Talk:Mosque/Archive 2

Cleanup Tag
I have removed the cleanup tag from the Styles section because it appears the majority of Pecher's complaints about the section have been addressed. Improvement is, of course, still possible but minor things are hardly enough to state that the entire section needs to be cleaned up. Note that pioneer means one who opens up new areas of thought, research, or development and so if someone first established something, it is okay to say they pioneered it. There has been some copyediting to remove the awkward wording and a source has been modified to be one of more notability. Of course, the article can still improve because the perfect article cannot exist. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The key points, especially regarding hypostyle mosques, were not addressed; therefore, I'm adding a disputed tag. Pecher Talk 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it should be fine now. If you still feel it's wrong, feel free to add the tag back. BhaiSaab talk 03:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice any substantive changes; this is why the tag is back. Pecher Talk 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read ? BhaiSaab talk 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What the sources say on women in the mosques
This is what Joturner wrote regarding the gender separation in mosques: "Islamic law has no rule asserting that men and women must be separated by a partition in the prayer hall. Ideally, the ruling is that men are to occupy the lines in front of the children, who are to occupy the lines in front of the women." sourced to islamfortoday.com. Then Joturner replaced the reference with a link to USC-MSA without changing anything in the original paragraph. However, here is what the article on USC-MSA actually says: "They must not be allowed to mingle with the men, and their rows must be kept separate from those of the men, preferably behind them, because this is what was approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him)." In other words, just the opposite to what was inserted into the article: the Islamic law does require women to be separated from men in the mosque. Pecher Talk 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the writer appears pleading for others to adopt a more tolerant attitude in allowing women to attend mosques at all.Timothy Usher 22:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pecher's quote doesn't appear to contradict the sentence in the article. (S)he quoted They must not be allowed to mingle with the men, and their rows must be kept separate from those of the men, preferably behind them. I may be interpreting it differently, but separate does not necessarily mean in a different room or behind a wall. Mingling does not include being in the same room. In fact, the part about the women being behind the men seems to confirm the fact that women are not required to be behind walls or in different rooms, but just in rows behind the men (as the article says). So yes, I agree that women, according to Islamic law and principles, are supposed to be kept separate. And that's what that article says; they should be in separate rows and they don't necessarily have to be separated by walls or partitions. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 02:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've fixed the article, so now it it is agreement with the source. The point, however, is that when you, joturner, added the material and the source, the article said that Islamic law does not require men and women to be separated in a mosque, while the source explicitly says that sharia does require men and women to be separated. Pecher Talk 09:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If all agree that splitting hairs is fun, why shouldn't I join? I don't concur with Pecher's harsh verdict: joturner didn't wrote the opposite of what the sources indicate. However, in his version "has no rule" and "ideally" constitute a choice of words that may well mislead the uninformed reader, and we should be unequivocal.
 * This would have been slightly better:
 * "Islamic law does not assert that men and women must be separated by a partition in the prayer hall. However, the ruling is..."
 * Even clearer, but being an undesirable involved period:
 * "Though Islamic law does not assert that men and women must be separated by a partition in the prayer hall, the ruling is..."
 * That said, one of Islamic law's essential demands is public gender segregation, which even in the version above is only alluded too: spapienti sat - not necessarily the laymen. Pecher's corrections indeed bring semantics in line with unambiguous representation of facts. Timothy's assertion about the writer's intent is correct, but I phrase it more directly: the choice of words was apologetical i.e. biased. --tickle me 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a wee bit of editing, to demonstrate that there are both pro- and anti-attendance positions in the hadith, and to cite a journal article looking at the early textual material. Also pointed out that side-by-side is the pattern in some mosques such as the Istiqlal mosque. Sufisticated.

Non-Muslims in Mosques
I had to revert many of the changes made to that section as it was just plain wrong. As far as I'm aware, only the Hanbali madhab does not allow non-Muslims in any mosque. BhaiSaab talk 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * contended edit:


