Jump to content

Talk:Eid al-Adha/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

RFC on names of Eid al-Adha in other languages

The consensus is to keep the "Other names" section. Editors found the section worth retaining because it shows how the festival is celebrated in many places in the world.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (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.

There is "Other names" section into the article includes names of Eid al-Adha in other languages and I think it is not cyclopedic and better to remove. Is there another idea about it?Saff V. (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's useful information for the readers to know how the various cultures worldwide celebrate Eid (dishes, dresses, other customs) and also what they call it. So in my opinion the section can stay. Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
basically, Eid al-Adha belongs to Muslim not "the various cultures worldwide".Saff V. (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Muslims can obviously be part of various cultures worldwide. Unless you achieve Wikipedia-wide consensus that such sections (as found in many other world religions: Names of Easter, Holi#Regional names, rituals and celebrations, Vesak#History to name a few) are not encyclopedic, I am in favour of keeping the "Other names" section. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for contribution, while the Eid al-Adha has been written in 92 languages, in my opinion, the existence of other name section is not needed. people can click on the interested language located at the column on the left of the article and see what called Eid al-Adha in that language.Saff V. (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep How a festival is named in another language is something of interest in the English Wikipedia, not for users to have to see a name in a language or script they don't read. As HyperGaruda mentioned, "Other names" sections are standard across Wikipedia. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The information in this section is interesting because it demonstrates that the festival is celebrated in one form or another in many places around the world. For this reason I don't think it should be deleted. The fact that there are many names for the festival because people speak different languages in these places is for the most part incidental. If there isn't agreement to keep the information under the heading "Other names", perhaps a subsection could be added to the "Traditions and practices" section, maybe "Festival locations" or "Eid al-Adha around the world" for example, including the names given to some of the larger gatherings, as well as local differences in the way the festival is celebrated. (I was called here by the bot.)—Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2019 (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.

Saudi Superstition?

"Skeptics, however, feel that this is due to a Saudi superstition that states that if the Eid falls on a Friday, the King will die soon. As chance (or Fate) would have it, King Fahd died later that year." What is the relevance of the above statement to this article? Doesn't this look like some tabloid story to you? I suggest removal of the above from the article.

I'm not so sure. It could definitely be worded in a better way but it's not really so much different than Friday the 13th or the ravens in the Tower of London. That is if we can prove this is any kind of widespread belief. gren グレン 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It very well may be a "widespread belief" and it might be a good addition to articles pertaining to superstition or such. But I question its relevance to the article at hand. I believe this article should be directed towards explaining this islamic holiday, and its historical (or mythical for that matter) background. The above paragraph, hardly adds anything to the article. Also in the current shape it would need citation.

The Also called-section

What is the Also called section for? Probably it's useful for some other names. But someone (User:87.180.212.42)just added Opferfest, and I don't see no reason for listing it there, as that is just the German translation of The Festival of Sacrifice. We can't just list all translations of that, can we? -- JanCK (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scarification

Should it say "scarification" in the first paragraph of Traditions and Practices, or is it a typo? Xaxx 10:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hari Raya

Hari Raya refers to the other Eid, Eid-ul-Fitr not eidul Adha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.177.246 (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Hari Raya by itself might (although it's usually called Hari Raya Puasa or Hari Raya Aidilafitri). But Eid ul-Adha is called Hari Raya Haji/Aidiladha/Qurban Nil Einne
From having lived in Singapore and Indonesia I can tell you Hari Raya is most definitely Eid-ul-Fitr (Idul Fitri). Eid-ul-Adha is simply known as Idul Adha. I'm pretty sure it's the same in Malaysia as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.126.54.231 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
"Hari Raya" (capitalized) might be used to refer to Idul Fitri around the time of that holiday, like "The City" is used to refer to Manhattan, but it is not a term with clear, specific, exclusive meaning. "Hari raya" just means "holiday," cf id:Hari raya, of which religious holidays are a subcategory, cf id:Kategori:Hari raya. 83.84.40.46 09:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslim image?

Not sure this is appropriate for a talk page. Refer to WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You Muslims talk about IMAGE? "What kind of IMAGE do we want?" Are you serious? Why not just show everyone the truth? Isn't that what Eid is all about -- taking the life of an innocent animal to fulfill one's own selfish desires to be "right with God"? I mean, what, do you all reckon yourselves to be butchers? OF COURSE this makes you all look like savages! Animal cruelty is degrading to humanity. You slit the --- throats of animals, not at all knowing what you're doing, and the animal bleeds to death as everyone stands around watching, humiliating it as it suffers and dies in a huge pool of its own blood. Animal rights activists ought to be all over your --- .

And you do this not just for FOOD, but in the name of GOD. Bloodshed in the name of GOD. And you are all exposed to this as children, and you are desensitized to suffering. You just don't care. The animal writhes around in pain and fear, held down as its throat is slit. And NOT by someone with a JOB as a butcher, rather, EVERY Muslim is commanded to do this, and innocent children are watching. I REALLY don't think it's a coincidence that the ones who behead and slit the throats of human beings also are the ones to slit animal throats..... How anyone could ever bow their heads to this reprehensible God of death is beyond me.... I know I would rather rot for an eternity in hell.

So yes, I want to see a picture of the animal having its throat slit. I want everyone to be able to see it. That is what your Eid-al-Adha is about. The very name means "Feast of Sacrifice." What's the problem? But I'm sure this comment will be reverted because "freedom of speech" is reduced to mere principle these days and it is becoming less and less common to see it in practice. Oh well. At least I can say I tried....

