Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

WikiProject:Prophets of Islam up for deletion

Please comment here. --Eliyak T·C 01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The AfD has run its course and the decision was to delete the project and redirect here to WikiProject Islam. I support the decision, as the Prophets project has been inactive for nearly a year, even by the most generous standard. Salaam. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image of Muhammad in Kaaba article

There is a poll going on here.

Some new categories

I'd like to bring to editors' attention the following new categories I've created: Category:Islamic television networks, Category:Islamic television programmes and especially the much needed Category:Islamic terms. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Banner image

File:Minaret Samarra Iraq.jpg, which was used as the image on the project banner when the Sunni Islam task force tab was activated, has been deleted. If anyone can think of an image which would reasonably replace it, I would be very gratified. Thank you. John Carter 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the image with Image:Samarraminaret.JPG, which seems to be the only extant picture we have of the same building. If someone can find another one, of course, they are welcome to replace it. John Carter 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bahamut and Falak

Can someone help verify if both Bahamut and Falak are legitimate parts of so-called medieval Islamic cosmology? It had no references or citations, which made the content inside quite arguable. — Blue。 18:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bahamut does appear to entertain a position in Arabian, though not necessarily Islamic, mythology (see Wings of Fancy: Using Readers Theatre to Study Fantasy Genre, Joan Garner (2006) p. 62 - which describes it as "an enormous fish supporting a huge bull known as Kujuta that has four thousand eyes, ears, noses, mouths, tongues and feet"; see also The World of Myths: A Dictionary of Mythology, Frank Chapin Bray (1935) p. 165). i'm not too sure about "Falak", though. ITAQALLAH 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Itaqallah. I've been browsing the internet for explanations of these and they seem to be made by some websites that claim to translate the contents of the Quran which explains the creation of the universe. I've never heard of Bahamut, Falak, or Kuyutha mentioned in the Quran which made believe that these websites are spreading falsehood. Furthermore, these websites seem to be pointing out mistakes and errors in the Quran and attacking Islam. — Blue。 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the only such creature mentioned in the Qur'an is Ifrit. Bahamut and the others aren't mentioned in any of the primary sources i believe; Falak appears to a bit hoax-ish. ITAQALLAH 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unrefereneced claim in the History of Mosques in The US, or a deletion dilemma

Going over this issue of Time Magazine from 1937 available online at the following address: [1] I have come across the following statement about a Mosque in Brooklyn: "For two hours one evening last week, these prayers sounded in a brick building in Brooklyn, only full-fledged Moslem mosque in the U. S. It was the eve of Ramadan, to Mohammedans the holiest and most rigorous month in the year." In the article on Mosques in America, there is an unreferenced claim that the first functioning mosque in the US was set up by Albanians in 1915. I could find no reference to it. Leave suggestions on my talk page if you'd like. What should we do?--Orestek 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more cats plus request for assistance

In cleaning up the Islam category page, I am now focusing my attention on Category:Converts to Islam. I've created several new categories such as Category:American converts to Islam, Category:Lebanese converts to Islam etc. and I wish to continue removing muslim convert articles from the converts to Islam cat. page. I have a problem in that some of the articles don't mention the fact that they converted to Islam, and there are others where I am not convinced that they converted to mainstream Islam (maybe to the Nation of Islam, for example). I would greatly appreciate some assistance in this regard. Thx. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be at least two obstacles in making the above proposal easy to execute: firstly, should there be a division of categories into say, for example, British converts to Islam and British-born converts to Islam ? And how would one deal with the issue of people born in places that are now called something else - for example, St. John Philby who the article claims was born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) ? Should we have both Ceylonese and Sri Lankan cats. ? Help !!!! MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think there's a difference between British converts and British-born converts. Same for Ceylon/Sri Lanka. It should go according to current usage. On the other hand, i think every national convert category should be under the national Muslim category. Misheu 13:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• These subcategories were all merged with Category:Converts to Islam for a good reason after a WP:CFD discussion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_11#Converts_to_Islam. I would appreciate people putting back the original category, or these will just be deleted from the articles under speedy deletion for re-creating deleted categories and material Carlossuarez46 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quran Task Force

After going through articles on various Surah's, i feel a strong need for a Wikiroject_Islam task force on Quran. Can it be created? Thanks. -- ĐõÇ §αмέЄЯ  00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this wikiproject has way too many "task forces" and way too little quality articles. Saying that, if you really think that having a "task force" will increase the quality of those articles, create one, otherwise, just utilize the talk page here to coordinate editing of those pages. Pepsidrinka 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you take a look at some of the articles on various Surah's you might change your opinion. I feel an individual effort wont be sufficient for such a vast topic. Thanks & peace :) -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You could also make a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and see if there is enough interest to start one. John Carter 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it will apply to the creation of a new Wikiproject, while this was for a task force only. I aint well versed with Wiki Policies, so can you guide me if both are the same? -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your right. It applies to a new WikiProject, whereas what you suggest clearly lies within the scope of this WikiProject. I also agree that the articles on the suras are quite bad. If you think that having a task force is going to increase the quality of the articles, go ahead. It just seems as the current task forces within this WikiProject are failures. Pepsidrinka 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hadith-related articles up for deletion

