Talk:Islamic calendar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stimulated disharmonies

There is an error, I believe, in the weekday table of this article stating that Sabbath is the first day of the week according to Muslims. Such an error is potentially stimulating disharmony between faithfulls. The correct (signified orthodox) view among muslims are not that Yawm Sabbath is the first day of the week, but the last. Similarly secular Christians, and secular western calendars, of phones and computers and so on, keep the erroneous calculation of Sundays as the seventh day of the week. I do not believe any biblical scholar, nor muslim scholar, as no wise Jew would disagree that Yom Sabbath, or Yawm Sawth, (or whatever transliteration) is anything else than the seventh day of the week. In addition: Jews, Christians and Muslims, do all similarly convert the Sabbath with the Roman empirical Saturday in our time. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As the Arabic names of the weekdays Sunday to Thursday literally mean 'first day', 'second day', etc., it would seem to be obvious (even for simpletons) that the list should begin with Sunday and that Saturday should placed at the bottom (not at the top) of the table. AstroLynx (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why it may be considered of importance

At least I feel it is of importance. And I feel an urge to elucidate it; since I for years have been mislead to assume that Muslims, Jews and Christians disagree about which day of the week is the Holy Day: Saturday of Jews, Sunday for Christians, And the Muslims keep the Friday.... I've even been thinking that this is a typical sillyness of religion. It surely creates problems in integration-politics, and so on. But! This is not the case! Now I've come to the opposite conclusion: what is held to be the orthodox & scholarly view within all these three denominations of the Abrahamic Religion is that it is the seventh day that is the Sabbath. We all agree. Religion is not the cause of this confusion.

The Christians keep Sundays as congregation day, because the ressurection of Jesus the Messiah was witnessed by Maria the Magdalene on the break of the first day of the week following the second Sabbath of the first month; which was the passover of Jews and all of Yisrael (not bound to the Sionist perspective). It seems quite obvious that in the year of the Golgata mystery, the lunar Sabbath and the seventh day of the Romans which was the day of Saturnus (Hebrew Kiwan) was a match, thus the indication is that according to holy Scripture Christ overcame Satan and subdued the Nephilims in the netherworld on the Seventh day, Yom Sawt, and ressurected on the first day, on that year a Sunday. That it most probably was on a Sunday is not given for every year. Because the orthodox Jews of the time most probably calculated the seven day week primarily according to the lunar calendar. The Pesakh, passover, and the sacrifice of the Holy Lamb, was/is ritually to be held on the evening before the full-moon day of the first month of spring Nisan. The following full-moon day was/is evidently a Sabbath. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Solar or Lunar week?

The solar-lunar correlations seem to have been somewhat confused during the Babylonian captivity. A theme accounted for in the canonical book of Esther. So, it was not every year a lunar Sabbath happened to be on a Saturday of the Solar Romans. Because The Julian Calendar was as novel as the Roman Empire was young; the Judeans were most probably divided along several lines in regard of what should be correct timekeeping. The western, alledged christian habbit of keeping the Sunday sacred, is actually not so much a christian as it is a pagan tradition, as is in matter of fact the western calendar (in spite being in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church). But still a cause to keep the day in awe and free from business, from a christian-muslim perspective, is that Isa the Messiah rose from death on a first day of the current global calendar, the day of the Sun in the reckoning of the Roman Calendar, There are no reason to believe that the perpetuality of the seven day week has been broken since Julius Ceasar inaugurated the system. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual pragmatics of Muhammad (PBUH)

