Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 11

Split of the Islamic studies article
Just a heads-up that Islamic studies has been split into two articles: Islamic studies (academia) and Islamic studies (theology). —C.Fred (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this WP:BOLD split by needs to be reverted, and that for several reasons. The most important one is that there's no neat division between the two kinds of Islamic studies, but rather a spectum of activity with traditional and religious studies on one end, secular academic methodology on the other, and many combinations of the two in between. Naming-wise, "Islamic studies (theology)" doesn't make sense because the article is about much more than theology. Finally, content-wise, I've been watching some of 's recent work, and while some of it are valuable contributions based on good academic sources, some of it looks like personal essays rather than policy-compliant encyclopedic writing. The leads of the new articles are an example of the latter. I've been too busy to engage in a substantive discussion, but it may be a good opportunity to help this new and promising editor get a better understanding of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Eperoton (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I intentionally put a not-to-be-confused-with paragraph at the beginning of each of the two new articles.
 * Academic and religious Islamic studies overlap in topics, yet the approach is totally different. Academic Islamic studies even make up theories that Muhammad never existed: Not possible for religious Islamic studies. It is the same difference as with academic Religious studies and Christian theology. They overlap in topics but the approach is not the same. The split makes absolutely sense!
 * We can discuss the naming of the article. "(theology)" as the extension can be discussed.
 * Of course, the procedure of my split was bold, this is true. You always know better afterwards.
 * --IbnTufail (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to be well-versed in what you call the revisionist school, but I'm not sure you're aware of the diversity of Islamic studies beyond its confines. Since you bring up Christianity, there is a long tradition of academic divinity schools in the West (known as theologische Fakultäten in German-speaking countries, if you're more familiar with that milieu), which combine academic methods and religious concerns and have produced a lion's share of academic research on Christianity up to date. For example, is Hans Küng an academic or a theologian? The answer is both. Islamic studies likewise have seen many different combinations of academic and religious scholarship. Which portion of your split does Mohammad Hashim Kamali belong to? How about Hossein Nasr? Tariq Ramadan? Institute of Ismaili Studies (look up its founder and chairman)? Sections dealing with specific, coherent currents in Islamic studies can be spun off in separate articles if they get too long, but we need the main article to cover the variety of the field, and we don't want to introduce artificial splits like the one you propose. Eperoton (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion of compromise: We take back the split, and we develop the two different perspectives in one article. No physical split intended any more. (But a logical split.)
 * Furthermore, I would have better chosen "secular" vs. "religious" instead of "academic" vs. "theology", to point out the difference I am talking of.
 * I have seen that the Wikidata-connections are already to the "Islamic studies (academia)" article. How can we undo the split? I not want again a "bold" unsplit ...
 * --IbnTufail (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan, with the proviso that our characterization of scholarship as "secular" or "religious" or using other categories in an article's text should reflect how it is characterized in WP:RSs rather than our own judgements (per WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV).


 * The easiest way to undo the split is to revert the original article and turn the new ones into redirects to it. Let me know if you need help with that. I'm not sure if bots will update the interlanguage links for us, but we can wait a bit and see if they need manual adjustment. Eperoton (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is done. We will see what will happen. --IbnTufail (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. Another note of caution, though. If you'd like to develop this article (and it is certainly badly in need of improvement), please try to ensure that it reflects a reasonable range of perspectives found in RSs, and not just the views of the "revisionist" school, let alone its more "hardcore" representatives. There's a number of overviews out there, such as:


 * 1) Islamic Studies from The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World
 * 2) Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry by R. Stephen Humphreys, particularly the chapter on early Islamic history
 * 3) Modern approaches to early Islamic history by Fred Donner, in New Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 1
 * 4) Origins of and Influences on Islamic law by Benjamin Jokisch, in The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law
 * 5) COMPETING PARADIGMS IN THE STUDY OF ISLAMIC ORIGINS by Herbert Berg, in METHOD AND THEORY IN THE STUDY OF ISLAMIC ORIGINS
 * 6) Mapping Islamic Studies: Genealogy, Continuity and Change, Ed. by Nanji, Azim

Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, too. It is obvious that the revisionist view is not the only one and that the revisionists themselves differ a lot resp. downgraded their provocative theses over the time. But indeed, any kind of revisionist view is still missing in many articles. --IbnTufail (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger notice - Al-Baqi cemetery
I have tagged Demolition of al-Baqi for merger into Al-Baqi'. The discussion takes place at Talk:Al-Baqi'. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Mass category changes based on modern states
has been making large-scale categorization changes by splitting generic categories such as "Sufi religious leaders" into sub-categories based on names of modern countries. In many cases, this seems to violate WP:NOR. Thus, Baha-ud-Din Naqshband Bukhari is now classified as Iranian, Qutb Shah as Afghan, as Imam Shamil as Russian. I've asked the user to stop, pending discussion here. I think these changes should be reverted. What do the others think? Eperoton (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with these names but Afghan is also ethnicity not only Afghanistan as country. Yes Imam Shamil is accually not Russian but Dagestani. I agree there. I have an solution here; if User:Eperoton can give me on list those names in my talk page, which he conciders to be changed like Imam Shamil so I can change them. Yes will change them from nationality to ethnicity. Iranian can be change to Persian etc. --Mannerheimo (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Some ethnic classifications, such as Arab and Persian are commonly found in RSs. The ethnic classifications of Afghan and Iranian seem to be pure OR. Here's my proposal: modern figures can be classified by their nationality with care; some pre-modern figures can be classified by ethnicity, but only if this classification is explicitly sourced in the article. Otherwise, it's a violation of NOR. Also we don't want ethnic categories to replace the generic ones. We shouldn't assume that a reader looking for a list of Sufi leaders is looking for people of specific ethnicity. We still have a category of "Muslim historians" alongside "Arab historians" and (misguidedly named) "Iranian historians". We want to preserve these navigational tools for the non-nationalists among us elsewhere. Eperoton (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I agree with these proposals. Compromise and good arguments are always good. Also I would like to say that some Sufis who are from the Indian subcontinent should be classified only as Indians if they where born and died before 1947. Is these ok for you? Because it was all India that time, nothe modern states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Could one call Imam Shamil as Dagestani Sufi  religious leaders becauce he is title is Imam of the Dagestan. --Mannerheimo (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The case of South Asia is a good example of why we should be careful about national attribution. If someone spent their whole life in a single country, one can usually infer the national category from that fact, but for someone who lived in multiple states in the course of their life, we should rely on RSs to avoid OR. Imam Shamil was the imam of both Daghestan and Chechnya, according to The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World . EI2 does call him Daghistani and identifies his ethnicity as Avar . Eperoton (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right about these issues when person has lived in several countries in his life time but person who was born in India but died in Pakistan because of the partition is accually both Indian and Pakistani where are many examples here in Wikipedia like Abul A'la Maududi who was born in India but lived in Pakistan. He is been categorized as Pakistani. So let him be an Pakistani. My issue was with people who lived and died before 1947 (partition of the subconticent) --Mannerheimo (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

New Page: Muslim Women in Sport
I am planing to create a new page that will discuss Muslim women's sports participation as well as barriers they face to participating. Does anyone have any suggestions about what subjects and topics to include? Rjpg12 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The right way to do it would be to round up reliable sources which are devoted to that general subject, if such sources exist, and then base the article on how they cover it. We should not be constructing a subject ourselves, per WP:NOR. If there aren't RSs with titles resembling the title of the article, we probably should not have an article with that title. Eperoton (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I think I have some good sources already - you can see my full proposal and annotated bibliography on my user page. Do you have any suggestions for the title? Rjpg12 (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good. The RS which can be used as a model for the article name is titled "Muslim Women and Sport", but I think "Muslim women in sport" is close enough. Eperoton (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamist Terrorist attacks RfC
There is a discussion ongoing at List of Islamist terrorist attacks on whether to add the July 2016 Nice attack to the list. This wikiproject is listed on the talk page as an interested group. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism at Umar
The article Umar has been vandalized over the past month, but there have also been some constructive edits. Can someone familiar with the topic take a look at the history and try to sort it out? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I gave it a shot. Eperoton (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion
Hello, I've nominated several redirects to Muslim and one to Islamophobia at Redirects for discussion today. Your input at Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 3 would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposals for Marifa
Hey all! Could someone take a look at the several merges proposed to Marifa and see if they have any merit? If so, you can probably just go ahead and perform the merges, they seem uncontroversial (i.e. no one has stepped forward to oppose the tags). Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Merging and converting sidebar templates
Just a heads up: I am going to merge together Imam, Nizārī, and Shia Imams into one horizontal navbar. My main concern with the status quo is that, especially for the earlier imams which are common to all denominations, there is a lot of WP:TEMPLATECREEP. For example: Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin has all three of them, in addition to an infobox. It is taking up a lot of space and pushes down other files/images so they end up far away from their intended section. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. The new template is located at Shia Imams, with the others being redirects to there. I have already relocated the template's transclusions on its respective pages. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reorganizing hijab articles
There's a discussion of reorganizing content from several hijab-related articles here Talk:Hijab_by_country. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Eperoton (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about Islam is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Question on a talk page
I had a question about an honorific used on a talk page. Here's the story: Earlier today, I [| reverted the honorific (PBUH) used in a talk page after the name of Mohammed. I left the [[User_talk:45.116.232.11 | poster a polite note ]] on their page explaining that this is recommended to not happen, per WP:PBUH. I just had the edit reverted by with the edit summary Undid good-faith edit. It's a talk page, not an article..   I agree that it's a talk page, however, the idea behind WP:PBUH was to keep Wikipedia neutral, and I believe removing the honorific from a talk page is in keeping with that idea.

Just in case you're wondering, I'm not Muslim, but have work along side many Muslims and respect their belief. Also just so we're clear, if this were an editor writing something like : '' ... and Moses (Praise the lord) reached out his hand, and Moses (Praise the Lord)...." on a talk page, I'd remove it just as quickly, again for Neutrality sake.

So.... long story short, is the honorific ok on a talk page, but not on an article ? Or should the honorific be removed from both a talk page and an article. &#408;&#415;  S&#294;  16:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It actually appeared to be a direct quote, wherein the user had copied the text they'd added to the article and seen reverted. I don't understand how you think the guideline regarding honorifics could possibly justify changing someone's direct quote on a talk page, whether it involves Mohammed, Moses, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And no, I wasn't wondering about your religion or who you've "work along side" [sic]. (What would you think if I copyedited the above phrase within your comment to fix your grammar per WP:MOS?) The acceptable conditions for editing another user's comments are found here. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it wasn't a direct quote, it was the poster himself, posting something that had been removed from the article. Two posters after him advised him he was using OR, so it was removed correctly.   Were he quoting someone directly, and he wasn't, yes, you'd be right, the PBUH should stay if it was stated by the original speaker or writer, but it wasn't, he was reposting what had been removed earlier.   Also, I'm familiar with TPO, my revert didn't violate that.  &#408;&#415;  S&#294;   17:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it was the poster himself, and it most certainly was a direct quote. He had added it here and I see now that I had reverted it (as a good-faith contribution, with the summary: "possible linkspam posed as ref; multiple grammatical/style errors"). He was perfectly justified in copying it to the talk page, warts and all, and no one should be changing it there. Incidentally, this happened over three years ago. Are you really going around removing years-old PBUHes from talk pages? Please don't. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Question on a talk page (Bumped from the archive -to get consensus)
I had a question about an honorific used on a talk page. Here's the story: Earlier today, I [| reverted the honorific (PBUH) used in a talk page after the name of Mohammed. I left the [[User_talk:45.116.232.11 | poster a polite note ]] on their page explaining that this is recommended to not happen, per WP:PBUH. I just had the edit reverted by with the edit summary Undid good-faith edit. It's a talk page, not an article..   I agree that it's a talk page, however, the idea behind WP:PBUH was to keep Wikipedia neutral, and I believe removing the honorific from a talk page is in keeping with that idea.

Just in case you're wondering, I'm not Muslim, but have work along side many Muslims and respect their belief. Also just so we're clear, if this were an editor writing something like : '' ... and Moses (Praise the lord) reached out his hand, and Moses (Praise the Lord)...." on a talk page, I'd remove it just as quickly, again for Neutrality sake.

So.... long story short, is the honorific ok on a talk page, but not on an article ? Or should the honorific be removed from both a talk page and an article. &#408;&#415;  S&#294;  16:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It actually appeared to be a direct quote, wherein the user had copied the text they'd added to the article and seen reverted. I don't understand how you think the guideline regarding honorifics could possibly justify changing someone's direct quote on a talk page, whether it involves Mohammed, Moses, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And no, I wasn't wondering about your religion or who you've "work along side" [sic]. (What would you think if I copyedited the above phrase within your comment to fix your grammar per WP:MOS?) The acceptable conditions for editing another user's comments are found here. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it wasn't a direct quote, it was the poster himself, posting something that had been removed from the article. Two posters after him advised him he was using OR, so it was removed correctly.   Were he quoting someone directly, and he wasn't, yes, you'd be right, the PBUH should stay if it was stated by the original speaker or writer, but it wasn't, he was reposting what had been removed earlier.   Also, I'm familiar with TPO, my revert didn't violate that.  &#408;&#415;  S&#294;   17:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it was the poster himself, and it most certainly was a direct quote. He had added it here and I see now that I had reverted it (as a good-faith contribution, with the summary: "possible linkspam posed as ref; multiple grammatical/style errors"). He was perfectly justified in copying it to the talk page, warts and all, and no one should be changing it there. Incidentally, this happened over three years ago. Are you really going around removing years-old PBUHes from talk pages? Please don't. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Quebec City shooting
So I have a draft up at DRAFT: 2017 islamic cultural center of quebec shooting -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Help expanding Cannabis and Islam (marijuana)
This content is currently a redirect to a section of Cannabis and religion, but if we can expand it, it could become a standalone article. We have some good basic content on the prohibition on khamr (which needs its own article too), but could use more content about what fringe Muslim groups use cannabis in a claimed religious context. Thanks for any help! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Question on the Reference Desk
Hello, a questioner on the Reference Desks has posed a question about the direction of tawaf. Direct link to the question as of March 6. Can anyone here answer the question (there, for preference, so the questioner sees the answer)? Sincere thanks. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Now at Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 5. —Tamfang (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of merger proposal
I have proposed merging Spread of Islam in Southeast Asia with Islam in Southeast Asia. Would appreciate any feedback here: (discuss). --NoGhost (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Honor killings" article
I am raising an issue about the recent additions made. The Guardian is used as a source for some info. However, are these edits good? --George Ho (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The first one is certainly problematic because it introduces an unsupported generalization. Whether the other two are "good" is trickier: they're essentially anecdotal, and it's not clear whether the incidents they mention are isolated or part of a pattern—or whether they're even noteworthy. I'd revert all three as good-faith edits, and start a discussion on the article's talk page. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   13:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here == Girih or Gereh? ==

A language issue: I'm a westerner interested in Islamic pattern, especially the girih pattern. When I talk to a lot of people in different interests groups I come across comments about me spelling the word "girih" wrong. They tell me it should be "gereh" instead.

I assume the proper place to discuss this issue is here. Can anyone please sort this out so I can give a good answer to why I use the spelling I do - or update the Wikipedia page so I can change my spelling?

/Rixn99 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * neither spelling is wrong, although gereh tends to be a more modern Iranian transliteration. Considering it is a Persian word, WP:PMOS should explain the different ways of transliterating more in-depth. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * So, if neither spelling is wrong, both alternatives are valid, and it has its roots in the persian language, then why are we using the Arabic spelling on Wikipedia? Shouldn't we use the modern Iranian transliteration? Is there any references that binds the word closer to Girih? On this page: Knot_density the Persian spelling is used. We should be consistent. --Rixn99 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * if I Google for gereh pattern or girih pattern, I get way more hits for the latter spelling, which according to WP:COMMONNAME rules is thus the favoured spelling on Wikipedia. Note that girih is not necessarily an Arabic transliteration, but also classical Persian. I guess the main reason for girih popping up more, is ALA-LC's romanization scheme (see the vowel section in Romanization of Persian), which tends to be more prevalent in American literature and thus in English sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If the concept of "gereh"/"girih" stems from a Persia, then the spelling should mirror this heritage, and not let American literature define it. Wikipedia is the place that guide people on correct information, so it should be here the correct spelling reside, and the world should follow. I mean, it is only Wikipedia that have the power to enable a change in this matter. Why accept an erroneous spelling just because some American started to use the wrong spelling long time ago. It's time to correct it now. Google isn't the measuring stick by which we have to bow to, it just shows frequency.


