Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Front page
Mission, etc
I updated the mission, etc to give guild members, etc a better sense of purpose and direction. --JuanMuslim 03:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Ex Muslim
Muwaffaq (an abusive sock of user:Deeptrivia) wants to add the class "ex-Muslim" to the front page.
See the rest : Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Front page/Ex Muslim
User comments
Any comments on a fellow wiki editor you feel to raise? Positive or negative, its goes in this sectioin.
Striver
Striver, while I appreciate your obvious enthusiasm, could I request that you slow down a little? ....
See the rest : Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Striver
Munafiq
A trend that seems to be growing is to become a Munafiq.
See the rest : Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Munafiq
Theological article
user:Lao Wai is having a blast pasting anything that... well, take a look at the article, it needs some real NPOVing. --Striver 21:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
SIIEG or other guilds
the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG have their agendas, and we analyze them here.
Prophet
They have decided to remove "prophet" before "Muhammad".
- I dont realy know what to make of it, any other comments? --Striver 01:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Only Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet. He's not a universally acknowledged prophet. To push him as a universal prophet is POV. Muwaffaq 21:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Bahai? What about "prophet of Islam" --Striver 03:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- About "prophet" being NPOV, the websters-online-dictionary.org includes this line:
- Definition: Muhammad
- Muhammad
- Noun
- 1. Leader of Black Muslims who campaigned for independence for Black Americans (1897-1975).
- 2. The Arab prophet who founded Islam (570-632).
- http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/muhammad
Note that it does not say that he is a propet in muslim pov, it identifies him as a prophet, period, and then proceeds to say that he founded Islam. according to that standard, its perfecly ok to say that Muhammad was a prophet.
--Striver 21:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Holy
They have decided to remove "Holy" before "Quran".
- I dont realy know what to make of it, any other comments? --Striver 01:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Same reason as above. Can you see any "Holy Bible"s written anywhere? If yes, please remove them. It is a book which not everyone considers holy. Muwaffaq 21:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Muslims, Jews, Bahai, Christians and other consider it holy. But that is not my main question, it is how to define holy... but now that i think about it, it seems like you are right, i would object to somebody refering to Satan as holy, so it is pov.--Striver 03:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Whether a non-Muslim considers it "Holy" is kind of beside the point. The word is used to distinguish this "recitation" from other "recitations." Strictly speaking, I believe "Qur'an" on its own is incomplete and incorrect. There are other prefixes -- Noble, Glorious, and so on -- that do the same job. BrandonYusufToropov 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Template:Islam
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG#Ironic_Edit_War_at_Template:Islam
- They seem to have two issues:
1) To put in the cresent moon in the template. Of course, they are doing it to promote the "moon god " myth, althogh they dont want to diminish their cause by admiting it. And conviniently, they presented the counterargument for not having it there: The salafis rejet it. The symbol is a cultural one, as far a i know it, and does not belong to the top of the template.
2) Jihad. Of course, to promote the "angry muslim warior" pov. Well, if they are going to put in Jihad, i expect them to also included "Imamat". --Striver 04:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Striver, instead of talking to yourself here, why don't you leave your comments in the SIIEG talk page? We welcome your opinion, I agree with you that Imamat to be linked to somehow. Also, I'm not trying to promote the moon god theory, the moon-god theory is completely false since Hubal was not ever worshipped by the Turkic warriors who founded the Ottoman Empire. --Zeno of Elea 21:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Zeno, im not intreseted in joining a guild that is aimed at removing or neutralizing apologetics. I know that you are not going to make anything pov in practice, but its the mindset that dominates any such guild that makes me referain from joining. Simply put, im for Islam, not for secularism. And in my view, the reason you want me there is to use me as a tool against Islam, or the sunni faction of them. In other words, good ol' divide and conqure. I do have belives that are incompatible with sunni belifes, but my agenda is not to falsifie the Muslim belife, its to represent the shia belife. Your mindsett is obviolsy to falsifie Islam as much as possible without violation WP rules, and sorry, im not goint to be a part of that. No matter if i get Imamat on the template or not. --Striver 21:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
My Extra thingy
Why do I get an extra * thingy.. not that I'm complaining, I like being unique.. but.. why?--Irishpunktom\talk 20:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- I removed it. Oh... now you're not unique anymore. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Articles
Just created it. --Striver 18:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure something like this deserves its own page. Why not simply fold this into another page? Turnstep 19:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- How about putting it into the Ahl al-Bayt article or Shia beliefs or something like that. I think we shouldn't create that many articles and instead work on expanding the ones that we already have. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, both Shia and Sunnis belive the things stated in the article, so it would have to be included in some more general article, like Islam. My aim with that aritcle was to elaborate more on the topic, for example mentioning the Muhabela vers and hadith (Sahih Bukhari), explaining why we belive that being the enemy of one transfers it to the others, presenting hadith where Muhamamd (saw) tells how waring Ahl al-bayt is waring with himself (belived to be authentic by both shia and sunnis), exeptions to the rule, why Shia dont expand it to include Sahaba, why Sunnis do so, presenting hadith on that regard, for example "dont curse my companions" and its credebility, and so on... It is a useful article to link to while explaining more detailed sides of Islam, maybe in the takfir article or the apostacy in Islam article?
