Talk:Islam and cats

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victorgarcia9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page numbers
Page numbers seem to be missing on every source. Can someone please fix this? Thanks. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 07:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for noting. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Very interesting article, by the way. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 17:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Halal cat food section addition 11 November 2019
I will add a section on halal cat food.

Requested move 13 August 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: no consensus.  QEDK ( T  ☕  C ) 21:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Islam and cats → Cats in Islam – Better title per WP:AND — JFG talk 15:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Ḉɱ̍  2nd anniv.   17:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the nominator has not explained what part of WP:AND justifies their proposed move and I see no evidence to support it. To me 'Cats in Islam' would suggest that cats were given a specific status in Islam which is not the case. The majority of the reveration of cats by Muslims seems to be based on pre-Islamic traditions. The general relationship suggested by and therefore seems more appropriate. Personally I think that switching the ordering of the title around to Cats and Islam would appear more natural but I'll have to see if anybody else supports that suggestion. Ebonelm (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with Animals in Islam and Dogs in religion. Not knowing much about the subject, I grant to that cats maybe do not have a specific status in Islamic sacred texts, but most of the article is actually about their status and references in a broader Islamic religious and cultural context, proving that cats do have a specific status in Islam (broadly construed). Still, I agree with Ebonelm that Cats and Islam is a better title than the current one. No such user (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose per . Graham (talk) 06:30, 29 August 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.

Misuse of source
The source is descriptive in nature and does not speak to the authenticity of any of these claims, for example the opening line "as for being loved by the Islamic prophet Muhammad" is sourced by the statement "Such rulings are often accompanied by biographical snippets that demonstrate Muhammad's fondness for cats." but these statements are not at all equivalent and I cannot find any reliable sources claiming that Muhammed (PBUH) was in fact particularly fond of cats. The only source I've found is the following statement in al-Sakhawi's Maqasid al-Hasanah: "Affection for cats is part of faith" but I cannot find an authentication of that statement. Also people keep edit-warring over whether or not Muezza exists or whether the cat of the Prophet (PBUH) was named as such, the source merely says the following: "His own cat was purportedly named Muizza", once again the source does not speak to whether or not the cat there even was such a cat, merely that people purport this to be the case. Please be more careful when citing sources. FAISSALOO(talk) 11:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Change Contents in Islam and cats
I edited the passage "Muezza" in Islam and cats. You removed it and archived it in the page history. I think you should re-add it or remove it altogether.

The phrasing of the passage is misleading. It should be emphasized that the story has no relation to Muhammad. It is a source of misinformation and many people quote this passage online without providing the entire context, especially since what should be at the top of the passage is written shortly in the last two lines. I mean the fact that the story of Muezza has no mention in hadith, the second-most reliable source of stories regarding Muhammad, and where most stories of Muhammad are narrated.

I think that the reason many Muslims believe in it, is writing such as this one.

You said, "In particular, you cannot go around changing material cited to particular sources to say the opposite of what it did originally and thus contradict the sources cited for it." Yes, I am a beginner, but I felt that there was no need to cite anything other than what had already been cited. I did not add anything new. I just rephrased it. I did not write anything that contradicted the sources cited for the story. The last two references, reference 7 and 8, agree with my change in material. Reference 5 does not claim the story as fact but rather a "legend", which is in line with what I had written, and it can be used as a citation for the story itself. Reference 6 simply relates the story, mentioning "tales" and "stories" as the basis of the story, without mentioning where these stories were taken from. This citation should also only be used for the story itself. In my edit of the passage, I did not remove any citations.

Again, I feel that no additional citations need be made, but simply a rephrasing of the passage to add emphasis on parts that are factual, while still giving an account of the legend of Muezza. However, it is currently the other way around.

My request is for you to allow me to rephrase the passage or for you to remove it altogether. Aesaibn (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You and FAISSALOO (above) have both raised related concerns which are worth examining and discussing by more editors. I will notify WP:WikiProject Islam about this discussion to bring in more editors to the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Article is not accurate
Article contains mostly opinions. And it has contradictions too (prophet cut robe for cat. But then states there’s no record of this happening). Osnonymous (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, as well. This article is highly misleading. I'm doing research on a book that was also used as a source 3 times in this page, but I actually can't find any other information online to corroborate what the author is saying. The author is unlikely to be Muslim as well, as they have a Christian name and the book seems to be American, so how well they've studied Islam and checked over their sources when making a book about cats could be in question... EnrolledComputerPotato (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

How to refer to Muhammad PBUH?
Recently, a round of edits has been going around that changed “the Prophet” to simply “Muhammad”, but there is a verse in the Qur’an that explicitly disallows this. The reason for this change is that a neutral point of view must be maintained, which is perfectly reasonable, but considering that a significant portion of traffic to this article will be Muslim, I think we should start working out solutions.

He can be referred to as:

- The Islamic Prophet Muhammad (Likely maintains neutral point-of-view, as it acknowledges that he is only the prophet of Islam.)

- Muhammad PBUH (PBUH is short for Peace Be Upon Him, and is sufficient to meet the guidelines from my own knowledge. Whether this maintains a neutral point-of-view is debatable. Does not directly mention prophethood.)

- Muhammad SAW (SAW is short for sala allah alayehi wa salam, or blessings of God and peace be upon him, in English. This is unlikely to maintain the neutral point-of-view requirement.) EnrolledComputerPotato (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * See WP:PBUH for Wikipedia's policy and an explanation for it. We don't follow the conventions prescribed by any particular source, including scripture. Remsense  诉  20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)