Eleven Hadith-related articles have been nominated for deletion via WP:PROD, including Hadith of Abu Bakr and Muhammad in the cave. See Category:Proposed deletion as of 11 August 2007. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Shiite Encyclopaedia

Could anyone point me to an online version of the "Islamic Shiite Encyclopaedia (edited by H®asan al-Am^n; Beirut, 1970)" as alluded to here please? Alternatively, can the following be considered a reliable source? Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

not sure about where the first one can be found. generally speaking, al-islam.org isn't regarded as much of a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think it was but thought I'd check. → AA ^(talk) — 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Al-Amin, Hasan. Islamic Shi'ite Encyclopedia, 4 vols. Beirut: SLIM Press, 1970-73. seems to be a more proper citation. Not sure (and very doubtful) it can be found online. Pepsidrinka 19:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check to see if the library has any copies. → AA ^(talk) — 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BaAlawi

This article has been nominated for deletion. It seems to me to be a notable subject, that someone here may be able to clean up and make a little less confusing. Cheers Kevin 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sakina

The article Sakina could use a pair of eyes from someone familiar with Sakina usage in the Quran. A Conflict of interest report was filed and it seems two users are on opposing sides of the issues. Please take a look at the Sakina article and article talk page. Thanks! -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a few cleanup edits to this and the other article mentioned in the COI, which I hope are non-controversial. In the case of the Sakina article, it could also do with a visit by an expert in Jewish theology. Itsmejudith 10:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi, I'm not a member of the WikiProject, but I've recently been working on some articles related to medieval Egyptian history (Fatimid Caliphate) and could use some language assistance. I've created articles on such subjects as Shawar, Mosque of Amr, and Al-Askar, and I'd like to get the Arabic name into the lead of the articles, but I am afraid that my language skills just are not up to the task. Is there someone here who is more familiar with Arabic, who could assist, both in adding Arabic to the article leads, and also checking if there are any interwiki links that need to be made to Arabic-language projects? Thanks very much, Elonka 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done, wasn't able to find al-`Askar on ar.wiki. impressive work on those articles, by the way. ITAQALLAH 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And as a special bonus, the Mosque of Amr article is being listed on the Main Page today, in the "Did you know" section.  :) --Elonka 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another request for assistance: Mahathir bin Mohamad

Like Elonka, I am not familiar with or a member of this project but an article which seems to be of interest to this project appears to be "under attack". Several editors have been adding unverified, POV assertions to Mahathir bin Mohamad. It would be helpful if others more interested in and knowledgeable of this subject were to keep an eye on the article. Thanks! --ElKevbo 10:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

a lot of the edits from new accounts on that article appear to be BLP vios too. i have watchlisted the article. ITAQALLAH 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There are things in this article that offend good muslims. Changes must be made.

I am a 'learning muslim' from Australia and I feel that this article must be adjusted to suit all people reading it because the language is strong and it *will* offend people.

I know much about the houris myself and will try to contribute what I can. It will be a slow process but (by Allah's will) I will help to improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HourisDefender (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but which article do you speak of? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 09:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I help?

Assalam u aalaikum,

I am a Muslim and a Ghair-Muqalid by following. I have interest and somewhat (semi-complete) knowledge in un-mystified Islamic history.

How can I be of any help?

Kind regards, (UJMi 08:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Request for additional (cited) research

Hi. I am a Christian and anti-racist activist working on the Islam and modernity article. There is much work to do.

The article, until I got there, seemed to be written like an essay. It was very close to seeming like a response to an opinion, rather than an encyclopedia entry. I think the over-use of opinion here is because there are a lot of people who do not believe that Islam is compatible with modernity. I think that's unfair and inaccurate. However, the only way to counter these people is with research from reliable sources, showing that there have been efforts by Muslims to "modernize".

Part of the challenge is also explaining what "modernity" means. It does not necessarily mean democratization. It does usually mean greater respect for science and a separation of church and state. It usually includes a constitution, and even partial efforts to improve equality under the law.