Please express yourself in a more civilized way. (Ewpfpod (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

History section

This sentence:

Eid al-Adha celebrations start after the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia by Muslims worldwide, descend from Mount Arafat.

has poor sentence structure, but I don't know what the intention of the sentence is so I can't fix it. Anyone familiar enough with this history should fix it. The structure indicates that the "pilgrimage" is the thing that "descend" from Mount Arafat. Unless a "pilgrimage" is a plural noun, it (they) cannot "descend" from anything.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.24.63 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We end with the sentence telling us of how the well allowed the city to become a trade route and allowed it to prosper.

Then we jump thousands of years to the the Hijrah/Hegira (flight or emigration) to Medina.

Why is this added, if useful why start with this sans why this was necessary or how it relates to Eid al-Adha? Atmamatma (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The history section of this article may be interesting, but it talks about the establishment of Mecca and the Kaaba. While tangentially related to the Eid al-Adha, that doesn't explain what the holiday is about. Could someone correct the history section to include the almost sacrifice of Ishmael?

75.141.130.148 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The grammar and punctuation in the history section was pretty rough. If there is a way to, feel free to let me know if anyone needs help proofing anything for this article.

Citizengw (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

2006 Eid ul-Azha date (the first one)

"Eid ul-Azha" means the major festival. It is also called the "Eid of Sacrifice" or the "Eid ul-Hajj". The "Eid ul-Azha" is a commemoration and a reminder to Muslims of several things; for example:

• The story of Prophet Ebrahim (AS) (Abraham) and Prophet Ismail (AS) (Ishmael) and their willingness to make great sacrifices for Allah.

• To be ready to make sacrifices for the religion of Islam.

• For those who have not gone for Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mekka), it is showing support for their fellow Muslims who are completing the Hajj on that day (i.e., 10th Dhu al Hejja).

Please read complete article on my Site http://malikpaki.blogspot.com/


The date according to the Saudi government is January 10th while many other countries have reported the 11th as the date. They include Pakistan, Bangladesh and many parts of America. Though some parts of America do follow the Saudi decision and will have the 10th as their Eid.

The date used in this article should be January 10, the Saudi Arabian date, because Eid observances are closely tied to the events of hajj. joturner 02:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure whether I agree with just the Saudi date or having both dates, however I disagree with your conclusion. It is a misconception that Eid is dependent on the Hajj. The first Eid ul-Adha was observed in 2 AH while the first Hajj was observed in 9 AH.Pepsidrinka 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We don't have both dates on the Islamic calendar month pages or on the Eid ul-Fitr page. I did not know the fact you mentioned about the difference in the observances, but the fact that the two events coincide surely has some significance. I'm still sticking to January 10. joturner 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
y r we still fighting over the dates keep it simple 1 day hajj next day eid!Don't help in making the Jew n Christian happy in seeing us devided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.11.105.239 (talk • contribs) .
I wouldn't really consider this a fight. This is a simple discussion over which date should be put into the article. joturner 11:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Neither would I. Granted their is a difference of opinion in certain matters within Islam, but many times they fall under fiqh and the various rulings are supported by Qur'an and Hadith. Pepsidrinka 18:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


the slaughter picture

i don't mind the picture at all, but i think other people will because it is graphic. Also the people who are slaughtering it look like savages in the pic, i dont think it gives a good image of eid or islam in general. just my thoughts, i actually thought the picture was not bad or disturbing at all.


      • I think that a better picture could have been found, although there is no doubt that the scene shown is commonplace on the Id al Adha. I also suspect that whoever chose that picture to represent Id ul Adha did so with less than charitable motives.
      • The scene isn't all that commonplace, and certainly ought not to represent the holiday. How many cows can be killed on one day? That photo suggests that every muslim and every muslim family has a gore-shot cow on their front steps. But we're not arguing, brother, just discussing. --JT 18:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Eid depend on Hajj, it is nothing without Hajj. aad picture it would be better .

Khalidkhoso 12:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the images are neither encyclopedic nor appealing. Although I know that the distribution of meat is an important part of this day, the photos lessen the importance of the overall meanings of the holiday: the culmination of the Hajj and the essence of inner sacrifice - not just the sacrifice for meat, but the sacrifice of money, time, and worldly desires for the greater good. I suggest the photos be replaced or at least removed for now. --SameerKhan 06:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. We've all slaughtered a goat or two, but we dont want to appear savage to others, even if McDonalds does it in an even more horrific way.BlackTooth93 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How to perform Eid-ul-Azha prayers

I'm not very knowledgable about prayers and I was trying to find an online description of how to perform the Eid-ul-Azha prayers by myself but couldn't find any reliable source (e.g. some come from a Madhi or Shi-a perspective). I think it would be quite useful and beneficial to add a paragraph on how to perform the Eid prayers either here in the Eid-ul-Azha article or on the Salaat article and then link it here.

Thanks to the muslim Guild for all of your great works relating to the Islamic articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.34.234.120 (talk • contribs) .

According to the majority of Sunni scholars, if not all, agree that is performed just like any 2 raka'ah prayer, the only difference is there are additional takbirs in the beginning of the first raka'ah and additional takbirs before the bow of the second raka'ah. The different maddhabs differ on the number of additional takbirs. I don't feel it is neccessary to add it unless the fiqh is explained, and I don't feel that explaing fiqh matters deserves a place on wikipedia (though I have added various fiqh statments in various articles in the past). There is also a two khutbahs following the prayer. Pepsidrinka 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Here is some information from Sunnipath: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=650&CATE=115

Yeah it is not different then Common Prayer we have as decrisbe by user above

Khalidkhoso 12:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wa lillah lilham

What does 'Wa lillah lilham' (towards the end) mean for the Eidul Adha prayer? --203.15.122.35 04:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


More correctly it is as follows: "Wa Lillahi L'Hamdu" which means "And to God All the Thanks".

