Talk:Ahkam

Untitled
Is there any order to this? freestylefrappe 02:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There wasn't; I tried to clean it up a little... AnonMoos 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Hukm
In January 2007 an editor placed a proposal for the merge of Hukm and Ahkam. As I have no knowledge in this area, I am seeking the broader opinion of other wikipedians who edit these articles. Please state if you feel the merge should or should not take place and why you feel this way. Alan.ca (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I came across the article Takleef from Unreferenced articles a good faith seatch for references was not succesful in finding anything to supprot the claims of the article Takleef. The article Ahkam makes similar claims, as Takleef but is referenced and there was a suggestion to merge here.  I all the relevant content was already here so I redirect Takleef without merging in any new info. Jeepday (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Muslims must carry weapons?
There is reference in the article that muslims must carry weapons and cites two verses of the Quran, namely Sura 4, verses 71 and 102, yet those verses have nothing to do with weapons, I added a 'not in citation' tag instead of outright deleting. Should that statment be deleted? lalib (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Five Pillars
It says in the article that the 5 categories (Ahkam) are commonly referred to as the Five Pillars of Islam. I thought the five pillars were the 5 practices (Arkan) that were obligatory - not the different categories (Ahkam) themselves. In any case, the explanation in the article seems very ambiguous. I don't feel I have enough knowledge on the subject to correct it, but I hope someone else can clarify it. Madeinsane (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dead References Pages
The citation used on this page leads to a 404. Please update. I don't know how to put a notice of this on the front of the page or i would 149.169.85.184 (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

External link deleted
I explored the external link "A Fatwa against the Nation of Islam" and found it to be a purported and non-scholarly emanation from the "Italian Muslim Association", which appears to be a movable feast whose url www.amislam.com redirects to Swagbetter.com—a decidely unscholarly (and un-Italian) place! Even before discovering this, I realised that the "archived" version was little more than a sectarian attack on "Islamism"—an American and/or Saudi Arabian variety of the faith unacceptable to other sects, described as "an extremist ideology" by the author Abdul Hadi Palazzi. Another exposition of his WP:POV can be found in this attack on Wahhabism. Enough grounds for deleting the link, which I have done. Wikipedia is not a forum for unbalanced soapboxing. Bjenks (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Arabic meaning of the word
The Arabic non Islamic meaning of the word should be mentioned since it is commonly used in the Arabic language and it derives from Arabic (pre Islam). Islam is not a language. Wikileb123 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a WP policy relating to this: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an article about the Islamic term, not about the Arabic word. In cases like this, following standard encyclopedic usage, we give an etymological gloss in the parentheses at the start of the article. Eperoton (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * shouldn’t that be clarified in the intro then. That the definition that is given in the article is an “Islamic” definition, which may be different unrelated to the Arabic origin definition. Also since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, aren’t you technically defining words “Islamically”? By putting a word and giving a definition for the meaning doesn’t that make it some what of a dictionary entry? Wikileb123


 * Also just to clarify there are many terms used in Christianity that have Hebrew and Aramaic origin, and this connection is mentioned in many articles. Even in articles pertaining to Judaism the Hebrew and Aramaic origin of those words is often discussed. And you say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I understand that and I’m not trying to be argumentative but I’m confused by pages such as no, yes, murder, ok, why, king, wish, and so on. A dictionary is limited to defining a word, with limited information or analysis, an encyclopedia provides historical context and so on. So what I did was add to the encyclopedia since I did not restrict the page to simply a narrow definition. By adding context I helped it be more than an Islamic dictionary. The Islamic term derives from the Arabic word. It was literally adopted from Arabic, directly. Are we then saying that there is an Islamic dictionary and that Arabic itself is irrelevant in the matter? I know you have more experience than I do on Wikipedia so please clarify that for me if you can. Wikileb123


 * We should always consider how reliable sources cover the topic, since WP should reflect that. Encyclopedic entries and other similar discussions of terms from Islamic religious sciences that I've consulted generally don't discuss the everyday meanings and usage of these words aside from giving a very brief common definition at the start, like we do in parentheses. Here's a standard reference on the topic in question. Our articles should follow this practice. Where there is a more extensive discussion, it generally has to do with origins of the technical term, such as in Sunnah. In some cases, RSs do include a discussion of the usage and in these cases our articles should reflect that, as in Allah and Sharia. If you don't think that the article reflects the body of RSs on the topic, then we should change that, but you should cite the sources on which you base your judgment. Encyclopedic coverage of religious and legal terms is different from dictionary coverage, which concentrates on common meanings and usage and may also be quite extensive, particularly in classical Arabic dictionaries. As for the other articles you point out, this is a question for editors who would like to work on them. If you find an article that reflects dictionary coverage rather than encyclopedic coverage, you should tag it with the template Template:Dicdef. Eperoton (talk)

Page is hard to read for laymen
It suffers a lot from being hard to read if you're not a muslim in the first place. Untranslated and unlinked terms in arabic, etc. If those issues were adressed, this page would be a shining tool for dispelling common misconceptions for outsiders such as there only being halal and haram.

Queen of Wa, friend of Wei (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)