 * Does the ALA-LC suggests the word in Persian should be spelled "girih" or gereh"? If it says "girih" then the issue is more complex, but if it suggests "gereh" for Persian and "girih" for Arabic, then the matter isn't a spelling issue, it's a question of which heritage the word stems from - and as you said, it is a Persian word, so then it's no logic reason to keep the Arabic spelling. -- (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I repeat, گره‌ or girih is NOT Arabic; the Arabic term is جيرة or jīrih. Persian and Arabic use the same writing system, so it makes sense to use the same transliteration scheme, which ALA-LC does. See ALA-LC's transliteration rules for Persian, which indeed say to write girih. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UE ("if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it"), the article name should follow the predominant spelling found in English-language RSs. Girih seems to be more common, but gereh is prominent enough (even if only based on the cited article from Encyclopedia Iranica) to at least note that variant. There's no standard transliteration for short vowels in Persian. ALA-LC uses i/u, while Iranica uses e/o. As HyperGaruda points out, how the word might be spelled or pronounced in Arabic is of no concern here. Eperoton (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:UE Ok, thanks for the explanation. I understand better now. Let's close this discussion.--(talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata
The discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox religious text is relevant for this wikiproject. Please give your comments. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  13:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:1870 in Islam has been nominated for discussion
Category:1870 in Islam has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Rashidun Caliphate
On their both talk pages I have suggested that Rashidun and Rashidun Caliphate may be merged. Please join the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Abu Eesa Niamatullah
Hello! I am notifying interested projects and editors that I've listed Abu Eesa Niamatullah for discussion at AfD.

I invite you all to contribute to the discussion. Mujaddouda (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

List of expeditions of Muhammad
This article requires some more attention due to recent and on-going disruption, discussion is at Talk:List of expeditions of Muhammad. Capitals00 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

the Fast-a-thon page
Hullo, I looked up fast-a-thon and found the page but it has one of those wikipedia warnings on it which is a bit off-putting. It says it needs citations, could this go on http://events.utk.edu/index.php?eID=2621 to show it really did start in tennessee. It also said it may not have notability but I really can't see why not. Regards, Alison. PS I'm pretty much baffled by the workings of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalisonberry (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead image in Jihad
An editor is insisting on inserting an image into the lead of Jihad. I'm arguing that this lead would better left without an image. Your input would be appreciated in Talk:Jihad. Eperoton (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was trolled
For those of you who are not familiar with NeilN, when 400,000 people pointed out that his characterisation of an imam leading Friday prayers from a mosque pulpit in front of a congregation of six as

"Muhammad sitting on his she - camel on top of a mountain surrounded by thousands of pilgrims explaining how he proposes to reform the calendar"

might be a tad erroneous he took no action apart from


 * Protecting both the article and the talk page
 * Wiping the discussion
 * Threatening to block anybody who raised the matter in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.219.64 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to the original art work that discusses the context of the image? Granted the quote itself may have better explanation than what is currently offered but that needs to be reviewed and researched. I can do it if there is a link somewhere. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the problem.  The picture is not tasteful, it doesn’t depict the source and it is needlessly offensive.   Since it purports to be a picture of Muhammad it is offensive to a large proportion of the people who are going to read the article.   The only justification for keeping it would be if it were directly relevant to the article, but it’s not.   The article in question is not "Muhammad", it’s "Islamic calendar".   This discussion cannot take place at the article talk page because protection has been applied to stop it – so the article and  its talk page are both protected.
 * The picture was originally uploaded to Commons and tagged "Muhammad" because a museum cataloguer looked no further than the wording of the passage into which it was inserted. She was well aware that most of the pictures were unrelated to the passages they were inserted into because she catalogued all of them, but she wasn’t aware that Muhammad was not inside a mosque when he preached his farewell sermon because the book does not say that.   The people who are expert in both art and Islam have concluded this is not Muhammad.
 * AstroLynx provided links to two discussions:

• T W Arnold, ‘’Painting in Islam’’ (1928, republished 2002 Gorgias Press, page 89)

• Priscilla P. Soucek, "An Illustrated Manuscript of al-Bīrūnī’s Chronology of Ancient Nations”, in: P.J. Chelkowski (ed.), The Scholar and the Saint: Studies in Commemoration of Abu’l-Rayḥan al-Bīrūnī and Jalal al-Din al-Rūmī (New York: New York University Press, 1975), pp. 103-168.

However, pressed to provide the relevant quotations AstroLynx refused, instead challenging editors to locate a copy of the books and "prove me wrong". This is not the only time he has acted in this uncollegial manner – on another occasion he said there was no copy of a book in the university library but quoted from it verbatim a few days later. 78.146.221.12 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

NeilN using his tools to impose his POV against the consensus of Codename Lisa, Wiqi55 and others
She participated in the RfC which discussed the picture of Ali which was falsely labelled Muhammed and resulted in 400,000 people signing a petition against Wikipedia. Her view was that the picture should go. It took Neil N just one hour to start harassing her. After two days of this she modified her view slightly, saying that if the picture was genuinely one of Muhammad she might support it, but otherwise no.  The kicker was this comment:

A thought. The picture shows Muhammad in a building. The Farewell Pilgrimage sermon was delivered on Mount Arafat. Therefore the picture does not show Muhammad on Mount Arafat. Therefore it shows him delivering a perfectly ordinary sermon in a perfectly ordinary village. Therefore WP:PERTINENCE kicks in and the picture must go. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Then comes the deliberate lie:

Interesting point - if I recall correctly, Hillenbrand also noted this. However, how sure are we where Muhammad was in Mecca when he delivered this part of the various speeches which he gave during those days? The Quran (sura 9:36-37) certainly doesn't specify the location, nor do the earliest sources on Muhammad's life such as Ibn Ishaq (cf. Guillaume's translation, pp. 650-652) or al-Tabari (cf. Poonawala's translation, pp. 112-114). For other speeches locations are cited such as Muhammad standing on Arafat or seated on a camel or a grey mule but not for this particular speech. AstroLynx (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

43 minutes after 87.81's observation NeilN accuses him/her of lying. Two days later AstroLynx fails the lie detector test on two counts:


 * he claims the artist wrote the book (he actually illustrated a book which had been written 500 years earlier)


 * he lets slip the admission "according to tradition the event occurred in the open air and Muhammed was seated on his camel."

He goes on to claim that Shia Muslims have no position on the events which predated the schism (presumably that would include an acceptance that the caliphs were Muhammad's rightful successors). This is about as sensible as claiming that Protestants have no views on events which happened before 1517. Wiqi 55 calls him out here:

You actually missed an important argument. The image is found in a book that was illustrated for sectarian and polemical purposes. I would expect the closing party to justify why polemical/sectarian imagery/works should be given space in this article. Wiqi( 55 ) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * al-Biruni was one a relatively small number of Muslim scholars who treated believers of other religions with respect. His book is about the calendars of not only the Muslims but also of the Christians, the Jews and other religions. Therefore you will also find illustrations of Jesus and Abraham. To call his work sectarian only shows how biased you are yourself. AstroLynx (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read the sources you're citing then you would have known that this has nothing to do with Biruni. Hillenbrand clearly states that the illustrations have a different agenda compared to the text. He and other reliable sources recognize the sectarian and polemical agenda of the illustrated edition. Wiqi( 55 ) 14:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This comment from Wiqi55 (who is a distinguished Islamic scholar) could also have been cited:

Well, it was clear enough that you misrepresented Hillenbrand. He actually noticed a "strong sectarian feeling" in an image that was not about the investiture of Ali, contrary to what you wrote above. Then based on how you misrepresented the source you assumed that the RFC image has no sectarian purposes, which is original research (and can be disputed by pointing at Hillenbrand's arguments about the Envoy to Musailama). In any case, I don't see a reason why I should change my !vote. Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov. Wiqi( 55 ) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well petitions from outside sources don't mean anything on Wikipedia so what exactly is the complaint? Also tasteful pictures that depict the source (though it is true they may be in the wrong spot) aren't guaranteed to leave the article unless they are needlessly offensive. Especially if they simply need a quick change of heading and location. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hanafi school in Algeria
I have recently been writing a section on the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam in Algeria, which was introduced during the Ottoman era (my final edit was here). However, there is a Wiki user who has consistently removed everything I have written. I have included full citations as well as quotations to the article; however, they have deleted everything. Can someone here please take a look? If I am in the wrong, I would appreciate any constructive criticism. However, this user is literally removing anything I write on every single article I contribute to. Thanks in advance to anyone who may be of assistance. O.celebi (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" in 2017 under discussion
Hello. The inclusion of "Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" is debated at Talk:2017, where I invite you to join in. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Rashidun review
Project Members and experts welcome!

I was going to post this request to Peer Review then figured it involves non-experts on the subject so might end up not working out.
 * Hasan ibn Ali / Rashidun Caliphate

I would like to bring to attention of the project's members (I am not a member) a certain user Leo1pard (talk) has been editing several articles, which from what I have seen involves changing the "four" Rashidun to the "five" by including Hasan ibn Ali, and effectively editing all related articles to reflect the same. In addition to various minor (but extensive) edits such as use of punctuation, namely the unconventional insert of apostrophe before everyone's name (Ali to 'Ali, and Uthman to 'Uthman). I think it constitutes WP:DIS and furthermore makes consistency harder to maintain among editors (WP:TRANSLITERATE), in addition to making it harder to search-find (for users who make the mistake of not inserting the 'apostrophe while searching the name). DA1 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From View History for a better understanding:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_ibn_Ali&type=revision&diff=781184705&oldid=732780086
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashidun_Caliphate&type=revision&diff=770913523&oldid=766436803

These are two articles I personally came across while making the rounds, and I have not bothered to look into any other articles where similar edits have been made. I'm surprised tho that nobody reverted the blatant change from 'four' to "five" Rashidun, the insertion of a Hasan insignia, as well as the unnecessary punctuation changes. It seems tedious to cross-check every edit, you may have to just revert back to the initial point before the whole slew was made.


 * Firstly, the quotations which are not straight are meant to reflect the fact that the Arabic names, such as 'علي' and 'عثمان', have letters that do not usually have equivalents in the English language, the letter 'ع' in the case of these 2 names, which is pronounced from the throat, and they do not necessarily make it harder for users to search for those names, since links for these 2 men exist without the apostrophe, so it doesn't matter if you insert the apostrophe or not, it should still return the same result when searching.


 * Secondly, Hasan ibn Ali's role in the end of the Rashidun Caliphate and rise of the Umayyad Dynasty, that is, that he was the Caliph who negotiated the transfer of power to Muawiyah I, to end the First Fitna, is too important to ignore, from a historical POV. Leo1pard (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One can never accurately transliterate words from one language to another, nonetheless, there are some standardizations (this is Wikipedia English afterall) that are used or have been used on Wikipedia for years, and that includes not including 'apostrophe punctuation in every single instance where a name such as Ali or Uthman is mentioned.


 * Hasan ibn Ali is significant, and as such should be and have been mentioned in each of these respective articles. That however, does not make him one of the Rashidun. Historically, the Rashidun only include the first four Caliphs. And a significant addition of a "fifth" should only be done after extensive discussion, and sources (and not simply one cite but several that can back up a position where there are "five" Rashidun). DA1 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Hasan ibn Ali has been included in that list, if you check the contents of Rashidun Caliphate more carefully, such as Rashidun_Caliphate. Leo1pard (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That is, the contents or references that were there, before the recent edits blanked them out. Leo1pard (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That doesn't explain why 'four' Rashidun was or should be changed to 'five'. Or why not six or seven? (The article should include mention of Hasan, Muawiyah, and any other persons relevant to the topic; that's a given) Up until February 20, 2017, it has said 'four', and did not include a fifth as a "Rashidun". I'm not going to blame you as the source, perhaps there have been sporadic edits at expanding it to five, but nonetheless that is not conventional dogma, which is precisely why I'm hoping other experts of WikiProject Islam can chime in, rather than the one or two of us makes an arbitrary decision. DA1 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Historically speaking, it is 5, because the Rashidun Caliphate only yielded to the Umayyad Caliphate after Hasan made a deal with Muawiyah, it did not end with the assassination of the 4th Caliph, that is Ali. Leo1pard (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So, to exclude Hasan's reign, and thus suggest that the Rashidun Caliphate ended with the death of Ali, is like excluding Muhammad al-Badr's reign, and suggesting that the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen ended with the death of Ahmad bin Yahya. Leo1pard (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Either you're assuming the Rashidun was a single dynasty (therefore trying to bridge the gap with Umayyad; talking about a start or "end"), or you have some other definition of what consists of "Rashidun". From my knowledge, it is a exonym and honorific title given by latter Sunni Muslims. (Hasan not being one of the four, since his reign was brief and did not involve much rule to be considered "Rightly Guided"; he was not 'martyred' nor did he expand 'territory' as the first four.)


 * If you want to break it down to dynasties than Uthman (3rd caliph) is an Umayyad, and alternatively Hasan (5th) like his father Ali (4th) is a Hashemite or Talibi or in the lineage of his mother a Sayyid or Fatimid. You are conflating separate concepts (and I don't blame you, the articles have done a poor job in discretion/disambiguation; something that should also be taken up by WProject Islam). Its like comparing the Byzantine or Roman Empire with the Ottoman Empire, one is a family name the other is named after a region or culture. DA1 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the Rashidun Caliphate is not a dynasty, as a whole, I am not talking about dynasties, apart from the Umayyad Dynasty, and Hasan is regarded as being of the "Rightly Guided" Caliphs, even if his rule was temporary. Leo1pard (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One cite isn't enough to sway an entire conventional dogma of "four" Rashidun. On top of that the source is not WP:RELIABLE, and is run by one "Shaykh al-Islam Ashrafi Muhaddith al-A'zam" and even then only briefly mentions Hasan as a footnote. There is no qualm to include Hasan's name in the article(s) with something like "who some regard as a fifth Rashidun", but to edit entire headlines, infoboxes and intros to make it 'appear' as if that is convention is nothing more than WP:POV. -DA1 (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Who said that I have only one citation or reference? I also have this one: Leo1pard (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Which page exactly, the relevant passages? There is something on wikipedia called WP:RSUW, which means giving differing opinions proportional weight. If an idea or opinion is fringe or a minority, then it should be reflected in the article in a similar fashion. So that a minority source isn't used to overtake the overwhelming majority of sources/stances. In this case, "Rashidun" conventionally refers to the four.