Noureddine (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The son that Abraham was going to sacrifice was Isaac

and not Ishmael as given. That conflicts with the info given under Abraham. I will change it to Isaac but I doubt it will stay unchanged. Another example of Wikipedia famous credibility. Nickbee 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Nickbee

That is because you are referring to the Biblical story rather than the Qur'anic story. In the Bible it says it was Issac. In the Qur'an, it says it was Ishmael. Since this is an Islamic holiday, it should be Ishmael, in accordance with the Qur'anic story. joturner 03:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Qur'an doesn't mention the name of the son. It does mention Hajjar and Isma'il being brought by Ibrahim to the valley in the Arabian desert, and the building of the Kaaba by Ibrahim and Isma'il. The entire Hajj ritual may be seen as a re-enactment of the story of Isma'il, Hajjar and Ibrahim, and their dilemma. Islamic tradition holds that the son who was brought to Makkah was Isma'il, whose mother of course was Hajjar. While Muslims believe that it was Isma'il who was supposed to be sacrificed on Divine order, they prefer not to argue about it if the identity of the son is disputed. Isaac is also considered a Prophet by Muslims and the point of the story has nothing to do with the identity or name of the son who was going to be sacrificed. The story is an example of extreme faith in God, loyalty, moral strength, and facing temptation and doubt.
The various beliefs, traditions, and texts are described in more detail at Binding of Isaac. Jeremy Tobacman 10:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Some editors keep unilaterally removing Ishmael's (Ismail) name from the description of the story and either leave it blank or replace it with Isaac's name. Eid ul-Adha is a Muslim tradition and so therefore Muslim beliefs about the story of the sacrifice (which is only a portion of the significance of Eid ul-Adha) should remain. I have always heard from everyday Muslims, Muslim scholars and Muslim authors that it was Ishmael and not Isaac. The basis for this belief comes from the Quran The Jewish and Christian views come from Genesis and they require your reasoning and logic to contort in order to accept multiple contradictions as well as accept the idea that Ishamel was the resulting bastard son (Isaac was Abraham's only son) of Abraham and Hager's unsanctified union. I have never in my life heard a Muslim espouse or support this view. This Jewish/Christian interpretation of the story, taken from Genesis, has crept into the story of Eid ul-Adha. To those editors that keep making these changes: stop, or if you're unable to control your urge, create a sub-heading for "Jewish/Christian Beliefs About Eid ul-Adha" however strange that sounds. Thanks. Furtfurt (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the sarcasm in my last full sentence. Couldn't stop myself. Furtfurt (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


While it is current tradition that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son to be sacrificed, this is a modern interpretation rather than a traditional one. For the first centuries after the death of the Prophet, it was thoroughly debated which son it was, and no consensus was achieved among the scholars. Current tradition is largely informed by political issues, recognizing only the earlier scholarship which argued in favor of Ishmael and ignoring the earlier scholarship that argued in favor of Isaac. As it stood in the centuries after the Prophet, this was a legitimately debatable issue. No new information has come to light to make it a decided issue, other than preferences based on political realities. Ethnoquest 16:04, November 23, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.81.159.11 (talk)
Ethnoquest, This is fascinating. Can you find sourced links (and text from experts) to add this to the article somewhere? I'd be intrigued to read about earlier Islamic tradition or discussion compared with "current tradition" or discussion. Also, cited references for it being debated in the first centuries after would be great. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ismael was the sacrified son, as muslems believe.. if you believe in the bible the bible mentioned that "Ibraham was orderd to sacrify his only son". When Ismael was born he was Ibraham (Alihim Al-Salam)only Son, and Itzhac (Alihi Al-Salam) was Ibraham second son and never been his only son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.35.3 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


The question is which one is more ancient and chronologically closer to the event? The Genesis or Quran? The answer is obvious and that one should be logically regarded as _______ (fill in the blank). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.48.150 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


Ishamel wasn't Muslim at all.Therefore,Muslim-Christian-Jewish arguing isn't valid.The sacrificed son was Isaac,no doubt about it but Muslims shouldnt be offended as like I stated Ishmael wasn't muslim,rather Arab who believed in one God — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.142.40 (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Infobox says "Commemoration of Ibrahim (Abraham)'s willingness to sacrifice his young first-born and only son in obedience of a command from God"; in my view "and only son" is misleading as two sons are commonly associated or it should be added "and only son *at time of sacrifice*" if sources sufficiently confirm.

Regarding the point, which son it was it can be stated that according to Muslim belief it was Ishmael and according to Jewish and Christian interpretation Isaac. As no witness is living today this remains a fair statement and the strength of the respective arguments can be discussed in a different enty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.219.10.250 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Eid prayers pic

wat about adding a pic of people praying Salat?

That can be placed under Salat. --203.15.122.35 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, please add it.Abbasquadir (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Duration