I would like this article to include a history of major modernizing forces in Islam -- even those who failed, or those who only went part of the way. Talking about the present day is difficult and contraversial, but focusing on historical reformers can be backed up with sources and research. I have even been able to track down a list of important people from before the first world war in this article:

• Namik Kemal
• Ishak Efendi
• Kudsi Efendi
• Mirza Malkom Khan
• Khayr al-din al-Tunisi
• Qasim Amin
• Mahmud Tarzi
• Sayyid Ahmad Khan
• Kijai Hadji Ahmad Dachlan
• Wang Hingshai
• Jamal al-Din al-Afghani
• Muhammad Abduh
• Muhammad Rashid Rida
• Al-Saykh Tartawi Jawhari

I hope other people are able to continue from where I left off. Thank you, and good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.192.127 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"rahmatullahi alai"

Have I done the right thing in removing this phrase from an Indian Muslim scholar's article? I gather it's a term of respect used after the name of teachers, and so isn't appropriate in an encylopedia article, but I can't find a direct translation from a search as it's used so often in forum posts and articles, without explanation. Thomjakobsen 13:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated...

I've been the overburdoned "caretaker" of sorts for the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi article...I AfD'd it back in June, and it was correctly kept as reliable sources were located; since then, I have been one of the only consistent editors continually pulling it into the realm of encyclopedic content. My own busy schedule and general frustration with the constant addition of propaganda have caused me to lose interest in that fight. I recently reverted the article back to my 14:01, July 3, 2007 version after it had grown in unsourced propaganda. Anyways, I have no interest in violating WP:OWN—to be honest I really don't even care about this topic—so I'd appreciate additional pairs of eyes to help control this article. The other major editor of the article, Iamsaa (talk · contribs), is "responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet" for this religious (cult?) figure that seemingly ran afoul of a lot of traditional Islamic authorities. It's clear from the sources that the subject is deserving of an article, but if left "unattended" it devolves into a religious tract where anon IPs argue over whether Shahi is actually dead or in some sort of transcendent state. Thanks, — Scientizzle 02:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I am myself not a fan of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but I will gladly keep an eye on it :) I have added it to my watch list and would make sure it remains clean of vandalism. UJMi 05:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Adjemi ?

In parsing Richard Francis Burton's writings about his trip to Mecca and Medina, I came across a reference to the fact he had initially set out disguised as a Persian member of the "half-heretical Moslem sect of the Adjemi", and later adopted a more mainstream approach feigning an Afghan heritage. I was curious about this "Adjemi", a term which isn't used (not spelled like that, anyhow), and hoped somebody could point me to a wiki article about it under another name? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably an anglicization of Ajam (Bahrain), a Persian Shia sect? Related articles to that spelling: Ajam, Ajami language. Thomjakobsen 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam and animals

Islam and animals has been experiencing some trouble and is in need of the involvement of new good-faith, experienced editors, particularly those willing to mediate a dispute. Please consider participating in that article to help bring that article under control. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources of sharia

Someone created this article yesterday. It obviously needs to be wikified at the very least, and I've tagged it as such, but more importantly I thought I should call attention to it here for a general evaluation of the both article itself and where it fits in relation to other Islam-related articles. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Finngall, I think its best if placed some where here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah I would advice a merge of the two articles. What do you say? (UJMi 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Makes sense to me. I'm no expert on the subject, which is why I brought it to the attention of more knowledgeable people here, and I'll leave the details to you. Thanks again. --Finngall ^talk 16:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Muslims Colaboration

I'm looking for some help on improving the Black Muslims article. Some of us from WP:AFRO have noticed that it's lacking. The article needs to be globalized and referenced. And depending on what we get from various places it may need to be split into multiple articles. Thanks for anyone who can offer any help. CJ 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Birth

The above article could do with some more material on Islamic belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus. At the moment it only refers directly to the Qur'an, and should really have a secondary source, which should be easy to find. Hope someone here will have a minute to add a bit more text, thanks. Itsmejudith 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Kanzul Iman

Could someone have a look at Kanzul Iman? I'm confident it's notable, but it's come up at WP:AFD because of the generally unencyclopedic treatment of the topic. It also needs reliable third-party confirmation of the assertions about its status as a translation. Gordonofcartoon 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamist (term)

This article was in the {{unreferenced}} category. It doesn't seem very coherent to me and I thought the editors here might be able to help with it.--BirgitteSB 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam

I've added this article for peer review. Please write your idea about it here.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Change all words "God" to "Allah" in all Islamic related articles?

Should we change the words God in all Islamic relating topics to Allah? Except for the Allah article mentioning that it means God. I'm just saying this because Islam is a tradition. Even in the Judaic article, maybe most of the God words should be changed to Yahweh etc.... like you wouldn't call a pharaoh a king because that's not the traditional name for him --• Storkian • 02:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if we change "God" to "Gott" in all the articles about Martin Luther and other German-speaking Protestant reformers. And so for "Dieu," "Dios," etc., etc. Also, all articles about Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews should have "God" changed to "Allah."