 * About, it states "In Turkey any mosque is open to visitors, non-Muslims can visit them as well." BhaiSaab talk 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) copied from my talk page --tickle me 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, I apologise. I checked the "Rules for Mosques" section thoroughly, but was less attentive with the rest. However, it's a private site mantained by a Turkish tour guide. It's well done and written for a change, thus worth a read, but definitively not a reliable source for theological or juridical issues. Besides, Mr. Sansal lacks the religious and factual authority to accurately speak for any mosque in Turkey: he can't possibly have checked thousends personally (ca. 75,000), so, till proven wrong, it's conventional wisdom he's referring. Religion is regulated by the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs, and religious freedom is guaranteed. Mandatory unrestricted access to mosques seems likely to me. However, e.g. the U.S. "International Religious Freedom Report 2005" tells that minorities are often not granted their institutional rights. I know of Turkey's liberal ways, however, this information has to be sourced authoritatively, so far, it's only an assertion. --tickle me 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BhaiSaab, it's unacceptable to use your original research, like "as far as I am aware" or "obviously incorrect" to suppress material from scholarly sources. Pecher Talk 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it original research? You obviously didn't see the sources I used. BhaiSaab talk 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You have only rcently added The Daily Telegraph as a source, but I can't see anything there regarding the Hanbali school. Even so, how does The Daily Telegraph trump Encyclopaedia of Islam in matters of Islamic law? Newspapers are good sources for news items, but not for Islamic law. Pecher Talk 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do I have to spell everything out? What do you make of cites 80-83 in this revision? BhaiSaab talk 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think these sources can be called reliable on this specific issue and why do they supercede my source? Pecher Talk 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. I can't even access your source, 2. I've seen non-Muslims entering mosques all the time, and 3. there is no reason to doubt those sources. BhaiSaab talk 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. It's your problem. 2. LOL! 3. You personally may have no reason to doubt these sources, but they are no authorities in issues of Islamic law. Pecher Talk 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are Shaykhs and Muftis not authorities in issues of Islamic Law? BhaiSaab talk 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is not about "Shaykhs and Muftis" or whatever; it's about the sources cited. Murky websites are not reliable sources, even if the poster claims to be a "Shaykh" or "Mufti". Pecher Talk 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making this so difficult. BhaiSaab talk 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Would be appropriate? He's an author of a travel book for Turkey. BhaiSaab talk 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) copied from my talk page--tickle me 07:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC) --tickle me 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He's a journalist without academic qualification mentioned, much less expertise in architecture, theology or oriental science. Arguably, he might be used for articles on tourist issues, as far as the edits based on his site are not disputed. BhaiSaab, unless you take some time reading e.g. WP:RS and WP:V, your edits will be prone to contention. --tickle me 07:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslims in Mosques (Part II)
The article states:


 * Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques; this prohibition is based on a verse from the Qur'an, in which pagans are banished from the Sacred Mosque, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca:


 * O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

How is the bolded statement supported by the Qur'anic quote. Clearly, the verse states that non-Muslims shouldn't be allowed into the Sacred Mosque (i.e. the Masjid al-Haram) but I don't see how that verse can be used to substantiate the statement that Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques. Can someone attempt to enlighten me? --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask those Muslim scholars who did the interpretation. We don't make our own opinions whether the interpretation of Quranic verse was correct or not; we just record it. Pecher Talk 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've shown several sources that say otherwise, but according to Pecher, they're inferior sources. See sources 79-83 here. BhaiSaab talk 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are christians called monothiests?82.138.217.193 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.217.193 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sister projects
I can't see anything in Wikisource or Wikiquote specifically about the mosques; the links to these projects must therefore be removed. Pecher Talk 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The only sister project with a relavant entry was wiktionary, which falls far flat of what we have here. As such, I have removed it. Raul654 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Off Main Page Queue
I received a message on my talk page today from Raul654, the editor in charge of deciding which featured articles make it to the Main Page. It went as follows:


 * Someone let me know yesterday that the mosque article is the subject of two disputes. As you're aware, I had scheduled this as tomorrow's main page featured article, but it can't go up while the disputes are going on, so I've taken it off the queue. Please let me know when the disputes are over and I'll fast-track it back onto the queue. Raul654 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, how about we try to get them resolved? What's the issue with the Style section?

