equal. Others don't contain any such passage. Many of them contain a passage about striking women, which is omitted here. This does not seem to be the correct text. [1] Paul B 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bless sins--OsamaK 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Verifcation failed (no footnotes tag, failed verification, and others tags added)

I have added a "no footnotes tag".

The sermon that is on wikipedia as of march 2011, does not even have a source. it links to a website were it is hosted. but that website does not give the original source.

furthermroe, there is a reference in the main article saying that the farewell sermon is just many different Hadith placed together. In that case it should be removed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research or similiar

unless somone can state the exact source. or anyone might as well join many different quotes of muhammad together, and make up 1 single quote and an article about it. by doing this, you can make it as if muhammad said whatever you like him to say--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fake quote-I think article should be deleted

the identical article should be deleted if no primary sources are found the identical article to this "Khutbaul wada" has been nominated for deletion, same criteria also applies here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khutbatul_Wada%27

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it explained to you that the event is notable enough for an article ? Why do you insist on deleting it then ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry, meant other article should be deleted, but this one should have its quotes removed, as the primary sources cant be verified as discussed in notice board--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I may delete the article and references, they are blatantly false, for example citation was used for Sahih Bukhari 1623 for the posted sermon. This is was that source actually has

Sahih Bukhari 1623. Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle (SallAllaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam) (got) his head shaved after performing his Hajj.

Please don't post sources that haven't been properly checked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.135.1 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As the exact text of the Sermon has not be reliably sourced, the text has been removed. If the text is to be restored, please only do so if a reliable source (preferably a peer-reviewed journal or published book, and preferably NOT a website that cannot be verified as reliable in itself) can be provided. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete fake content

People keep constantly adding back the quote of a well known farewell sermon by S H Faizi, which is actually fake and not the words of Muhammad.

Every time this popular farewell sermon is added back, please delete it. As it was discussed here before (see deletion log) when this article was nominated for deletion, that the quote should be removed because they are fake.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead - can we talk about the controversy? Can we say who says it is fake and why? Secretlondon (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

its fake because it doesnt have a primary source, it first appeared in a 20th century book by S H Faizi--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Miconceptions2. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that discuss this quote, and its first appearance? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence 1 this is where i gave evidence its fake. but more evidence its fake is found here: Evidence 2 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of those sources qualify as a WP:RS though. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Found citation for older source here. Maybe someone can check Rehatsek's 1898 translation as well since there is some talk of Guillaume borrowing from Tabari?Barakitty (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Full of bad/suspicious edits

Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari are NOT the "earliest" sources and have NEVER been considered authentic within Islamic tradition. The authors themselves say they DID NOT AUTHENTICATE the reports they recorded, they basically recorded everything people said. The ahadith collection contains the AUTHENTICATED reports and PREDATES Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari. There are more hadith books than simply the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim which are the most rigorously authenticated, but not the earliest. Additionally the earliest tafsirs or commentaries (including, for example, Tafsir Ibn Abbas and others which record commentaries of Muhammad's companions) also cite the sermon and corroborate the hadiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.100.148 (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Tabari is a much better source that "Ahmad H. Sakr". As for you saying that Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari "have NEVER been considered authentic within Islamic tradition", this is not true. They are well known respected sources. See their Wikipedia pages. These are valid Islamic sources and cannot be removed. --Gene90 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Universality of the speech

Smacks of POV. It is highly debatable that Muhammad was speaking to ALL mankind and not just to Muslims. For example, Muhammad in his last sermon used the word "pre-islamic' two times, and both times he did so he was differentiating between non-muslim and muslim [who were the people he was speaking to of course]. Also keep in mind that Muhammad banned ALL non-Muslims from Arabia when he on his deathbed just a few months later, and to this day the cities of Mecca and Medina are off limits to non-Muslims... A person who would do that, seems very unlikely to make a speech for all mankind, for sure he was speaking only to Muslims.