In other words, I don't think the proposal is reasonable. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've raised the same question at Talk:Jihad, so I'll repeat my comment there. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid the answer is a bit misguided. Please don't forget that the readers of Islamic articles majority are non-Muslim. In their psychology of perception "God" calls for specific associations related to their culture which may mislead whet reading about Islamic culture. In other words, "Allah" for non-Muslim is not synonymous to God, it specifically means "Islamic God" or "God in Islamic traditions". Of course the recommendation is correct: we shall not run around replacing one word for another: everything depends on the context, and if the author wrote God or Allah, it is quote possible it was donr intentionally. The second weak point of advice is opposing "God" to "Gott" or "Dieu". This comarison is invalid. First, both God and Gott refer basically to the same christian god. Second, unlike Allah, I don't see Dieu in English language often (with the exception of "mon Dieu" or "mein Gott!") Mukadderat 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Mukadderat said. I think it would depend on the context of its use. --JuanMuslim ^1m 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept the (indisputable) point that the concept of God is different in Islam. Yet I would point out that the name "God" suffices in English for the Supreme Being as conceived of in more than one religion. It is not reserved to "the Christian God" (assuming there is only one Christian concept of God). English-speaking Jews, who do not believe God consists of three Persons, also worship "God." Followers of non-Western religions are described as having an idea of "God," e.g., the Muscogee name Hesaketvmese, "master of breath," is routinely said to refer to God[2], although this Supreme Being does not come from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Examples are legion. Finally, if "Allah" is the "God of Islam," how are we to understand the use of Allah by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews?

Understand, please, that I am not making a case for removing "Allah" and replacing it with "God" -- I am arguing against the reverse. English-speaking Muslims do indeed refer to "Allah" interchangeably with "God," and with an understanding that the two words refer to the same divine person. So let's allow both to be used in Wikipedia articles on Islamic topics. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Muslim, so take that into account. I definitely would oppose the blanket replacement proposed above, because in at least some of the Islamic articles what is being discussed is the "concept of God", rather than the specific god Allah of Islam. The page God provides much better information on the generalized concept than the page Allah does. Having said that, in those cases when the subject being discussed is clearly the Islamic concept of the deity Allah, in those specific instances only, I could see changing the term. Even there, though, it sometimes is a good idea to have an alternate word available, as you don't want to keep repeating the same word over and over and over and over and .... In those cases, I can also see a good reason for using the word God, if for only purely stylistic purposes. John Carter 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, a consensus was previously formed on this here [3]--Aminz 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Aminz. We needed that. In a nutshell: Strong consensus for "God," except in quotations. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by this "consensus." On articles relating to Greek mythology, should we start replacing "Zeus" with "God"? -- Koranimal Control —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.98.82 (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "Isra'iliyat Salaf"?

Hello: Is there any article or information that explains what an "Isra'iliyat Salaf" is so that Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf makes sense to those who have no idea what it means and can be "in on the secret", and why the articles that are in it are there? Thank you. IZAK 06:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

hi IZAK. it appears to refer to Jewish/Christian converts to Islam in the time of Muhammad, particularly those who related Isra'iliyat. i don't think the topic is particularly notable in and of itself, and i am sure other established categories can be substituted in place of Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf (or the cat could possibly renamed to "Narrators of Isra'iliyat"). ITAQALLAH 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a helpful change. FWIW the article Isra'iliyat is still obscure for non-Muslim readers. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)

Please comment in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Re: Muhammad Mukadderat 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Use (p.b.u.h) with any name of Prophet (p.b.u.h)

Hi, I read some of the article and just wanted to add something of immense importance. Any name of Prophet(pbuh) is always written with (pbuh) i.e. peace be upon him, like i just did. It is due to respect. All muslims do it whenever they speak or write, so it is better to do this if we want dont want to hurt their feelings. We can also explain this as part of the article, that the name is always written or spoken with (pbuh) and is done by all muslims of the world.

It is my kind advice to include the above suggestion.

Thank you.

:This would be unencyclopedic, please stop trying to force your stupidity on others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.191.110 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To give a more civil response than the previous poster: the use of such honorifics is seen as taking a specific point of view. That is why Wikipedia avoids the use of honorifics, whether with politicians, royalty, or religious figures. For more about this, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Islamic honorifics. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Change all Islamic related articles mentioning God (as in reference to Allah) to Allah?

