Talk:Fajr prayer

Pronunciation
Pronounciation? --WaldiR (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Man Hassan Muwaya (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for additional information
Can someone add a (well referenced) discussion of which of several conventional definitions of "dawn" (e.g. astronomical, nautical, or civil; see this Wikipedia article) Muslims use, and why? Do they use some other definition? The Islamic tradition seems to have a lot to do with astronomical measurements and calculations; is dawn defined as the sun being a certain number of degrees below the horizon?

why take material out of the article?
Presumably, people who read this article are interested in the subject. On what grounds, then, would an editor remove accurate content? Aquib (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the content for the following reasons:
 * The text had been added without any rationale, explanation, or discussion.
 * To a non-Muslim reader, the added material appeared to be proselytizing, and did not illuminate the subject at all.
 * The subject of the article is about a specific prayer. Quotations from people mentioning this prayer, presumably from the same source from which the prayer originates, seem out of place.
 * The added text made the article seem more like a Qur'an concordance for an audience of Muslims rather than an encyclopedia article for a general audience. The problem with a concordance is that it involves a primary source referencing itself, and the Reliable sources guideline discourages that sort of thing.
 * The quotations were not accompanied by any context or explanation to enable a general audience to understand the purpose of those quotations.
 * A reader has no way of verifying that the content is accurate. All a reader knows is that it consists of quotations, and the quotations themselves may or may not be accurate. If the referencing is circular (the Qur'an referencing itself) then accuracy cannot be determined according to the Verifiability policy.
 * For those reasons, I am removing the material again. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe we have some common ground, as well as differences. To respond to your points.


 * The text had been added without any rationale, explanation, or discussion.


 * ''IMHO, this is not a valid reason. Your assertion is true, however not all additions of material require discussion.  If you had flagged it and asked for discussion, this would be more useful; perhaps you have discussed this before.  Your rationale implies a) all insertions of material should be deleted if they are not first discussed -or- b) all controversial material should be deleted if not first discussed, and all material of this nature is controversial.  I don't accept either of these premises.

''
 * To a non-Muslim reader, the added material appeared to be proselytizing, and did not illuminate the subject at all.


 * Perhaps to some non-Muslims, yes. When I read through them, they appear to convey the excellence of "morning" prayer, and point out its superiority to many other prayers.  This is important information, and could also be useful to some non-Muslims if they are interested in the general subject of prayer, or comparisons of prayer between religions.


 * There is no comparison of religions or discussion of other religions in the material.


 * The subject of the article is about a specific prayer. Quotations from people mentioning this prayer, presumably from the same source from which the prayer originates, seem out of place.
 * The added text made the article seem more like a Qur'an concordance for an audience of Muslims rather than an encyclopedia article for a general audience. The problem with a concordance is that it involves a primary source referencing itself, and the Reliable sources guideline discourages that sort of thing.


 * I can see how you might get that impression, but I don't see any direct Quran quotations in the contested version of the article. The hadith are collections of accounts gathered by Islamic scholars some time after Muhammad's death.  They examined the way the accounts were passed down to help authenticate them.  Not all accounts are reliable, some are controversial in themselves.


 * The quotations were not accompanied by any context or explanation to enable a general audience to understand the purpose of those quotations.


 * Yes the word Ahadith itself, as well as the form or presentation, and the method of citation, are somewhat unusual to a western reader. However, one need only read the accounts to recognize them for what they are.  They are in plain English, and they cite their sources in a general way.  The citations could use improvement by stating the volumes and topic numbers.


 * A reader has no way of verifying that the content is accurate. All a reader knows is that it consists of quotations, and the quotations themselves may or may not be accurate. If the referencing is circular (the Qur'an referencing itself) then accuracy cannot be determined according to the Verifiability policy.


 * Yes, NOR and VFY should be kept in mind. Also MOS Islamic articles.  Their sources are cited.  There are no circular references though, nor are the hadith from a primary source.  They are from eminent scholarly works by Bukhari and Muslim (that was his name, Muslim).