- However, if you insist that this does not deserve its own article, i wont persist. --Striver 04:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm concerned this particular article is a bit POV. I mean it would be like me writing an article called Being the enemy of God, Muhammad and Ahl Sunnah Wa Jammat--Juan Muslim 08:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Brother, do you mean that Ahl al-Sunnah does not equate being the enemy of Ahl al-bayt as being the enemy of Allah?
- Why do you say that it would be like writing Being the enemy of God, Muhammad and Ahl Sunnah Wa Jammat?
- I did not create Being the enemy of God, Muhammad and Shias of Ali, did i? Does Sunnis have anything against Ahl al-Bayt? Are Shias the only partisians of Ahl al-Bayt? Of course not! Why do you equate "ahl al-Bayt" with "shia"? Dont the Sunnis say that one that does not love the Ahl al-Bayt is kafir? Dont Sunnis say that having inner, unexpresed hatred for Ali makes you a Nasibi, and a kafir`? Of course they do!
- Again, does not Sunnis equate being the enemie of Ahl al-bayt as being the enemies of Allah? --Striver 18:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- My only point was that this particular article or those similar to it aren't really encyclopedic. Such articles would make more sense in a Wiki Encyclopedia for Muslims. You've lots of energy and that's good, and your time and energy could be better directed. --Juan Muslim 02:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Striver, with all respect, this is precisely the kind of article that may well have kept Zora from signing on to your offer not to edit specified articles before consultation. She suspected your offer of being a diversion, that you would always continue to create other articles not on the list, generate material like this, and otherwise subvert the principle of consensus on WP.
- I have been thinking about it, and with this latest batch of new articles, I'm afraid I have to agree with her. My question is simple. Are you ever going to incorporate the principle of consultation before generating material like this, brother? As a gesture of good faith, perhaps you could nominate this article for speedy deletion. BrandonYusufToropov 10:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have lots to say about this, but dont have time right now. Ill tag it for speedie, As a gesture of good faith. Expect me to return to this issue later. --Striver 14:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Standardization
Please add standardization suggestions, etc to the talk page of the Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).
Quran ref
I propose this format:
- Sura 4.35 translated by Shakir
- And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware
--Striver 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hadith ref
I propose that we try to link all hadith links in this format:
"random text" Sahih Muslim 3.299.
"random text" Sahih Muslim 3.299, 3.343.
"random text" Sahih Muslim 3.299, Sahih Bukhari 3.343.
Motives: One can easly the what the ref is, it gives a internal link to the article explaining the relevance of the source, it gives a separate external source to the hadith and since its smaller than the other text, it will be easly recognized and ignored for those un-intrested. Comments? --Striver 02:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think it makes the page look too busy, even with the superscripting. Why not just use the standard Wikipedia footnotes? Turnstep 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- While reading the claim, it is of imense importance to see from where the source is, even more so than usual. If you are reading about the Gulf War, it might be enough to see that it has a source to any mainstream media, but in this case any source wont do. If you belong to one denomination, you wont accept sources from some other denomination, and also, the sources in you own denomination differ in credibility, Sahih Bukhari is much more credible that Abu Dawud in Sunni eyes. If you look around, you will see that in most Muslim sites they give the complete referens on the spot, not in some footnote. The whole narratin stand or falls with the credibility of the source, and therefore needs to be judged on the spot. I would guess that most Muslims agree with what i said... :) --Striver 03:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- You are missing one of the other points of this project: to make the page accessible and comprehesible to people who know little to nothing about Islam. A page full of competing texts is not the way to accomplish this. For example this page (Mut'ah_of_Hajj) would be totally incomprehensible to non-Muslims: the quotes appear apropos of nothing, and no hint is given as to the meaning and significance of the superscripted text. Turnstep 03:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- You do raise a valid objection!