The holy quran says (e.g "...is the way to paradise as is god's words")

so like change something like that to

... is the way to paradise as in allah's words

--• Storkian • 23:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Storkian, how many times will you bring this up? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islamism

Anyone want to check over Criticism of Islamism, it's just appeared fully formed and I'm wondering if it is a duplicate of something? --Fredrick day 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bans on ritual slaughter

A request for comments has been posted at Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter#Request for comments. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam and Hindu/Sikh articles

The articles Muslim-Hindu Marriages and Muslim-Sikh relations are very poorly written. The first contains false statements (e.g. A Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman provided she converts to Islam.) and the second reads like a rant on 'Muslims persecute Sikhs'. I'll try and clean these up but someone with more knowledge on Sikhism, Hinduism and Islam would be of much help. Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured List review:Islam by country

I have nominated Islam by country at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Please participate in reviewing the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Navigational template

I made a new template to help people find what they want easily. You can see it Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#To do. I used Template:WPMILHIST Navigation and there is some sections which we don't have in our wikiproject. Although I removed some of them, keep some others to inspire us, God willing, to make those sections. Feel free to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Brotherhood among the Sahaba

This article came up in the WPMILHIST article sweep as possibly being within our scope. I have judged it to be outside of our scope, but the article itself needs attention. I debated on the merits of simplying tagging it for speedy deletetion since it provides little if any context, then decide the best thing to do would be to drop a message here, explain the situation, and see if anyone more familar with the subject and its associated material would imporve the article. If anyone could help improve the article a little to make its context more clear I would apreciate it. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

it probably would have met criteria for speedy deletion. i think it's just a subtopic of the Sahaba article, and have redirected it accordingly. ITAQALLAH 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Please note, that User:Yahel Guhan initiated some IMHO questionable article renames:

• from "Islamist terrorism" to "Islamic terrorism"
• from "Islamist violence" to "Islamic violence"
• from "Islamic political violence" to "Islamic violence"

You are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Islamic_terrorism. --Raphael1 14:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Please pay attention to Wikipedia:The Core Contest. To improve the situation of the core articles, some wikipedians are announcing a two-week-long contest focusing on Wikipedia's most important articles, running from November 25, 2007 to December 9, 2007.As I checked there is several articles in the list which relate to this project. I provided an alphabetical list of them.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Abraham
• Ali
• Allah
• Avicenna
• Crusades
• Eastern philosophy
• Fall of Constantinople
• Geber
• Ibn Battuta
• Ibn Khaldun
• Islamic conquest of Persia
• Islamic Golden Age
• Islamic revolution of Iran
• Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Balkhi-Rumi
• Jesus
• Mecca
• Moses
• Muhammad
• Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī
• Mughal Empire
• Ottoman Empire
• Qur'an
• Ruhollah Khomeini
• Seljuq dynasty
• Shia Islam
• Sufism
• Sunni Islam
• Umar

Muslim astronauts

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_27#Category:Muslim_astronauts, which at the moment is looking likely to be deleted like many -by religion categories these days, but could quickly be turned into a list at least. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahl vs Ahul

The page title is Ahl, yet the headers are mostly Ahul. If it was a vote I would go for Ahl or Ahal as there is no u sound. I am arabic. 87.194.54.232 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hadith of warning

I found the above article in those needing to be wikified (from December 2007). It is in a rather bad way. I hope some kind people here can nurse it back to health. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. I tried to improve it, but its situation is terrible. please a native speaker correct the grammar. Also some sources should be added.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Constructive vs. Nonconstructive efforts

Salam Alaykum

I've recently found this and it really irritated me. I don't intend to waste my time by protesting against the decision, but I think this is not constructive trend for several reasons. First, we lost one of our active friends[4] who made not only had a lot of articles but also a task force for Hadith as well as some other task forces. Second, we lost many articles easily and now we should make them again due to the fact that most of them are important issues. Finally, all of the discussions[5] didn't lead to any guideline for hadith articles and now we should start from the beginning Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Hadith of warning.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

i don't think there is inherent notability in every/any hadith ever to have existed. most of the hadith pertain to actual topics, for example, Succession to Muhammad. in this case, if the hadiths are of significance in establishing a perspective, then they should be discussed under that topic. the concern expressed by myself and others was that quite a few such articles were just used as proxies/forks to establish a viewpoint from one side or the other. this isn't to say that all hadith of articles must be deleted - in a few cases (and IMO these are rare) there might be a narration which has drawn enough independent attention and analysis for it to merit a seperate article. ITAQALLAH 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with the idea that if the hadiths are of significance in establishing a perspective, then they should be discussed under that topic. I don't want to write them as they were before. But at least in the case of Ali article which I've worked on, nobody merged the information and I obliged to gather some information about Hadith of the dinner invitation and Hadith of the door to knowledge. You see, we don't discuss about what Striver had made. I'm irritated due to your Nonconstructive style. You didn't establish any guideline on the basis of your discussion to prevent later mistakes and now we have similar problem with Hadith of warning. You didn't try to save the information by merging it and you didn't try to save Striver as an active member of this wikiproject.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