 * Britannica lists it as four: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rashidun ; As does Oxford: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2018 ; This is the case with most books and topics on the subject. You're singlehandedly attempting to change it to "five" and sooner or later it will be changed back to four, because I won't be the last person to notice it. All you're doing is making it difficult to reason with, despite me noting Hasan can and should be listed in the articles in appropriate manner, not WP:POV. -DA1 (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Check the content that you deleted, and here are more references: Leo1pard (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your second cite is dead/empty; and the first seems to be a single passage, possibly a Hadith or quote, but no scholarly mention of a fifth Rashidun. DA1 (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The first one was a mistake, but as for the second one, I just noticed it doesn't work here, because of the Arabic settings, which I could access, but is not easily viewable here. Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A difference between the Rashidun Caliphate and the Umayyad Caliphate is that whereas all the Rashidun Caliphs were elected by Shuras (and it was noted that Hasan became the Caliph, in a manner which followed the custom established by Abu Bakr), the Umayyad Caliphs were not elected in the same way, rather, the Umayyad Caliphate was a dynasty founded by Muawiyah, who took advantage of a treaty with Caliph Hasan to become the next Caliph, and besides, to exclude Hasan from the list of Rashidun Caliphs would imply that the Rashidun Caliphate was not immediately succeeded by the Umayyad Caliphate, but by the Caliphate of Hasan. However, from what I read, the traditional belief is that the Rashidun Caliphate was replaced by the Umayyad Dynasty, so how would that work out, if Hasan's Caliphate is not treated as a part of the Rashidun Caliphate? Leo1pard (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As of now, you're trying to find additional "reasons" (patterns) to back your edit; you're ignoring WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and are entering WP:OVERKILL to back your point. I've pointed references to both Britannica and Oxford, whose trackrecord goes back hundreds of years who refer to "four" Rashidun. Wikipedia too, has always maintained "four" Rashidun, until suddenly. DA1 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that the view that the Rashidun Caliphate was immediately succeeded by the Umayyad Caliphate is wrong, and that we should instead say that the Rashidun Caliphate was succeeded by the Caliphate of Hasan, even though, as far as I see, no Sunni actually denies that Hasan was Rashid (رَاشِـد, "Rightly Guided")? Leo1pard (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Before jumping onto issues like undue weight or overkill, because of those sources that you quoted mentioning only 4 Caliphs, and not because of an outright denial by Sunnis themselves that Hasan was indeed Rashid (which would help to explain why nobody, not even a Sunni, opposed my addition of Hasan to the list, until you did), please answer the question: Was the Rashidun Caliphate succeeded by the Caliphate of Hasan, or was it succeeded by the Umayyad Caliphate? Leo1pard (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It wasn't simply succeeded by the Umayyad Caliphate, one of the "Rashid" was an Umayyad (Uthman). Hasan's reign was succeeded by another Umayyad (Muawiyah) which formed a dynasty thus becoming the "Umayyad Calipahte". The term "Rashidun Caliphate" is an honorific exonym. You're mentioning other "Sunnis" here objecting to it or not - when the same could be said for the past several years when the Rashidun stated only the "four", including when I reverted as such. In simpler terms: you were the one (not "other Sunnis") who changed it to "five", so to even bring up that angle is a fallacy. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and WP:RSE. Article edits are based on notability and WP:RSUW, not numbers (WP:OVERKILL). I'm not reverting your edits, but don't expect it won't eventually be reverted by others in the future. You however, went ahead and reverted it despite my attempt at a civil consensus, before other users could even chime in. -DA1 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please remember that "Rashidun" is a label and not an actual dynasty. What happened was there were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and then Ali died and there were rival caliphates by Muawiya and Hasan. Hasan abdicated after a brief rule, and Muawiya and his descendants became caliphs. Historians later looked back and call the first four caliph "Rashidun Caliphate" and the dynasty starting with Muawiya the "Umayyad Caliphate". As far as I know that's the mainstream opinion, supported by Oxford and Britannica above, and that's how Wikipedia should present it. I am aware there are some who consider Hasan the fifth Rashidun caliph. If you can show that this view is supported by some prominent historians, we can say that such an opinion exist and name who support them. Otherwise we should consider it "fringe theory" which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. HaEr48 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I would like to see as well; as per WP:RSUW, alternative opinions can be mentioned but according to weight. If its a minority stance than should be stated as a minority stance. DA1 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The term Rashidun is applied to four caliphs by standard references, e.g., EI2 and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World ("Sunnī Muslims see the first four successors of the Prophet as caliphs who were “rightly guided”...") . This is standard usage in academic sources and, as HaEr48 writes, we would need strong RSs to show that the alternative usage isn't fringe. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It may be standard for sources like Oxford or Britannica, but if you consider Sunni or Islamic sources, like from Abul A'la Maududi and Muhammad al-Bukhari, who viewed Hasan in a positive light, to the extent that they would decry Muawiyah's enmity to Hasan's Caliphate, it is not as simple as that. Leo1pard (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To "view Hasan in a positive light" is one thing, to classify his rule as part of the Rashidun Caliphate, is another. The threshold for inclusion here should be a prominent historian classifying Hasan's rule as such, not merely finding Islamic scholars who viewed him in a positive light. HaEr48 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @Leo1pard (1) Oxford and Britannica are WP:RELIABLE SOURCES at least more so than footnotes from websites that simply back your WP:POV. (2) Referring to religious intellectuals' respect or admiration for an article subject does not mean you may change the very content of articles to suit your own POV, and that so without consensus. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. See WP:What Wikipedia is not; your preferred minister or cleric is not a valid source in itself, sources should be reputable.
 * (3) Per WP:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles, names should not have diacritical marks (apostrophes) except in an etymology section or the first-line of a lead section; names are to be standard (so no more changing to 'Ali and 'Uthman, please!). -DA1 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Like this guy who said that the end of the Rashidun Caliphate was not with the death of Ali, but after Hasan agreed with Muawiyah to abdicate in favor of him? Leo1pard (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't access that source (or read Arabic) but yes you need prominent historians saying things like that. Is that source is reliable and authoritative enough? I can't establish that, but if yes I think we can add something to the effect of: "Historian so-and-so considers Hasan to be the fifth Rashidun caliph because ..." somewhere in the article. But if it's just fringe theory, we should not mention it. HaEr48 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is treated as being reliable in, well, the [| Arabic page of Rashidun Caliphate], which even has a [| section on Hasan's Caliphate], separate from those of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. As in, Arabs themselves would view Hasan as a Rashid Caliph. Leo1pard (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're continuing the logical fallacies. Yes, the Arabic Wikipedia has a "section" on Hasan...the article also describes the Rashidun as being four. Stop referring to "other Sunnis" and "Arabs themselves" and accept that Wikipedia relies on WP:RELIABLE SOURCES not analogies. On top of that, foreign-language Wikis are sometimes poorly sourced, but realize that this is English Wikipedia and each Wiki may have its own guidelines. Articles mentioning Hasan as a "fifth caliph", doesn't give you supposition to declare Hasan as a "fifth Rashidun"..only a fifth Caliph. -DA1 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What logical fallacy? According to this guy, the end of al-Khilafah ar-Rashidah (الـخـلافـة الـرّاشـدة, the Rashidun Caliphate) was not with the assassination of Ali, but after Hasan agreed to step down in favor of Muawiyah, so Hasan is the fifth Rashid Caliph in the view of Arabs, Sunnis or Muslims like him, and how are English sources like Britannica and Oxford supposed to have any more weight than Arab, Sunni or Islamic sources, in a matter like this, considering that this is a concept that originates with the latter, not the former? Leo1pard (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (1) The fallacy is you taking references to a "fifth caliph" and using it to justify your edit of "fifth Rashidun". (2) Using minority references of a "fifth Rashidun" to edit the article to reflect such, ignoring WP:DUE WEIGHT and WP:RSUW. In other words, for every "Sunni"/"Arab" reference to five Rashids I could easily refer the same to four Rashids many times more, I simply choose not to. (3) Which brings me to the fact that i don't need to post 10 references for every 1 of your reference(s), because there's something called WP:PSTS: primary, secondary and tertiary source(s) and WP:RELIABLE. Talking about Arabs/Sunnis/Shias and "this is a concept that originates with the latter" has little bearing. Once again, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. DA1 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ... It looks like you misunderstood the second paragraph of the Arabic page, because it does not merely say four, but that it consists of four of the ten who were promised Paradise by Muhammad, who were joined by Hasan (who is not of the 10 mentioned in that hadith), so according to the Arabic page, it is khamsah (خـمـسـة, five), not just four. Leo1pard (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Which still doesn't back up your edits of a "fifth Rashidun". So far we've had three members tell you that its four based on existing WP:RS. I would hope there was more member input either way or the other; but as of now, you're being WP:DISRUPTIVE. After assuming WP:AGF, I'm beginning to reconsider whether these edits are purely WP:Soapbox. DA1 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Correction, the second paragraph of the Arabic page states that the state (the Rashidun Caliphate) consists of 4 of the 10 promised Paradise, who were then joined by Hasan, but anyways, I just noticed that you made an edit on Hasan being the 5th Caliph in Sunni view regardless, which makes sense to me. As in, even if you don't want him to be regarded as the 5th Rashidun Caliph, for the reasons that you mentioned above, I accept your edit on him at least being the 5th Caliph for Sunnis. Leo1pard (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Leo1pard (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * COMMENT. Agree with DA1, the preponderance of evidence is that Muslims believe there were four not five Rashidun.
 * as for the apostrophe in front of Ali, I also have to agree with DA1, though not as emphatically. Although as Leo1pard says it is commonly used to indicate the arabic ein, and Ali does start with ein, as  DA1 says  it is very uncommon to see it in front of Ali, and consistency is important in things like encyclopedias.--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC) (editor is a volunteer for Feedback request service)

About the use of images/ pictures in articles about Islam which I am quite shocked about
Hello,

Obviously I'm a Muslim and I've been visiting some pages in the Islam portal and some pages (like the page about Prophet Muhammad صلّى الله عليه و سلّم) contain pictures and drawings of the Prophet himself, his companions (رضي الله عنهم) and angels (like Gabriel) عليهم السلام, but that's forbidden (actually blasphemy) in Islam. It's absolutely not permitted to have or see pictures of any Prophets (among whom Muhammad) عليهم الصلاة و السلام, or their families or companions (رضي الله عنهم)or angels; while people of other religions won't be concerned, these illustrations are insulting to muslims who can and do come across these articles.

While the pages are made to be as global/ neutral as possible and open to as many people as possible, at least respect our religious figures and don't include any pictures or drawings of them. It's really disrespectful to us even if that's not your intention, regardless of whether you want to make the articles neutral. The articles can still be neutral without including any illustrations or pictures of our religious figures.

Therefore I request that such pictures be please removed, like on the page about the Prophet Muhammad which I came across and which contained lots of illustrations of the Prophet صلّى الله عليه و سلّم.

Minnin (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You should read out WP:NOTCENSORED. Capitals00 (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also learn how to suppress the display of images on this page, though that only works for you personally. Many images about many subjects are offensive to someone; removing them would leave little behind. You aren't the first person to ask that and won't be the last, but removing them outright isn't going to happen. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why can't images or won't images be removed? They can totally be removed: the articles don't lose any value if the picture of our religious figures are removed as the text won't budge. It's not an issue of me removing pictures for my own use, those pictures are offensive and shouldn' t even be there, period. Same for pictures used in the portal about Muhammad صلّى الله عليه و سلّم and about Islam. They're not even adding anything, and nothing could remotely be lost by their removal, at all.

So I still request any pictures of any religious figure (angels عليهم السلام, Prophets عليهم الصلاة و السلام, companions رضي الله عنهم ...) to be removed in the articles/ portals about our religion.

Minnin (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it is not going to happen. I will copy what the FAQ section of Talk:Muhammad says to here:


 * There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam.


 * Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Content disclaimer.)


 * Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible.


 * While you state that the article would not lose value, many people would disagree with that. While you and your religion finds images of Muhammad to be blasphemy, that is not universal among all people. If we removed every image that was offensive to someone, there would be no images here and this would be a dull encyclopedia.  I am truly sorry that the presence of these images offends you, but they cannot be removed. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While I want everyone to participate, if this website is not compatible with your religious views, I would understand if you did not wish to visit. There very well may be other online encyclopedias that are more compatible with your views(or you could start one). 331dot (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * COMMENT. Must point out that "you and your religion finds images of Muhammad to be blasphemy" is not really the issue here. The images in dispute were created by Muslims, not kuffar. Many Muslim find the images offensive, maybe every/all Muslim weighing in on the issue on this page, (and certainly every Wahhabi Muslim) but obviously not all Muslim find them blasphemous, or they would not exist. (If the images came from some anti-ISlamic Christian tract about "the heretic Muhammad" that might be another matter.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC) (editor is a volunteer for Feedback request service)

RfC discussion on May/June events at Talk:2017
There is an RfC discussion on which event that occurred in May/June 2017 to include or exclude (Talk:2017). Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Are these biographies Notable
I found three biographies created by the same user. They are either unsourced or blogspot/facebook sourced. I tried google searching them but I only came up with wiki mirrors, blogs, and other user generated sites. They are all "renowned Muslim Sufi, saint and scholar of the Quadri order from Indian sub continent." I'm asking here before nominating them for deletion: Alsee (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Sadullah sha
 * 2) Mustafa Sha Qadri
 * 3) Syed Ameen Badasha
 * Given that no one has responded after almost a week, and that there's nothing to indicate WP:N, I'd be inclined towards nominating them for deletion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * be my guest AfD'ing them. South Asian "saints" are so abundant, it is hardly an indication of notability anymore. Every hamlet there seems to have some grave venerated by none but the hamlet's local inhabitants; too local to pass WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Category discussion
You are invited to participate in the Critics of Islamophobia discussion]. 79.67.78.57 (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Amendment to MOS:ISLAM
Please comment on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles. Thank you. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Quranic createdness
My comment on this page is just that I find the section on "The significance of hadith" full of sentences that are so cumbersome as to have their meaning obfuscated. This means that the section leaves the reader wondering whether hadith are considered valid or not in supporting one view or the other of the Qur'an. Maybe just some punctuation is missing. I found these two especially difficult to follow:

"Where the Qur’an is understood as the word of God, and the words and example of the Prophet transmitted through hadith also attain to divine significance, if the Qur’an cannot be taken to assert its own createdness, for the doctrine of createdness to be true the traditions would have to support it. Indeed, to admit the insufficiency of the hadith corpus to adjudicate what with the institution of the mihna becomes such a visible dispute would necessarily marginalize the authority of traditions."

I mean no disrespect to the section author, but could someone have a look at this?Minissa (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is not a suitable place for this discussion. I suggest to write it on Talk:Quran.-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering the section header, the comment seems to be about Quranic createdness. I have copied the opening post there, please continue the discussion at Talk:Quranic createdness. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Shi'a Islam articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

An offline app for Islam-related content
Hello everyone,

The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested), and the readership would likely be in the Global South (if Wikimed is any indication): people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.

What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (we'll also add texts from Wikisource) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:


 * 1) Would it be okay for you if it were hosted as a subpage of the Wikiproject (e.g. WikiProject Islam/Offline)? Not that anyone should notice or care, but I'd rather notify & ask
 * 2) Any breakdown of very top-level topics that you'd recommend? (see WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine2 for what we're looking at in terms of simplicity) Usually people use the search function anyway, but a totally empty landing page isn't too useful either. Alternatively, if you guys use the Book: sorting, that can be helpful.

Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all
Khalid ibn al-Walid, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Transliteration discussion
Comments are requested in the discussion of transliteration guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Arabic. Eperoton (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Fatimah listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Fatimah to be moved to Fatimah bint Muhammad. This page is of interest to this WikiProject, and interested members may wish to participate in the discussion here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Islam

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; Rod talk 16:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Outside input needed on Wikipedia Original Research Noticeboard: Polyandry in Islam
There is an ongoing discussion on Original Research Noticeboard: Polyandry in Islam regarding whether or not a statement about Islam and polyandry is original research. The statement says that a particular Quran passage allows polyandry in some circumstances. Other editors have questioned whether this is an obvious interpretation. Outside input would be appreciated. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:
 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 17:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Chart spam
During two template deletion discussions (Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 10 and Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 10), the template creator, Md iet, started to replace the template's transclusions by hard-coded instances, for example:. This seems like an attempt to evade the outcome of the TfD and to continue spamming said chart. Concerns with said charts are: Following are my proposals to address this. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Extensiveness, violating WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:TEMPLATECREEP and several WP:SIDEBAR guidelines, such as The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent (I don't see Zaydi refer to Al-Amir or vice versa) and The large chunk of highly visible screen space might be better used for images or essential information.
 * Unclear subject: are these charts supposed to show the lineage of people or of religious groups? Having them mashed together with fancy colour schemes is confusing.
 * Duplicative: if the lineage of Shia Imams is intended, we already have Shia Imams and Family tree of Ali. If an overview of Shia subgroups is intended, we already have Islamic theology and Shia Islam.
 * Original research and synthesis: a reliable source has yet to be presented that supports a tree like this.

Proposal 1
Give one navigable overview, in tree form if necessary, in Shia Islam by replacing the image there with a clickable version. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Ban these charts from individual biographies and subgroups in favour of the mentioned less intrusive templates Shia Imams and Islamic theology respectively, and maybe a "See also" link to Family tree of Ali and Shia Islam. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I support both 's proposals. Even aside from the conceptually messy nature of the charts, as discussed at TfD, bulky genealogical trees should not be bidirectionally reproduced across dozens of WP articles. I urge to stop edit warring and work on getting consensus for whatever they want to add per WP:ONUS. As stated at TfD, where there is consensus that including such bulky tree charts is justified, they should be collapsed. Eperoton (talk)
 * I don't have any objections to constructive proposals of Hyper. My attempt was to make available Shia sects viewer an at a glance chart to see the place they belong in Shia Islam. My aim is not to have edit warring but a request to Hyper to make constructive efforts like of proposal 1, help making available desired output. Thanks Eperoton, for kind guidance.--Md iet (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again
The chart spamming continues: It seems that Md iet cannot take a hint, even after the deletion discussions and the dozens of reverts by multiple editors. Does this require admin intervention at some point? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Imam chart-qizil.pdf
 * File:Imam chart.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-bektashi.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-kay-suf.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-fatima.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-nuk.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-nim.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-q.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-Hurufi.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-Galibi.pdf
 * File:Imam chart t.pdf
 * File:Imam chart0a.pdf
 * File:Imam chart-s.pdf

