Talk:Laylat al-Raghaib

VenusFeuerFalle Repeated removals
I really don’t understand why you keep removing what I add. The page should be impartial and presents relevant info but you keep removing all text added even though it is all sourced. Why not just edit and fix what is added instead of completely remove it? CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Because research on our own, just like quotes as evidence for a conclusion falls under the category of No original research or using Primary sources. In an academic article, this might be good, but an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, which merely sums up secondary sources, which in turn analyzed primary sources. This is because our edits are neither peer reviewed nor can it is ensured editors meet the academic education needed to do primary research. This is also the reason why we can't just add hadiths or quotes from scholars on articles such as Dajjal or Islamic eschatology. We can by the way, observe troubles with out of context quotes on the popularity of webpages such as IslamQA (a famous example, I often encounter on English-speaking websides and forums, and also Wikipedia), which is, by academic standarts, even among Muslims, mostly just wrong. It is pretty much like Evangelicals stating "Islam is evil because there is a sentence in the Quran "kill the unbelievers"". The methodology of WWebpages such as IslamQA are the same, although for their own interpretation on contrast to the evagencal ones. I think we can see, despite the different outcome, the methodology is biased. Unfortunately, the webpage, probably due to a lack of alternative sources, gained much popularity in the English-speaking world. I will illustrate on another example we had here: The article offers a first glimpse at the historical development of Muhamamd veneration. In the early years, Muhammad is celebrated but never on an national level, later, when Islam gets more powerful, events in Muhammad's life became national events. Some scholars regard this as shirk, simultaneously with the emerge of the first Salafi movements. The first Salafi Movements however, failed largely. Ibn Taimiyya didn't played a significant role until the decline of the Ottoman Empire. This is also the reason why it would be misleading to cite ibn Taimiyya here. If we cite ibn Taimiyya out of context, it appears like there was a huge opposition already in the late Medieval Age, but this isn't true. Ibn Taimiyya's opinions only played a role in modern and contemporary Islam, a time period, in which Muslim scholars tend to oppose such holidays. It is nothing against your content per se, it just seems inappropriate for the reasons listened at the beginning of this wall of text, and hopefully explored well afterwards. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t know why you are using original research as a reason to remove the content. I did no original research or inferred something not mentioned. Everything is well sourced. You do realize that your statement here is an original research, right? Let the facts speak for themselves and Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.

"In the early years, Muhammad is celebrated but never on an national level, later, when Islam gets more powerful, events in Muhammad's life became national events. Some scholars regard this as shirk, simultaneously with the emerge of the first Salafi movements. The first Salafi Movements however, failed largely. Ibn Taimiyya didn't played a significant role until the decline of the Ottoman Empire. This is also the reason why it would be misleading to cite ibn Taimiyya here. If we cite ibn Taimiyya out of context, it appears like there was a huge opposition already in the late Medieval Age, but this isn't true. Ibn Taimiyya's opinions only played a role in modern and contemporary Islam, a time period, in which Muslim scholars tend to oppose such holidays."


 * What do you mean we can’t add hadiths, literally the page Dajjal has multiple hadiths. Also, whether the opposition to this night has been in the early days or not doesn’t mean we remove the facts that a lot of prominent Sunni scholars disagree with this night. Shia Muslims invented some new religious practices on Ashura, which came up later in Islam, like this night which was not practiced in early Islam, but both sides are present and should not be removed. I am not removing your claims that Turkish people are the prominent people observing this day, just explaining that Arabs and other sunnis disagree with it and do not observe it. Unfortunately, I feel like you are biased and are only allowing statements that fit your religious view, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You did a good job on the Ashura page, mind helping here. You can see the text I added in the history page before it was reverted for no logical reason, except religious bias. We have narrates from An-Nawawi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Baz, we have the book كتاب البدع الحولية by Abdullah Altowajri, Grand Imam of al-Azhar fatwa, and many more. This is significant and should be included, don’t you agree?