in all honesty, most of these articles were created only for Sunni vs. Shia point-scoring, and i'm not the only one who realised that. Striver was a prolific contributor, but, with all due respect, his work was not free from bias. it was due to community consensus that these unnecessary "hadith of..." articles were deleted... many of them were simply massive quotes of Sunni Imam A says this, but Shia Imam B says that. that's not what articles are supposed to be about, and they are certainly not a venue for importing website polemic found on al-islam.org et al. (and that's unfortunately what they were). as for the Ali article, i don't think it will be able to reach a scholarly standard unless its main foundation is what is present in academic works- that is why i didn't believe that the content from such deleted articles necessarily merited wholesale salvaging. if such hadith are going to be discussed, and IMO they are promoted because some people believe it establishes their particular conception of Ali, then it should be discussed in a Shia/Sunni view section at the end of the article. i am currently involved in trying to do this with the Fatimah article, in keeping sectarian persectives from engulfing the whole article. regards, ITAQALLAH 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss about what Striver had done. I mean why don't you try to improve the situation by making a guideline for hadith articles, contributing with other wikipedians and saving information. There are a lot of articles which look like essays(here) but I never nominated them for deletion. I accept some of your criticism about Striver but I'm sure that I could improve some of them if I knew. However as Rumi says we shouldn't be in sorrow of what have passed(گفت دیگر بر گذشته غم مخور چون ز تو بگذشت زان حسرت مبر). I write this discussion to improve the situation at least by making a guideline for hadith and verse. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

i would be happy to help in the construction of a guideline pertaining to hadith/surah articles, although i think it is more of a notability issue than a stylistic one. ITAQALLAH 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Please help me with it: User:Sa.vakilian/Hadith guideline.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to leave a quick message at WikiProject Religion, because there may be a need for notability guidelines on Biblical verses and similar, and other editors might want to compare notes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any idea. Do they have something such as Ilm ar-Rijal and Isnad?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

There is a discussion in Talk:Islamic terrorism#Article Title. Please participate in it and help us to achieve consensus. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Muzzie

This article should be given some attention by this Wikiproject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzie

Apologies if this is an actual derogatory term and it startled you on this page if you are a Muslim.

Please help assess whether the article should be deleted - which it should be if there are no *CLEARLY RELIABLE* sources confirming *widespread* *published* usage to back it up. (Wikipedia is not a neologism site nor is it a slang site like Urbandictionary.com). If there is only sufficient sourcing to create an article which amounts to a dictionary definition, the article may have to be transferred to Wikidictionary. (Wikipedia is not a dictionary)

It seems that the page was originally first created as a attack page (against Jews?) but then edited down to its current version and kept by other editors who think there are enough google hits out there on random forums and blogs to merit an article with zero references (I dont think, with the exception of an admirable minority, most Wikipedia editors care about proper referencing/verification...)

I'm not Muslim or Jewish or anything and not opinionated about any religion in particular. I just want Wikipedia to stop leaving pages like this without proper referencing, particularly when the page has controversial content (just NPOVing the content without any referencing is just not enough - ridiculous!! And using only sources like Urbandictionary.com is worse). Otherwise Wikipedia may as well be Urbandictionary.com. If the article is deleted, the line about "Muzzie" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzy should also be addressed.

Thank you for attention. 207.151.235.35 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Peace

I think you should share your views regarding Islamic peace--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jamaat al-Muslimeen & Jamaat-ul-muslimeen

These articles are about the same group and it appers that the first should redirect to the second. Can someone take a look and see what should be done. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I merged them, though at the first link, not the second - makes more grammatical sense to me. I think I got all of the essential information from the second article, though I couldn't always keep the phrasing. The article could probably still use some cleaning up, though. Paul Willocx (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

history of Inventions in the Islamic world

Please can users in this project stick to the project guidelines? I will remind you of the mission statement; "The mission of WikiProject Islam is to ensure that Islam-related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style, in a neutral and non-sectarian manner, using verifiable and reliable scholarly sources." some of the editing especially that done by User:Jagged 85 is very biased and uses questionable sources to produce an islamicist psado history either the article is about inventions or Islam at the moment it claims to be about inventions but User:Jagged 85 keeps adding this projects template to the talk pages inapropriately Oxyman42 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)13:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article pertains to inventions originating from Islamic civilisation/the Muslim world/ the Islamic golden age. These concepts are well-accepted in academic scholarly thought. For starters, you could consider going through the Cambridge History of Islam which has a full volume (2B I think) devoted to the contributions of Islamic civilisation in terms of art, architecture, science, literature, and so on. If there's sufficient academic sources available on the topic, then it seems reasonable to have an article on it. ITAQALLAH 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

mentioning the Cambridge History of Islam dose nothing tp justify the islamist agenda going on on this artice as if all the edits on the article refer to that next you'll be explodeing no doubt Oxyman42 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't quite get your last comment. If it's what I perceive, then please refer our policies on civility and refraining from personal attacks. If not, then apologies in advance. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

saying the editors here are islamists with an agenda is not an insult but the truth also given your logic it is very likely your next action will be to explode and is an observation rather than an insult Oxyman42 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly... cut it out with the personal attacks. ITAQALLAH 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly that is not a personal attack it is an observation please stop accuseing me of personal attacks it is inapropriate, why do Muslims never take responsibility for their actions and blame others? Oxyman42 (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Best participants of the month