"Universality of the speech" is POV. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The more important problem is that the "Universality of the speech" section is original research (WP:OR). I have taken it out. --Gene90 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sermon version by Ahmad H. Sakr

Ahmad H. Sakr is not a known reliable author for information on Islam (compared to Tabari, for example who qualifies) and Sakr's sermon version cannot be quoted. If anyone wants to quote a sermon, only use a reliable source with an author who is notable. --Gene90 (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gene90 and welcome to Wikipedia! Based on WP notability standards Ahmad Sakr does pass, and I don't think comparison to Tabari here is useful, we dont include "the most notable source" only. We include sources that pass our notability standards. I do think though that section was a bit long and gives undue weight to Sakr's analysis, so it probably can be shortened, not cut completely. Also, the comment on this edit concerns me about POV. Please read that before we continue discussion. --Shipmaster (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

He "passes" notability? You linked his own website. You do realize that you cannot use someone's personal website to prove their notability, correct? Being an admin on the Arabic Wikipedia I assume you would know that. There are some other search results that bring up his name but those do not imply notability. He has to be considered a well-known source regarding Islamic texts. Are there reliable 3rd party sources confirming this?

Is this really one of the best sources for this sermon that can be found? I doubt it.

In addition to not being a notable recognized source of Islamic texts in Islam (like Tabari), how do we know he did not just copy some version from another unreliable source that he found somewhere and include it in his articles or books? What is the original source that he's using?

All these questions need to be answered in a satisfactory manner before adding in the text. --Gene90 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Faizi" version

I have been trying to find a source for the popular version of the sermon, beginning with, "O People lend me an attentive ear," commonly appearing on websites and posters. This sermon has been labeled a fabrication and attributed to S.F.H. Faizi, based on the "research" of some anti-Islam writer. I have not seen Faizi's book Sermons of the Prophet myself, but it appears that this is not actually the version appearing in Faizi's book. Faizi's version is much longer, quoted here from the 1991 edition of Sermons of the Prophet. As for the version beginning with "O People, lend me an attentive ear," the earliest occurrence that I can find is this forum post from 1992. The author of the post writes: "The following is the translation of our Prophet's Last Sermon. This is from an authentic source (ISLAM Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar, published by The Muslim Educational Trust, London, UK)." Islam: Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar was first published in 1980. I found a pdf of its 8th edition (2006) online. The sermon in the book (pgs.116-117) is noticeably different from the forum post. Parts are missing from the book and vice-versa, and other parts are worded differently. For example, it begins, "O People, listen to my words carefully..." But at the same time some parts are exactly the same, word for word. It is possible that the sermon posted online could be from an older edition of Sarwar's book. It is also possible that it is a combination of different sources. Besides this forum post citing Sarwar, no webpage cites a source for this sermon (other than citing other webpages). Axiom292 (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

MuslimCanada.org is not a reliable source

Obviously MuslimCanada.org which was added in this edit is an unreliable sources. Please see WP:RS.

Also Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari is a source that qualifies for RS and should be at the top in any case even if other sources for the Sermon are cited (unless it is proven they are a better reliable source). --Hooverplant (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

1) If your objection is only to the inclusion of Keller's text, then you should have only removed that section and not reverted other edits that were not related to that text.

2) I did another search and found Keller's original article from which the sermon was taken: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm. Masud.co.uk is a reliable source for Keller's articles. However it seems your objection is not only to the source, but to Keller's text itself, since you said it "gives no further resources". It is not necessary for a reliable secondary source to explicitly mention each primary source that they draw on. I myself could list the hadiths from which each statement in Keller's text is derived.

3) At-Tabari (who is actually quoting Ibn Ishaq) is a reliable source in this case, but only because he is supported by hadith reports. Hadith narrations are more reliable than sirah narrations and should be given precedence.

