Talk:Adab (Islam)

Is "etiquettical" even a real word? AnonMoos 11:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move from User talk:Striver

Please don't ever make a move like that without some real discussion... and... well, possibly citing the use of the term. I know you like your English versions of the Arabic but no one calls it "Islamic etiquettical jurisprudence" All searches lead to Wikipedia mirrors. Please don't do that... you have been warned many many times and it is disruptive. Thank you. gren グレン 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, don't you see that i am trying to make some sense and structure out of the mess we currently have of a hundreds of seemingly un-related Islam articles? I am ginving them a structure, a template and coherent names. And while at it, i also renamed it. Was it wrong? Maybe, but at least try to appreciate my efforts. Take a look at WP:BOLD, and specialy WP:IAR. If you look at it, the article was basicly created by anon in July 2005, improved by User:JuanMuslim three month later, and then, except for my edits and some basic cleanup, it has been left for dead in over a complete year. Now, you accuse me of violating warnings and implying that i am engaging in semi-vandalism for trying to fix a basically abandoned article? Please, bro, take a step back and lock at the history. If you take a look at it when calmed down, can you honestly tell me that this article is not about the Fiqh of etiquette? Oh, the article says it... So, what is the best way to standardize the title? I can appreciate that you do not agree, but i can hardly value a hostile tone in response of honestly trying to improve a abandoned article that is hardly more than a stub. Peace.--Striver 11:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gren, i know about the rules of naming, you know i know. I am proposing some changes in them. If you take your time and look around the fiqh template, would you not agree that it is better to name and present the article as a sub-set of Islamic Jurisprudence, and there also explain the Arabic words for it? I view it as a proper way of stucturizing the hundreds of un-related articles we do have. Basicly, i argue that the article focuses on presenting Adab as sub-set of fiqh, a real classification, instead of just being a article about adab in a void. I mean, no information is lost, and the sense of order and the more english-oriented presentation should have more benefits than merely enforcing a Arabic naming of the title. Of course, i am not suggesting that we rename _everything_ in that manner, only when the said benefits outweight the naming convensions. The naming conventions were not designed with this kind of organization in mind. And actualy, i am not even arguing that we break the rules, just that we change the focus of the article from just presenting an Arabic word, to presenting a consept in its given context. If you really want to draw it out, Adab could even be a sub-set of "Islamic etiquettical jurisprudence". Just think about it, the name is very accurate! It is much more describing than just presenting "Adab" to the english readers, and can not be comapred to established enlish words such as Qur'an and Islam, i would never argue to present those articles in some other way. I really would appreciate a response from you, Gren.--Striver 12:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that you added a Arabic text request on a number of articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], all of them having in common that they are present [in the theological section of] Template:Fiqh, and then you arrived at [its etiquette section] and lost your tempter [9]. Regarding "rv... because no one would EVER use this title besides you O_o", it reminds me of the political articles, were article titles are originaly created on a daily basis, such as Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping, Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 and French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. I am pretty sure that those article names were not used anywere before wikipedia made articles on them. Why? Becasue the article accuratly describes the topic. And that is my point, that the topic of "Islamic etiquettical jurisprudence" is far more notable than the arabic word of Adab, and i can actualy think about having an article about each. And yet again, yes, Islamic etiquettical jurisprudence is created her on wikipedia, but so is Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy and 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot.--Striver 12:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, "etiquettical" isn't even really a word of English... AnonMoos 13:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not? So, what is? Im open to suggestions.

Economy -> Economical.
politics -> political.
theology -> theological
Hygienee -> hygienical
Etiquette -> Etiquett?

--Striver 13:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ethical? Is that what i was thinking of? --Striver 18:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethics" refers to morality (matters of right and wrong), while "etiquette" tends to refer to rather trivial matters of conduct (such as knowing when to use the right fork). I'm not sure that either is a good translation of Arabic Adab -- and "etiquette" does not seem to have an adjective form in English. AnonMoos 18:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was on my way to write it, Ethics and etiquette are different things, and it is etiquette that is refered to here... ""etiquette" does not seem to have an adjective form in English"? Man, that sounds very weird... --Striver 18:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is there so much information about kazak people

i am going to take out this section. It does not make sense for an article generally about islam to have such a large section about how people from kazakhstan greet each other. at all. Iammaggieryan 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adab (Islam). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]