Salam. Eid ul-Azha is three days, not four. And Eid ul-Fitr is only one. Some countries such as Bangladesh have 3-day Eid ul-Fitrs and 4-day Eid ul-Adhas, but that's only custom, not proper Islamic teaching. Source: [1] Insha'Allaah I will change this. 84.68.164.9 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article now says: Eid ul-Adha annually falls on the 10th day of the month of Dhul Hijja (ذو الحجة) of the lunar Islamic calendar. The festivities last for two to three days or more depending on the country. Until now, I thought that Eid ul-Adha was a 4-day holiday and Eid ul-Fitr a 3-day holiday. The article on Eid ul-Fitr says precisely that: Eid ul-Fitr lasts three days[citation needed] and is called "The Lesser Eid" (Arabic: العيد الصغير Al-eid Al-sagheer) compared with the Eid ul-Adha that lasts four days[citation needed] and is called "The Greater Eid" (Arabic: العيد الكبير Al-eid Al-kabeer). But it seems to the lack the Source for that. The link 84.68.164.9 provided as a source for his change is a forum-thread that got deleted by now. So I thought I'd make a google search, here is some of the stuff I found:
  • de:Zuckerfest de:Islamisches_Opferfest german wikipedia says Eid ul-Fitr 3 days, Eid ul-Adha 4 four days. But there are no sources either.
  • bern.ch pdf file googlecache bern.ch The health service of the city informs his teachers and nurses about stuff and says in german that Eid ul-Fitr is 3 days and Eid ul-Adha is 4.
  • google cache of the file kanton aargau pdf file The swiss kanton argau's department of education (section: intercultural education) informs in german that Eid ul-Fitr is 3 days, Eid ul-Adha 4 four days.
  • muslim group in hessen google cache version write in german that Eid ul-Adha takes place on the following days. "28.-31.3.1999". So that'll be four.
  • http:// theeid.dgreetings.com/eiduladha-celebrations/ dgreetings.com says that In some areas. Eid- Ul –Adha is celebrated for several days by Muslims. … and … http:// theeid.dgreetings.com/when-is-eid-ul-adha: Eid -Ul –Adha is known through several names across the world and this festival of sacrifice is celebrated for several days in some areas of the country., I don't know what country this refers to.
  • the bbc says Eid-ul-Adha is a 1-3 day celebration and in Muslim countries is a public holiday. . But the headline reads: The Hajj ending in Eid-ul-Adha - 20th - 23rd December 2007 and that adds up to four days. So maybe there is Eid ul-Adha is four days long but the public holidays are not??
That's all I found by googling "Opferfest Dauer" and "duration eid ul-Adha (days)" and looking the first 10 results. Where can one look this up?
  • zawya.com/ says three is a 3 day holiday in UAE.
  • islam online says: "`Eid Al-Adha does not mark the end of Hajj, which continues until the 12th or 13th of Dhul Hijjah, two or three days after the start of `Eid Al-Adha. `Eid Al-Adha is a kind of joining in Hajj by those who could not make it to Makkah." What ever that means for the length of Eid ul-Adha.
  • this german site lists holidays in Saudi Arabia and says: Eid al-Adha: the Feast of Sacrifice lasts for four days. The holiday of Eid al-Adha is also a ten day holiday usually extending from the fifth to the fifteenth day of the month of Thul-Hijja. It is observed by the government and private sector for the performance of Hajj (the Islamic religious pilgrimage to Holy Makkah). Most of the Saudi private sector observes the two public holidays for three and five days respectively.
  • ad-hoc-news quote president Bush: These four days are a time for Muslims to honor Abraham's obedience by celebrating with family and friends and showing gratitude for the many blessings bestowed by God.
  • zawya.com says it's a 4 days of festivities.
  • shariahway.com says: So there are four days of sacrifice: the day of Eid al-Adha and the three days after it.
  • some blog quotes the Muslim Students Association Website: Because of this, many poor Muslims are able to enjoy the unusual luxury of eating meat during the four days of the festival.
All in all I found more quotes saying it's four days. But maybe those I found are wrong. Does someone know, whether there is a correct number of days? -- JanCK (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Eid al-Adha is four days long. Of course actual celebrations can be shorter or longer depending on locale, but the ritual Eid al-Adha is four days long. This is akin to how Christmas as a ritual holiday is only one day long but can be celebrated, e.g. in the form of holiday from work or school or the setting up of a Christmas tree, for several days depending on locale. Eid al-Adha begins on 10 Dhul Hijjah with the eid prayer and ends on 13 Dhul Hijjah, the deadline for ritual sacrifices to be accepted. The article should also be consistent; the side box states the four days of 10 Dhul Hijjah - 13 Dhul Hijjah as its duration.

Source: Mittwoch, E. "ʿĪd al- Aḍḥā." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2010. Brill Online. <http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_SIM-3472> A gitano (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to to change the duration back to four days. Please read this talk archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hajj/Archive_1#63327583931 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpTioNiGhT (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

it is ofcourse without a doubt ismael and not ishak

the prophet ibrahim or abraham had 2 sons one named ishac or isaac born by sarah and mainly lived in arabic palestine however isaac is the youngest of ibrahim 2 sons and was born when sarah and ibrahim were too old. the first son for ibrahim was ismael from hagar the present given to ibrahim from a king it was god's will to divide the descenders of ibrahim the prophet of allah a branch in palestine and a branch in mecca where the first masged was built for the people. then as a test for both ismael and ibrahim god ordered ibrahim to sacrifice his son and before killing ismael gibril the angel came down with a big sheep for ibrahim to sacrifice instead. the palestinian branch was to spreead out the words of allah in thier region and for the arabic branch in mecca to spread the words of allah thier too and also take care of the kaaba that ibrahim and ismael built together and care for the prayers who went there as pilygrims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.205.226.99 (talk)

This seems to be a point of faith: The Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian traditions both contain the story of Abraham/Ibrahim's aborted sacrifice of a son. Muslims teach that the son was Ishmael; Jews and Christians teach that it was Isaac. Since this article is about the Muslim holiday, it seems appropriate to describe the relevant Muslim doctrine. Jeremy Tobacman 10:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


This is nonsense. The origin of the Muslim story HAS to be from the Hebrew version which predates the Muslim version by CENTURIES. And this should be included within the Origins section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, God/Allah/elohim could reveal it in ANY century after the event. It WOULD be nice to know what the earliest reference to it being Ishmael was. A commenter here elsewhere says that the name of the son is not in the Qur'an but is part of Islamic tradition. Misty MH (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ismael was the sacrified son, as muslems believe.. if you believe in the bible the bible mentioned that "Prophet Ibraham was orderd to sacrify his only son". When Ismael was born he was Ibraham (Alihim Al-Salam)only Son, and Itzhac (Alihi Al-Salam)was Ibraham second son and never been his only son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.35.3 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Should it not be Eid al-Adha?