- I myself belived that they could quickly educate themself on the matter by investigating the links, however that might not the best aproach... What about adding a text explaining the matter in the beggning of the article, something like:
- Sources are given in this format: Sahih Muslim n.nnn.
- Would that work? --Striver 03:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's certainly better! :) I'll contribute more when I have some time. Turnstep 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- A pleasure cooperating with you :) --Striver 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Family tree
Since the family trees of every person is so well documented and relevant to ahadith, i propose that we try to fill in the family tree of everyone, using the Family tree of Ali ibn Abu Talib as strandard.
It starts with grandfather/mother, then father/mother, brother/sister and the self. Then wives. Children are indented under the mother, since the father can have several wives. Each new wive/family also gets a extra line-feed.
--Striver 02:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Sahaba
I propose that we add the {{Category:Sahaba}} at the top of every Sahaba, or at least at the top of every non-prominent sahaba. the template displays this text:
This category contains articles about the sahaba of Muhammad.
Then also add [[Category:Sahaba]] under it so as to list them here --Striver 16:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Do it. --Juan Muslim 08:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Scholars
I propose that all scholars get a "Academic line" section before the "See also", but after the "legacy" section.
It will contain something like this;
Academic line
Teachers:
Students:
It will repeat the information in the article, but will be of great help for those that want to see the line of teachers and whom he taught without wanting to go through his biography. It will also encourage people to add those facts, if they are missing.
It will also let one to follow the line uppwards or downwards the line of students, for those intrested in doing so.
If no student and/or teacher exist, or if it is assumed that the list is incomplete, i propose to add sometheing like:
Teachers:
- ????
This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.
Students:
- (none known)
My first implementation of this standard is here: Ibn_Kathir.
--Striver 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, look at this! I could advocate using that on the more prominent scholars! --Striver 06:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
fatwas
I propose that if the scholar have made a fatwa that is mentioned in some other article, then link to it in the "See also" section like this:
--See also--
i have implemented it here: Abu Hanifa.
--Striver 01:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- gren wrote in my Talk page the following:
- These see alsos don't seem to be really directly related... under the pretext of relating to his fatwas, I somewhat understand... but, that doesn't merit a see also really because it has no specificity, it's like linking Einstein's see also with physics, jus too vague to be of any worth. So, could you not do it please? gren グレン 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- well, the alternative whould be to repeat allt the fatwas on his talk page... Or maybe having a article named "Articles on Wikipedia including Fatwas from X ibn Z", a alternative i dont favor...
- I personaly belive its of great benefit to see what fatwas X have been contributed to wikipedia... If the "fatwas" section in under the "see also" section are not esteticaly appealing, then i would gladly hear some alternative. If the idea of linking to the fatwas are not supported, then please motivate that. I could see linking Einstein to physics if there was some some quoting from him done there :) Best regards! --Striver 03:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Specificity of Fatwa would be useful, however what Muslims scholar hasn't ruled in some sense about salah? Those things you list are concepts that concern many Muslims scholars. Where is direct fatwa from Hanifa about Misyar anyways? It is incredibly vague. My alternative is writing about what they have done, if Scholar XX said you should pray on your head then you write about that, you don't put Salah in a fatwa see also. I also saw this. Just because it is listed in the Muslim guild standard means nothing. It is not a wikipedia rule and it has no weight. Please do not refer Zora to this as if it's established. gren グレン 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I addresed the Zora issue here. Regarding the other issue: I see your point and agree. I withdraw my proposal, and instead make this:
I propose that if the scholar have made a fatwa that is mentioned in some other article, add a link to that article in a article named Articles containing fatwas by X, and then include a link to it in the "see also" section of the scholars article.
i have implemented it here: Ibn Taymiya. --Striver 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Much of what is found on the WikiProject Islam article should be incorporated into the article mentioned above. --Juan Muslim 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the following from the article with hope that the information will be incorporated into the Manual of Style in the near future. --Juan Muslim 05:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Strategy
The definition of Islam must, first and foremost, come from the faith itself. List of Islamic terms in Arabic must be expanded to include every such term that is presently used in any article. Then, edits to the other articles can use the most specific and correct term with less translation problems.
