Talk:Henna

Wikipedia for some reason, views the hadith as 100% accurate information
When you're saying that something is done "according to the sunnah" and it's not mentioned in the Quran, then you should put the term "alleged" next to it. The Quran is the one source that Muslims 100% follow and agree upon, the hadith is not. One person will say the hadith is weak another will say it's true. Even though the Quran has verses which reject the use of the hadith you seem to favour hadiths which is a case of Wikipedia catering to political sects of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccarran (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Information contradicts with main photo
the main photo of this article is a man with dyed hair, yet the article states "Neutral[sic? natural] henna does not change the colour of hair. This is not henna powder; it is usually the powder of the plant Senna italica (often referred to by the synonym Cassia obovata) or closely related Cassia and Senna species." Buddsean (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Article Cleanup July 2024
The article is wont of love, I fear.

The section about black henna is too detailed (and too technical?). There are too many not-dissimilar examples of its use listed in the "Regions" section. Large swaths of the article (tagged) rely only on a single source.

And in general, the article is rather messy in its presentation, copy and tone. It's one of those articles where you can feel the trace of each individual editor from the past, swaying in and out of NPOV. Neatly95 (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)