I believe that the ul- would be a non standard spelling?

Name

Please do not add more languages to the first line in the article. The first line in Wikipedia articles is reserved for the English name (and the name in another language ONLY IF the English name stems from that non-English name) only. Thus, the Bosnian, Turkish, Bengali, Persian, etc., names DO NOT belong in the first line of the article. The most common English renderings of the holiday's name all stem from the Arabic version, so that should be the only non-English name in the first line (check on English Google - see how many hits Eid ul-Adha, Id al Adha, etc. get as opposed to Eid-e-Ghorban, Eyd-e-Qorban, etc.). The names in other languages belong in the "other names" section and in the infobox, but nowhere else. Please keep this article professional. --SameerKhan 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So I presume I should delete the Urdu then?

סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to be fussy, but

"Days of Eid= It is Four Days Eid Not three"

Is not quite the most informative thing I've ever read on Wikipedia 80.4.195.106 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another nitpick: Christopher Hitchens mentions, low down in this article, that Shiites begin their celebration of Eid ul-Adha one day later than Sunnis. (This is presumably due to variations in interpreting the lunar calendar -- as I recall, there's a similar variance, of a full week, between the celebration of Easter by western Christianity descending from Catholicism, and the eastern Orthodox churches.) Rmharman 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Actually EO and RC are some years the same day and some years different, anything up to three or four weeks)Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

i have many Shia friends and they celebirte eid on same day as Sunni there is no difference.it is on same dat

Khalidkhoso 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sacrificing animals in the name of Allah

I understand that we ask for Allah's blessing that we slaughter the animals in His name. Some people have misunderstood that sacrificing animals in the name of Allah is like that of the pagan Arab religion (pre-Islamic Arabia) that sacrifice animals and humans to appease the gods. How can we explain that we're doing it not for the sake of appeasing Allah and that it's only for human consumption just so to make the confused people clear about the sacrificing? --Fantastic4boy 06:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

REPLY:

I say tomato you say tom AH to.

Prayer and khutba?

This article states that khutba follows prayer, in khutba it says that khutba precedes prayer. AxelBoldt 20:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Eid khutba differs from Friday's prayer khutba as it's given after the prayer not before. corrected in Khutba article. --Mido 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sunni and Shia commemorate Eid ul-Adha on different dates?

Around the time of Saddam Hussein's execution I remember a lot of claims that Sunni and Shia Muslims recognize Eid ul-Adha on different dates. Is this true? If so the article should say something about it. Elliotreed 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of this. Sounds like tendentious political talk. From my general understanding from Shia ulema's websites, Shias also use the lunar movements as the basis for commemorating Eid. Like Sunnis, they have just as much variability in terms of when they observe or do NOT observe Eid based upon their location (longitude & latitude) on the globe or whether they scientifically calculate the possibility to sight the moon rather than actually sighting the moon w/ the naked eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furtfurt (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

date for 2007

Hi, in the german wikipedia someone just changed the date from the 20th of December to the 19th of December. He said that Saudi-Arabia celebrates on the 19th of December and that this is the important date as it's important for all the pilgrims from all over the world coming to Saudi-Arabia. What is the reason for having the 19th and 20th-24th in this article? How did you get to these dates? The german edit quotes www.islam-qa.com, but I can't read Arabic to check. Thanks, -- JanCK (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In between I had a look at http://moonsighting.com/1428zhj.html and it suggest that the 19th is the day in Saudi-Arabia. And I still find it confusing that this article also mentions the 20th-24th in the table on the right. -- JanCK (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I'm confused looking at http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/islam/ummalqura.htm#principal I get the 20 Dec 2007 -- JanCK (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Now User:41.232.213.189 changed it to December 18 to December 22. I don't think that is the best thing to do. The text states that the fest lasts 4 days. Plus one day for the pilgrims to descend the Mount Arafat. 18-22 is 5 days. I thought the the list at the end of the article listed the date for the first day of these 4 days, the days after the descent. Therefore I change the text accordingly. Changing the date to the 18th now, comes as surprise to me. What does the list show exactly? And who's right now?
Don't both sides claim they list the official sighting of the moon in Saudi Arabia. My guess it that phys.uu.nl lists the expected/calculated date and that moonsighting lists the date that was agreed on in Saudi Arabia. Does anyone know? -- JanCK (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, phys.uu.nl states that "Note that the calendar dates for the months of Ramadān, Shawwāl and Dhū ’l-Hijja are often adjusted by the religious authorities of Saudi Arabia after reported sightings of the lunar crescent". So as far as I understand it the 19th should be the date listed. And the table on the right should list 4 day-periods. All of them are 5 day periods. -- JanCK (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In Turkey it's 20th, fyi. --Gokhan (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
k, that's what is listed on http://moonsighting.com/1428zhj.html . Is Turkey basing that on calculations or on an actual moonsighting? -- JanCK (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

image

What kind of image do we want?