4) What is known as the "Farewell Sermon" is actually a series of addresses given over several days at Arafat, Mina, and other locations during the Farewell Pilgrimage. The report from Ibn Ishaq is only the address given at Arafat on 9 Dhul-Hijjah. Later authorities are more comprehensive. Ibn Kathir, for example, drawing primarily on hadith reports, augments the sermon with other speeches made during the Hajj, notably Muhammad's second address given at Mina on 11 Dhul-Hijjah. This is the reason that Keller has a lot of content not found in Ibn Ishaq's report - he bases it on multiple speeches made during the Farewell Pilgrimage, while Ibn Ishaq only reports one. --Axiom292 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You should be the last to object to any edit considering you did the most serious mistake of inserting a huge wall of text without any source as you did here [2]

Keller is a convert to Islam and he's written some books on his own. His work has not been analyzed by other reliable sources. How is he a reliable source for the sermon? Once again he gives no method as to how he compiled that text. It could partially be his own creation and there is no one available to verify what he has done. Even if he did come up with a version of the sermon, he is far less reliable than Ibn Ishaq or Tabari. He's a modern convert to Islam as opposed to these well-known ancient historians who have been vetted by others.

http://masud.co.uk/ is a Muslim website and its purpose is to paint Islam in a positive light. Its not a reliable source for anything.

"Hadith narrations are more reliable than sirah narrations and should be given precedence.": It is original research for you to decide which hadiths are related to that sermon or what the source for that version of the sermon was.

"The report from Ibn Ishaq is only the address given at Arafat on 9 Dhul-Hijjah.": It is again original research for you to say that there were other sermons given on other dates. This date of the 9th is cited as the date when the (one) sermon was given. Do you have any reliable sources for what you said about the date?

Further why have you changed the heading of Tabari's section to Ibn Ishaq? ("Reports by historian Ibn Ishaq"). We are quoting Tabari Vol 9 here and thats it. In relation to that, the 2nd quote again talks about Ibn Ishaq instead of Tabari. "Ibn Ishaq also narrates the method in which the sermon was delivered:" Why is that, when the source being quoted is Tabari? The source you have used is also incorrect. That's a small paragraph as you can see and the page numbers cannot be 112-114. It can be a maximum of 2 pages (if that paragraph was split). This shows you dont have access to the original source and you made this up or assumed something or have misrepresented the source.

The insertion for note 1 is also unnecessary as the original text for Tabari has several notes, not just this one. So why have you only selected that note? All of this is your attempt to weaken Tabari's version and the reason for all this effort is clear. It is this text in his version: Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals (‘awānin) with you and do not possess anything for themselves.

It is this text which you do not like. Obviously other authors have tried to whitewash this part of the text knowing that it wouldn't look good. It looks like the effort is here to find those authors and quote them so as to weaken Tabari's version.

I temporarily inserted [3] the version from the Life of Muhammad and even this version of the sermon is a more reliable source than Mr. Keller's. Gull's version is different enough from Tabari (see the difference) and should be quoted either here in the main article or on the proposed new wikisource page.

Keller's version probably belongs in a 3rd page we can make on wikisource but it should definitely not be at the top.

So my proposals are: (1) Present Tabari or Guillame first but they should both be quoted as its hard to make a choice between the two. (2) Remove your edits in Tabari's section and label the section as Tabari instead of Ishaq. (3) Remove Keller as he is not a reliable source as I explained. He's a modern convert to Islam. He cannot be compared to well known historians/authors like Tabari, Ibn Ishaq or Guillame. The main quote for this page must be from Tabari and/or Gull but not Keller. (4) Create a new page on wikisource if we think there are too many quotations. Keller can be moved there after a reliable source is found for his sermon and his importance is established. (5) We can move Hadith quotations to the wikisource page as it is sort of original to decide which hadiths should be quoted however I'm not completely sure about this so we can talk about it. (6) You have used Sunnah.com for some hadith quotes. How is it a reliable source? Do we know the authors behind this website and are they considered reliable? They have a nice interface and collection of texts but thats about it. --Hooverplant (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Even if he did come up with a version of the sermon, he is far less reliable than Ibn Ishaq or Tabari. He's a modern convert to Islam as opposed to these well-known ancient historians who have been vetted by others.": Keller's reliability is based on his being a respected Islamic scholar, not his being a "modern convert to Islam". But you are right that Keller has not mentioned his methodology or sources, nor has his article been vetted by other scholars. "http://masud.co.uk/ is a Muslim website and its purpose is to paint Islam in a positive light. Its not a reliable source for anything.": It is a reliable source for Keller's articles, as that is where he publishes them. The issue is the reliability of Keller, not the website. But let's put aside Keller for now, since it is clear that you have limited knowledge of hadith and sirah literature, and there is a lot that I need to explain.