Khubyab bin Adi
Are Khubyab bin Adi and Khubayb ibn Adiy the same person? Opinions welcome at the merge discussion at Talk:Khubyab bin Adi. Klbrain (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Klbrain (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add some religious events to ITNR
There is currently a proposal to add some religious events at WP:ITNR. If adopted some or all of the listed events could be added to ITNR and be automatically posted to the main page conditional on the overall quality of the relevant articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the thread is now closed, I guess I can ignore this message? HaEr48 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry but I am afraid the writing was on the wall and it was not going to be adopted.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What is kunniah in Sufi Islam?
The article for Pakistani Sufi leader Muhammad Ilyas Qadri notes that His kunniah is Abu Bilal. What is meant by "kuniah"? Is there a more common spelling for the term under which we have a Wikipedia article, and we should redirect there? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's a variant spelling of kunyah, part of a name that has the formula "Abu XXX" or "Umm XXX". HaEr48 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page
List of Sunni books contains a link to al-Marwazi, which is a redirect to a DAB page. I can't identify him. Can any expert help solve this problem? Narky Blert (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is faith healing a form of pseudo-science (round 2)
Here we go again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mubariz al-Din Muhammad
I'm a little out of my depth here, if someone with more expertise could weigh in here I would be very grateful. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Political Islam and Political aspects of Islam
At a quick glance, the first article (Political Islam) is a not terribly good stub, the other a pretty terrible longer article that says at the top " For the movement of "Political Islam", see Islamism" although when you search for Political Islam you find of course Political Islam (which is not linked at all in the Political aspects article} that differentiates "Political Islam" from Islamism. There seem to be a lot of reliable sources discussing "political Islam" but not calling it Islamism. I see it was started by an IP with the edit summary "this article is an exact copy of the one censored under the title Islamism, this article replaces that one, and complements militant Islam (on specific groups, tactics, doctrines" and has been changed radically so that it's hardly the same article now. The two articles seem to have developed without editors knowing about the other one. I'm not sure what to do about this. As a slight aside, I got to these two articles from Bill Warner (Political Islam) an anti-Islam writer who says political Islam is Islamism. There was a section in Political Islam about him, but as his views are so different from those expressed by reliable sources on "political Islam" I cut it. I've also rewritten the Bill Warner article but there's a Warner supporter there so I expect it will change again soon. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In academia, Islamism is generally used interchangeably with political Islam, though some authors use one term and some the other. The first paragraph of Islamism briefly explains this neutral usage, with quotes from academic encyclopedias. These terms, along with others, make up a larger terminological hodgepodge:
 * "Today [Islamism] is one of the recognized alternatives to “fundamentalist,” along with “political Islam” in particular. [...] Both “Islamism” and “fundamentalism” share the field with a number of other terms, such as “political Islam,” “militant Islam,” “Islamic radicalism,” “revivalism,” “Islamic extremism,” “Islamic activism,” and others." Islamism, William E. Shepard The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World
 * "Like any other term that is used to define the broad and heterogeneous “Islamic trend,” such as Islamism, integralism, and even more so, fundamentalism, the term “political Islam” is problematic and contested." Political Islam, Gudrun Krämer. Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, MacMillan
 * One approach would be to have separate articles on Islamism and Political Islam anyway. Gudrun Krämer sees a subtle distinction between these two terms, though this is rather unusual: "“Islamists” advocate the establishment of an “Islamic order” [...] To the extent that Islamists engage in politics, they are part of political Islam." However, we want to avoid duplication. A full-fledged article on Political Islam would have a scope similar to the article in Oxford Bibliographies, but as is clear from the intro, the authors draw on works using the alternative terms as well. The article on political Islam could be a dab page, linking to Islamism and Political aspects of Islam. It could also be a short article about the term, but it should be based on solid sources using the term. The article already cited a few. They just need to be summarized properly instead of masking unsourced commentary, which I've trimmed. Eperoton (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm adding something to the talk page of Political Islam but I'll add it here as well. I've just discovered Post-Islamism which is interesting. I don't have time to do much with these articles though. In Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Arab World By Nazih Ayubi I found (start missing, page not in GBooks) "differences between the fundamentalist Islamism of Sayyid Qutb and the Jihadists, the liberalnationalist Islamism of M. Khalafalla and M. ‘Imara, the culturalhistoricist Islamism of Tariq al-Bishri and ‘Adil Husain, and the Islamism claimed by owners of the so-called Islamic Investment Companies. On an intellectual level, liberal-nationalist Islamism, culturalhistoricist Islamism, and the broader circle of discourse revolving around the issue of authenticity (asala) may eventually translate themselves into a movement for cultural nationalism that is nativist, ‘specifist’, if not particularly secularist." This sort of analysis/differentiation looks worthwhile including, but where? Political Islamism? Islamism]? But I think I like the suggestion to turn [[Political Islamism into a dab page, particularly as I don't think people will often look for Political aspects of Islam even if that's the subject they are interested in. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just thought to check the date of the source I mention, it's 1993, so too old for much use other than followup or history. Doug Weller  talk 13:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this type of analysis would fit well under Islamism. I'm not sure there's enough in RSs on "political Islamism" to merit a separate discussion of this term. Linguistically, political Islamism is a type of Islamism, so I would go with a redirect, unless there's good reason for a dab. Eperoton (talk)

Typo in names
There is a typo in dates of each Mujaddid. So for example Moinuddin Chishti (1165–1240) and Ibn Arabi (1165–1240) were in sixth century and not the seventh.

Thanks

Hassan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hghulam (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Specification of dates as B.C., A.D. (aka CE), or A.H.
Many dates on Wikipedia are given as bare numbers, especially in articles about Arabic people, events, and texts. The dates require a specification of B.C., A.D. (aka CE), or A.H., so the reader will be informed about what era the article is about. Otherwise, a bare numeric date is ambiguous.Ruckerbarry (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ERA, we're supposed to use BC/BCE and AD/CE. If the date is BC/BCE, we need to specify it.  If the date is AD/CE, we only need to specify AD/CE if there's ambiguity or potential confusion (for example, Augustus).  We only list A.H. after AD/CE dates, never by themselves.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

RM notice at Islamic terrorism
The discussion can be found here: --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk:Islamic_terrorism

Ending the system of portals
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

المصطفى من علم الأصول
At Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 27 the redirect, which targets On Legal Theory of Muslim Jurisprudence (Arabic: المصطفى من علم الأصول‎) is being discussed. Google results suggest that the two titles are either different works by the same author or two different translations of the same work, however it is not clear to me as a non-Arabic speaker. Your comments at the linked discussion (not here) would therefore be appreciated. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

mawla?
Cross posting from Talk:Sufism:


 * The lead links to mawla for the Sufi leaders or saints. But wali seems more relevant and detailed, and down the article there is a "main article:" link to it. It also says the plural form is ʾawliyāʾ, not mawla. So is there a reason to use this word and link to it?

trespassers william (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Iftar
Most of the subsections of Iftar are totally unreferenced. I've tagged them, but I don't know enough to fix them. --Thnidu (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Badaun sharif
Is this person notable? Is there anything to be salvaged here? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hard to say from those obscure references. I did check Encyclopedia of Islam Three which is a high-quality source, but searching for Badaun just yields results for other people, not the person that's the subject of that draft. I agree with your rejection. The author needs to provide better references for the subject's notability. HaEr48 (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, that was the one source that gave me the most pause. I didn't decline, by the way -- someone else id. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad Yar Shah
This article is a mess, but its subject seems plausibly notable. Can anyone help? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

HELP WANTED
For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC pointer: Arab/Arabic/Arabian
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Gist: to include or not include advice about usage and misusage the terms Arab, Arabic, and Arabian (most of it originally at MOS:IDENTITY but removed last year). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sayyidat Nisa al-Alamin DYK
Would anyone like to comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Sayyidat Nisa al-Alamin? It's a nomination for main page DYK entry "... that Islam regards Fatimah as Sayyidat Nisa al-Alamin which means the leader of the ladies of the universes (for all times)". In particular, I'm hoping someone familiar with Sunni sources/opinion on this matter would be able to review the Sunni view as represented in the article and the proposed hook. HaEr48 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Islam in Sweden and Islamophobia in Sweden
Islam in Sweden seems to be a pretty POV article, probably because it doesn't have anything directly about Islamophobia and perhaps because of tone. I'm not sure what is the solution, if of course anyone else agrees there's a problem. Merge? Doug Weller talk 20:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Five Percent Nation
Currently a dispute over a section of the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk:Five-Percent_Nation

RfD notification: Ghazwatul Hind
A user has requested discussion regarding the redirect Ghazwatul Hind. You are invited to comment at Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 27. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Zeynab bint Al-Harith
Apparently it's written somewhere that Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewish woman, this was recently (not the first time) mentioned at Talk:Muhammad.

I found Zeynab bint Al-Harith which states in WP:s voice that yeah, that happened. I get the impression that the article takes the word of ancient scholars (perhaps Ibn Sa'd) as fact, there's no "who says this" in the article at all.

Someone who knows the topic better than I do can probably improve the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sharif
I found the Somalia and Yemen sections of this article so poorly written I couldn't understand them enough to fix them. Could someone who understands this clean it up? Rmhermen (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Africa and Asia
Please improve the sections "Africa" and "Asia" in History of Islam.--Afrikiamld (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Image on Template: Islam
There is some dispute between users regarding the official image to be used on the Template:Islam. One user inserted the Shahada and the other  inserted the Star and Crescent. Both images have issues with them, as they are not necessarily inclusive.



The original was the Allah symbol (until changed August 5) which I've restored. If anyone wants it changed they should make their case here first.

My own opinion is that the Star and Crescent is not representative and certainly not inclusive. Most Islamist groups and plenty of Islamic organizations and countries do not use it, and it's usage outside of the Ottomans is almost entirely 20th century and onward. The Ottomans themselves adopted it from the Byzantines after conquering their realm and succeeding them, along with the title of Ceasar (14th century), but the symbol was adopted in the late 18th century. While there are paintings of its use by some Muslims centuries before the Fall of Constantinople, the same is true for the "Star of David" (Seal of Solomon) which was used more than the Star and Crescent in the medieval period on coinage, architecture and official flags.

"Allah" may be used by non-Muslims because it's a neutral term but it is used by all Muslims alike. That is not the case with the Star and Crescent. While the Shahada is different for Sunnis, Twelver Shia, Ismaili Shia and other sects. –DA1 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. No symbol is fully agreed upon - however, the crescent and star is the most internationally recognized and used symbol for Islam.


 * The shahada does not encompass all Muslims - and Allah encompasses 'other than Muslims, thus is not a unique association.


 * The crescent and star (though disagreed upon) - is the most common and most binding usage for 'Muslim' identity than either Allah or the shahada. It's both more global and encompassing - there is no parallel to it. It's been used since the 13th century, and is today used in the center and home of the Islamic religion - Mecca. AlHazen (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are making claims like "all", "most common", "global", "binding" (?), please include sources to back it up so that we can cross-check. I agree with that we shouldn't change the original image unless we have clear consensus. HaEr48 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * By "not fully agreed upon", are you talking about the general Muslim community or Wikiproject Islam? Because as far as the latter is concerned, the Allah symbol was being used until it was changed. So anyone wishing to change it, needs to make their case and get consensus first.
 * You also need to provide proof that that the Ottoman/Byzantine Star and Crescent is the most "international" symbol. How many Jihadist groups use it? How many Islamic organizations use it? Provide proof first.
 * I already stated that neither the crescent nor the Shahada encompasses all Muslims, so you're agreeing with me there. But your only objection is that Allah is used by non-Muslims as well? That is not sufficient to claim that it's not inclusive of all Muslims, which it is. There are many religions that believe in a God, that doesn't make God separate from Islam, and the same is for prayer, monotheism, belief in Abraham, Adam, angels, etc. Just because something is used by non-Muslims doesn't take away from the same thing being used by Muslims. Similarly, I've already pointed out the Star and Crescent has a history outside of Muslim as well. Your argument for why the former is preferred and not the latter is not even consistent. DA1 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, what a government or real estate entity uses in Mecca on a building it built only a few years ago isn't representative of Islam or Muslims as whole. Unless you are trying to conflate Saudi Arabia or Wahhabism with Islam as a whole, in which case you are wrong. The Mecca ornament also includes no star, simply an upward-pointing crescent. You're also wrong that it's been used since the 13th century as a symbol for Islam. It was used by certain political entities, not all or most Muslim entities. The six point star (hexagram) was also used. The five point star by itself (pentagram) is also used. So was the octagram (Rub el Hizb). None of these four symbols are universal symbols of Islam, but literally all Muslims accept "Allah". There is no rule that the image must be exclusive to Muslims alone, hence, your entire argument for changing it is flawed, not to mention contradicts your own choice of image. DA1 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Image on Template:Islamic culture
Should we use image of Kaaba or Taj Mahal for the template? Discussion can be seen at Template talk:Islamic culture. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2018
In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.--Ipigott (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal: al-Hashimi variants
See Talk:Al-Hashimi (surname). Tokenzero (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sexuality in Islam
So I ran into The Muslimah Sex Manual (even reported on by Breitbart! (shoot, Breitbart is blacklisted?)), but I can't find an article in which to place it. It's not really for Islamic views on oral sex or Islamic views on anal sex, though the topic comes up in the book. I wish we had an article Sexuality in Islam, which should take a more comprehensive approach (history, theory, jurisprudence, practice) rather than just a messy subsection Religion_and_sexuality. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Noah's Flood Discussion
There is a move request right now for an article on Noah's Flood which is currently labeled the awkwardly neologistic "Genesis flood narrative". See Talk:Genesis flood narrative. In any case, it would be great to get some Islam experts in the discussion as there are currently claims on the discussion page about Islam and the Yazidi faith that, for example "...all of these faiths use the Jewish bible as a basis. If they rejected it they would not even have this flood narrative but a wholly different one." jps (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that this article is not currently included in this WikiProject. I'm not sure whether this is by design or it's an oversight. jps (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There is a proposal to merge Banu Umayya and Umayyad family tree into a single article on the Umayyad dynasty. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Constantine  ✍  10:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Arabic speaker needed
Hi, if someone who can read Arabic is available their presence would be very much appreciated at Articles for deletion/Syed Soleman Shah. In particular, reviewing the references for the article provided in Arabic, to see if they mention the article subject as there are concerns about it being a hoax. Thanks. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 14:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyediting and/or mentoring needed
Please see this ANI thread. Basically, there's a newish editor who seems to be well-intentioned writing articles about Islam and about Arabic history and culture. However, the editor's English language skills seem to be somewhat lacking. I took a stab at copyediting one of his articles, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to be confident in how I'm rephrasing some of the more incomprehensible sentences. He's using English language sources though, which helps. At any rate, someone has suggested finding a mentor for him, and I thought this wikiproject would be a good starting place. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages
I have collected a batch of articles which include Islam-related links to DAB pages. Search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode. If you manage to solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{tl|dn}} tag and post {{tl|done}} here.


 * Islamic sexual jurisprudence
 * Tashkent Islamic University
 * Agdam Mosque
 * Scimitar
 * Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi
 * Ibn Babawayh
 * Tashkent Islamic University
 * Qahtan (tribe)
 * Hajib

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hadith reference template broken
Hadith-usc is broken because the website it links to seems to have gone down. This means that footnotes in all the articles that cite hadith using this template now have dead links. Is there another online source of hadith in English of scholarly quality (i.e. comprehensive and not cherry-picked, well referenced and clear about who's responsible for translation) that could be used instead? Ideal would be if this website or websites could be integrated into the template in the same way so that all the links work again, but perhaps a bot job will be needed if that's not possible, or if there is no replacement then perhaps conversion of the template to archive.org if that will help. I mentioned this on the template's talk page but it might not be seen there for a while, so I wanted to bring it to your attention here. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sunnah.com looks fairly good, but it only specifies translators for Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. It also mentions the USC numbering scheme. From their description it's not clear how much they altered the text (seems like they may have fixed typos and nothing else?). Nobody specific is listed as responsible for the site anywhere, unfortunately.
 * As for the USC website, it seems like it stopped working only recently, but it was a Compendium done by CMJE, which closed in Jan 2012, according to this UCS page (the page itself is Oct 2018?). They also write  This highly acclaimed Compendium of Islamic texts in English was the most widely used source on Muslim religious texts for more than a decade. It received more than half a million hits a month during that time. Although incomplete, the hadith used in the compendium, compiled by a student organization at the University of Southern California, was one of the most frequently cited sources of hadith and was the most complete compilation of hadith available to the public without censorship or alteration making this collection of Islamic religious texts one of the most used, most efficient and most complete collections of Islamic religious texts available for public use. In 2009, the Compendium of Muslim Texts was given to MSA West to preserve and host. It is now defunct, with all active links lost and the innovative search function inoperable. So maybe MSA West (this one?) could be contacted to put it online again. Tokenzero (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Quote Quran translation is broken in the same way, though only used on a few pages. It seems that quran.com has closely related authors to sunnah.com (they link to each other in menus), with a similarly high quality interface, but again not scholarly. Al-quran.info is similar but has an even larger number of different translations available.
 * For now as a workaround we can just prepend https://web.archive.org/web/ to the url (like this), but it seems that e.g. all of abu Dawud is unavailable. Tokenzero (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ifta (islamic term)
I had a great number of incoming links to Ifta, a german municipality, but refering to the islamic term, so I created Ifta (islamic term) as a redirect to the closest I could identify. Maybe there is a better target that more knowledgable editors can find. Agathoclea (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's fine. Ifta is the issuing of a fatwa. Eperoton (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing capitalization of sura article
Copied from my talk page: "I'm sure you have a reason for changing the capitalization of sura name articles e.g. Al-Ahqaf → Al aḥqāf and a lot of others, but the previous naming is a longstanding practice and I'd suggest not changing it without some discussions to see if other editors agree with your reasoning. For a start, you can begin a discussion in WT:ISLAM. HaEr48 (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)"

Any one got any objections? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless you give some good reasons I oppose the change. I believe it is overwhelmingly standard on the English Wikipedia, as reflected in the (proposal) Manual of Style/Arabic, to use basic transcription, without diacritics, and to write the article with a dash, in uppercase when starting a sentence (or title). Tokenzero (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Islam-related articles states Words of Arabic origin should be written out in lower case, except at the beginning of a sentence. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The next sentence states Proper names are exempt from these rules: they should always be capitalized, come on! Moreover, titles are capitalized as sentences: Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default (see here) and definite articles (like The) are always capitalized at the beginning of titles (see here, e.g. The City of God), this is also overwhelmingly true for Arabic titles (e.g. Al-Azhar, Al-Qaeda or titles like Al-Muhalla, Al-Burda), so do not go against the consensus. Tokenzero (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have just moved Al-Qadr (surah) to Al qadr removing a bracketed disambiguator Al Qadr was already taken. Al qadr is not a "Proper name" so Al-Qadr is not appropriate. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop making any page moves without others agreeing! You cannot just edit things your way when nobody else agrees with you. Al-Qadr is a title of a work: the article is not about the islamic concept of power or fate, it is about a work titled Al-Qadr, so it should be capitalized, just as The Power (Robinson novel) is capitalized, just as Al-Muhalla and Al-Burda are capitalized. Tokenzero (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * er no, القدر is the title of the work and Al qadr is the better translation according to the (existing) Wiki guidelines. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Al-Qadr" is the transliteration of the title, so it's a proper noun also and should be capitalized. An example of non-proper noun would be like fiqh, which is indeed lowercased in the middle of sentence in the article fiqh. Please, stop making these moves when other editors clearly oppose your changes! HaEr48 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also oppose it, per what said, and additionally Manual of Style/Islam-related articles says As a general rule, diacritical marks over and under the letters should not be used in article titles or text (only in the etymology section and sometimes the first sentence of the lead section). HaEr48 (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed to lower case simply because i did not have the tools for the Al muddaththir capitalisation. My bias is towards Modern Standard Arabic. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean you don't have the "tools" for capitalization? Wouldn't the "shift" button in the keyboard do? Please do not mass rename article with the wrong character/capitalization just because you can't type the right character. Also, I believe the Modern Standard Arabic is the standard to speak and write the Arabic language, it does not prescribe any specific way of transliterating to English. In any case as says, your changes are contrary to the standard on the English Wikipedia. Please revert your changes and do not make more changes without first discussing and getting consensus. HaEr48 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...er...go yourself to the article and hit move. And your little fanatsy conspiracy is not happening. I have moved ONE to lower captialisation since this thread opened...the one I have just mentioned above and for the reasons I have described. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * HaEr48 was not trying to accuse you, we just did not understand what you mean by "i did not have the tools for the Al muddaththir capitalisation"? I believe the article name should be Al-Muddaththir? (But I think you're right the double thth should be there). Tokenzero (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, capitalisation would need overwrite ...but I dont have the "Admin tools" to do that. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, we weren't trying to accuse you, no need to bring up conspiracies :) In this case, rather than forcing an inappropriate capitalization, can you use Requested moves so that someone with the appropriate capability can do it? HaEr48 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup of Islamic article
Asslam o Alikum!