Some extra sources: https://www.elbalad.news/4186644 https://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/5943178 https://www.raya.com/2022/02/04/%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A8/

CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I came in suspecting this might be an issue of religious bias, but looking at the edit you made, I agree that it makes the page more impartial and more informative. The current state of the page gives the impression that "Laylat al-Raghaib" is some kind of universal Islamic practice, rather than the reality that most Muslims have never even heard of, much less endorse, this extremely obscure celebration; this is clearly misleading and needs to be corrected. - Lameen Souag (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is exactly what I was trying to do. I just wanted to present all sides, the ones that believe and don’t believe in this since the current page makes it seem like a widely know and practiced celebration. Maybe the text I added was not good, sorry about that. Also seems like Shias do celebrate this night, but not Arab Sunnis. https://imamhussain.org/6747 Hope you don’t get reverted too. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This can easily be done by finding sources for example, which Muslims or countries do not celebrate. As far as I suspect, Saudi Arabia and Cathar wouldn't do they are mainly Salafistic. Also, taken from what I see on Wikipedia, many English speakers appear to be Salafis as well, probably because of Saudi Dawa activities. However, this needs verifications. Fraunkly, I have never met a Muslim in reallife who doesn't know the 5 Holy Nights. So this seems to be a discrepance between personal experiences. One of the reasons why academic sources are imporant, because academics deal with such issues as biased point of views. But this extreme, one never heard someone who knows such days, and the other not knowing someone who never heard about it, is striking, but reflects my impression on the current situation of Islamas a whole I got from editing Wikipedia pages. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt most Muslims never heared of it, as it is a common practise, otherwise there wouldn't even a debate about it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * reverted again. A case of Ownership of content CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've never once head a Muslim in real life mention "Laylat al-Raghaib", or even seen it in books until I searched for it this week. I would be surprised if you can find anyone in Algeria, bar the odd expert on comparative religion, who has. Nothing to do with Salafism in this case - probably more a result of the region's weaker ties to the Ottoman Empire and different madhab, similar to the way North Africa uses Warsh not Nafi. For all I know this practice may be universal in Central Asia or Indonesia or something, not just Turkey and its vicinity; but if so, sources should be provided to indicate that. And existing well-sourced material should not be removed without clearcut justification. Lameen Souag (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

As regards the five Kandil nights, I've never heard the term, and don't even know offhand what its Arabic translation might be (it doesn't even have an Arabic WP page!) I can state confidently that I've never come across a corresponding concept in Algeria, or in discussions with other Arabic speakers for that matter. As above, if you have sources for this being a concept more widespread than just Turkey and its vicinity, please provide sources. - Lameen Souag (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A problematic phrase: "Muslims influenced by Sufism, such as Muslims in Turkey and Muslim Balkan communities today". This means very little. I assume no one would suggest that Muslims in Turkey are more influenced by Sufism than Muslims in, say, Egypt or Morocco; are there any Muslim communities which can seriously claim not to have been influenced by Sufism? The introduction should attempt an overview of its geographical distribution, not vaguely attribute it to what many readers will mistake for a sect. - Lameen Souag (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thats bad, because historically, what we call "Sufism" today heavely influenced Islam during the Ottoman Empire, especialyl Turks converted via "Sufis", not by Damascene clergy. Actually, Hanbalites had almost no influence over Islam in the Medieval Age over most of the Islamic world. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Fatwas are not relaible sources. I don't would to be rude, but if you know about Islam, you should be aware that Fatwas are nothing binding, especially not in Sunni Islam, which makes the majority of Muslims. Also fatwas are no academic evaluation, but a religious view point. You cannot detect how Islam is practised by reading Fatwas, especially not when you look up for ibn Taimiyya, who btw played only a marginal role until the modern age. His opinnion doesn't reflect overall Islamic practises except for those who adhere to him. We see there is a bias, we probably both hold some, as our experience is completely the opposite. In the end, we are not up to decide what is right, but only use the sources available (fatwas are none). Here (Laylat Al-Raghaib Blessed Night of Wishes (iqna.ir), Maulid an-Nabi in Iran - IranKultur - Iran | Kultur | Reisen), for example, you can find something in English regarding ReGhaib and its "universality", I could likewise add different blogs and fatwas about "how important Reghaib" is. This leads to no conclusive answer regarding the question, how common this practise is. And we don't have the tools to determine that. We can only refer to scholars who investigated that matter. Until then, we must work with what we have. We must also be cautious not to promote Salafi view points (who often refer to Hanbalite or "madhab" position, but only select that suits them). @CherryPie94 🍒🥧 and @Lameen Souag VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * please stop re-adding “It is said, on this night, God has said, those who do not fall into polytheism, will be forgiven their major sins. (see Muslim, Iman, 279)”. This is not right, you are just copying and pasting from a single source that is misquoting Muslim 279. I already presented to you the link showing that Muslim 279 is talking exclusively about Miraj night, it is not up to you to decide that “all these nights are basically the same anyways”. Please see Muslim 279: https://sunnah.com/muslim:173


