Talk:Al-Fatiha/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Al-Fatiha. 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 |
Arabic Text
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.
Why was the Arabic text below removed from the page? Its really hard for arabic learners to read the handwritten text shown on the image.
- بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
- ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ
- ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
- مَـٰلِكِ يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ
- إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
- ٱهْدٱلْمُسْتَقِيمَ
- صِرَ ٰطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ ٱلْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ ٱلضَّاۤلِّينَ
- ✓ Done. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Al-Fatiha Foundation
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.
I understand that some editors dislike the content of the Al-Fatiha Foundation article, but it is a legitimate article and the disambig is necessary. "Offensiveness" is a POV concern and we cannot hide haram topics from Wikipedia readers. Please do not remove the disambig again. Thanks. Babajobu 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then, why not a nice Disambiguation page? 193.146.45.126 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because there are only two relevant articles, and a significant majority of people looking for "Al Fatiha" will be looking for this article, not the gay rights org. Babajobu 15:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi! I removed the link today thinking it was vandalism - and this change was subsequently reverted. However, I think this article should reconsider having a disambiguation page and also contemplate rephrasing the disamb link.
- Also, it is bound to offend muslims by having a gay and lesbian organisation link at the top of a page likely to have a large muslim audience. I suggest that we rephrase the disamb link at the top to -
- "al-Fatiha" redirects here. For other uses, see Al-Fatiha (disambiguation).
- [8] and [9] use a similar disamb link phraseology and link to a disamb page having only two links. I assume my suggestions would be popular amongst editors here given the good-intentioned removals of the link. Wikipidian 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Vandalism? How could a disambig link to another article of similar name count as vandalism? Anyway, if people were deleting the link because they personally dislike the content at the other end, they should be reminded that Wikipedia is not censored for their (or anyone else's) religious beliefs. However, we can explore other ways of presenting the link. The Bokaro model is an option, but you see that the unqualified use of the term "Bokaro" links to the disambig page, not to either of the articles. My guess is that this is how all the binary disambig pages work. It doesn't make much sense to have the main term (here, Al-Fatiha) link to one of the articles, with a note that other uses can be found at Al-Fatiha (disambiguation), which then includes only one other article. That's a lot of steps for just two articles, my guess is that terms with two articles are not handled this way elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the only reason I can see for doing it is as concession to theology. Wikipedia doesn't make editorial decisions based on readers' religious sensibilities (e.g., Muhammad Cartoons and Piss Christ), and I don't think we should start now. Babajobu 10:00 am, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)
- Babajobu I have already given you an example of such an article where wikipedia handles 2 similarly-named articles by linking to a dismmbiguation page in the way you described: it is reference 8 in my list, the article entitled bilberry. But because it suits your argument you chose instead to talk about about the bokaro article (reference 9).
- If you type bilberry in the search box you will get the bilberry article with the disambiguation {{other uses}} model template at the top, this then links to a disamb page with 2 articles.
- IN FACT HERE ARE TWENTY MORE EXAMPLES OF WIKIPEDIA HANDLING DISAMBIGUITY BETWEEN TWO SIMILARLY NAMED ARTICLES IN THIS WAY- AARP, Apparatchick, Brett Whiteley, Callisthenes, Daisy Systems, Daniel O'Connell, Dead Man's Switch, Dunedin, Fraser River, Fulke Greville, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Harpers Ferry, Kilsyth, Maradona, Max steiner, Michael Phelps, Schizophrenia, Short Circuit, Trafalgar Square, Zefyri and so on and so forth.
- So you see, we would not at all be setting a precedent by following my suggestion. Personally I don't think we should have the link at all, as there is no ambiguity - when you click "go" when searching for al-fatiha you will expect to see the article on surah al-fatiha, if you want to see something else click search[10].