Maybe we can agree on what kind of picture we are searching for? One of the Kaaba? -- JanCK (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could include or ? -- JanCK (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the two photos you've posted above are perfect for the article. The photo below should be replaced by them. It is lower quality (grainy & out-of-focus) and is less relevant (where is this, is it an Eid prayer somewhere?) and it's caption, "Eid Ghaa" is unclear (what does that mean, I've never heard of it?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furtfurt (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

relevance and content of Image:Photo-0105.jpg

Right now the image is included in the article. I don't know, what I can see on that picture. And the subtitle of the picture Eid Ghah isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Could someone tell me why this picture is relevant and what one can see on it? -- JanCK (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

future dates

Do we have several sources for the future dates of Eid ul-Adha? I think http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/islam/ummalqura.htm#principal looks good. But I just came across http://www.mosquee-lyon.org/?cat=Calendrier , which I can't read as it's french. But

The ramadan dates aren't the same either. Do we have other sources? Can someone check the calculations? Is http://www.mosquee-lyon.org/?cat=Calendrier maybe not refering to Saudi-Arabian moon sightings? Right now, the date in the article are based on http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/islam/ummalqura.htm . -- JanCK (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The future dates given by the Lyon Mosque website are not based on the Umm al-Qura calendar but on the tabular Islamic calendar (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/islam/islam_tabcal.htm), following either scheme Ic or IIc. This is the common practice in Morocco where the begin of each month is adjusted if the lunar crescent is sighted on a evening differing from the predicted evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgent (talk • contribs) 09:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Qur'anic basis of Eid ul-Adha?

The article states that the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son is Qur'anically based. However, the cited verse (2:196) doesn't seem to mention Abraham or his sons at all. All I see is a commandment that, if you can't do the Hajj pilgrimage, then you should do sacrifice. In fact, I can't tell if if the cited sura is even talking about Eid ul-Adha at all. Searching at http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ doesn't show the word "Adha" in the Qur'an anywhere.

It appears to me that the actual sacrifice story appears in Sura 37, the Rangers, verses 100 through 106. Also, verse 112 could be interpreted as meaning that the son to be sacrificed was Ishmael; if we assume it happens chronologically as well as textually after the sacrifice, then the divine messengers come to Abraham to announce Isaac's impending birth after the sacrifice story has already happened.

So, assuming the sacrifice referred to in 2:196 is indeed the sacrifice of Eid ul-Adha, how did that come to be linked with the Abraham-Ishmael story?

Pirate Dan (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the blurb about the two "Eids" being Quranically-based mainly in an attempt to clarify/differentiate them from the non-denominational Eid celebrated in Iran. I wasn't successful since my comment seems to create more confusion.
The Quranic reference I included mainly covers some of the rites and concepts of hajj connected to the lengthy and detailed story of Ibrahim, Ismail and Hajjar--not the story of the sacrifice. Now that I've read the entire article and seen that it really fails to show a significant connection between Eid ul-Adha and the concepts and principles enshrined in the stories of Ibrahim, Ismail and Hajjar (solely focusing instead on the sacrifice) I think that the Quranic basis needs to be clarified. I will work on that clarification sometime soon. If in the meantime you'd like to remove the Quranic basis sentence, please do so. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Furtfurt (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Name Continuity

I've noticed that the page contains three different spellings: Eid ul-Adha, Eid el-Adha, and Eid Al-Adha. Should we decide on one spelling and make it the only one in the actual article? 68.193.75.149 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Transliterations from one language to another are rarely consistent. Since all three may be used in various writings about the festival, I think it is therefore prudent to include all three together, early on in the article. Misty MH (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Who Was Sacrificed?

The name Itzhac itself generated the verb "Tzaha-Dhaha" which means "sacrify" in Arabic. Tradition when "told" from one generation to another, creates a new "term" in a living language, where an event generates a verb. The most important holiday in Arabia is the pilgrimage to Makkah, centuries before Islam. In this pilgrimage, the sacrifice "story" is repeated on the "mount of mercy", which in Arabic is literally "Har-Ra'fat" or simply Arafat. In the Hebrew tradition this mount is called Moriah, which recalls the name of "Marwah" in the Mecca area. The big Sacrifice holiday is then the Ad-ha holiday. This is the holiday that repeats the Sacrifice by Abraham to his son Itzhac. Therefore, Arabs who may think (without proof) that it was Ismael who was offered as scrifice, the name of that big holiday "Atz-ha" proves that it was Itzhac who was sacrificed. The name Tzah-ha (Dah-ha) in Arabic also means "Sacrify at Dawn". The term Dawn is also derived from the "Sacrifice Tradition". The sheep sacrifice in the Hajj Islamic tradition also must happen before sunrise which means at Dawn. The history of Arabia must be re-written on the basis that the theater of all the Biblical events was Arabia. The Arabian tradition seems to be more coherent and clear than the biblical stories. The Bible stories are interpreted as deciphered from the old Hebrew, which is unclear while the Arabian oral stories are linked together in a way that makes sense. A complete analysis of the Abraham legend is posted under the titles Mecca and Abraham on Wikipedia. Please log on and look for my name in the discussion tabs.

Noureddine (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ismael was the sacrified son, as muslems believe.. if you believe in the bible the bible mentioned that "Prophet Ibraham was orderd to sacrify his only son". When Ismael was born he was Ibraham (Alihim Al-Salam)only Son, and Itzhac (Alihi Al-Salam)was Ibraham second son and never been his only son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.35.3 (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why there was ever any doubt about this question.

The Quran says nothing about it at all. By contrast the Bible ( more than a thousand years older) is quite clear and explicit. Ishmael was Abraham's elder son by his wife' servant Hagar. After Abraham's wife Sarah gave birth to Isaac however Hagar and Ishmael were sent away. Thus Isaac became Abraham's only remaining son, and it was he whom Abraham set out to sacrifice. The Biblical account is set out in great detail so there can be no doubt or confusion.