 * Please stop edit warring for no reason except religious biases. I am a Muslim and never heard of this night, until I saw this page this week. No one in the gulf countries does and it is never celebrated (check the calendars) nor is it taught in schools. This is not a universal celebration and if you properly search for Arabic news articles about this, you will find a lack of sources since an obscure celebration and the few articles or mentions about it refer to it as bid’a that was never practiced during the prophet’s life (lack of saheeh hadith about it) and even his companions later in life never mentioned it in any of the books.


 * We are not trying to remove its significance in Turkey, but are instead trying to present another prominent view of this holiday that is clearly missing because you are trying to control what is added to the page. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Noone accused you of removing the relevance of Turkey, but overexegarrating the Salafi PoV. The meaning of hadiths can vary depending on interpretation. If someone uses this hadith to justify one's interpretation is is as valid as another, since religious texts have no objective truth. This is also the reason why OR is discouraged. We can only summarize what Muslims belief, not what they should believe. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You keep using No original research but what points are we breaking WP:FORUM? Please do through the policy page and list them. All of the text we added is all well-sourced, I'd say much better than the sources you have now that is cutting the first part of the Miraj hadith and misattribute it to this night. Please read WP:RNPOV.
 * I just want you to remember Neutral point of view, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Meaning you can't just keep reverting things because you don't agree with them. As far as the page now stands, there is only one side.
 * Also, just because I am Muslim doesn't mean I have religious bias as you falsely stated in the edit history. I could be no-practicing, sunni, shia, or whatever, but using that against me to revert everything we add is just unacceptable. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While fatwas are in fact reliable sources in appropriate contexts, the point is irrelevant since what you deleted just now was not a fatwa, but a citation of an encylopedia of fiqh - a secondary source summarising verdicts across a variety of schools, as is appropriate for this purpose. If you have some particular reason to consider this encyclopedia inaccurate, feel free to clarify. You also saw fit to delete the extensive citations of non-Muslim academic historians on the 11th-century origins of this practice that I added - do you consider those to be fatwas too? Please take a moment to actually read what you're reflexively reverting before assuming bias. As for Salafi viewpoints, they should not be "promoted" on WP, but should absolutely be represented; in every version of this article you have proposed, they are systematically silenced (along with, to be fair, other viewpoints such as Shia). - Lameen Souag (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The schools of theology, fatwas or opinnions are not historical sources and thus not reliable. The Salafi POV is not silenced but presented in the lead, by a source I myself added by the way. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * if you free by chance, due to your many contribuation on Salafism, I would appreciate if you could give a quick opinion regarding this matter. Here is a little dispute about the Laylat al-Raghaib. One side claims, this is an innovation by Turks and a local tradition with no significance in Muslim history or overall Muslim culture, while the other side claims, it is Salafism which downplays the significance of this holiday trying to exclude it from its Islamic roots. Due to the involvment of Salafi-ideology, I thought you might have some knowledge about that. Given it is rather of minor importance, you might not have an opinnion on that. But maybe you can mediate through this dispute. The sources given are usually (on the pro-Salafi side) fatwas and opinions of Islam scholars, the other side or speer-reviewed published books, and official webpages both of Turkish and Shia origin (here a Shia source): https://www.al-islam.org/media/salah-laylat-al-raghaib-night-wishes-authentic-should-we-pray-it. I think however, this article needs more sources for varification. Nontheless, this dispute is not about verification, but about if Lalat al Raghaib is part of Islamic culture or merely Turkish culture.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this is absolutely not "about if Lalat al Raghaib is part of Islamic culture or merely Turkish culture", interesting though that question would be to answer. The only attempt to provide an answer to that question in the edit history of this page is your own edit claiming, on the basis of an encyclopedia I can't access, that this is widely practiced in Turkey but not in the Arab world. Nor has any side claimed that "this is an innovation by Turks and a local tradition with no significance in Muslim history or overall Muslim culture", though it's evidently far from universal among Islamic cultures, and unusually well-established in Turkey; I specifically discuss its importance in Arabic-speaking Levantine history, and previously attempted to point out its acceptance in Twelver Shia tradition as well. It is in fact an innovation by Arabs - as noted, not just by Salafis (whom I haven't cited at all), but by non-religious academic historians and by its own scholarly supporters (see citations) - but that's a different question. - Lameen Souag (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is also a source dealing with the entire matter on how Mawlid: https://www.amazon.de/Birth-Prophet-Muhammad-Devotional-Civilization/dp/0415771277?asin=0415771277&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