One needs not much moral phantasy to see the revolutionary Muhammad (PBUH), being very concerned about the importance of calendars in regard of the power politics, e.g. control of the masses. It is easy to imagine him urging the people of the true religion of the prophets and all of Yisrael, to summon the holy assembly for devotional prayers allready on the sixth day, leading up to the holy seventh, on which day in the free nation of Allah, God of the ineffable tetragrammaton, the children of God are awake, giving (offering) everything back to Him; who on the seventh day of creation rests in union with the nature of All, Holy Mother Mercy of the Heavens. Or something like it. It is a matter of economics, or that is, of becoming free from enslavement. From any of these religious perspectives it is a sign of infidelity to trade, make money, to work, or to exploit the earth and the hearts and minds of people on the Sawt. My point is that Muhammad (PBUH) in line with Jesus the Messiah and all the Prophets herolds the view not merely defending the seventh day as sacred, nei, rather expanding the realisation that all of creation is sacred, directing our observation to the waxing and waning of the holy lifeforce in regard of the moon with its seventh day principle perceivable for all on the globe. This last point is of course not the orthodox perspective, since all three denominations are fooled by the calendrics of the Roman empire (probably derived from an ancient etruscan market calendar) binding the seventh day cycle to the strictly solar calendar, and mixed up with the wisdom of the Babylonian Zoroastrian calendars. Muhammad (PBUH) I believe, was aware of the errors of both the Sassanid-Persian and Roman-Byzantian imperialist traditions. When calling out for the Friday prayers, this is a statement not against the holiness of Yawm al-Sabbaoth, but the infringements to spiritual devotion and sacred time caused by the commersial interests of the elites of both the quarrelling powers of his contemporeality. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya

The sources appear as confused as the Libyan people, but Gaddafi may have changed from the Prophet's death to his birth in 1979 following the declaration of the new calendar (dating from his death instead of the hijra) in 1978. MacFarquhar's take is anecdotal and includes women saying "Why can't we be like everyone else?" but probably sums it up best. If it weren't original research, I would add that in practice people use the Western calendar anyway. Jabrol (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect for Umm al-Qura

This calendar is also referred to as the Umm al-Qura calendar (see http://www.siao2.com/2011/06/15/10174716.aspx) - a redirect for Umm al-Qura to this page should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.98 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I created Umm al-Qura calendar as a redirect to the existing section Saudi Arabia's Umm al-Qura calendar. — Joe Kress (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First day of the week in islam is Sunday, Not Sat.

Saturday is the sabbath, friday is jum'ah. The first day of the week is youm- al ahad meaning "day one" and that falls on a sunday, not saturday. I can provide my proof if you are serious about editing this article to accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamirWahid (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there is an error in the article regarding the English translation of the Arabic names of the days of the week. For example, Sunday and Monday are correctly transliterated as al-Ahad and al-Ithnayn, but they are wrongly translated as seventh and first days, whereas the meaning is actually first and second days. This applies throughout, with the obvious exception of al-Jumah (Friday).

Remove the picture depicting the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

the picture is irrelevant to the topic and offensive to 1.6 billion Muslims. I don't know why Wikipedia care so much about copy right law (which I agree with) and not care at all about the feeling of millions if not billions of Muslims. Please remove the picture immediately as it has no value in the topic rather than offending Muslims. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabdulky (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the image offends you, but Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for all the answers to questions about depicting Muhammad. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the pictures depicting Mohammed

I feel strongly the pictures should remain. They help immensely to illustrate the story being told, and it's vital to note that Wikipedia is not subject to Muslim or any religious belief. To be guided by religious feeling from any religion sets a very dangerous precedent. Randal Oulton (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove or Blur face of Prophet Muhammad SAW from one of the image

Hi

The image under the section "Prohibiting Nasi" is depecting Prophet Muhammad's face (which will not be taken well with muslims). Kindly remove or blur the face of Prophet as soon as possible.

THanks, 193.130.234.15 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Mateen

Won't happen. See Talk:Muhammad/images William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Converter (again)

Up until about a month ago, there was a converter which enabled the Gregorian equivalent of a specified month to be checked by reference to a list on the Hebrew calendar page. Examples:

2011 1 Jumada I equals 4 April (actual conjunction at Greenwich 3 April)

2012 1 Jumada I equals 23 March (actual conjunction at Greenwich 22 March)

2013 1 Jumada I equals 12 March (actual conjunction at Greenwich 11 March).