Regarding the non-Muslims in mosques section, the issue I have with it is that it basically states that non-Muslims aren't allowed to enter mosques anywhere. I didn't add the template, but if I were to add a template of my own, I'd add. The section completely ignores the fact that a large number of mosques today allow non-Muslims to enter, especially outside the Islamic world. Case in point: the first sentence blatantly, and without qualification, states that Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques, citing a Qur'anic quote that doesn't substantiate the statement. Obviously a good amount of the section should be devoted to talking about how non-Muslims are banned from some mosques in some regions depending on different interpretations, local laws, an overall Islamo-centric attitude, etc. However, one reading the section should not get the impression that non-Muslims would get killed upon entering mosques. That's essentially what the section says right now. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 18:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree joturn. The section as written doesn't accurately describe the current or historical situation. First off, what 'Islamic law bans...' There are numerous versions/interpretations/implementation of islamic law, so this sentence is quite misleading. Second many mosques worldwide allow non-muslims to enter such as the Blue Mosque. Third it makes specific mention of a number of individual murders that happened over 100 years ago, which may or may not be typical. Ashmoo 06:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher wrote it, so we need his input here. BhaiSaab talk 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an incorrect approach to start with proposing what impression the reader should get from the section and proceed with weaving the section around this postulated original research. All we do is report what the sources say, period. At this point, I don't see any legitimate reason to dispute the content of the section on non-Muslims. Pecher Talk 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree Pecher that we shouldn't be writing with the intention of giving the reader 'an impression' one way or the other. However in the interests of a good article we should be trying to ensure the text isn't misleading.
 * The 2 main issues with the section as I see it now are:
 * The universality of the 'Islamic law bans...' sentence. See my comment above.
 * Introducing some info mentioning of how widespread bans/access by non-Muslims is.
 * Ashmoo 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're aware of sources that discuss different interpretations of admission of non-Muslims to mosques, feel free to cite them, if there are different interpretations, of course. Practice, especially contemporary practice, must not be confuses with the requirements of sharia. I must say, however, that with this kind of original research done without even bothering to look at the cited source, we are unlikely to move anywhere. Pecher Talk 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You said before though that I can't cite those sources that I used. BhaiSaab talk 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since most editors don't have access to the cited source, would you be able to quote here the sentence(s) that you used as reference? So we can work out the problem I have mentioned previously. Ashmoo 23:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And the page number and edition? --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The page number of an online edition? Interesting suggestion. Pecher Talk 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is the online version. Perhaps the article instead then? --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 15:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind; that's in the source. I'll presume all fifteen statements referencing the Encyclopedia of Islam come from its Masdjid article. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right; that's in the reference, and I've also shown parts of the article, like "In the central Islamic lands". I've re-checked the reference, and as it turns out, I've attributed the ban on non-Muslims in mosques to a wrong caliph. Actually, it's Umayyad caliph Umar II, not the second caliph Umar. I've made the error because the article refers to him simply as "Umar"; it only becomes clear from a careful reading of the context which Umar they have in mind. Usually, "Umar" refers to Umar ibn al-Khattab, of course. Pecher Talk 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article. Comment at will. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've restored the initial wording from the Encyclopaedia of Islam for the simple reason that it's sourced. Regarding mosques in the West today, "often" is original research, I could not find it in sources. In addition, the reason behind allowing non-Muslims into mosques seems to be to encourage conversions based on this passage by Abdulkarim Kubica in section "10:00: A new day": "I can't speak for mosques elsewhere abroad - but there would be no problem with someone coming in to our mosque; people can come in and sit behind and watch and listen during prayers - this is how some people come to Islam." Pecher Talk 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Joturner has inqured on my talk page: "What's the exact phrasing in the Encyclopedia of Islam that leads to the conclusion that Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques. And perhaps a bit of context before and after would be nice. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)"

Here is the paragraph in question without phonetic transcription and inline references:"In the early Umayyad period, Christians were still allowed to enter the mosque without molestation. Mu'awiya used to sit with his Christian physician, Ibn Uthal, in the mosque of Damascus. According to Ahmad b. Hanbal, the Ahl al-Kitab (or Ahl al-'Ahd ) and their servants, but not polytheists, were allowed to enter the mosque of Medina. At a later date, entrance was forbidden to Christians and this regulation is credited to Umar. A strict teacher of morality like Ibn al-Hadjdj thought it unseemly that the monks who wove the mats for the mosques should be allowed to lay them in the mosque. Conditions were not always the same. In Hebron, Jews and Christians were admitted on payment to the sanctuary of Abraham until in 664/1265 Baybars forbade it." The paragraph is not particularly well-written, but the most straightforward interpretation seems to be that Christians had been allowed to enter mosques, until Umar II forbade the entrance to them. However, in the case of the Cave of the Patriarchs, the entrance was allowed until 1265. The passage explicitly talks about Christians only, but it's clear that the prohibition applied to Jews and Christians alike, as can be inferred from the Cave of the Patriarchs case; anyway, Islamic law never distinguishes between the People of the Book. The ambiguous issue is whether Umar's prohibition applied to all mosques or to the Medina mosque only. The latter option, however, does not make sense, again in the light of the Cave of the Patriarchs example: had non-Muslims been allowed to mosques other than Masjid al-Nabawi, the access to the Cave of the Patriarchs for Jews and Christians would not be an issue. Hope this closes the matter. Pecher Talk 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not really familiar with the Cave of the Patriarchs example, but the former idea doesn't seem to make sense either. There are many mosques that allow non-Muslims... so are they violating Islamic law? I find that very hard to believe. The paragraph you mentioned does not clearly support the idea that Islamic law bans non-Muslims for entering mosques. The statement should say that Bans on the allowance of non-Muslims in mosques are usually derived from a verse from the Qur'an, in which pagans are banished from the Sacred Mosque, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca: --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do the mosques that admit non-Muslims do so contrary to sharia? I'd answer "yes", and those people who sanction this violation hardly act contrary to the tradition. The actual implementation of sharia in practice frequently conflicted with the books of law, as political, economic, and other matters of expediency trumped other considerations. That was the case with a number of issues relating to non-Muslims and Islamic law, so I don't see how that cannot be the case here too. Pecher Talk 23:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't going anywhere. Can't we just remove the first part of the first sentence? You're rephrasing an unclear statement as a absolute and unqualified statement. So we either need to find a clearer source or remove the statement. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence that states something similar to "Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from entering mosques...", I assume, is derived from "At a later date, entrance was forbidden to Christians and this regulation is credited to Umar." Is that correct, Pecher? I don't think that's a correct conclusion to make. I propose we use sources used in this revision to rewrite the section. BhaiSaab talk 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What doesn't seem to be disputed is that the entrance was forbidden to non-Muslims in practice ever after Umar II, correct me if I'm wrong. However, I agree: let's look for clearer sources regarding the Islamic law. Pecher Talk 09:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The first part of the first sentence - Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques - and a related segment from the subsequent paragraph - and his ruling remained codified in the Islamic law - are the only two parts I have a problem with. I am satisfied with the rest of the section.