A quote from that "Some sense of the popular desires that were met by the identification and celebration of special times in the Islamic calendar is provided by al-Turtushl (d. ca. 520 ah/1 126 ce) and by Abu Shama (d. 665 ah/1268 ce). Turtushl was an Andalusian MalikI who spent time in Syria and settled in Egypt; Abu Shama was a Syrian, and presents one of the earliest scholarly endorsements of the celebra- tion of the Prophet's mawlid in his book al-Ba 'ith 'ala inkar al-bida '. Both scholars are particularly concerned with those innovations that are widely considered to be religiously legitimate, particularly among the common people (al-'awamm). One of these is the alftya, or "thousand" prayer, that is performed on the eve of the fifteenth of Sha'ban (laylat nisf Sha'ban) and consists of one hundred cycles of prostration, in each cycle of which the first chapter of the Qur'an is recited once and the 112th chapter ten times. Abu Shama notes that despite the fact that there are only weak or fabricated hadlths on the subject, the common people (al- 'awamm) are enchanted by the practice; mosques are illumi- nated for the occasion, crowds of men and women participate (to the obvious detriment of public order), and many people consider the practice to be one of the greatest rites of the Islamic faith (min ajall sha 'a 'ir al-muslimlri)."- p. 149

So, it seems to me less and less likely, this is merely a Turkish festival.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