Then, the various factions and groups, starting with Sunni, Shia, Khawarij and Sufi branches, and all the Islamic parties and militant Islamic groups and historical tarika need to be catalogued. Interpretations of jihad and khalifa and the role of ijtihad might need to be clarified for each specific group. Such categorical terms as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism need to be set only *after* groups are defined.
Islam as a political movement, related History of Islam, biographical material of major figures, Islamic philosophy, etc., can then be updated to refer to the more exact concepts.
The Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts#Islam list also can usefully be used as a source of topics for new articles related to Islam. Note that some of the Arabic terms requested may simply be different transliterations of an existing article; in which case, please create a redirect.
NPOV policy
In line with Wikipedia NPOV policy each religious denomination should have its POV (point of view) represented as they see it, without the article speaking ex cathedra.
Wikipedia articles attempt to treat issues in light of their historical development. We do not merely describe the way that Judaism's beliefs and practices exist now. We certainly do describe these, but we also describe their historical origins as known from the best evidence.
Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts, in this case including the Quran and the Hadith literature. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources
Wikipedia articles describe changing social, religious and political conditions, and how Islam's beliefs and practices may have developed over time.
Many traditional Muslims will strenuously object to a critical historical treatments, claiming that this discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is from an ahistorical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) This point of view can also be mentioned; there is no necessary contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say that Group A says one thing for somesuch reasons, while group B says another thing for other reasons.
The meaning of the term "fundamentalism"
See the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is used in articles on religion, but only in one its technical senses, and not as a pejorative phrase.
Entry Naming
- There is a straw poll on the naming of the Mecca/Makkah article at talk:Mecca. 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
Formatting
There's probably no example that can really serve as the template for every other one of these articles. It's more of a perspective than format question.
Stubs
There is now an Islam stub (see Template:Islam-stub) that can be used for very short Islam-related articles. There is also the corresponding Category:Islam-related stubs for the Islam stub.
==Hierarchy definition== Religion/Islam/etc.
Misinterpretations
Can we start ( If its not against any Wiki policy )an article on different misinterpretated aspects of Islam & Sira & always taken out of Context verses from Quran ( Like Sura Tauba ). I have been to different forums & found out that people always ask the very same questions that have been spread in the west by Islamophobes . Wiki would be a good place to explain those questions Farhansher 20:35 19-4-2005
Defining
- Arabic Wikipedia should be relied on for definitions and new articles written on all of the above.
Welcome Letter
"Salam!" "Peace!"
Welcome to The Muslim Guild!
You can learn more about our mission and guiding principles at The Muslim Guild.
We hope that you will contribute to Islam-related articles.
Please feel free to contact any current Muslim Guild members if you have any questions.
Sincerely, The Muslim Guild
Articles
Here we can discuss articles in need of attention. Many such articles can be found in the Islam category as well as in the Islam stubs category. Please refer to the talk page for the various articles. Please cross out the articles that you and others are satisfied with.
Categories
Here we can discuss Categories in need of attention. Please cross out the articles that you and others are satisfied with.
Stubs
Several articles within the Islam stubs category need lots of work.
New stubs
{{Islam-bio-stub}} and {{Islamic-theologian-stub}} created!--Striver 08:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Templates
Please continue to monitor the Islam template and make recommendations that make the template better. --User:JuanMuslim 17:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I got tired of someone naging about puting shia stuff at the top, so i made a new template. Was a bit uppset from the mentioned, so i didnt consult you all first, sorry for that. What do you think of the template? Go to its talk page :) --Striver 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Started working on this some time ago, but gave it up after somebody told me it was no good... --Striver 03:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Going to transfer most of the people here to Islamic scholars --Striver 17:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- This template is obsolete since i created List of Islamic scholars, can someone delet it? --Striver 14:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Portals
Please remember to update the Islam Portal from time to time.--JuanMuslim 1m 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Standards
Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)
Let's try to improve the standards mentioned in the following Manual of Style. Check out:
- Please keep an eye on this as it is shared with other guilds. Certain guilds might make it very biased.
- Please post suggestions for standardization issues to the talk page of the Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). --Juan Muslim 05:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Manual of Style (Muslim Guild)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Manual of Style.
Nominated as "Featured article"!
Voting
The Muslim Guild does not endorse any particular voting decision.
Articles for deletion
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion
Regarding adminship
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship
Ramallite
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite
- Successful nomination. Now an admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Nominated as "Featured article"!