"It is original research for you to decide which hadiths are related to that sermon or what the source for that version of the sermon was.": Then it is also original research to present the narration from Tabari as the "Farewell Sermon". There is no difference between a khabar (report/narration) found in a book of sirah, a book of tarikh, or a book of hadith. Every khabar has a sanad (chain of narrators) and a matn (the text of the narration), and the authenticity of the khabar is judged primarily by the strength of the sanad. Often the sanads in sirah and tarikh works are truncated. For example, this particular khabar from Tabari, concerning the sermon on the Day of Arafah, has a sanad that only goes back to a tabi'i, not a sahabi. Meanwhile, there is a hadith concerning the same sermon found in Sahih Muslim, which is considered one of the most authentic books of hadith. The sanad for this hadith is of course rigorously authenticated and accepted. So on what basis have you selected the khabar from Tabari's Tarikh as the main reliable report of the "Farewell Sermon" when better sources are available? To consider a sirah narration as more reliable than hadiths is really quite strange and shows your lack of knowledge on this topic. Furthermore, Tabari has not even referred to the sermon on the Day of Arafah as the "Farewell Sermon", nor has it been referred to as such in any other narrations.

"It is again original research for you to say that there were other sermons given on other dates. This date of the 9th is cited as the date when the (one) sermon was given.": Sources mention the 9th as the date when a sermon was given, but you are making the assumption that the sermon at Arafah on 9 Dhul-Hijjah is by definition the "Farewell Sermon". Do you have a reliable source for this date? The term "Khutbat al-Wada" or "Farewell Sermon" are not used in any of the sources currently cited. That multiple sermons were given is proven by many hadith narrations, but I assume citing them would be original research according to you. Instead, I've collected the following sources:

• In Ibn Kathir's Sirah an-Nabawiyah, accounts are given of the sermon on the 9th at Arafah, the 10th at Mina, and the 12th at Mina. (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Vol. IV, translated by Trevor LeGassick)
• In Siratun-Nabi, Shibli Nomani writes that sermons were given on 9th at Arafah, on the 10th at Mina, and on the 12th at Mina. For the first two sermons he presents collections of statements sourced to hadiths (rather than combining the statements into a single speech), and for the third he mentions it was similar in content to what was said before. In a footnote Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi gives a thorough explanation:

"This phrase and all following Arabic sentences are parts of the Prophet's sermon. They are not found in any one hadith, and so have had to be collected from different sources. In Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, and others, this sermon is reported by Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Abu Umamah al-Bahili, Jabir, Abu Bakr, and other Companions. Between the narrations some sayings are common, for example, "Indeed your blood and your property are sacred to you like the sacredness...", and some sayings are separate. In books of maghazi (battles) and sirah there are other sayings too. Essentially this was a long sermon; each person reported whatever they remembered. On this basis these parts have been collected from different sources and citations have been given. The author has omitted some auxiliary words of the sermon. In the reports there is another difference. A report of Jabir and one report of Ibn Abbas put the date of the sermon as the day of Arafah, 9 Dhul Hijjah, while a report of Abu Bakr and a different report of Ibn Abbas put the date as the day of Nahr (sacrifice), which is the 10th. Some reports pertain to the sermon of the days of Tashriq. Ibn Ishaq has presented it as a continuous sermon. In Sunan Ibn Majah, Jami at-Tirmidhi, and Musnad Ahmad some words of the sermon of the Farewell Pilgrimage are reported, but it is not specified in which date's sermon they were spoken. Nevertheless, by collecting the reports of the six authoritative hadith books and the musnads it is proved that the Prophet had delivered a sermon three times during this Hajj - on 9 Dhul Hijjah the day of Arafah, on 10 Dhul Hijjah, and the third sermon during the days of Tashriq, 11 or 12 Dhul Hijjah. In these sermons, fundamentally some messages are in common and some are particular. It is quite possible, as some scholars of hadith have explained, that he repeated some of his words because the assembly was very large and the Prophet had important things he wished to convey" (Siratun-Nabi, p.467).

• al-Halabi writes of five sermons: At Mecca on the 7th, at Arafah on the 9th, at Mina on the 10th, at Mina on the 11th, and at Mina on the 12th. Scholars differ on whether a sermon was given on the 11th or 12th or both (as-Sirah al-Halabiyah).
• Mubarakpuri in ar-Rahiq al-Makhtum gives accounts of the sermon at Arafah on the 9th and the sermon at Mina on the 10th, in which some points were repeated and some were different. He also mentions that other sermons were given in the days of Tashriq (11th, 12th, 13th), specifically one was given on the middle day (12th), and was similar in content to the sermon on the 10th (translation: The Sealed Nectar).
• Zakariya al-Kandahlawi writes on the main sermons on the 9th, 10th, and 12th, though he mentions that many sermons were given from the 7th until the end of the Hajj. (Hajjat al-Wada wa Juz' Umurat an-Nabi)
• Idris al-Kandahlawi writes of the sermon delivered at Arafah, and says the sermons at Mina and Arafah were approximately the same content-wise. (Siratul-Mustafa, pp.148-149)
• Fazlur Rahman Azmi writes that many sermons were delivered, and the most famous are those delivered at Mina and Arafah. He has compiled a number of hadith in his book Khutbat-i Hajjatul-Wada (Sermons of the Farewell Pilgrimage), translated by Afzal Hoosen Elias.
• Abd ar-Razzaq ibn Abd al-Muhsin al-Abbad al-Badr, Khutub wa Mawa'iz min Hajjat al-Wada (Sermons and Speeches in the Farewell Pilgrimage), another compilation of hadith.

Note that in all of the above sources, while the phrase "Hajjat al-Wada" (the Farewell Hajj) is common, the phrase "Farewell Sermon" or "Khutbat al-Wada" is absent. That is, none of the sermons have been referred to as the "Farewell Sermon". So the question is, what does the term "Farewell Sermon" refer to? Is it a single sermon or are all of these addresses considered the Farewell Sermon? It seems that the popular belief is that the "Farewell Sermon" refers to the sermon given on Arafah on the 9th, and the widely spread versions incorporate parts of the other sermons with it. But a search in different hadith databases results in only one hadith in which the term "خطبة الوداع" (Khutbat al-Wada) is present, reported by al-Bayhaqi in Shu'b al-Iman. In this hadith the sermon given on the 12th of Dhul-Hijjah is referred to as the Farewell Sermon. Jabir ibn Abd Allah says: The Messenger of Allah addressed us in a sermon in the middle of the Days of Tashriq, the Farewell Sermon, saying: O People, your Lord is One, and your father is one..." (Shu'b al-Iman).