- ALSO DON'T THINK I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT YOU CREATED THE AL-FATIHA ORGANISATION PAGE AND HAVE THE MAJORITY OF EDITS FOR THIS ARTICLE - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX Babajobu - "Creating overly abundant links ... to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable." [11]. I reitterate that removal of the link appears popular with editors, in fact you are the only editor who is reverting BUT I want to achieve some compromise so I again point to my original suggestion. Wikipidian 7:27 pm, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)
- I didn't choose the Bokaro example because it suited my argument, I chose it because I had never encountered the sort of disambig arrangement you described, and because Bokaro was the first of your examples I clicked on and was consistent with how I've usually seen a two-term disambig situation handled. But ignoring your assumption of bad faith, you've satisfied me that the "see disambig page" link to a two-term disambig is in use on Wikipedia. I think it's a clumsy solution, and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly rejected the notion that the protection of religious sensibilities should affect editorial decisions. And, of course, it's certainly plausible that someone interested in GLBT issues would know the name of Al-Fatiha, but not know that it is called a "foundation" rather than a community or an organization or whatever. But if you want arrange the disambig in a way that will protect Muslims from haram information, I won't object, because you've demonstrated to my satisfaction that the alternative disambig arrangement can also be defended on more reasonable grounds. Babajobu 8:26 pm, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)
- ==REMOVE THE LINK AT THE TOP, THIS IS THE OPENER OF THE MOST HOLY BOOK IN THE WORLD FOR ALL MUSLIMS, AND THAT YOU EVEN THINK OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS DELIBERATELY THIS IS UNACCEPTIBLE== "...Guide us to the Right Path. The path of those upon whom Thou has bestowed favors, Not of those who Thou has cursed once nor of those who have gone astray. " is the opposer a muslim? He should ASK for guidance to the right path, and this is not the path of those who have gone astray. Quite contrary, the first line of the wikipedia article of one of the most important surahs in the QURAN, is in fact ITSELF leading people astray, to "lgbt" article, an organization of people who still are stuck in worldly matters and sexuality, this is incomparable to the unlimited height of the message of the quran. What on earth have you been smoking when you put this, and still insist on it being at the top of one of the most important articles of quran in wikipedia???? I normally couldnt care less about others sexuality, but my this is original. GET IN LINE IN THE SCALE OF IMPORTANCE OF THINGS! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?Odarcan (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- then please make one Odarcan (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
arabic font size
could this be bigger? It's really hard to read.
Allah or God
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.
The word 'Allah' is a name while God in english language is a general word. I think Allah should be used in english translation.
- God (with an uppercase G) is a proper name in English which can not take a plural, not a general word. The name God is the name of the one and only god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in English. Many people (both English speakers and non-English speakers) confuse it with the word god (with a lowercase g), which is a general word refering to any deity of any religion (and can therefore take a plural). The correct translation into English of the name Allah is God, just as the correct translation of the name Isa is Jesus, Ayyub is Job, Yahya is John, Yunus is Jonah, Talut is Saul, etc. --Drivelhead 9:42 am, 20 May 2006, Saturday (4 years, 10 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−7)
- The work God in English is in no way a general word. Were a translation of biblical text made from English to Arabic it would be translated as Allah in a similar way, albet opposite, as is done in this article. To do otherwise would be to propagate a the misconception that Allah is a separate god from God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.67.6 (talk) 7:20 pm, 8 December 2009, Tuesday (1 year, 3 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−8) #
- I am a Muslim and I must agree with SineBot. Jewish articles do not use Adonai or Hashem, why use Allah. This tends to make ppl think it's a different God when they don't know much about Islam. Also they don't mention that Ir Rahman Ir Raheem are two of Hashem Adonaior Allah's names. ~GCleph
Allah is the proper name of god or God or GOD in Islam which cannot be translated. If I say my name is Abdullah, and I am introducing myself to the English men, I cannot say that my name is Slave of the God in Islam. Or can I? wlvrnclws 23:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
In the Notes
Well, quoting "Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody" in an article about Al Qur'an and Surah Al-Fatihah might appear a little bit ... misplaced. No ? TwoHorned 5:17 am, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- This passage can be easily contended, there are hundreds of English translations of the Quran and Dawood is the only translator to make these references. He also worked strictly as a translator, not a student of the Quran, publishing several translations of books in 1955; meaning that his scholarly abilities in translating a Quran weren't super academic and therefore not as trustworthy. He also mixed all the chapters up in his 1955 translation, something that had to be changed upon the 2nd edition because of major concerns from the Muslim community. The references to his translations don't actually show valid citations either. So, I'm in favor of deleting the whole sentence, or at least posting citation as questionable. Yeah?