As a responsible Muslim, I believe it should be brought to your notice that the Wikipedia article (About Holy Prophet PBUH) needs cleanup, [  Section 8.1.1 */Depictions/ to 8.6 */Criticism/  to be exact]. The section not only contains illustrations and sketches of Holy Prophet PBUH,  but also makes rather false claims under section 8.6. It is requested to remove this section in whole and keep these false claims confined to its main article.

I hope everyone on this WikiProject will try their best to cleanup the article.

Waslam, AttaEditsWiki (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As-Salaam-Alaikum. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, thanks! Tokenzero (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages
I have collected a batch of articles which contain Islam-related links to DAB pages, where expert attention would be welcome. Search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{tl|dn}} tag and post {{tl|done}} here.


 * Islamic sexual jurisprudence
 * Agdam Mosque
 * Scimitar
 * Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi
 * Ibn Babawayh
 * Tashkent Islamic University
 * Hajib
 * Qahtan (tribe)
 * Mohammad Sharif Saiidi
 * Banu Tamim
 * Geography of antisemitism
 * Celso Rodrigues Da Costa

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization question
Hello, just want to make sure I'm on the right track with some edits I'm thinking about making. MOS:ISLAM says that words of Arabic origin should be written out in lower case, except at the beginning of a sentence.  Lots of articles don't follow that guidance, e.g. in Islam words like sunnah, sahih, da'if, etc. are capitalized. You can see the same thing at Hadith or Sunnah, most instances are not capitalized but some are. Is there any reason for this or am I good to decapitalize these terms? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would say that our MOS is not very well thought out on this point. Some words of Arabic origin are conventionally capitalized. One category that comes to mind is religions, denominations and schools of thought: Islam, Sunni, Hanafi, etc. One can also think of examples from other categories: Quran, Ramadan. Sahih should be capitalized when it's a book title and italicized when it's a concept. I would consider sunna and hadith to be in a grey area. They are capitalized in some RSs, but not in others. I don't know which usage is more prevalent, and I'm not sure we need to take a stand on it. I generally leave whichever usage I find, and I have probably used capitalized, italicized and regular forms myself at one time or another, based on the context and the source I was looking at. Eperoton (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Eperoton. Proper names/parts of proper names, but also groups of people, seem to be capitalized. On the other hand concepts generally are not (on Wikipedia), the only exception I can think of being Islam. Titles are a bit more ambiguous to me (between Grand Ayatollah and mufti you have imam as a function but perhaps Shi'a Imams, caliph as a function but perhaps Caliph Al-Mansur). For sunna and hadith we could at least make it more consistent within each article. So in particular uncapitalize them in Islam etc. where lowercase is clearly prevalent. I'd leave quotations unchanged, but that's not a strong opinion. By the way, thanks for all the copyediting you made so far, Cerebellum! Tokenzero (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the input, I won't get too crazy with it but I'll at least try to standardize within each page. Tokenzero, I'm happy to help. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Five Percent Nation
There's an ongoing dispute about the neutrality of the article. I've made a post on the neutral point of view notice board on it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

Can someone please help this editor?
is continuing to ignore warnings about adding unsourced content. He also continues to add a draft article of his. Draft:Sayyad Muhammad Madni Ashrafi al-Jilani, to articles making it appear to be an article. The draft is badly sourced. He recently removed most of the content from an article.Draft:Sayyad Muhammad Madni Ashrafi al-Jilani And here he gave someone the title of Mujaddid (Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri although his article doesn't, and added his draft. He also renamed Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri, piping it as Mustafa Raza Khan. If no one can help him I might have to block. Doug Weller  talk 18:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Transliteration for Isma'ilism/Ismailism
Hi to all, I've begun a discussion on standardizing the transliteration of Isma'ilism/Ismailism and its adjectives across Wikipedia. Anyone interested is welcome to give his or her opinion on the matter. Constantine  ✍  17:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran
Your feedback would be appreciated at this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran. Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Tahdhib al-Tahdhib on the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion on the reliability of Tahdhib al-Tahdhib on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Title for articles on surahs
Please see discussion at Talk:An-Nas. Should diacritics be used e.g. Al-Nās?

Please also see the other edits discussed there. Has there been a discussion before on whether to mostly use the word "surah" or "chapter"? – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A problem I find with the use of "surahs" is that sūrah/surah/sura is not an English word (ie is not in OED). The plural is actually suwar and not "surahs". It is an easy "mistake" that I have no doubt made myself many times- and almost cannot be avoided given the current state of many of the Quran chapters. Also, the less foreign word sprinklings that are used, instead of perfectly good English ones, the more accessible the article becomes.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * According to OED2 (paywalled) sura is an English word, attested since 1661 (it also includes a quotation with capitalized Suras from 1886: C. R. Conder Syrian Stone-lore (1896) ix. 337 The earlier Suras are chiefly concerned with the warnings as to the coming day of judgment, and with descriptions of the end of the world). For an unpaywalled example: Merriam-Webster, also some quotes with suras at vocabulary.com. Even scholars use sūras, suras, or Suras, e.g. among Oxford Handbooks all three occur several times, surahs a few times, suwar only in transliterated titles. See also Talk:Surah.
 * On chapter I can't find any discussion. Oxford Handbooks have a few instances of chapter (sura) and sura (chapter); the MLA (from the MLA Handbook) has a recommendation where it uses chapter (surah) and then surah. It seems a common pattern to use sura[h/t] and only explain it as chapter when first using it. But I believe using chapter all around is perfectly fine as well. Tokenzero (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So it is, my bad & "Suras" is attested too. Really don't know how that will change my opinion in the L-R. But I would reiterate that, as a newbie to the subject a few months back I found the preponderance of foreign words made many of the articles impenetrable. Regarding the second part of the OP question re diacritics, it is noticeable that OED uses Qur'an. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a common style to skip diacritical marks but write ayns and hamzas. In fact the default transcription recommended by MOSAR#Basic transcription does exactly that. Which does not mean common usage for a particular word could not be different. Tokenzero (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of MuslimMatters on the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion on the reliability of MuslimMatters (muslimmatters.org) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussing Muslim & Islam categories merger
Is there anyone interested in discussing on proposed merger of Category:Islamophobia, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment (top) - as far as current state of that debate is concerned, I'm inclined to believe some bias is palpable among participants who are against existence of all three categories, and would like to clump them together, most likely option: under Category:Anti-Islam sentiment or just Category:Anti-Islam. Likely reason is that it's harder to argue that as top category on the topic should be included under Category:Racism, so it would end under Category:Religious discrimination or similar. It is also suggested that only two people categorized under Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment be removed as that supposedly constitute "ATTACK" (all caps used) - those two are Milo Yiannopoulos and Tunku Varadarajan, both called Islamophobes in their respective articles (they omitted Bat Ye'or only because she is categorized somewhere deeper).

I guess, while reading through participants' stated reasoning, that, like everything else with Muslims and Islam, it's preferable to keep it as simple and monolithic as possible, and reduce it to one more familiarly named category, which isn't and probably won't be included under Category:Racism. I perceive these three still existing categories as quite different from one another, based on rational stated in my comments HERE. I urge anyone willing to join in to read through all the comments.

Not surprisingly, as an old trope goes: "Islam isn't a race", so is rational explained to me.

Also, there is no doubt that much is needed to be done to repair some issues, like category cycles, but all of which appeared exactly because constant interference (removal/merging/re-creation) with categories dealing with Islam and Muslim topics in the first place.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  08:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Stoning
I noticed this recent edit with obvious tone issues so have reverted it. It's possible that the section needs an update, so I'm posting this message for those interested. Thank you, — Paleo Neonate  – 06:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Opinions regarding edits to Muhsin ibn Ali
Just wanted to get some thoughts regarding a dispute on Muhsin ibn Ali. The gist is that I had heavily edited the page because I was worried that much of the content was irrelevant, badly sourced/unsourced and lacked opposing views. Another editor reverted my changes, stating that I was being disruptive, censoring content and introducing bias (a more in-depth discussion of our respective reasons can be found in the article Talk Page). Anyway, here's my version and here's the reverted version. If anyone could give some quick thoughts on the Talk Page, I would really appreciate it. Alivardi (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Madhabs
Hi

In the article there are confusion between madhabs (schools) and branches. We know the madhabs of sunnismn but not shia madhabs. So each branch of shia have one madhab of the notion does not exist in shia? --Panam2014 (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting outside input on succession to Muhammad
Hello, I'm currently conducting a GA review of succession to Muhammad. The biggest thing I'm worried about is neutrality, since this is obviously a fundamental topic and the subject of so much controversy. I'd appreciate it if anyone with knowledge of the topic could take a look and leave their opinion (is the article neutral or not), either in the GA review or here. I'm not tagging this as an RfC since I don't have any specific concerns at this time, I just want some more input. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're right to be concerned. A quick look at the citations indicates that the sourcing merits a closer scrutiny. Much of the content presented as fact in the article body is either 1) sourced to modern religious sources with no apparent claim to reliability, aside from reflecting the beliefs of the author; or 2) sourced to pre-modern texts. Sunni and Shia traditions arrive at their conflicting interpretations of this topic in part by drawing on different bodies of texts and in part by interpreting a shared body of texts in different ways. While the History section is not limited to sources recognized by one denomination, direct use of pre-modern sources in a topic like this raises WP:OR concerns. We should let historians evaluate these texts and decide which passage should be drawn upon to construct a historical narrative, rather than engaging in this exercise ourselves. There are also a number of incomplete citations: some book citations are missing page numbers, and most citations of pre-modern texts have no information about the edition, which makes page numbers meaningless. Eperoton (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input! The nominator has withdrawn the nomination for the time being. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Shia Islam
Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Village pump (proposals). Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The Islam Barnstar
As part of the Barnstar 2.0 Project, which is working on upgrading the graphics for the various barnstars, I have created a 2.0 for the WP:ISLAM Award. I basically just updated the original as there really isn't a better choice than a calligraphy Bismillah! I would love to get the opinions of people here in WP:ISLAM as well. Thanks — Will (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting for comments in Talk:Islam and violence
Hello, there has been some discussion about the use of primary sources to imply that there is no "normative tradition of pacifism in Islam" in Islam and Violence and Pacifism in Islam. Comments would be apreciated. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest: Xinjiang re-education camps
There is an ongoing discussion that might be of interest to members of this project at Talk:Xinjiang re-education camps. --MarioGom (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Which language terminology to include in articles about Islamic topics
The question is which languages should be included in topics related to Islamic law and Islamic concepts, particularly in regards to literature about Islamic systems or Islamic-inspired systems in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Should the articles:
 * Only include Arabic names for terminologies and not include any other languages
 * Also include names of terms in Ottoman Turkish, of the Ottoman Empire, which held Mecca until around World War I
 * Include names in other languages commonly used in the Islamic world

Arguments in favor of only having Arabic: Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, and the topic is not related to any particular country.