"Further why have you changed the heading of Tabari's section to Ibn Ishaq?": Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah is a collection of narrations about the life of Muhammad. The original work itself is not extant, but Ibn Ishaq's narrations are preserved through his students. Much of the work survives primarily in Ibn Hisham's Sirah an-Nabawiyah and also Ibn Jarir at-Tabari's Tarikh. The material from Ibn Ishaq in at-Tabari and Ibn Hisham is virtually the same. Guillaume's Life of Muhammad is presented as a translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah, however as Guillaume explains he has actually based it mainly on Ibn Hisham, with augmentation from Tabari and others who preserved Ibn Ishaq's narrations. Likewise, Poonawala writes in the introduction to The History of al-Tabari Vol. IX, "at-Tabari's account of this period is derived mainly from Ibn Ishaq's Sirah". Poonawala has also collated the text with the Ibn Hisham's Sirah and the works of others. Tabari's report of the sermon at Arafah begins as follows: "Narrated to us Ibn Humayd, he said: Narrated to us Salamah, from Ibn Ishaq, from Abd Allah ibn Abi Najih, he said: Then the Messenger of Allah went on his Hajj..." Ibn Hisham's report begins as follows: "Ibn Ishaq said: Then the Messenger of Allah went on his Hajj..." The rest of the narration is virtually the same between Ibn Hisham and at-Tabari. They both report the complete narration from Ibn Ishaq, ending with the sentence, "They said, "O God, yes," and the Messenger of God said, "O God, bear witness." For reference: the narration in at-Tabari and the narration in Ibn Hisham.

""Ibn Ishaq also narrates the method in which the sermon was delivered:" Why is that, when the source being quoted is Tabari?": Similarly to the previous narration, at-Tabari gives the sanad of this khabar as follows: "Narrated to us Ibn Humayd, he said: Narrated to us Salamah, from Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, from Yahya ibn Abbad ibn Abd Allah ibn Zubayr, from his father Abbad, he said..." Ibn Hisham writes: "Ibn Ishaq said: And narrated to me Yahya ibn Abbad ibn Abd Allah ibn Zubayr, from his father Abbad, he said..."

"The source you have used is also incorrect. That's a small paragraph as you can see and the page numbers cannot be 112-114.": The first narration spans pages 112-114, and the second narration is on page 114. I used the same reference for both narrations, but they can be separated if that is preferable.

"The insertion for note 1 is also unnecessary as the original text for Tabari has several notes, not just this one. So why have you only selected that note?": The "original text of Tabari" has no notes. The notes are Poonawala's. At-Tabari precedes the final sentence of the narration with "He said: It was reported that they said...", while Ibn Hisham has "It was reported to me that the people said...". Since Poonawala has, "It was reported [to me] that the people said," and this is the text being quoted, I felt that the note was necessary since it is not clear who "to me" refers to. There was no ulterior motive for the note. I am not attempting to "weaken Tabari's version", and I don't see how the note does that.

"Obviously other authors have tried to whitewash this part of the text knowing that it wouldn't look good. It looks like the effort is here to find those authors and quote them so as to weaken Tabari's version.": Obviously you do not realize that Guillaume (Life of Muhammad) and Poonawala (History of al-Tabari) are translating the same Arabic text, so my quoting Guillaume does not in any way "weaken Tabari's version". I only quoted that sentence from Guillaume because his translation of "awan" was a notable discrepancy between the two translations, so it was worthy to be mentioned. Note that "captives" is also the translation given by LeGassick in his translation of Ibn Kathir's Sirah an-Nabawiyah, and it is the traditional interpretation of Islamic scholars. As at-Tirmidhi comments after reporting a hadith narrating part of this sermon: "'Awan with you', that is, 'captives in your hands'" (Jami at-Tirmidhi).

Regarding your proposals:

"(1) Present Tabari or Guillame first but they should both be quoted as its hard to make a choice between the two.": As I have already explained, what you are referring to as Tabari is a translation of Tabari by Poonawala, and Guillaume is a translation of Ibn Hisham. Both Tabari and Ibn Hisham are quoting Ibn Ishaq. So Poonawala and Guillaume are just different translations of the same Arabic text. There is no point in quoting both. Furthermore I have already explained why it is illogical to present sirah narrations first, as it implies they are more reliable than hadiths.