 * I do prefer the material be deleted rather than being modernized. I have recently become quite concerned with the efforts of some, presumably good-intentioned, editors who have taken it on themselves to modernize the Hadith by removing honorifics and blessings etc.  I believe this is caused by a misunderstanding of the basic nature of hadith.  Ahadith are scholarly accounts which begin with the "chain of transmission"; "who-told-who" about the account.  By mistakenly modernizing the language of the hadith transmission portion, they are adulterating the underlying quotation.  The adulterated versions of these quotations will eventually find their way into the mainstream.  As we all agree, WP does not need more adulterated quotations floating around.


 * I am going to revert the article, and this time I am asking for more specific information on the sources. I would like to preserve the material in this article.  This does not mean I think all quotations of hadith in articles are appropriate.


 * Regards, Aquib (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply. To answer some of the disagreement points:
 * Regardless of your acceptance of the premise, it is nevertheless true that inappropriate material should be deleted if not first discussed, especially if the text appears biased toward a particular point of view or context. The Editing policy recommends discussion of major changes first, and this was a major change. While Wikipedia encourages editing boldly, if someone disagrees, then WP:CONSENSUS must be reached before restoring contentious material, as you have just done.
 * I say again, article on Wikipedia should be accessible to a general audience. You approach it from the point of view of a Muslim, so it may make sense to you. The added text makes no sense to me. I still do not see the relevance. You have clarified many things I didn't know before, but you should not be explaining things to me here on this talk page (what the hadith is, what alhadith means, etc.). You should be explaining them in the article. Just a few words would help. However, I still do not see why these quotations are relevant to the subject. They are quotations about a prayer. So? Why are those quotations important?
 * The parts I saw modernized were not included in quotation marks. For example, one passage began: Abu Hurairah(ra) reported: The Messenger (pbuh) of ALLAH (swt) said... followed by a quotation. I agree that what is inside the quotation marks shouldn't be modernized. If the preceding text outside the quotation marks is also itself a quotation, then it certainly wasn't clear. It gives the incorrect impression that Wikipedia sanctions the use of honorifics. If these examples can't be clarified appropriately, they should be deleted.
 * I will refrain from reverting for now, but I look forward to seeing improvements. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Fajr prayer (Arabic: ‫صلاة الفجر‬‎ ṣalāt al-faǧr, "dawn prayer") is the 2 sunnah raka'at before the first (obligatory 'Subuh' prayer) of the five daily prayers offered by practising Muslims.

Subuh prayer requires two fard rakaʿāt. In a congregation, the leader of the prayer (imam) recites aloud. However, two sunnah rakaʿāt prior to the two Fard rakaʿāt are highly recommended and should not be missed.

These two paragraphs need rewriting, they are not easy to understand, even though some of the terms are wikified. Centrepull (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraphs
The Fajr prayer (Arabic: ‫صلاة الفجر‬‎ ṣalāt al-faǧr, "dawn prayer") is the 2 sunnah raka'at before the first (obligatory 'Subuh' prayer) of the five daily prayers offered by practising Muslims.

Subuh prayer requires two fard rakaʿāt. In a congregation, the leader of the prayer (imam) recites aloud. However, two sunnah rakaʿāt prior to the two Fard rakaʿāt are highly recommended and should not be missed.

These two paragraphs need rewriting, they are not easy to understand, even though some of the terms are wikified. Centrepull (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Siam koy toy
বাংলা 119.30.39.34 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of "dawn over Corsica" infobox picture?
This entry is about dawn prayers, not dawn itself, so a picture of the latter feels dubiously relevant at best. Since, in addition to the 2 (at least) infobox revert wars, there was one about the picture itself starting here, I'd like other opinions before I remove it. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Salam
Pa markaz she de na wena sa waja do 182.191.130.191 (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
— Assignment last updated by Sneha. .0529 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)