Many wikiprojects choose one or few participants as the participants who deserve to be glorified. I think we can do so in our wikiproject.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: Jagged was selected as the best participants of the month

User:Jagged 85

I nominate User:Jagged 85 due to his efforts in several articles. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1. He has written an article by himself about Islamic psychology since 15 January. An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 January 2008.
2. He has done a lot of efforts in Islamic astronomy which is chosen as a good article in this month.
3. He has done more than 1600 edits since January 1.
4. Has has improved articles about Muslim scientists as well as Islamic sciences.
5. He has gained 4 bransters this month.
6. There is just one negative point about him. He has blocked for twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Apostasy in Islam, but I think we can neglect it.

Please add your viewpoint about this nomination below.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support:

1. Great editor, why not? Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I've not seen another editor as dedicated as he. I would've given him a barnstar, but compared to him, I seem like a junior (and juniors don't reward their seniors).Bless sins (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Definitely. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
4. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Oxyman42 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Thank you Seyyed, Auawise, Bless, Aminz and Itaqallah for your nominations. I really appreciate it and God bless you all. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other Nominees:

Category name requested for people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali

What would be the appropriate category name for people who became famous or are notable because of their criticism of Islam, or their anti-Islam activism or opposition to Islam? I mean people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Would this be category:critics of Islam or category:anti-Islam activists or so mething else. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:critics_of_Islam Andries (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OC#OPINION. I think Category:Criticism of Islam is sufficient - or, if you like, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Question re: Islamic polygyny

Can anyone tell me why the limit to the number of wives an Islamic man can have is set at four (rather than, say, three, five, ten etc.) Just curious, and I thought that someone here would know the answer. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims believe that pologyny is allowed because of the following verse in the Koran: 4:3, "'Marry woman of your choice in twos' threes' or fours' but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, (with them), then only one'"

You should really use Google (or the other search engine of your choice) to find out the answers to questions of fact like this. - Nickpullar (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad image controversy, a proposal to revisit

Dear all, a proposal has been made on Village Pump (Proposals) to revisit the issue on adding Drawings of Muhammad (Sm.) on the article Muhammad. Please check. If you don't agree with my argument, please let me know why. If you do, please strengthen my case by showing your support. Thanks, Arman ^(Talk) 05:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

this was a pointless revisit and waste of wikipedias time please accept the earlier decisions Oxyman (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Template Vandalism

While doing a GA review for an article under the project, I noticed that Template:WikiProject Islam had an image that one would not expect as its logo. You can feel free to look at it yourselves. In any case, I reverted what I presume to be vandalism (and it appeared that the template had been vandalized not once, but twice without correction). Perhaps the project managers might want to consider having the template protected. Of course, I suppose I could have been way off the mark, but I'm assuming that no one intended to represent the project with this or this. -- jackturner3 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, both changes were vandalism. Thank you for spotting this... I have the page watchlisted but hadn't seen it until after it was reverted. Protection may be a good idea, as it isn't likely the template will need frequent edits anyway. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Template is now protected so only admins can edit it, given it's high-risk status. John Carter (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Help me out here...Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

While I mentioned this here before (there's a September 2007 message above), I didn't get a lot of help. I'm really not very knowledgeable about anything beyond the basics of Islam, and am totally lost when it comes to stuff that inhabits the fringes. However, somehow I became the protector of an article in which I have no interest in the subject, but have been the only experienced Wikipedian editor battling a constant stream of attempted propaganda/whitewashing. Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is currently being rewritten by the admitted "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, a group that Shahi started and is run by his devotees. (I've tried to explain WP:COI, too.) I wrote the original article, and merged in the unsourced article on Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. The last version I'm comfortable with (since I know it's sourced and written in a reasonably neutral tone) is here. Now the article looks like this. Do any of you know anything about Shahi? Would some WP:ISLAM editors be willing to help me sort this page out? Any help in maintaining some semblance of encyclopedic neutrality would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Scientizzle 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know much about this person, but I'll watchlist the page and keep an eye on it (and perhaps add some comments if I get round to it!). ITAQALLAH 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Striver had previously noted that Abd-Allah Jahsh and Ubayd-Allah ibn Jahsh might be the same person. I have proposed merging the two articles if they are the same person. Add Abd-Allah ibn Jahsh to that list too. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need your help / opinion!