"(2) Remove your edits in Tabari's section and label the section as Tabari instead of Ishaq.": Already explained.

"(3) Remove Keller as he is not a reliable source as I explained. He's a modern convert to Islam. He cannot be compared to well known historians/authors like Tabari, Ibn Ishaq or Guillame. The main quote for this page must be from Tabari and/or Gull but not Keller.": On what basis must the main quote be a narration of the sermon on 9 Dhul-Hijjah? First find a reliable source that refers to this sermon alone as the "Farewell Sermon".

"(4) Create a new page on wikisource if we think there are too many quotations.": This is possible.

"(5) We can move Hadith quotations to the wikisource page as it is sort of original to decide which hadiths should be quoted however I'm not completely sure about this so we can talk about it.": As I have explained, it is then also original to decide which sirah narrations should be quoted.

"(6) You have used Sunnah.com for some hadith quotes. How is it a reliable source? Do we know the authors behind this website and are they considered reliable? They have a nice interface and collection of texts but thats about it.": Previous editors had used sunnah.com so I so no harm in it. But it is not a problem to use a different source.

My main point is that it is not clear what the "Farewell Sermon" is. The popular belief is that it is the Arafah sermon, but is there a reliable source for that? I have not seen the Arafah sermon referred to as "Khutbat al-Wada" in any major book of Sirah or Hadith. On the other hand there is a single hadith referring to the sermon on the 12th as the Farewell Sermon.

My proposals:

(1) The article needs to be rewritten to reflect that the term "Farewell Sermon" refers not to a single sermon, but to one or more sermons given during the Farewell Pilgrimage. Alternatively the contents of this article could be moved to a "Sermons" section in the Farewell Pilgrimage article.

(2) If hadiths are not quoted Ibn Ishaq should not be quoted either.

(3) If hadiths are quoted, they should be above Ibn Ishaq, if he is quoted. --Axiom292 (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: Found a source for Keller's sermon. He has not compiled it himself - it is a translation of the text found in Kitab al-Bayan wal-Tabyin by al-Jahiz. --Axiom292 (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Musnad Ahmad's version

Actually literally in this version it is written 'red' and 'black' and not 'white' and 'black'. So please it is needed a reliable source for the right translation. Thanks --93.150.144.142 (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "version," but rather one of several narrations about the different sermons given during the Farewell Pilgrimage. As for your point about the translation: When applied to a man, aḥmar does not literally mean "red". So I don't think a literal translation would be superior. From Lane's Lexicon of Classical Arabic ([4]):

أحمر (aḥmar) [Red: and also brown, or the like:] a thing of the colour termed حُمرة (ḥumrah) ... Applied to a man (AA, Sh, Az,) White (AA, Sh, Az, Ḳ) in complexion; (Az;) because أبيض (abyaḍ) might be considered as of evil omen [implying the meaning of leprosy]: (AA, Sh:) or, accord. to Th, because the latter epithet, applied to a man, was only used by the Arabs as signifying "pure," or "free from faults:" but they sometimes used this latter epithet in the sense of "white in complexion" ... So, accord. to some, in the trad., بعث إلى الأحمر والأسود (bu‘itha ilá al-aḥmar wa-al-aswad), (TA,) i.e. I have been sent to the white and the black; because these two epithets comprise all mankind: (Az, TA:) [therefore, by the former we should understand the white and red races; and by the latter, the negroes: but some hold that by the former are meant the foreigners, and] by the latter are meant the Arabs. (TA.) One says also, [when speaking of Arabs and more northern races,] أتاني كل أسود منهم وأحمر (atānī kullu aswad minhum wa-aḥmar), meaning Every Arab of them, and foreigner, came to me: and one should not say, in this sense, أبيض (abyaḍ). (AA, Aṣ, Ṣ.) الحمراء (al-ḥamrā’), also, is applied to The foreigners (العجم (al-‘ajam)) [collectively]; (Ṣ, A, Ḳ;) because a reddish white is the prevalent hue of their complexion: (Ṣ:) or the Persians and the Greeks: or those foreigners mostly characterized by whiteness of complexion; as the Greeks and Persians. (TA.)