Although the data is correct (the Muslim month begins about a day after conjunction when the new moon becomes visible) it has been removed twice. I think it is a useful addition to the article and should stay, but I would like to know what other readers think. 92.24.106.228 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The French Republican Calendar has an actual calendar avaiable (as the calendar would appear currently if it was still in use), along with the current Gregorian day. Could a similar calendar be made for the Islamic calendar? I don't know how the other one was made. 65.65.230.49 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page are several links to online date converters. See also Tabular Islamic calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

Removed the erroneous image سليمان عدنان مصطفى (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Added back per consensus and WP:NOTCENSORED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I WILL REMOVE ANY UNNECESSARY PICTURE OF OUR Prophet, especially on a page for the ISLAMIC CALENDAR!! It is stupid, just don't put it back, many muslims, including me, will remove it each f****** time, so dont bother putting back on. thank you and excuse my language or tone. As a muslim i am never like this, but sometimes, the way people try to justify acts just anger me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daasmarka (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the image offends you, but Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for all the answers to questions about depicting Muhammad. — Glenn L (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Glenn, Robert, William and the rest - when will you get the message that it's not a question of censorship but CONSENSUS? Of course the people holding minority views will scream "censorship" when their views are overruled, but that's the way Wikipedia works. If you don't want to play by the rules, go away and start your own on - line encyclopedia - you can do what you like then. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove the picture of muhammad.

You had previously stated that the picture is islamic and it is not. No picture of that nature is islamic. Here is the proof that these pictures have nothing to do with islam. The picture has no relation to islam not even in a general sense.

Hadith - Bukhari 3:428, Narrated Said bin Abu Al-Hasan

While I was with Ibn 'Abbas a man came and said, "O father of 'Abbas! My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures." Ibn 'Abbas said, "I will tell you only what I heard from Allah's Apostle . I heard him saying, 'Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.' " Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned pale. Ibn 'Abbas said to him, "What a pity! If you insist on making pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other unanimated objects."

Hadith -Bukhari 4:47, Narrated 'Aisha

I stuffed for the Prophet a pillow decorated with pictures (of animals) which looked like a Namruqa (i.e. a small cushion). He came and stood among the people with excitement apparent on his face. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is wrong?" He said, "What is this pillow?" I said, "I have prepared this pillow for you, so that you may recline on it." He said, "Don't you know that angels do not enter a house wherein there are pictures; and whoever makes a picture will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and will be asked to give life to (what he has created)?"

Hadith - Muslim, Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib

AbulHayyaj al-Asadi told that Ali ibn AbuTalib said to him: Should I not send you on the same mission as Allah's Messenger sent me? Do not leave an image without obliterating it, or a high grave without levelling it. This hadith has been reported by Habib with the same chain of transmitters and he said: (do not leave) a picture without obliterating it.

So whoever invented these pictures are unislamic and so are the pictures. They are of severe offense to the true muslim people and would be greatly appreciated if it is removed as it is not associated with islam. It's a fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamirWahid (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are using the "no true scottsman" arguement.157.157.68.205 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't you guys add up?

Re this post on my talk page User talk:87.194.35.154 the voting following discussion here was

For removal of the image

Moda yahia 16:33, 15 April 2009

Dr B2 04:36, 8 July 2009

Noman.king 22:52, 12 February 2010

68.82.156.153 11:16, 21 March 2010

202.125.130.163 09:35, 14 April 2010

Zohebkidwai 09:55, 27 May 2010

72.213.16.163 23:53, 11 Aug. 2010

yasirniazkhan 02:16, 21 Aug. 2010

78.150.127.225 23:54, 13 Nov. 2010

174.115.198.24 05:59, 13 Dec. 2010

سليمان عدنان مصطفى

08:53, 13 May 2011

DamirWahid 06:05, 29 June 2011

Yabdulky 19:37, 18 July 2011

193.130.234.15 08:59, 1 Aug. 2011

Daasmarka 23:20, 9 Oct. 2011

Against

Amalthea 09:34, 17 April 2009

Neil N 12:43, 14 April 2010

Barts1a 09:35, 12 Aug. 2010

Dougweller 05:56, 21 Aug. 2010

Merewyn 13:08, 7 Jan. 2011

Xact 04:37, 18 Feb. 2011

CIS 19:55, 18 July 2011

Randal Oulton 01:54, 30 July 2011

William M. Connolley 09:59, 1 Aug. 2011

Glenn L 02:44, 10 Oct. 2011

All the IPs are on different continents.

Motion passed15/10/0.