Hello! We are trying to come up with a barnstar of national merit for the WikiProject Iraq, and we are facing a bit of a problem; would it be acceptable to write the takbir vertically on the barnstar? We are discussing this right now here. We would really appreciate if you can give us your opinion on this matter. We do not want to offend anybody. Cheers! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be fine I think. The flag has been shown vertically, and in any case I don't think it necessarily demeans the phrase. ITAQALLAH 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you opted to use the horizontal flag. That's a good option too :-). ITAQALLAH 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This has no real connection to Islam, please avoid Islamic POV pushing into other areas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.191.110 (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Endless redirect chain

Hey. We just got a sort of half-request over at WP:3O about AL-kitab (Quran). I just took a quick look at it, and it appears that AL-kitab (Quran), Islamic holy books and Islamic Holy Books all redirect to each other. I just redirected everything to AL-kitab, and I was wondering if someone here could take a look at this to make sure that my actions were correct. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article title should not be "AL-kitab," it should be Islamic holy books. Al-kitab means "the book", this article is about all books/scriptures recognised in Islam. The move made by Farrukh should really be reversed.. ITAQALLAH 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, alright. Do you want me to do that, or do you want to do that? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I already tried moving it back unsuccessfully... I think this one we need an admin to do... ^_^ ITAQALLAH 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread on AN/I to get this sorted out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all sorted out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Al-kitab (Quran)

Can someone here check out the article Al-kitab (Quran) to establish whether it has any value on Wikipedia? It seems to me it's largely a POV-fork of either Qur'an or Islamic holy books or both. —BradV 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of marking that page for deletion due to POV. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that it uses only primary sources. I am not sure if there is enough secondary literature about the fact that it is called "al-Kitab" for it to deserve an article. gren グレン 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is up for AfD. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Farrukh38's edits

I'm sorry to post here again. I'm trying as hard as I can not to WP:BITE the newcomer, but Farrukh's edits are starting to get disruptive. Tawrat and Injil have a great deal of incoherent text in them now; I would attempt to work this out, but because I'm not well versed on the topics at all, I don't feel qualified to do so. I think someone needs to talk to Farrukh to try to help him or her through the editing process. Anyway, just wanted to bring this to someone's attention. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again HelloAnnyong. I have to admit I'm getting a bit exasperated too. I initially posted standard templates on his talk page about basic content policies... then I addressed him on Talk:Qur'an asking him what precise changes he wanted made so that I could help in implementing it, and then I had to post another comment on his talk page requesting that he slow down. I'm having difficulty getting through to him... but I intend to post on his talk page again with a focus on the basics. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unknown importance?

I notice the article Muhammad has a lot of category labels. One of them is Category:Unknown-importance Islam-related articles.

It seems to me absurd to say that the lead article about the founder of Islam is of "unknown importance" among Islam-related articles. Presumably an error has been made. Thanks for looking into this. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the template didn't recognise the entry for the 'importance' parameter. Fixed it now. ITAQALLAH 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand {{Infobox church/sandbox}} to cover all places of worship?

There is a proposal to convert the draft infobox template {{Infobox church/sandbox}} into a template that can be used for all places of worship. We would like your views on whether you think this is a good idea, and if you are able to help identify parameters that would be relevant to the religion that your WikiProject deals with. Do join the discussion taking place at "Template talk:Infobox church". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Koran or Qur'an?

Has there ever been a discussion/consensus about whether the word Koran or Qur'an should be used in articles? I found nothing about this at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), and discussion about this has arised here and here. Cheers, Face 12:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an should be used is it's a more accurate representation of the Arabic and it's also preferred in academic discussion, Koran is rather archaic and is not predominantly used anymore. ITAQALLAH 18:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also commented over at Talk:Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Itaqallah. I've made my argument in Talk:Qur'an, which is where I think this discussion should occur. Cheers Nickpullar (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: This discussion is no longer active, but no decision has been reached. I would once again like to ask: if you have an opinion on this and have not yet stated it, please do so at Talk:Qur'an#Spelling. Thanks in advance, Face 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Islam-stub#Image

Hi, I would like to take your attention to this proposal. -- Cat ^chi? 19:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam now is the largest religion in the world?

To anyone who have the authorities to edit this page.

I read this news: http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL3068682420080330

At it was said that now, Islam is the largest religion in the world. Can anyone clarify this? If this is true, can anyone edit the statement that said: "Islam the second-largest religion in the world"?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esandjay (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Esandjay you have as much authority to edit this page as anyone. Which you may know already since you have given yourself a username that suggests a degree of familiarity with Wikipedia.

It is easy to spot that while there are more Muslims than Catholics there are more Christians than Muslims. So "second-largest religion" still applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that this news be featured on the Main Page. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. __meco (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)