According to the Bible Ishmael later wed an Egyptian woman - and is implicitly presumed to have become the father of the Arab peoples. One can only imagine that in Arab tradition the original story got slightly muddled. But it's all mythological - so it doesn't really matter much, if at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.55.95 (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Other names

Seeing how so many names were cluttering both the infobox and the main article, I deleted all foreign names from the infobox and put them all in the article, and then shortened/reorganized that section in the article by type of name. All the names should still be there, although rearranged by translation/borrowing. --SameerKhan (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with the phrasing "The Arabic term "Festival of Sacrifice", ‘Eid ul-’Aḍḥā, is similar to the Semitic roots that evolved into Indic languages such as Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati and Bengali ..." etc. The meaning is that the semitic roots have been adopted by some Indic languages and I think the article should be changed to this effect Steflars2011 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

There is no archeological evidence that 4000 years ago Mekka was uninhabited when Abraham walked in there. It is misleading the reader. Fact and fiction are not carefully seperated in this artice. The entire article has NPOV issues. The Koran should not be called "holy" either.MuratOnWiki (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Some men sitting on the floor has no encyclopedic value. Eid is about a peculiar way of slaughtering an animal. Someone interest in this should see how this is done in practice. No bowdlerization needed. I propose this detailed pic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cow_slaughter.jpgMuratOnWiki (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But the picture says that its being slaughtered for its hide and does not mention Eid al-Adha. Can you explain the relevance of the image and how you know that the people in it are indeed Muslims slaughtering the cows for Eid al-Adha? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ages for animal sacrifices

2.The animal has reached the required age. The adult age is: Six months for a sheep One year for a goat, lamb

Isn't lamb and sheep the wrong way round? Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Was a goat or sheep sacrificed originally? The article contradicts itself, and says both. Misty MH (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheep or goat during the original event?

In the first paragraph of the article, it says that "God intervened to provide him [Abraham (Ibrahim)] with a sheep— to sacrifice instead" or his son. But under the section called "Origin", it says "Abraham was told to replace his son with a goat to sacrifice instead." I understand that there are several observances of this that have used various animals, but--

According to Muslim "official" writings, was it a goat or a sheep that "God" (or Allah / elohim) told Abraham (Ibrahim) to sacrifice?

Several official links (in English)?

Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sacrificed a sheep or a goat during the original event

The article contradicts itself in facts: In the first paragraph of the article, it says that "God intervened to provide him [Abraham (Ibrahim)] with a sheep— to sacrifice instead" or his son. While under the section called Origin, it says "Abraham was told to replace his son with a goat to sacrifice instead." Understanding there are several observances of the festival that have used various animals, what do "official" writings say it was, a goat or a sheep that Allah/elohim told Abraham (Ibrahim) to sacrifice? Please provide official links in English. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Goat or sheep sacrificed originally?

Was a goat or sheep sacrificed originally? The article says both. Misty MH (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Discussion feature?

Resolved

Twice just now I tried to add a very relevant question to the Discussion/Talk page, but both times it seems to be rejecting it as possible Soapbox, which of course it isn't even close to! Misty MH (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was because the collapsed conversation (above) was collapsed improperly - the editor forgot to include a tag marking the bottom of the section to be collapsed. I've fixed it. --173.16.60.116 (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Animal slaughter

In practice this event is about the ritual slaughter of animals or animal sacrifice. This information isn't easily available from this article. It is a request to major contributors to this article to do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sheep Has to go

I have no idea why a Sheep eating grass is a "Symbol of Eid" How about people praying? The new clothing, the sheep eating grass looks like a symbol of a Meat company, not a religious holiday.--Inayity (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Kwamikagami removed the supplementary pronunciation without giving a reason and substituted it with a fake one, so I restored the pronunciation. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Fake one"? If there's a problem, correct it, but be consistent when you do. Our conventions are at Help:IPA for Arabic. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the revert was here, then I had to open the discussion here. But you shouldn't remove the pronunciation. Leave it and I'll explain to you either here of there. It's not actually pronounced as a long vowel, that case is only in very careful speakers who pronounced in the Classical pronunciation. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
That's hardly "fake", then, is it? If the long vowel is the problem, then correct the problem. But a simple MSArabic pronunciation is sufficient: There's no need for nine different pronunciations. The formatting also needed cleaning up. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
[ˈʔɑdˤħɑ] and [ˈʔɑdˤħa] are also MSA! The definitive article is also pronounced in MSA as [æl], [al] or [ɐl]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. As-I said, "a simple MSArabic pronunciation is sufficient: There's no need for nine different pronunciations." — kwami (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Eid i. Western countries

need section regarding Eid in western countries where animalrights see an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.75.60 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the editors don't want to hear or see any dissenting voices about the public and brutal slaughter of animals on this wikipedia page. I have had my comments (referenced) that offer a critique to the non-critical or self-reflective information given about Eid twice, and twice editors have removed my edit. Nobody is forcing any opinion on this page (as one rather arrogant commentator says to my edit), I am actually adding a balance to what is a very one sided article about animal sacrifice. I have been told to discuss this matter here. so I am doing so. However in every other edit I have done on Wikipedia, if the edit is referenced and adds another opinion then nothing is wrong with that edit. What I find rather sinister is the removal of any criticism from this article which creates a very unbalanced information piece. As a senior academic, I would hope that the editors could at least countenance some dissent on this subject. I believe the removal of my edit is a way of censoring this page of information some people just don't want to see or hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.134 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are a senior academic then you should understand wiki has rules, an objection (just because you have it) does not make it a notable dissenting opinion, (we need a few RS to make it so, not your opinion) and our removal of it is therefore not Censorship. please read what WP:NOT because it is not a space for dissent. If you are an academic please review WP:OR and Wikipedia policy on edit warring when you view has been rejected. --Inayity (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not an objection but a criticism of Eid that should be acknowledged if information in Eid is to be without bias and objective per Wikipedia rules. Nor is it an opinion - it is a short summary of other people's views of Eid which isn't covered in the said article. That is not opinion - opinion. Yes, the removal of criticism or a counter view is censorship since anyone reading the article will not hear that debate. Just like the photos on the page don't not represent the diverse experience of Eid - from the holiday to some of the ugly side of the sacrificing of the animals. My addition was to give a wider picture to the cherry picked and sanitized version represented here. Wikipedia is according the rules a place to give objective and unbiased views - and to achieve that you need different perspective represented. That is not dissent, unless your saying there is only one way to understand a subject ?! This is not about edit warring - you are doing that, by refusing to accept an alternative view to make the page more balanced as per Wikipedia rules, and what is needed when providing information and knowledge to people. The only warring going on is by the editors who seem to think it is their duty to censor out alternative views. And for your information, some Muslims (as I have mentioned) do not like aspects of the animal sacrifice either, and that is important information for Muslims who read this page to know; and not for them to go away with the partisan viewpoint you are trying to insist for this page while pretending that is what Wikipedia wants. knowledge comes from learning and discussing different views, not from pretending other views don't exist on that subject and censoring information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.61.132 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Compilations - Details from the Bible