--Axiom292 (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I used the term version because so it is written in the article ("Various versions of the sermon have been published") and if you think that this is wrong please correct the article but that's not the reason for my comment. I'm not saying that a literal translation is better but that the translation in WP is unsourced as the link goes to the original Arabic. Just because your comment demonstrates that the term has many meanings (red, brown, pure, white, foreigner) I'm asking for an English source. For starting, as I can't, could you find this hadith there please? https://archive.org/details/MusnadAhmadBinHanbalArabicEnglishTranslation --93.150.157.190 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

All over the internet this version is cited, with this reference: Musnad Ahmad 22978, and presented as Sahih. However, nowhere can I find a reliable source, everybody just refers to eachother. Considering the controversy, the footnote deserves at least an English source, straight to the hadith. the main text should conclude the number of the Hadith where it can be found in the books. This I plan to do myself soon. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Fabricated_Hadith#Muhammad.27s_Farewell_Sermon Stampertje85 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)— Preceding Stampertje85 comment added by Stampertje85 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The footnote already links directly to the text of the hadith, #22978 in the 1993 Beirut edition published by Dar Ihya at-Turath al-Arabi (this is the source for Islamweb's online edition). What is the controversy? If there is an issue with the reliability then the same hadith is #23381 in this edition: [5], published 1995 in Cairo by Dar al-Hadith, tahqiq by Hamzah Ahmad al-Zayn. The authenticity is given in the footnote - sahih (authentic), and the grading of al-Haythami is mentioned as well - sahih.Axiom292 (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A year ago I gave you an English translation of the book 'Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal' from Archive.org asking you to tell me where this hadith was because at least it was a published version in English. I waited a few days and not seeing answers I gave up. Now I come back here, and not only I do not see an answer but actually the book is no longer available ... --2.40.138.80 (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Poonawala's translation

I read in the article that "The narration is translated by I. K. Poonawala in The History of al-Tabari, vol. IX: The Last Years of the Prophet (1990), as follows: '...Treat women well, for by virtue of their vows and responsibilities they have bound themselves to your homes(‘awānin) and entrusted themselves to you. "
This is completly false. Poonawala translates: "Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves. " (https://books.google.it/books?id=SWPQfmdf5J4C&pg=112&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22treat%20women%20well%22&f=false)
Please correct. No WP user has the right to change a quote from a book. --93.150.139.45 (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

re the words of a 'direct quotation' not corresponding to the words of the citation. This is now fixed. Speedrailsm (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

what's going on there? I have returned to this article to notice that someone changed again the Poonawala's translation. I read now in the article "for they are [like] prisoners ('awan) ". Poonawala translates "domestic animals" and not "prisoners". Is this normal for Wikipedia? --93.150.194.218 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

The article is poorly sourced and is not good. I will improve it by adding reliable secondary sources, removing primary ones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiksome (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You added "The sermon was delivered in front of more than a hundred thousand Muslims" without giving a source. The Bassiouni and Curtis sources you added were undue in such a limited context, and would have to be attributed even if we had a longer section on the more notable and significant forms of later influence. You outright removed primary sources, but did not replace them. I therefore reverted your edit. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sahih Muslim reference Is Wrong

According to your own references, the citation of Sahih Muslim for the "Farewell Sermon" is not correct. It should be: Sahih Muslim, Bk. VII, Hadith 2803

See Sahih Muslim (Internet Archive - 1), pgs. 701 ff. See: Sahih Muslim (Internet Archive) - 2, pgs. 440 ff. Mwidunn (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)