Arguments in favor of having other languages: The information would help users understand older English documents (circa late 1800s/early 1910s) using Turkish words (instead of Arabic ones), and that Wikipedia articles like qi already display terminologies of other languages.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (Should be separate from my statement) Example of older English usage using Turkish instead of Arabic words:
 * wikisource:Ottoman constitution of 1876: "ART. 7. [...]he causes to be executed the dispositions of the Sheri (sacred law) and the laws;[...]" (Trans. from the French which uses "[...]dispositions du Chéri (la. loi sacrée)[...]")
 * Explanation on Strauss p. 39 (PDF 41/338 ): "Other terms, like iradèh (“ordonnance;” Turkish irade), which have become obsolete today, were quite common at that time in the European press.93 “Chéri” may sound ambiguous in French but the term, used in our context for Islamic law (Turkish: şer’(i), is widely used in the legal literature at that time. The same applies to the term “fonds vakouf (art. 48; “pious foundations,” Turkish vakıf), which did not sound exotic either."
 * Direct Eng. translation from Ottoman Turkish: [...]and of the provisions of the sherī'at- and of"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 5,000 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that... See if this is better... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * see . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanded comment: The reason why I advocate for Ottoman Turkish names on Islamic calendar months is that I need the spellings of those dates to check for legislation in Ottoman legal documents. The British-made law collection Corps de Droit Ottoman (which uses French, used like English is used today) lists laws by acronyms of the Turkish names of the Islamic months (even though the Rumi calendar was already installed, the dates here are Islamic or Gregorian ones). The Wikipedia articles on the Islamic months couldn't help me check the dates because they didn't use the Ottoman names. I needed to use dictionaries to find what Ottoman Turkish names the months have, so I can tell which is which. This is why I strongly feel NOT a dictionary is wrongly applied against this: Wikipedia articles need relevant terminology so the reader can understand them, and without the terminology the article is far weaker. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There are at least two distinct contexts in which foreign terms appear on WP:
 * 1) parenthetical after the first appearance of an English term in a general discussion of the concept it refers to (e.g.: Democracy ( dēmokratía...)). This is an etymological note, which gives the language from which the English term has originated. There are some variations on this usage, such as giving the native name for a place, which may not be etymologically related to the English name (e.g., Ancient Greece (Greek: Ἑλλάς...)). In this case WP is not a dictionary is a good rule of thumb, which, among other things, prevents the parenthetical from serving as a repository for translations into all the favorite languages of our fellow editors.
 * 2) use of a foreign term in a discussion of specific linguistic context where that term appears. Thus, a discussion of Ancient Greece may include various Greek words, a discussion of Turkey may include Turkish terms, etc. In a multilingual context like an article about the Ottoman Empire things could get a bit tricky, but, I think pretty clearly, that linguistic complexity should not be exported to general discussions of concepts for which there were words in the languages of the Ottoman Empire.
 * Word forms found in various languages may be useful for one or another reason, but this is not the role for a general-purpose encyclopedia to provide those resources. This role is played by dictionaries and various specialized publications. Coming back to your example, I see no solid rationale to include Ottoman Turkish pronunciations of Islamic concepts outside of an Ottoman context, unless they happen to be etymologically relevant to the English terms used by RSs on which the discussion in based, which would generally reflect current English usage. Eperoton (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Essentially the words used in English today are the ones used in Arabic. Formal written Ottoman Turkish deliberately adopted many words from Arabic. If the Ottoman Turks borrowed a word from Arabic, wouldn't that would make it "etymologically relevant" to the current term used in English, which is the Arabic term? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow. If we have material about a term based on RSs that identify it as Ottoman Turkish, then certainly giving the Turkish pronunciation is appropriate. If we have material about a term based on RSs which identify it as Arabic or originating from Arabic, without discussing a specifically Ottoman context, then I don't see why we would give its Turkish pronunciation. Eperoton (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Several of these variations have been discussed in an Ottoman context in English sources. For example, Sharia discussed in an Ottoman context means using the Turkish word "Sheriat" :
 * "local purposes, and the administration of the law in accordance with the Sheriat. [...] that in 1913 the Ottoman government felt obliged[...]withdrawal of atheist officials and the restoration of the Sheriat."
 * Also Corps de droit ottoman (the French-language Ottoman law book from the UK) uses the Turkish variation spellings for Islamic calendar dates, as the laws are indexed according to the Islamic calendar. This is another form of Ottoman context.
 * If somebody wants to include the Ottoman Turkish version of a word, then he/she/they should find a reliable source, in any time period, using the Turkish spelling in an Ottoman context, correct? If this is the case I can help build a portfolio of sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our article on Sharia reflects reasonably current sources, as it should, and so it reflects the terminology currently used in English. Neither the sources you mention above, nor the forms of Islamic terms found there reflect current usage in English, so this isn't really relevant to general encyclopedic treatments of those notions on en-wiki. They may belong in a more specialized discussion on the lexicological history of some those terms in English, such as we have in Muslims, but that's a different matter.
 * If you wish to develop a systematic resource that would help your particular line of investigation, please consider Wiktionary. It would be perfectly appropriate to add Ottoman Turkish variants for the Islamic months and other Islamic terms there. Eperoton (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Macfie's book is from 2014 so that's quite current. Initially I was actually surprised that a book from 2014 is not using the Arabic terms and instead is using Turkish ones, but nonetheless there it is. I can find other sources within the last 20 years (beginning in 1999) also using "sheriat" in an Ottoman context:
 * - From 2011
 * - From 2005
 * (Isis Press seems to be a publisher based in Turkey) - Note Gradeva also wrote "Orthodox Christians in the Kadı Courts: The Practice of the Sofia Sheriat Court, Seventeenth Century" which was published in 1997.
 * NOTE: I haven't determined whether a majority of sources discussing an Ottoman context made in the last 20 years use "Sheriat". I would think a majority use "Sharia" but I am not certain, and this would need a literature review. Nonetheless there are sources in the past 20 years using the Turkish word in an Ottoman context.
 * 2. Corps de droit ottoman is not reflecting current usage, of course. I do appreciate the recommendation for Wiktionary and will look into that. While I make efforts to add the variants to Wiktionary, I also believe on the encyclopedia front that past usage should be clarified there too, on the basis of helping the reader understand the subject - Sharia law in the Ottoman context. The word "gay" meant different things in the past, and the article contains a well-developed section about past/historical usage. Wikipedia's articles use current terminology but the articles also do teach about past terminology or the articles themselves won't be complete. For example people in today's world will use newspaper articles written in the 1950s or so to do research on the Civil Rights era or 1950s popular culture, and they need to understand the terminology in use then.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All the sources you cite use these terms in an Ottoman context. That's the case #2 I listed at the start of this discussion, where the use of Turkish pronunciations would be appropriate. It's common for modern RSs to use local pronunciations: Persian in a discussion of Iranian history, Malay in a discussion of Malaysian history, etc. In using local pronunciations in these contexts, we are following the usage of current RSs. However, if we give Turkish pronunciations of Islamic notions in a general discussion of those notions, alongside the Arabic-derived forms which are normally used in English now, we aren't following the usage found in general encyclopedic discussions of these notions found in current RSs. Eperoton (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't mean to endorse using only local pronunciations of Islamic terms in articles on regional history. For some terms the use of local pronunciation is consistent (e.g., millet), but for many others it's not. Some care should be taken to gauge the prevalent usage in RSs and also to avoid confusing the general reader. However, this isn't the topic we're discussing here. Eperoton (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted! Indeed general discussions generally should consistently use the "original" spelling and focus on that. However readers may expect a general concept article to address the specific contexts: Guanyin is an example of a pan-East Asian topic where regional spellings are noted; Buddhist topics have these a lot as they are approached from regional and original contexts. However Christian ones won't note all of the European languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc are) see Jesus. I think a good question is when should a general religious concept address the specifics, and how. Should only original liturgical languages be considered for notation? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a good question, but we don't have a mandate to answer it in general terms as WP editors. Per WP:NPOV, our mandate is to reflect the body of RSs on any given topic. If RSs on a religious concept prominently cover some regional context for it, we should include an appropriate subsection on that subtopic, consult the RSs on it, and go from there. Eperoton (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The reality is that editors have to make a judgment of some sort on how to use, interpret, or evaluate sources (which is why Original research is allowed on talk pages where people hash out the content): The RS's aren't going to explicitly say "Never use any language other than Arabic when talking about Islam in a scholarly way" and they're also not going to say "The relevant languages are A, B, and C" explicitly. One has to judge based on context, frequency of use, and time period of use.
 * It would help to ask editors of Buddhist and Christian topics how/why they chose the languages: there are certainly sources on Buddhism in a Japanese context using Japanese terms and editors there judged that these would be important for a reader of the overall topic. Likewise editors of Christian topics decided against including names in French, German, Italian, etc. (even though Christianity came from the Middle East, the Europeans spread it around the world).
 * While the religious liturgy/practice in Islam is of course all Arabic, Ottoman Turkish was used in the specific legal (not liturgical) context as that was the language of the state. A reader is not always going to look for articles on Islamic months in the religious field strictly, but he/she may also do it in regards to the historical legal field too as in he/she wants the context, like a reader of a Buddhist article may want the Japanese context specifically. Anyway see Someguy1221's comments here No_original_research/Noticeboard - Wikipedians have to use judgment in determining what to include/what not to. They use sources as a guide, but they still have to interpret and contextualize them.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thought I do wonder if there is an indirect way to answer "The relevant languages are A, B, and C" in regards to the study of Islam (not the liturgy) if the English-language scholarship indicates which role each language had in the field. I might check to see what roles Persian, Urdu, and Turkish had.... WhisperToMe (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the part where (I think) you say that we need to review the Islamic terminology found in RS "based on context, frequency of use, and time period of use", but not the part where you (seem to) suggests that this may involve OR or analogy with WP articles in other fields.
 * I think you may be misreading the history of Islamic legal terminology in the Ottoman empire. The language of Islamic law throughout the Ottoman empire was Arabic until the late 19th century, though the legal terms had a distinctive pronunciation in the Turkish-speaking regions. Wael Hallaq has written about this history in several of his texts. I used one of them for Sharia. Eperoton (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What you said in the last paragraph is true since, for much of its history the civil law in the Islamic liturgy was not codified as overall empire civil law; as stated in the presented section, this changed with the Mecelle. I still feel that Ottoman Turkish is still relevant due what happened in the post-Tanzimat/1880s-1923 period despite what happened elsewhere in its history, and the law books I referred to are from that era. In particular want to post Turkish spellings in Islamic calendar dates as post-Tanzimat civil law was organized as such in the Dustur and other criminal law collections. It would also help to look at English and French spellings used in newspapers et al in the 1880s-1923 period, but prominence can vary; such spellings can be footnoted and don't have to be in the lead. Honestly I think the most important ones are just for the Islamic calendar months.
 * Remember that the entry for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes it clear that at times the argument may be used: I believe one should consider what other fields are doing and determine the applicability to this one. That doesn't automatically mean Islamic articles should do one way or the other way, but I feel consideration of what other religion articles do is a virtue here as it's important to find what's the best practice for this particular field.
 * Re: OR, a judgment of what is relevant or not to a subject comes from our evaluations of other people's sources, and it's not common that a decision will be so cleanly cut with what the source actually says. WP:OR says the policy does not apply on places where we "evaluate article content and sources", which includes determining what's relevant and what is not. I would prefer judgments that qualify such opinions with sources, especially if one that explicitly does state "the important languages are". I found a source that did say that Arabic was the main language of Islamic scholarship (it would seem obvious, but I prefer having sources blatantly making qualifying statements).
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. There are several guidelines relating to consistency. WP:Consistency provides a handy reference. As you can see, the only one that involves comparing multiple articles is MOS:TITLECON.
 * For the rest, the RfC has expired. I think it's pretty clear that we don't have consensus for new global, MOS-type guidelines on the use of Turkish, of the kind that you've suggested. If you feel like any particular article should include Turkish variants and currently doesn't, you're welcome to start a discussion on its talk page about it or even make a WP:BOLD edit to the article, hopefully with reference to RSs. Eperoton (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the rest, the RfC has expired. I think it's pretty clear that we don't have consensus for new global, MOS-type guidelines on the use of Turkish, of the kind that you've suggested. If you feel like any particular article should include Turkish variants and currently doesn't, you're welcome to start a discussion on its talk page about it or even make a WP:BOLD edit to the article, hopefully with reference to RSs. Eperoton (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Scope of an article
Please join me at Talk:Conversion_of_non-Islamic_places_of_worship_into_mosques. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine–Ottoman wars
Byzantine–Ottoman wars, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Do people watch the "requested articles" subpage?
I know that Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion exists, but (1) is that the best place to request new articles from WikiProject members? and (2) could someone place a link to the requested-articles page somewhere on WikiProject Islam?

I have just added Shufa (Islam) and Tajsim to the requested articles list. --Quuxplusone (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Some issues with the current Wikipedia Quran articles
Subtitle: Quran presentation in a 2020 electronic NPOV encyclopedia

See also MOS:ISLAM

1. Many current Wikipedia Quran Surah articles contain excessive amounts of primary source text, with limited secondary source citations. Some have no citations. Some content has been blatantly cut-and-pasted. Some article-content seems to be editor-WP:OR or editor-interpretation / opinions of the Quran. At times, the detailed theological explanations provided are almost incomprehensible.

2. Many Quran articles seem to imply the message the Quran is timeless, uncorruptable and self-explanatory. Many Wiki editors seem to use variations of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to justify their edits. Many of those editor-responses seem to believe that WP:BOLD means being brutal with unexplained deletions, rather than the more constructive and collaborative form of Wiki editing.

Bit like: Surah Al-Hijr: ""Verily, We, it is We Who revealed the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'an) and surely We will guard it (from corruption)"."
 * I challenge Wiki editors and readers to easily find this Quranic ayat. (Hint > this ayat is Surah Al-Hijr 15:9).


 * Examining the related Al-Hijr Wiki article. > It does not have any citations. It does not have URLs for any of the 'References'.   The 'External link' is non-functioning.


 * The only link to a Quran in this Surah Al-Hijr page is from the Infobox. This links to a 'SAHIH INTERNESENAL (САХИХ ИНТЕРНЕШЕНАЛ)' Quran produced by the Тоҷик (a Persian-speaking Iranian ethnic group).  This obscure version of the Quran https://en.quranacademy.org/quran/15 - provides a strange (Arabic-English-backwards-reading) translation.  (further - every one of the 114 Wikipedia Surah Infoboxes has this same problematic issue)  This САХИХ ИНТЕРНЕШЕНАЛ version of the Quran has wording unlike other Quran translation - refer:   https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/15/9/   I prefer for Wikipedia an easy-to-access, internet-compatible, version - complete with Tafsir, such as. http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsir%20Ibn%20Kathir/015%20Hijr.htm


 * From the 114 Quran Infoboxes (under the Tab 'Arabic text') are links to 'English text'.  For those, there are no 'Quran-translation sources' provided.  The Quran wordings provided do not seem to correspond with any recognized translation.

2a. Question: Which English translation of the Quran is 'correct'? Pick any Chapter and any Verse and compare. https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/114/6/  (currently this URL links to the last Quranic Surah and last Verse - otherwise you might investigate any Surah and any Verse)


 * If you believe the Quran is "only revealed fully" in اَلْعَرَبِيَّةُ (Arabic), then, pick any سورة and any آية.  Even then, there is 'confusion' > https://submission.org/verify_are_all_Arabic_versions_of_Quran_the_same.html

2b. For controversial verses such as https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/65/4/ (Quran 65:4) (re "divorce" and "those who have not yet menstruated") what information should Wikipedia provide for its readers, in 2020? Which citations are to be used in Wikipedia to underpin the article content?


 * Criticism ?:  https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/065.004.html  & many other citations available


 * Rebuttals ?: https://abuaminaelias.com/verse-65-4-child-marriage/   &   https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/12/quran-654-the-child-marriage-claim/

2c. In 2020 this is a real issue. According to a UN report, "40 per cent of Afghan marriages involve girls between the ages of 10-13". https://www.refworld.org/docid/584ab1f44.html & https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/3/child-marriages-39000-every-day-more-than-140-million-girls-will-marry-between-2011-and-2020

3. Potential Wiki citations containing 'Criticism of Islam' are often rejected, because they come from 'critics of Islam'.
 * - with 'critics of Islam' dismissed variously as, "apologetic pages and secondary sources", "apologetics", "bias", "bigots", "Christian apologists", "Islamophobic", "Islamophobia propagandists", "journalism", "missionary pages", "multi-million dollars-funded", "news-articles", "non-academic", "not a subject matter expert", "polemicists", "right winged news networks/apologetic", "rightwing thinktank", "spreaders of anti-Muslim propaganda", "unreliable source".  (As for "journalism" and "news-articles" etc Wikipedia-encyclopedia provides information on how some Muslims interpret / vocalize / utilize some sections of the Quran  in 2020)

3a. Though it seems criticism between? of other? Abrahamic religions can be? acceptable? Try boolean-AND searches  >>  IslamQA AND Christ  - or -  IslamQA AND Shia. Is IslamQA a WP:RS? Is it self-published?

4. With respect, for a Wiki Editor self-describing as a "Yemeni !", "with a native language of العربية (Arabic)", having a "Muslim" religion, who "loves Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم very much", who "is impressed by Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم" and edits as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Baqarah&diff=932969817&oldid=932950799


 * - suggest he/she should consider WP:COI


 * - suggest there is a 2020-imperative re issues of examination and criticism of religion (considering there are 10,000 religions worldwide) and specifically examination and criticism of Islam


 * - suggest Tawhid is the ultimate criticism of the other 9,999 religions.

5. Various Wiki articles on the Quranic Surahs are presented in inconsistent formats.

6. There is a need to index and reference Surahs and Verses to provide an online 2020 English lexicographic structure.
 * More on the indexing of Wiki Quran articles on this Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hud_(surah)#Status_as_at_18_December_2019

7. The citations, located by using,  are exceedingly 'awkward in form and appearance' (eg 'clunky'), for a 2020 digital encyclopedia. Hadith, Tafsir and other Islamic sources are referenced in complex varieties of inconsistent formats.

8. The WP:MOSISLAM Religious sources covers Quranic religious experts. Fine. These scholarly-citations are often presented without a URL - making 2020 citation research & confirmation very difficult. Ancient Islamic scholars, Hadiths, Tafsirs etc do not necessarily answer serious 2020 questions. [Imagine (unrealistically) some acknowledged 2020 Islamic authority clarifying the various Quanic / Islamic positions for us in 2020.]

9.  I understand the many tensions, sensitivities and consequences associated with the competing narratives - in trying to characterize Islam in 2020. Frank and fearless discussion is needed more than ever.

10. It is ironic that my last Wiki edit was of the Arabic word 'Kitman' (defined as "the concealment of one's convictions by silence or omission") - was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taqiya&diff=932998210&oldid=932980493

11. All of this devalues Wikipedia as source of unbiased information.

12. You can track my wiki edits at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Koreangauteng

13. Recommend the need for improvement of Wikipedia in the above areas and where appropriate the updating of MOS:ISLAM.

14. Further discussion on this subject at:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ma%27idah#Wikipedia:_A_platform_for_both_Quranic_scholarly_exposition_and_its_2020_interpretation Koreangauteng (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the links to translations, I pointed out something similar at Template talk:Quote Quran translation; this was ~3 weeks ago without any response. I mentioned quran.com and islamawakened.com then, looking at the Infobox now, I would support quran.com for the "Arabic text" and islamawakened.com for "English translation". quran.com has nice word-by-word translations too, (The Quranic Arabic Corpus is another option - disjointed but more technical). An argument can be made for non-Muslim academic USC links, but they are broken, too unreliable and provide significantly less than islamawakened.com.
 * I wouldn't recommend Tafsir links here, since there is too much controversy and difference of opinion involved. Whatever Tafsir gets primarily linked will inevitably cause some criticism.
 * Regarding the different Arabic versions, termed as "alternative readings" by Muslims, as far as I've read there is one single version which is read by the vast majority of the Muslim populations. Generally, there are only minor differences; in the context of Qur'an article structure, these might require multiple variants to be included in certain exceptional cases, but overall this doesn't appear to be any significant issue.
 * 2b - I would imagine both. NPOV requires both significant criticisms, and in turn, their rebuttals to be noted.
 * 3 - Can't speak for other editors, but I usually don't remove the criticisms; however, I do find significant issue when such content is included without mentioning the obvious partiality of the sources as has been done multiple times. WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT concerns should be remembered; controversial things shouldn't be represented in WP:WIKIVOICE as statements of accepted fact rather than of disagreed opinion. Personally, I would further argue that quoting every single minor criticism (like those which even Muslim apologists haven't bothered arguing against) might generally be misplaced, but I understand this is subjective and difficult to make hard policies for.
 * Regarding Template:Cite Quran, the #Examples section provides several ways of including it so while it might be unnecessarily complicated but I don't believe it to be clunky; the links to external translation source still needs to be changed though.
 * — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with point 1,5,6,7. Problem with 2b is that many of the articles are quite brief as they are. Adding heavy criticism followed by counter criticism simply turns articles into a series of point and counterpoint that detracts from the article itself. As for 3, it all depends on the source in question. Sources like "Answering Islam" are obviously going to criticized as Christian apologetic, because that's precisely what they are. 4, I fail to see how the basic Islamic doctrine of Tauhid, analogous to the Christian trinity constitutes "Ultimate criticism" of "9999" religions. Such a statement would require a reliable source for it to be included anywhere.

For more background see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AhmadF.Cheema#I_need_your_insight_and_help_regarding_the_recent_edits_of_a_user

As a side note while I do understand the criticism against the Yemeni Muslim user, I also have serious concerns about editors who genuinely seem to believe that "taqia" and "kitman" are actual issues (both on and outside wikipedia) rather than Islamophobic canards. ---Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.37.190.43 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above concerns raised by, MOS:ISLAM is relevant and i have often reverted irrelevant edits on Islam-related topics (like honorifics, puffery, etc ...). Improving the encyclopedia in the above areas is a huge task and would require many editors' contribution in my humble opinion. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * says: "I wouldn't recommend Tafsir links here, since there is too much controversy and difference of opinion involved. Whatever Tafsir gets primarily linked will inevitably cause some criticism".