- In the seventh verse, the words "those who have earned your Anger/Wrath" refer to the Jews (also translated as "those who have incurred your wrath," Dawood, 1955.) and the words "those who have lost their way" refer to Christians (also translated as "those who have gone astray," N. J. Dawood, 1955.) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneAhmad (talk • contribs)
- For Information purposes:
- The first verse, transliterated as "bismillāhir rahmānir rahīm", may be familiar due to its ubiquity in Arabic and Muslim societies. Using the Hafs recitation, this verse appears at the start of every chapter in the Qur'an with the exception of the ninth. The verse normally precedes reciting a chapter or part of a chapter during daily prayer in Islam, and is proclaimed before many personal and everyday activities as a way to invoke God's blessing. The two words "ar rahmān" and "ar rahīm" are often translated in English as "the beneficent" and "the merciful". Grammatically the two words "rahmaan" and "raheem" are different linguistic forms of the triconsonantal root R-H-M, connoting "mercy".
- The second verse's "الحمد الله" ranks as one of the most popular phrases in all of Arabic, being used to express one's well-being, general happiness, or even consolation in a disaster (see Alhamdulillah). The verse is also significant in that it includes a relationship between the two most common names for God in Arabic "الله" and "رب". The first word is a ubiquitous name for God, and the second roughly translates to "Lord." It shares the same root with the Hebrew "rabbi". In some printings of the Qur'an, both words appear in red everywhere in the Qur'an.
- The first word of the fourth verse varies as between variant recitation versions of the Qur'an. The most widely preferred of those differ on whether it is "maliki" with a short "a," which means "king" (Warsh, from Nafi'; Ibn Kathir; Ibn Amir; Abu 'Amr; Hamza), or rather "māliki" with a long "a," meaning "master" or "owner" (Hafs, from Asim, and al-Kisa'i). "Maliki" and "māliki" are distinct words of inconsistent precise meaning deriving from the same triconsonantal root in Arabic, M-L-K.
- In the seventh verse, the words "those who have earned your Anger/Wrath" refer to the Jews (also translated as "those who have incurred your wrath," Dawood, 1955.) and the words "those who have lost their way" refer to Christians (also translated as "those who have gone astray," N. J. Dawood, 1955.)
JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Virtues of this Sura
I was thinking about making a table "Virtues of Sura" in this way below. But whether certain Hadiths are authentic or not may vary from scholar to scholar within the same school. Also the branches are quite misleading. It needs to be done by an Alim/Ulema, else it will certainly do more harm than good. (Also added some details about Bismillah)
| Hadith | Maliki | Shafi | Hambali | Hanafi | Salafi /Ahle Hadith | Sufi | Shia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABCD | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | |
| EFGH | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
I divided Virtues into several parts. The part "Uncategorized Collection" can have things which we generally know about but cannot yet classify into truthful/argumentative/weak. It can be removed if the other parts are filled. Verycuriousboy (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Assalaamu Alaikum. I am making table-form of the Virtues of Sura al-Nas. Pray for me. Jazakallah Khair. - Verycuriousboy (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
17 times Al-Fatiha in mandatory prayers
This is not exactly true. If u pray all the mandatory prayers behind an Imam then count is 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.156.120 (talk) 3:05 am, 28 April 2008, Monday (2 years, 10 months, 29 days ago) (UTC−7)
Thats funny, even if you pray behind an Imam, you still have to recite it AFTER him as far as I know, in all of the rakaah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.134.213.192 (talk) 5:28 am, 8 August 2009, Saturday (1 year, 7 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−7)
If Muslims do the 5 obligatory prayers, then they recite Al-Fatiha 17 times in one day. In each repetition or Rakah of the Prayer (Salat) Al Fatiha is recited. The number of times depends on the prayer time. There are 3 prayers of 4 Rakats, 1 of 3 Rakats and 1 of 2 Rakats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkvang64 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If someone else would expand the lead I would make this a good article
However if I have to expand the lead then someone else will have to make it a good article. Which could mean all sorts of things being demanded. I could see some reviewer wanting to make this article about how much they dislike Islam and the Quran.--Hfarmer (talk) 4:50 am, 18 December 2008, Thursday (2 years, 3 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−8)
Regarding the audio file
what kind is wanted? Just reading it or reading it with the classic melody? (as is done on the site IslamWay If it's just reading it, then I know arabic and I wouldn't mind.
--User:SuperJew (talk) 8:26 am, 30 April 2009, Thursday (1 year, 10 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−7)
Capitalization & God concept
I have made edits before capitalizing the name of God in the translations. In the Jewish articles God is capital. Why not here? I am doing it again and will continue as Islam is also an Abrahamic religion. If you want it not capital, then remove it EVERYWHERE don't just pick on us Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.20.141 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I find your tone confrontational and defensive, but your point is well taken. Capital G God should be the word used here as shown by previous discussions on this talk page. I have also changed a reference to "their god-concept" as I think it is not NPOV in that it appears to cast doubt on the accuracy of using the word God as well as adopting a superior tone that is wholly unnecessary and potentially very offensive. Ilkelma (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
File:001 abdulbaset fatiha.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion
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.
|
An image used in this article, File:001 abdulbaset fatiha.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
|
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
Sources
It appears that most, if not all, of the sources cited in this article do not conform to WP:SOURCES, as they appear to be self-published websites. Please let me know if I'm wrong in this assessment.--Grapplequip (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Salam all,
Please consider integrating this infomation to this section.
Please see how the additive prime numbers of surat Al-Fatiha (7 verses, 29 words, 139 letters) point to a new numerology system called Primalogy in which the Arabic letters are ordered alphabetically from elf to yaa and given prime values from 2 to 107 [with hamza = 1].
Additive prime number (AP) is a prime number whose digit sum is also prime. All 7 (7), 29 (2+9=11), and 139 (1+3+9=13) are all additive prime numbers (AP).
The primalogy value (PV) of surat Al-Fatiha is 8317 (additive prime number).
The PV of surat Al-Ikhlaas with bismAllah is 4201 (additive prime number).
The PV of surat Al-Ikhlaas without bismAllah is 3167 (additive prime number).
The PV of Ayatul-Kursi is 11261 (additive prime number).
The PV of most repeated verse in the Quran "Fabiayee aalaaei Rabbikumaa tukathibaan" is 683 (additive prime number). The aya has 4 words and is repeated 31 times in surat Ar-Rahmaan. The PV of this aya (683) is the 124th prime number, where 124 = 4 x 31.
And the PV of the word "Allah" is 269 (additive prime number).
Moreover, Quran 15:87: "We have given you seven of the Methaani and the Grand Quran" implies: The Book = The Key + The Message 114 sura = 1 (Al-Fatiha) + 113 sura (AP) 6236 aya = 7 (Al-Fatiha) + 6229 aya (AP)
Even the word Al-Quran means The Readable (despite being encoded which no one can produce at chapter-level).
Glory to Allah The Creator and Sustainer of all seen and unseen worlds in real-time.
Thank you,
Ali Adams God > infinity www.heliwave.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.58.154 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)