 * Now that source... there are many sources that discuss the issue of whether Muslims should be allowed to enter mosques, but we really can't cite them. However, I am trying to use these not-so-credible sources to help me find some more credible sources to use in this article. I have stumbled upon a different verse from the Qur'an that seems to support the idea that non-Muslims. From the M. H. Shakir translation:


 * The idolaters have no right to visit the mosques of Allah while bearing witness to unbelief against themselves, these it is whose doings are null, and in the fire shall they abide. (9:17)


 * And from the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation:


 * It is not for such as join gods with Allah, to visit or maintain the mosques of Allah while they witness against their own souls to infidelity. The works of such bear no fruit: In Fire shall they dwell. (9:17)


 * However, the Pickthal translation, omits the part about visiting:


 * It is not for the idolaters to tend Allah's sanctuaries, bearing witness against themselves of disbelief. As for such, their works are vain and in the Fire they will abide.


 * Nevertheless, even ignoring the last translation (and I am willing to do that), the verse does not specifically state non-Muslims but rather idolaters. So polytheists and pagans clearly are prohibited from mosques. Jews and other monotheists, however, are a different story as they are not clearly mentioned. So, perhaps we could say that Islamic law bans pagans and idolators from entering and that some places extend to all non-Muslims. And then we could mention that Omar II pioneered the idea of not letting all non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians, from entering some mosques, although his idea wasn't codified in law.


 * I tried looking through a few tafsir books for some help on deciphering 9:17 and got something along the lines of "non-Muslims can't take administrative roles but they can perform services for the mosque (i.e. an electrician repairing a mosque)" The sentences in particular: The outcome is that it is not permissible to appoint a kafir the trustee or administrator of any Islamic endowment. As for the construction of the different units of the structure such as walls and doors, it does not matter even if some non-Muslim is assigned to do the job.


 * I hope this helps. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

on the local blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Musalla": we have NO Wik. page for that
Currently, "musalla" leads to some obscure Ismaili sectarian term, Jama'at Khana - LOL?! Can pls. somebody take care of that? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I also had never heard of the term Jama'at Khana before. In Indonesia, a place of worship that is less "complete" compared to a mosque - e.g. the prayer rooms you would encounter at an airport - is called a musholla (excuse the Indonesian way of transliterating muṣallā). I think the same goes for Malaysia. I wonder what name is given in other parts of the Islamic world. I'll see if I can get some attention from WikiProject Islam. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For your information, there's a muṣallā article in Arabic: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B5%D9%84%D9%89
 * 10:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Thanks, Countertime. I additionally found several other languages that also had Musalla articles, but they were scattered over like 3 Wikidata items. I have combined them into one proper page: Q45990. Apparently, there's even one in Simple English. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Countertime. I additionally found several other languages that also had Musalla articles, but they were scattered over like 3 Wikidata items. I have combined them into one proper page: Q45990. Apparently, there's even one in Simple English. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616161452/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031215/15terror.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031215/15terror.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018065839/http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?articleID=358 to http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?articleID=358
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819085053/http://www.onislam.net/english/reading-islam/about-muhammad/461130-prophetic-respect-for-christians-and-jews.html to http://www.onislam.net/english/reading-islam/about-muhammad/461130-prophetic-respect-for-christians-and-jews.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618192654/http://macdonald.hartsem.edu/articles/mw943f.pdf to http://www.macdonald.hartsem.edu/articles/mw943f.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928143701/http://www.tc.edu/muslim-nyc/research/projects/role%20of%20muslims.html to http://www.tc.edu/muslim-nyc/research/projects/role%20of%20muslims.html
 * Added tag to http://www.kingfahdbinabdulaziz.com/main/m4506.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.columbiajournalist.org/rw1_dinges/2005/article.asp?subj=national&course=rw1_dinges&id=624

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511205253/http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=1287&lang=en to http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=1287&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Imam reza1 1 1 1.jpg