 * Note Tafsir, "is the Arabic word for exegesis, usually of the Quran".


 * Then, what source(s) for the Quran 'Exegesis' would you recommend for a 2020 Wikipedia? Koreangauteng (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I meant to argue against using Tafisr links only when it comes to employing them for Qur'an translations; apologies for any misunderstanding. And I have to ask what is with the number  that you have to mention it so frequently? — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * says: "I wouldn't recommend Tafsir links here, since there is too much controversy and difference of opinion involved. Whatever Tafsir gets primarily linked will inevitably cause some criticism".


 * says: "I argue against using Tafisr links only when it comes to employing them for Qur'an translations"


 * Please supply citations supporting these statements /revelations and I will add these important issues to Tafsir.


 * Your statements raise many issues:


 * 1. Is not Tafsir, "the Arabic word for exegesis, usually of the Quran" ?
 * 2. Is not the Quran described as - the "divine word of Allah" - "the finest work of classic Arabic literature" - "a book of guidance for mankind" (2:185) ? And despite all that, there is apparently, "controversy and difference of opinion". Wikipedia provides an opportunity for clarification.
 * 3. Is it not the normal practice within Wikipedia to provide alternative interpretations / opinions in such cases? (Your recommended alternatives would be welcome)


 * There are current and emerging world issues - (globalization, women, Middle East, marriage, LGBTI, freedom of / from religion etc etc) - where the 2020 position of Islam, needs clarification. Further, in our emerging digital, Google Assistant, world, for both Muslims and non-Muslims, ancient non-URL, scholarly interpretations are becoming less relevant.


 * Wikipedia provides an opportunity to clarify the Quran (the good, the criticism, all NPOV) for both 2020 Muslims and non-Muslims. Koreangauteng (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't understand the intention here; is there a specific question you want to ask? Feels like this is digressing towards theological beliefs rather than content in an encyclopaedia.
 * Please supply citations supporting these statements ... will add these important issues... — The simple fact that in many cases one exegesis says one thing and another something different - doesn't that conclude a controversy and difference of opinion?
 * Is not the Quran described as - the "divine word of Allah" - "the finest work of classic Arabic literature" - "a book of guidance for mankind" (2:185) ? — Are you saying that you hold these beliefs? Regardless, appears irrelevant here.
 * And despite all that, there is apparently, "controversy and difference of opinion". — Is this an encyclopaedia-irrelevant theological argument?
 * Is it not the normal practice within Wikipedia to provide alternative interpretations / opinions in such cases?— Yes, but again why mention this?
 * I don't understand what my statements have to do with most of what you've written.
 * — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

On point 1: I agree, primary source citations are crucial in understanding and summarizing primary source text. Editor-interpretation/ opinions of the Quran are a definite no-no. Some issues are over-explained based on a limited number of sources and do not provide clarity on the actual issue.

Point 2: I do agree that articles should be written to the point of view of WP:NPOV, hence such descriptions of the Quran should be mentioned neutrally.

On the example: yes, citations are important. URLs for any of the ‘references’ are ideal, as some are quite doubtful. WP:MOSISLAM provides guidelines on translation.

2a. WP:MOSISLAM gives guidelines on using Quran translations: basically, there is no consensus, but Yusuf Ali and others are apparently acceptable. I find The Study Quran, published by HarperOne, to be quite reliable.

The source you quoted admits textual variants “convey the same meaning,” hence, they should provide no issue in translation.

2b. I don’t know what you mean by “controversial verses”: Muslims and critics agree on the same Quran. Wikipedia does not provide criticism, but can describe where notable per WP:NPOV. Discussions on child marriage are a separate issue, and discussions as to whether particular manifestations in certain cultures are attributable to Islam can be dealt with where suitable, based on reliable, academic sources.

3. Regarding criticism, see above. “Secondary sources", "bias", "bigotry”, “non-academic", and “unreliable sources” are real issues with both Muslims and Muslim critics. Current interpretations are useful, however, and reliable journalistic sources are helpful in this regard. 3a. IslamQA way not follow WP guidelines in its own work, but it is notable enough to warrant mention in some circumstances.

4. Being Yemeni, knowing Arabic, and even being Muslim are ‘’’not negatives’’’. Period. Just as being Israeli, knowing Hebrew, and being Jewish are not either. However, the edit is concerning and obviously is biased. WP:COI would only apply, however, when the person is writing in a biased manner, not merely due to religious or cultural affiliations.

On your 2020-imperative of examination and criticism of religion, remember that according to WP:NPOV,“Wikipedia ‘’describes’’ disputes. Wikipedia does not ‘’engage’’ in disputes.” Hence, description of Tawhid is fine, though in a neutral tone as per aforementioned guidelines.

5. Inconsistency in Islam-related articles in general is a real issue.

6. Disagree. is recommended per WP:MOSISLAM.

8. These scholarly-citations should have URLs for citation research & confirmation, agreed. Wikipedia is meant to be descriptive of the faith as a whole, not prescriptive Ancient Islamic scholars, Hadiths, Tafsirs etc. are helpful in clarifying traditional interpretations, and modern sources may clarify modern interpretations. We write from a neutral point of view, not for a 2020 audience.

9. Wikipedia is not a blog or platform for personal opinions, and cannot contain original research. However, I do agree if you mean articles should be described objectively.

10. I haven’t researched the issue in question, although I would be wary of merely an “It has been said…” provides an actual wide-scale description

11. Unbiased information is crucial.

12. Thanks.

13. MOS:ISLAM is pretty objective, though I agree individual articles do not live up to its standard or their full potential..

14. Disagree. Wikipedia is not a battleground to raise issues. Again, “Wikipedia ‘’describes’’ disputes. Wikipedia does not ‘’engage’’ in disputes,” as per the standards set by community consensus in MOS:ISLAM, and for good reason.

The upshot is that Wikipedia does not provide criticism of Islam nor defence of Islam. It merely describes either one where it is notable.

Finally, if you feel Wikipedia should reflect a certain perspective, remember that the truth is always objective. If you describe things in an unbiased manner, it will always shine through. If you do not present things in an academic or objective manner per WP guidelines, and try to impose that perspective, it will be rightfully deleted sooner or later, as Wikipedia reflects the consensus of the community.

Thank you again for your insights and interest in improving the standard here at Wikipedia.

Moonlight2001 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Redundant articles about Isma'ili
Since these are within the scope of this project I thought I'd notify interested editors about these articles that should probably be merged: Thanks and happy editing, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * About the order/sect: Order of Assassins and Isma'ilism
 * About their members: List of the Order of Assassins, List of Isma'ili da'is, List of Isma'ili missionaries

RfC: Iranian Revolution "supported by the United States"
Hi WP Islam. Page watchers may be interested in Talk:Iranian Revolution. Cheers, Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Scope of article Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques
Please consider contributing to this Request for Comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ilyas Qadri - what should the article title actually be?
Right now the lead says Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri Razavi Ziaee and I just reverted a change to Muhammad Ilyas Qadri - which looks more likely to be correct. Some attention to the article would also help. Eg, how should we refer to him in the article? Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * is the more popularly used term. That said, even more popular is with the respect title Maulana attached i.e., which can be substituted with  . However, since I suppose the English Wikipedia doesn't care much about respect titles, so in this context, "Ilyas Qadri" is probably the most appropriate.
 * See the following link for popular usage of the name: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ilyas+Qadri
 * Regarding the name usage inside the article content, if I'm not mistaken, the usual practice in this Wikipedia is to use just the surname, I don't think there is anything wrong with using the same methodology here too.
 * — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr Zakir Naik Wiki Page - concerns over edits
Hi all, i am concerned that there is a lot of mis-information on the page and very biased. I have been trying to make edits which keep getting restored. I've now been sent here from the editors of the main talk page of Dr Zakir Naik. Can you advise how to proceed or shall i share all my edits on this forum and await its approval as I've been unsuccessfully trying for the last few months. Your assistance will be very much appreciated Plutowriter123 (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Plutowriter123


 * Are you referring to your old November 2019 edits at the Zakir Naik article?
 * If so, although some of the edit was unjustly removed in the blanket revert, regarding the rest, you can't just simply remove sourced content. Wikipedia is not a place for personal point of views, regardless of whether they may be true or not. True or false, the criticism will have to stay, as long as it is quoted in notable reliable sources (probably some other nuanced rules matter here too).
 * What can be done, however, is to counter the accusations by Naik's critics with Naik's own rebuttals or counter-arguments from other published reliable sources. If Naik is negatively accused of supporting Wahabbism etc., what you can do is quote his rebuttal and/or what other notable people have mentioned in response to the critics. Furthermore, a very short description of the critics' background can also be mentioned to point out their potential bias against the subject. All this to present a Neutral point of view.
 * Opinions that are controversial, which are not accepted by the vast majority should not be presented as unqualified facts (see WP:WIKIVOICE). Such statements can also sometimes be moved from the lede to a sub-section.
 * — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to your messages i will again start to make changes and would appreciate if you can keep an eye out for unfair deletion. Plutowriter123 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Plutowriter123

I have update the following changes to Dr Naik's article - added president to Farhat Naik with references, interpols second refusal to issue rcn along with articles and added a line with refences to dr naiks speech in kota bahru 2019 Plutowriter123 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Plutowriter123


 * Thank you for your contribution. Checked and verified the references, also made some minor corrections. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"Violence in the Quran" link in See also
have been adding Violence in the Quran as "See also" links in various Sura article, e.g.. The reason seems to be the user's interpretation of the suras, e.g. "Citing 109:1-6" is given as the reason for adding it to Al-Kafirun. I think making such connection goes against WP:OR among others. Per WP:BRD I think it's appropriate to revert until consensus is reached. HaEr48 (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2020


 * Thank you. I have removed the Al-Kafirun 'See also' wikilink. Koreangauteng (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia
Hi everyone! If you are fluent in Spanish, the Spanish Wikipedia could use a lot of help on Islamic topics! [|Click here for the Spanish page and join us!] DivineReality (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitive list of the Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire?
I found differences between the ENwiki List of Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire and the TRwiki tr:Osmanlı şeyhülislamları listesi. Is there a definitive list of Sheikh-ul-Islams that can be used to check this?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That article cites ref 3 for the list, though I can't verify it. Eperoton (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of Contemporary Sunni scholars
Assalamu Alykum, I have created a number of biographical articles about contemporary Sunni scholars. The list can be found at my user-page. Alhamdulillah, I'm doing well and I can contribute in fixing biographies of Deobandi Sunni scholars. Requesting the people in WP:Islam to improve articles that have been tagged for multiple issues since years or atleast participate in AfDs. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Religion in Albania
An RfC at Religion in Albania may be of interest to project participants.Resnjari (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Islam and Football
At Talk:Mandatory_Palestine_national_football_team we are having a debate about a statement from a 1979 sports encyclopedia that says: “Islamic beliefs throughout the Arab world resisted Western cultural institutions such as soccer until well after World War II”. Any insights on this would be helpful. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Please review this edit
In a recent edit, User:Balolay removed pregnancy from a list of conditions that exempt from fasting during the Ramadan. The source of the statement remains Fasting (Al Siyam) – الصيام – p. 18, el Bahay el Kholi, 1998. Perhaps somebody could consult the source and see if pregnancy is indeed not included there, or provide another source for the claim in the edit summary: "Pregnant women are not exempt unless there is risk of complications". Debresser (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/3434&ved=2ahUKEwj_3_O-t67pAhURzhoKHTUUBFgQFnoECAUQAA&usg=AOvVaw2IRo2LuXvWMWKcz4nXXg-9&ampcf=1&cshid=1589290289960 This clearly states that pregnant women should fast unless they fear risking their or their child's lives. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/pregnant-women-who-fast-for-ramadan-risk-damage-to-their-babies-study-finds-2010055.html%3Famp&ved=2ahUKEwiH4auJua7pAhUTQH0KHUSZBuEQFjASegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw2H68r2BdQ-Yd43Y9iZGMBR&ampcf=1 This article clearly states that even if pregnant women choose not to fast during Ramadan while pregnant they have to fast to make up for those fasts at a later date after pregnancy is over. Which makes them not exactly exempt from fasting Balolay (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The question remains what Fasting (Al Siyam) – الصيام – p. 18, el Bahay el Kholi, 1998 says about fasting for pregnant women. Because it would seems from the fact that the previous version of the article said that pregnant women are exempt from fasting and used this source as a reference, that the source says so. If indeed it says there that they are exempt, then we have different opinions, and the article should mention both. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This aboutislam.net article also says no exemption in safe health conditions for pregnant women. Regarding the: "to make up for those fasts at a later date after pregnancy is over ... makes them not exactly exempt" - from what I understand, everyone (the travellers, the sick etc.) has to make up for the missed fasts whenever in the future they are able to do so. In this sense no one is "exempt from fasting". If "exempt" is confusing, the term "deferred fasting" can also be included. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Making fast up later would happen outside of Ramadan, thus making the woman exempt from Ramadan fasting. As far as Ramadan fasting is concerned exemption is the same as deferred fasting. However, I understand that in the article on sawm the two would mean different things.VR <font color="Black">talk 23:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Debresser: That source says "Pregnant and nursing women may break the Ramadan fast but shall fast a number of days, equal to those missed, after pregnancy or nursing ceases." This is on page 36. I agree that both opinions should be mentioned.VR <font color="Black">talk 00:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've used this wording to hopefully capture both views. Lemme know if its problematic.VR <font color="Black">talk 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention
I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting expansion and update edit support
Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel your focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.


 * Islamic advice literature

This has been posted to this forum since, one of article review suggested to have more diverse editor participation to have more inclusive, neutral and balanced worldview

I hope and request some editors from this forum too proactively and constructively participate in updating and expanding of article Islamic advice literature

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of Allama in the name in lead section?
Do we allow use of honorific Allama with the names? Policy Islam-related_articles#Other_persons doesn't specifically deals with things like Allama, Maulana, etc. The question is right now specifically being asked in relation to article Syed Jawad Naqvi where it keeps getting added despite constantly being removed.-- Fz t c s 12:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless it is the most common way they are referred to in reliable sources (as per WP:UCRN), such titles should not be included with their names. To use a non-Islamic equivalent, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, does not have "Reverend" placed before his name in the lead. Alivardi   (talk)  12:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Peshawar Nights for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peshawar Nights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Peshawar Nights until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)
The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Bookku (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * could you explain what part of it is misleading and causing systemic bias? HaEr48 (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have written that on talk pages of Talk:Aurat (word) so let us discuss at Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) or at article talk page, otherwise some one might take objection, I don't know all rules.


 * Thanks for showing interest.
 * Bookku (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see you responding to the reply in that talk page? It is hard to see what problem you'd like to see solved. If you want to create an article about a group rather than the word, you're free to do so subject to the usual criteria. Deleting does not seem a good strategy, probably a better approach is to reorganize the article; one talking about the group and one talking about the identity. HaEr48 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have updated Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) for your question. Article can't be reorganized (attempts to reorganizing unlikely to succeed) because other editors will keep deleting any non grammar content and that is already happening at the article.
 * Rather than after putting all effort some one comes and deletes content saying it's beyond a scope of word is an harassment of those people who take all the effort to make article for group of women 'Aurat' and content keep getting deleted.
 * Rather let me put it my self for deletion so my own efforts and of other editors won't go wasted.


 * Posting this reply on deletion request page too. Thanks for your concerns Bookku (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam
I assume this draft should be accepted as a reasonable, if flawed, start to an article. Let me know your thoughts! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing about the topic. Should I give you feedback here, or is there an appropriate forum for commenting to drafts? HaEr48 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, this isn't my draft, but I saw it while doing my review and it's kind of borderline in terms of being accepted for mainspace. I don't know that I'll personally come back to evaluate the draft, but if you add any feedback you have to the talk page that would be great. The big question is basically whether it's better than having no article on the subject in mainspace. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a good article concept added my detail content review at Draft talk:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam. Hope it helps to some extent.
 * Bookku (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Qibla observation by shadows
I've nominated Qibla observation by shadows for a 15 July appearence in the Main Page's "Did you know" (DYK) section because I feel that a blurb like "Did you know... that today at 9:27 UTC, the direction to Mecca can be determined by looking at the shadow cast by a stick?" will be very relevant for that day. But it needs a rather urgent review because there's not much time left before the 15 July DYK section is curated. If some of you are familiar with the DYK review process, I would appreciate if you could take a look: Template:Did you know nominations/Qibla observation by shadows. HaEr48 (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can review it quickly.VR <font color="Black">talk 05:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Centre of Muslims
As-Salam O Alaikum!,

I recently created Wikiproject Centre of Muslims. It is created to improve the articles about places with more than 80% of Muslim Population. After sometime the percentage could be reduced to 50% (places with majority Muslim Population). Similar wikiprojects are working like in the case of [Australia], The only difference is that their scope is countrywide and scope of this Wikiproject is larger, i.e Muslim World.

It was put on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Centre of Muslims because of solo participant. Someone also asked that "Would WikiProject Islam be interested in this project as a Geography task force?" and I think that Centre of Muslims project should be merged with WikiProject Islam's Geography task force. Can anyone please guide me regarding this?