can you please stop editing until we resolve the dispute and talk it out first? It is unfair that we wait for you to respond to our comments but you ignore them and keep editing on your own. Discuss the issue first before editing. I will be including our changes from the previous version if you don’t respond here and keep editing on your own. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, haven't seen any response, so I thought it was resolved. Yes, of course, I will wait. I just thought the article would need some improvements and I recalled the source I offerred about a week ago. Since nothing has been done, I thought it is the best I do it myself. But sure, if there is still a disagreement, I will wait (as I suggested earlier on anyways). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * waiting without discussing will lead nowhere. please respond to the points we raised. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Which points? The last thing I see here is a wall of text by myself, with no response from you or the other user. Next, there is a section below complaining towards someone who isn't me, in which everything of my objections are just denied. What am I supposed to respond to this? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * the editor below is asking you questions on their post, so you should respond to the. Also I posted above on August 30. We both used the ping so you most definitely received a notification that we replied to you days ago. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The section below is an accusation "Attempted cencorship" and reads as a report. Why should I reply to an inadequate accusation towards me? Especially, since none of you two replied to my objections in this section (Reliable Sources) here? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said, I did reply above on 30 August. Also, the second part on the post below is questions toward you, please read it to see why we both feel you are censoring this page and explain your objections as to why you keep reverting changes that are supported with reliable sources. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets sumamrize the points, because it has been over 2 (?) weeks.
 * My issue is:
 * "It has been considered as Bid'ah by Shafi’i, Hanbali, and Maliki jurists. " Using the technical term "Bida" in this context, often has a negative connotation, especially if some schools are contrasted by others. Do Hanafis disagree with that? What does "Bida" mean in this context? "Bida" often has a judgmental value (even if this is inaprproate). Apart from that, looking which sources agree with a statement, in this case, if Shafites, Hanbalites, Malikites, agree upon something or not, is a form of Original research. You use your own research to check what Muslim scholars of a certain branch say or not, aren't you? If not, I might have been mistaken, but I would need an explanation, because it really looks like it is exactly this. Reading through books of Fiqh, reading Fatwas, the opinions of Muslim scholars etc. is for academics and their works, we on Wikipedia, are only eligable to gather the data of academics, and add them here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary one.
 * I don't remember if there has been more to it. I checked it and couldn't find any more (significant) objections. However, the leadsection could need better sources ("lastprophetinfo" isn't the best source either). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I will also ping, so please use the reply as stated here next time. Having a negative connotation is not a valid reason to remove well-sourced facts since Wikipedia is not censored. Moreover, you asking if Hanafis disagree with that really shows that you did not even bother reading the additions we had before mass reverting everything to the version you prefer. If you actually read it was included with sources that all four Madhabs see it as a Bida. As I said before, you have a wrong definition of what Original research is, please go to the page and read it because on this page there was no "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". Also, secondary sources contain "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." So Fatwas fall under secondary sources since the scholars/authors analyze religious texts (primary sources) to reach their opinion. It is a shame to see that this is the only issue you have, but you have gone as far as revert every single change we made. Please use Wikipedia policies to judge if things are allowed on a page or not, not just arguing points without referring to the policies. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Fatwas are not scholary interpretaion at all, it is a religious opinnion. You don't even have to be secular for that. They fall under the same category as blogs. Also I reject the claim that I would violate any guidlines. Please try to solve the issue and reply to my objections, which is still that I stated, the sources aren't good, because the opinnion of a religious scholar, on a religious matter, isn't reliable. It is like asking a political party, about their own reputation. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ps: if this is still going nowhere, I would like to withdraw from the dicussion. Because everytime I check, there is nothing added, except talking around the point. My opinnion is clear: 1. religious opinnions are often liable to biases WP:BIASED. This is especially the case with Islamic scholars, as there are different competing branches, each claim to be "the purest and most authentic branch" of all. There have been issues among many articles due to fatwas and Muslim scholary opinnions regarding accuracity and neutrality. My personal favorite is still that "Islamic view on angels is that angels never sin", said with such a straight face, you are inclined to believe them, but contradicts actual earlier Muslim writings (no I won't discuss this, everyone can check it out themselves). Here, once again, we can read from the historical sources, that the opinnion of said scholars leads nowhere, because the opinnions of religious scholars are not reliable. Another famous example would be Zakir Naik, who openly lies about the definition of theory. 2. Contrary to your assumption regarding the term "bida", we also must watch out how to phrase it. For example "according to School x it is bida" what does it mean? It sounds like, no Muslim of these schools are adhering to this tradition. The term "bida" in this context, although a technical term among educated non-Salafi Muslims, it has a connotation which might be misleading. For example, it might readers make believe, it is something Muslims sought to abstain from, which is not true at all as evident from the body of the text. Since the term "bida" has also become a battle term, we have to carefully phrase it or the meaning is lost. For this rule see MOS:WEASEL and MOS:IDIOM. Please reply to my two poitns I made only (1. Religious scholars, especially Islamic scholars = unreliable for historical content, 2 Careful phrasing to not mislead readers, by avoiding terms sounding like idioms). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So that means we can remove everything under the Practice section since “opinnion of a religious scholar, on a religious matter, isn’t valid.” Sure if you want to withdraw, I don’t mind, that means we can re-add the facts we had before that are backed by reliable sources and are not even fatwas (you did not even bother look at the sources we added). As for bidas, we said the madhabs deem it as a bida, whether the follows see it that way or not was never mentioned. MOS:WEASEL is a guideline, not a policy, “ It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.”