In the article:

When Ishmael was about 13 (Abraham being 99), God decided to test their faith in public.
It honors the willingness of Abraham (Ibrahim) to sacrifice his promised son, Ishmael (Ismail),

What is the source of this information? Do you have this information in the Qur'an? Information about the age of 13 and 99 are only in the Bible. Why these details are transferred from the Bible. So this information should reference to the Bible. Why the Koran and the Bible is mixed. In addition, the Qur'an does not say that Ishmael was to be sacrificed. The Qur'an does not give a name. In the Qur'an, this information is not available. Does religious information compiled from here and there? This is not a problem, but the source of this information should be indicated.

This type of information is biased, because: Religious issues are as a football team to favor. So there is no benefit to insist on Isaac. There is no neutrality in religious beliefs. But there is flexibility in beliefs because beliefs can be shaped according to the desires of people. Because all of these issues are not only religious issues. Nationalism plays an important role. Hagar and Ishmael are the ancestors of the Arabs. So they prefer to Ishmael. Sarah and Isaac are the ancestors of the Israelites. And in the Bible it is the name of Isaac. Even if a name is not specified directly in the Qur'an, according to Arabs, this name is Ishmael. People are proud of their ancestors, and this is normal. They are proud of their ancestors Hagar and Ishmael. Moreover, in the Bible it is written that Hagar and Ishmael expelled from home. This event has happened twice. Thus began animosity between the two women. The first incident was related to childbearing capability. Sara was barren, but Hagar gave birth to Ishmael. After Ishmael Hagar began to see herself superior to Sara. Sara was so mistreated Hagar and Hagar fled with his son to the desert. Then, Hagar and her son came back again. 13 years later, Sara gave birth to Isaac. Isaac had reached the age of 3. And Abraham had organized a feast for his son Isaac. This time the 16-year-old Ishmael mocked Isaac. And Isaac's mother Sarah saw it. Sara asked Abraham to send them away. [2] "While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt." (Genesis 21:21). Thus, this contention was started and continued until today. Hagar and Ishmael are members of a team, Sara and Isaac are members of another team.

The article should give the order of events. The order of events in the Bible: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --AltıncıTas (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

My Country of Eidul Adha Today ইকবাল হোসেন সোয়েব (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Why all the dates of eids?

Why are all those dates mentioned of some previous and coming eids? There seems no need for this.. Can anyone explain?Sohebbasharat (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes,why are previous Eid days mentioned? JmisquitH 15:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC) JmisquitH 15:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J maroon5 2308 (talk • contribs)

Trimming the table to last five years and the next five to come would appear to be sufficient. Dates for other years can easily be obtained from online Islamic calendar converters. AstroLynx (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
What is so special about the date in India? And what is the source. I am not sure I get why Saudi and then India are mentioned, why not the date in the UK or Indonesia? --Inayity (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing special about India and the editor who added these dates does not seem to able/willing to give a source either. Perhaps it is best to only cite the dates for Saudi Arabia as that is the place where the hajj takes place. AstroLynx (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing yesterday. I agree that the Saudi date is sufficient, considering the connection to the Hajj. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Inayity: Islamic calendar depends on the visibility of the moon and because of the location of each country, there is the difference in Islamic calendar between Muslim in every country. For example, Eid al-Adha is not celebrated in the same day in Iran and Iraq.@HyperGaruda: I am going to nominate Eid al-Adha for wp:OTD. It does not matter that it be nominated based on Saudi calendar or Iran or other, but it isn't logical that "it is best to only cite the dates for Saudi Arabia as that is the place where the hajj takes place". The Eid al-Adha is celebrated in every Muslim country and several Muslims do sacrifice as a ritual of Eid around the world.Saff V. (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
And it is even less logical to add the date for every single country, which would turn it into an uncyclopedic WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have not even touched upon the fact that some countries have multiple organisations, each determining the date according to different rules. Do we have to add their dates too? A line has to be drawn somewhere. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Incompatible Representation

People here should seriously be careful of which photos or information added to this article, and to any other Islamic or otherwise any religion-based article, as it has to be accepted by it’s law, interpretation, and acceptable representation. We have to be accurate at a religion’s correct and acceptable representation regardless of how well we want it represented. I would advise only using Islamic text images and people celebrating the Eid, not unauthentic or ‘foreign’ art on the religion. Thank you. The Astute Adamant (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No you are totally incorrect, Wikipedia is NOT censored. Theroadislong (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Very well, your objection is justified only by the ridiculous definition of the Wikipedia’s ‘encyclopedic reform’ policy . It contradicts safe and trustable information that can be wholly opposed by someone’s interpretation of something unrelevant to his/her responsibility and restrictions, and therefore resulting in completely untrue information. Sad. Do not think I am accusing you, I am not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Astute Adamant (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I kind of agree. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 10:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eid_al-Adha/Archive_1&oldid=1034648583"