Thank You in anticipation! --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems the project is no longer there?VR <font color="Black">talk 05:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hadith of Ghazwae Hind
Does anyone have input about this draft? Should it be rejected or accepted? It seems likely to be notable, but the article is a complete mess. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I can pretty much unequivocally say No to this draft. It's notability is limited to only India and Pakistan relations, where in the latter, right-wingers like to bring this up, more commonly in times of strained relations between the two countries. Outside of this narrow sphere there isn't much interest in the subject; speaking on the theological front, a lot of Muslim scholars reject these hadiths as unreliable. In fact, one of the references included in this draft argues exactly this too.
 * The second-biggest section is entirely original research; furthermore, employing the same reasoning used to include those verses here, they can then also be used in reference to every single battle that Muslims have ever fought in any place, at any time.
 * Ibn Kathir's quotation doesn't include reference to the hadith in question.
 * The Naimatullah predictions might be the only non-contentious content in this draft (if there indeed is some reliable reference to support it), however, afaik, with the amount of detail included it is quite un-encyclopaedic.
 * At most, it can be argued that this subject should get 2-3 lines in the India–Pakistan relations article, but having this as an entire separate article doesn't appear to be justifiable.
 * — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I can pretty much unequivocally say Yes to this draft. If it is factually correct it survives. If not the sytem will burn it up pretty quickly. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * With respect, I disagree. Being factually correct is irrelevant when it comes to WP:Notability. If such were to be the criterion, then hundreds more of these hadith should also be getting their own separate articles each. Furthermore, I have yet to see a Muslim scholar with respected religious knowledge credentials talk about the Ghazwae-Hind hadith in this context and without qualifications. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The draft in present form is a definite No. At best, it is WP:Synthesis of primary sources, many of which even don't mention Hind/India. The draft either provides primary sources as reference or some blogs/self-published websites and an obscure research foundation (whose website fails to even provide a postal address for it). The draft needs, severe trimming and addition of reliable, verifiable secondary/tertiary scholarly sources in order to be approved for a move to main-space.-- Fz t c s 01:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The person who started this draft was my friend, he is now dead. I am a novice to this. If people here can edit it to make publishable, his soul will get peace in the grave. 169.149.44.177 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I say a definite No to this draft. Earlier replied to the IP request at my talk page. We may however find a substitute to this through Ghazwa-e-Hind keeping in view WP:NPOV and WP:Attack. It would be then a bunch of opinions of few people and would amount to anti-India hate and misinterpretation to ahadith in current perspective. But a much academic article may be helpful. Ideas? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like a much better article on this topic (linked in the above comment) had already gone through the deletion process, see Articles for deletion/Ghazwatul Hind. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just checked the AfD. Wasn't it deleted due to less sources? In the new draft (deleted as of now due to block violation), it adds a book authored by Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi's father which is regarded as reliable in the subcontinent. As I said earlier, if tone is maintained, and now in addition to it, if sources are maintained, we can have an article on it. That would depend on if sources are independent, neutral and reliable, I don't know any neutral source about it. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian reunification: The Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba has framed the prophecy of Ghazwa-e-Hind, as one in which India is defeated and united with Pakistan, unifying the Indian subcontinent under Muslim rule. Quote= These references in the Hadith to the Ghazwa-e-Hind (Battle of India) infuse South Asia with importance as a battleground in the efforts to create an Islamic caliphate resembling the social order that existed at the time of the Prophet.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are pages of it on Wikipedia but in other languages: Arabic, Urdu, Bangla etc. with same thing. I wonder why they don't allow it in English 🤔
 * Battle of India: ...others believed that the conquest of India had not yet occurred, but it will happen when Isa bin Maryam (Jesus) descends from heaven according to the reported traditions غزوة_الهند (Google Translation)...sounds like a heretical christian cult. The Legacy of Jihad in India


 * How can a person who is not an expert in Islamic studies judge this (The user 'Nick' has no edits on pages in the scope of WP:Islam) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abi Hanzala (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments
Greetings to all,

A Request for comment has been initiated regarding RfC about whether to allow use of honorofic 'Allama' with the names or not?

Requesting your comments to formalize the relevant policy @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles with links to DAB pages
I have collected a number of articles with Islam-related links to DAB pages where expert attention would be welcome. (I did have the best part of a hundred; but when I came to check, most had been fixed.) Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{tl|dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.


 * Abu al-Barakat al-Nasafi
 * Al-Marzubani
 * Azariqa
 * Glossary of Islam
 * Khasf al-Bayda'
 * Liberalism and progressivism within Islam
 * Qadariyah
 * Qalb
 * Shufa (Islam)
 * Uthman ibn Abi al-As
 * Zij al-Sindhind (WP:WikiProject Mathematics failed to solve this problem)

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

New to wikiprojects, wrote a Bio of Islamic scholar
Assalamualaikum, I have today published a biography about Alhaj Ghulam Qadir Ganipuri who was an Islamic scholar from Jammu and Kashmir, India. This article needs copy-editing for grammar. —  The Chunky urf <i> Al Kashmiri  </i>  (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)  09:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on ecclesiastical titles
There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. It is a bit Christian-centric as currently written, so the opinions of those with knowledge of other religions is especially welcome. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on name of the article "Concubinage in Islam"
There is debate on whether the article currently named "Concubinage in Islam" should continued to be called that, or should it be moved to "Sexual slavery in Islam". There has been debate and even a move war. Discussion is scatters at Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam, and I recently put my arguments in a single section (Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam). Please give your comments on the article's talk page.VR <font color="Black">talk 13:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help
Hello many greetings,

Requesting your proactive contribution and support in updating Draft:Aurats (word) in relation to the related languages you know well.

There are few references are available, indicating Aurats (word) had considerable origins from medieval era Classical Arabic, medieval era Persian and Ottoman Turkish too and more references are likely to be available if searched deep enough.

Inputs and references regarding historical usage and present usage ,if any, socio-political construct around Aurats (word) are requested.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I was struggling to articulate what worried me about this draft. Should Aurats (word)  not simply be a redirect to  "woman"? I guess you need to go to redirects for discussion or wicktionary. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

RfD notification: 21st-century Quran
Hi all, 21st-century Quran redirects to History of the Quran and has been nominated at RfD. Your input at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 22 would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I created the redirect but I'm not particularly bothered about keeping it. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on lead section of Takbir (allahu akbar)
There is a request for comment on the lead section of the Takbir (allahu akbar) article. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Dar al-Ifta a reliable source?
There is a discussion on the reliability of Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?
Since I am working on Wikipedia, I do not find much editorial presence of women of Muslim background, while Muslim women seem to be active on other social media platforms?


 * 1) Is this perception factual or not ?
 * 2) If it is true why it is so ?
 * 5) When I searched this projects talk page archive, I found very few searches for word 'women', Why would be that so?
 * 3) Even if they are less does it matter?
 * 4) If matters then what could be solutions to improve situation?

Since this project page has very few previous discussions, if discussion continues longer time period will be better. IMHO.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments: I have not looked at any statistics concerning notable "women of Muslim background". I can only offer an opinion. Wikipedia coverage of women, in general, has been regarded as a gender bias. The Women in Red project addresses improvement in this area. Identification may be an issue.  There was a drive to remove religious affiliation from infoboxes so if the article doesn't delve into this then a web search would need to be performed.
 * I see there is Category:Muslim Brotherhood women and Category:Muslim female comedians and articles such as Muslim women political leaders but apparently not Category Muslim women. I would think one should be able to search Category:Muslim women writers and other such categories but have not looked at it.
 * Women in Islam does not have a lot. Some consideration should be given to the availability of sourcing. Some countries have their own bias, which is likely less in Indonesian than in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but nonetheless probably creates a sourcing issue. I would say some collaboration could result in categories more specific to the area  might be a benefit.
 * I was surprised I couldn't find an article on Amatul Rahman Omar or even Laury Silvers. --  Otr500 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They are talking about editors, not content. It is a mistake to conflate the two.  The gender of most WP editors is unclear, but various attempts to estimate an overall gender ratio for editors have produced figures in the range of 85-92% male. Generally people agree this does matter, and should be improved, but the many efforts to do something about it have had variable success.  In many Muslim countries, issues of access to the internet, and technological knowledge may be more relevant than elsewhere.  Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Does Wikipedia have a gender bias issue? Yes. Is WikiProject Islam the right place fix this? No. The underlying causes are too complex for us to solve: priority (people in developing countries have more pressing matters than Wikipedia), technology (internet access) and language (command of English in the global Islamic community) barriers are only a few of such aspects. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, do you mean the participation of women as editors, or the coverage of Muslim women biographies and topics in articles?
 * Comment: Yes, I do mean 'the participation of women as editors'.


 * 1) When one reaches out to present other women editors for support on Muslim women related topics it's not that they are not willing rather they do co-operate but usually I find them bit apprehensive how much they can cope up and support Muslim and Islamic topic's nuances not well known to them. (On one hand it confirms absence of Muslim women on Wikipedia platform -includes Wikipedia other language projects too-
 * 2) Consequentially Muslim women perspective, support and participation to related topics seem too less than potential.
 * 3) If language is issue Muslim Women seem missing from other related language Wikis too - Consequentially status of women related articles on other language wikis is generally too poor -Even translation help for women related articles comes too slow.
 * 4) If question of access to technology is concerned women of Muslim background seem to be around on other social media platforms.
 * 5) Whether Rfc on women's project helped more ? Either of project Rfc had to be started and informed on the other project. Since I searched word 'women' in talk page archives of this project is discussed too less then I decided to begin from this project. Situation improves or not but at least Wikipedia community becomes aware about the issue.
 * Thanks for responses.
 * Thanks Bookku (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is very difficult to estimate the number of Muslim women who are active on Wikipedia. Most editors do no declare their religion but of those who do, we have Category:Muslim Wikipedians. If you have the time, you could go through about a hundred of these and see whether there is any indication that they are both female and active. I think you will find many of those listed as Category:Arab Wikipedians, Category:Indonesian Wikipedians or Category:Pakistani Wikipedians are Muslims. As in the case of women's participation in general, I would not expect Muslim women editors to represent more than 15 to 20% of Muslim editors. Finally, it is perhaps equally important to encourage male Muslim editors to concentrate more on covering Muslim women (or more generally women from Muslim countries).--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * it was already pointed out that the participation of women on wikipedia is low. Another factor is Islamophobia on wikipedia that makes it a hostile environment for Muslims in general. So those two factors can converge to especially suppress participation of Muslim women on wikipedia.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , First of all thanks for expressing yourself. Same time I am bit bemused specially for your second point.
 * On Wikipedia women might have been in lesser numbers, but some participation is certainly there, for example WikiProject Women in Red is doing great, and it seems Western language Wikipedias work on improving Women editor's participation, is same effort missing from Asian language origin Wikipedians?
 * Secondly I suppose lot of Muslim background women around (liberal and conservative both) on lot of other social media even interacting with non-Muslims on all sort of subjects, then why not on Wikipedia? In fact Wikipedia contains much lesser adhominem and much lesser targeting on basis of one's background compared to other social media.
 * Again neither do I see any Christen men or women complaining about Christen phobia nor Muslim men are missing for reason of any phobia; Wikipedia seem to contain equal amount of criticism for all other religions. Take most latest article example Imperial feminism no one complains it as western Phobia and western women will not be writing on Wikipedia.
 * Secular platforms do exist in secular world which would not subscribe to any single ideology, differences are fact of human life the same ones are reflected on Wikipedia. Compared to other social media platform Wikipedia expects references. Describing referenced facts is truth and if Islam stands for truth then describing any truth as Islamophobic would be un-Islamic. Any ways if Muslim background women can move around on other platforms then why denial of intellectual public space to Muslim background women with Tudong or Purdah or participatory exclusion in what so ever form on Wikipedia?
 * On side note,
 * besides English I found women editorial representation on Spanish, French, German, On Russian WIkipedia again seems it to be lesser but it is there, again on Portuguese Wikipedia I did not see it.
 * Like wise I did not come across much women editors in Asian languages for exception of few Indian languages- again in north Indian language Wikipedias women seem largely missing.
 * Thanks & regards Bookku (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * my comments were based on my conversations with Muslim women (writers and non-writers). Of course, Muslim women are a diverse crowd. Have you talked to Muslim women in your community about joining Wikipedia? What have they said? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What bemuses is why same reasons are not quoted by Muslim men but by women only. Does it mean, Wikipedian community members failing some where in it's approach addressing unnecessarily negative perceptions about Wikipedia? rgds Bookku (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Improving our article on Fatimah
A protected edit request was made at Talk:Fatimah adding numerous references. Although peer-reviewed and agreed, the improvement has yet to be made. Maybe if Muslim women see some enthusiasm for improving articles on key women in Islam they might be encouraged to edit themselves. 2A00:23C7:C987:DF00:EC92:1B38:176A:55A (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Biblical and Quranic narratives - almost all original research
Pretty much needs rebuilding from scratch. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when people interpret WP:PRIMARY texts for themselves.VR <font color="Black">talk 05:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll attempt a cursory rewrite based on Gabriel Said Reynold's The Quran and the Bible (Yale University Press, 2018).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And that looks like a great source. You should also look into the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. Its always best to use multiple scholarly sources.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 12:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, I'll look into that source when I have the time. Thanks also for the great job you do with Islam-related articles!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Mujeer Du'a
Mujeer Du'a is in need of some love from an expert and/or Arabic speaker, in case anyone is interested. I came across it doing CAT:NN cleanup. Seems clearly notable to me, but I'm not in a position to clean it up/improve it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested page move
There is currently a requested page move at Talk:Sexual_slavery_in_Islam, where it is proposed that "Sexual slavery in Islam" be moved to "Concubinage in Islam".

I posted this once above, but that time was wasn't a formal page move request. This one will actually be closed by an admin. Your participation is appreciated.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 00:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request
Requesting peer review at Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussions on reliability of Mark Durie
There are two noticeboard discussions on the reliability of Mark Durie, an Anglican pastor, for his opinions on Islam: If you are interested, please participate through the links above. —  Newslinger  talk   13:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * : Suggested for use in Criticism of Islam
 * : Suggested for use in Criticism of Joe Biden (proposed article)

Mosque of Omar discussion
Please see Talk:Masjid Umar. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

We have IslamWiki!!!
Assalamu alaikum,

I'm Sunni Muslim from Bucharest, Romania. I have found our own Islamic Wikipedia where we can contribute and edite articles about Islam so we can show to non-Muslims what view and opinion represent us and which not and so we can show that Wikiislam is fake Islamic wikipedia and it is anti-Islamic in the same time. And franqly, I have found www.islamwiki.org and over there only Muslims from al branches of Islam are allowed to be users, contributors and editors, but non-Muslims are not allowed to write anything about Islam, because they don't know Islam but only we know. They do what they do so they can give discredit and invalidity to Islam and they want also to defame Muslim Ummah and mislead us at the best of their ability.

Is anyone interested to be contributor and editor of www.islamwiki.org ?

P.S. Even Bahais are allowed to be contributors and editors of IslamWiki because Bahais are another branch of Islam as far as I know. Let's make www.islamwiki.org the most active wikipedia. Even lay Muslims can be contributors and editors. Myself I'm contributor and editor of wwww.islamwiki.org and I'm planning on making extremely long article about Banu Qurayza and I wanna present a long history of Banu Qurayza in such that non-Muslims will be impossible for them to ultimately refute my article. Because, I wanna prove that Muslim and the Holy Prophet did made contract with Banu Qurayza and Banu Qurayza betrayed us and violated the contract, and that's why it happen "genocide" over there. And I need also someone who can verify my article and check my English Grammar and Literature before I publish online the article. Also, I need someone who can tell me what grammatical and literature mistakes I have done before posting the article so I can post it online. I need also Muslims who wishes to make continuos articles and make www.islamwiki.org very active. Plus, we have a section called "counter arguments" where we can ultimately refute and debunk that fake Islamic Encyclopedia named Wikiislam which spread propaganda and lies about Islam and prove that it is also fake Islamic Encyclopedia.

May God reward you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Abood (talk • contribs) 07:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleavage (breasts)
In the article I have some Islamic interpetation (including a verse from the Quran, though I think there are two verses that address the subject), but I feel that part to be rather insufficient. In my research I have come across terms like haya, awrah, juyub, khimar, jilbab and mahram. I am under the impression that these terms may be significant in understanding or explaining the Islamic point of view regarding exposure of the cleavage of women's breasts, which is a popular Western practice.

Please, help me to find reliable online sources that I can use, and, if possible, explain the matter to me (here, in the article talk or my user talk) so I can frame it appropriately. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles on Islam in Wikiquote

 * This is not about WP but about Wikiquote (well in some way it is because WQ is linked in most WP articles on the subject), however comments by neutral users that are familiar with Islam in a current discussion in Wikimedia are needed, and I don't know a better place to found them that here. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Who wants to be contributor of IslamWiki?
Hello everyone,

I have found as Sunni Muslim our own Islamic Wikipedia and it currently have 8 articles and it is not active. That wiki requires knowledgable Muslims and we have a section "counter arguments" so we can refute wikiislam.

Is anyone interested to be contributor of this wiki? By the way, I am contributor of this wiki and my username is Nitro Zeus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Abood (talk • contribs) 09:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)