 * All you talk about is the lead, so why revert the other changes without a reason?  CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you know a madhab sees it? the opinnion of a madhab changes over time anyways. The best example is "music", sometimes haram among Hanafis sometimes not. Yes, the other sources aren't necesarily sufficient either. They aren't an opinnion regarding a matter, rather describing what they do. Therefore I thought, it could be reasonable to hold it here. Having a fatwa or an religious opnnion on that "madhabs" say is something entirely else. I checked the last reverts, there have been some additions which shouldn't have been reverted, such as "The tradition is based on the oft-quoted passage attributed to Muhammad:
 * "It is most important, however, that none of you should neglect the first Thursday night in Rajab, for it is the night that the angels call the Night of Wishes. This is because, by the time the first third of the night has elapsed, there will not be a single angel still at large in the heavens, nor in any region of the earth bar one. They will all be gathered together in the Ka'ba and the area immediately surrounding it. Allah will condescend to notice that they have assembled there, and He will say: 'My angels, ask Me for whatever you wish!' Their response to this will be: 'Our Lord, the request we wish to make is that You grant forgiveness to those who faithfully keep the fast in Rajab,' whereupon Allah will tell them: 'That I have already done!'"
 * ". This was actually a decent addition. I aplogize for not paying enough attention that the newer edits have been improved significantly from the ones used before. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * “The best example is "music", sometimes haram among Hanafis sometimes not.” And that is why we should expand and presets the facts, not straight out remove them see Islam and music and Mawlid. Even here we can expand on the religious views of each madhab about this night. It doesn’t have to be give much weight and importance, just being mentioned in passing since it is a fact that doesn’t take away from the importance of this night for some communities. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, reflecting the different pov within the madhabs, I would appreciate very much. I was concerned about using the opinnion of a few scholars to assert a point on something. I am sorry, if I came off too harsh. This issue, using some points selectively especially when using references to hadiths or fatawas has been an issue for a long time on Islam-related content and it was much work to replace it with better weighted sources. Partly, it has been used to write essay-like articles in the past. I am sorry if I misjudged the situation. My point was merely to disagree with using sources which are quick to assert something (like x is forbidden) beause it often leads to the errorneous assumption no Muslim of that madhab would act like this. Another example is "magic". Many articles state, refering to certain Surahs and fatawas, that "magic is strictly forbidden in Islam", ignoring how "magic" has been interpreted throughout Islamic history and not always been considered forbidden (for example astrology). As you can already guess, I am currently not able to visit Wikipedia often currently. I will not be able to respond frequently anytime soon. I might merely make some short additions whenever I read something noteworthy. With that said, I would say "good bye" for now. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Attempted censorship of academic sources
For some time now, @VenusFeuerFalle has been systematically reverting good faith edits to this page, irrespective of their content ot merits, and falsely characterising them as based on "fatwas" or "infiltartion (sic) of religious point view". Bluntly, I have taken this page from one based entirely on encyclopedia articles and modern Turkish religious manuals to one based on peer-reviewed published research by well-credentialed academic historians, most of them non-Muslim. It is manifestly inappropriate to attempt to censor the well-established history of this night simply because that history might seem to undermine the belief of those who celebrate it. (It doesn't even need to, by the way: the concept of bid'ah hasanah is defensible in Islam, and its historical use to legitimate this practice is clearly described in this article, or was before the last reversion attempt.) His edits to the talk page show no engagement whatsoever with the content of the edits, much less with their sources, as most recently seen in the comment above (far from claiming that this is an exclusively Turkish festival, the sources I cite clearly established that it originated in Jerusalem and was popular in medieval Damascus). I have better things to spend my limited WP time on than looking up the latest iterations of editing policies; suffice it to say that mass reverting well-sourced and accurate material should be clearly unacceptable. - Lameen Souag (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(PS for reference: the last corrected version of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laylat_al-Raghaib&oldid=1106963043 . The comparison speaks for itself.) - Lameen Souag (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A proposal: if @VenusFeuerFalle has any specific objections to outline, as opposed to general claims about these edits supposedly reflecting "religious point view", they should feel free to outline them here item by item. (I'm still curious personally: is there some reason why they feel discussion of the Kadizadeli controversy over this festival is inappropriate, or why they believe associated Turkish culinary traditions should not be mentioned? Or is this, as it appears to be, simply a matter of mass deleting any material by editors not sharing their personal POV, without even taking the trouble to distinguish bits they actually object to from bits they don't?) That might at least make it possible to have a discussion, and to suppose that these reversions are being made in good faith. - Lameen Souag (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)