The argument by the antis is that removing the images would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. But the pros aren't asking for them to be removed altogether, only from places where they are not material to the subject being explained. The subject matter of this article is not the Prophet at all - it's the calendar used by his followers. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For policy on this see [1] and [2]. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That isn't how consensus works on Wikipedia. Egg Centric 12:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not consensus and the opinions of two people running in the board elections carry no special weight. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not consensus. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the argument:

In favour

Moda yahia (irrelevant)

Dr B2 (blasphemy/irrelevant)

Norman.King (blasphemy)

68.82.156.153 (blasphemy)

202.125.130.163 (blasphemy)

Zohebkidwai (picture not allowed)

72.213.16.163 (offensive/provocative)

Yasirniazkhan (irrelevant)

78.150.127.225 (adds nothing to the article/offensive)

174.115.198.24 (disrespectful)

سليمان عدنان مصطفى

(no reason given)

DamirWahid (offensive/not a true likeness)

Yabdulky (irrelevant/offensive)

193.130.234.15 (offensive)

Daasmarka (unnecessary)

Against

Amalthea (useful)

NeilN (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)

Barts1a (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)

Dougweller (inadmissible reason)

Merewyn (picture is Islamic)

Xact (inadmissible reason)

CIS (uses WP:NOTCENSORED argument which says in effect that you can put anything in even though the majority don't want it)

Randal Oulton (useful illustration/Wikipedia does not care about religious sensitivities (???)

William M. Connolley (inadmissible reason)

Glenn L (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)

It will be seen that discounting the objections which are mainly hot air the consensus is even more marked - 8 to 3 for removal. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ? AstroLynx (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point being that while in normal circumstances editors might cut someone a little slack if they want to include content which is not relevant, if that content is going to upset the majority of readers it might be better to leave it out. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that the majority of the readers of this article are Muslims? There are many non-Muslims who are interested in the organization and history of the Islamic calendar (I surely am not the only one). Anyway, deleting the image here would also affect other articles in which the same or similar images are used - see Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images. The image in question is a respectful image of Muhammad made by a Muslim artist for a Muslim audience and is relevant for the article as it is linked with the abolition of intercalary months in the early Arabian calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that the majority of the readers are Muslims? Many non-Muslims are appalled that a handful of people deliberately set out to rile members of faiths that they are not (so far as I am aware) members of. I take the Tube (subway) to my place of worship so therefore you can say that the Tube is relevant to places of worship but you wouldn't therefore expect to see pictures of Tube trains in an article on places of worship. The picture is not a picture of Muhammad at all - if put in an auction catalogue with the label "Picture of Muhammad" it would contravene the Trade Descriptions Act. If you disregard the blasphemy argument there is still a consensus of 6 - 3 for removal. I don't know where you get the idea the picture was painted by a Muslim artist - according to the attribution the author is unknown. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why the Tube is now relevant to this discussion. The (unknown) artist who made (or in this case copied) the image was perhaps not a Muslim but it was made for a work by a well-known Muslim author which was dedicated to a Muslim ruler. Did you actually take the trouble to have a look at the work we are talking about? It is available online in several editions. You will then see that the image is quite relevant for this topic. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and is not subject to religious rules. If you are offended by this image, then there are ways to block it from appearing on your screen - see Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images. AstroLynx (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So the book was written by a Muslim and dedicated to a Muslim ruler. So what? This book covered not only Muslim chronology but also Babylonian, Coptic, Greek, Jewish, Persian, Roman etc. the last time I looked. In any event, the picture was painted 200 years after the book was written.

I fail to see how a picture of a group of believers standing around a pulpit can in any way aid the understanding of the Muslim (or indeed any) calendar. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Your arguments are shifting targets in an attempt to remove an image, isn't going to happen. Ogress _smash! 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The tenuous link is that this is a representation of the Prophet telling the faithful there will be no more intercalary months. But does the painter actually say that, or does he merely say that this is a representation of the Prophet giving his address at the Farewell Pilgrimage? 87.194.35.154 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you still have not taken the trouble to do some research yourself. The image in question is found in the second chapter of al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations. The text clearly links the image with Muhammad's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage [Sura 9:37]. You can find an English translation here [p. 14]. If you want to check Sachau's translation, the Arabic text can be found here [p. 12]. If you want to check Sachau's edition of the Arabic text, the Paris manuscript (ms. Arabe 1489) is online here [see fol. 5v]. WARNING: the manuscript contains several Muhammad images! AstroLynx (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, you've made a valid point there. The picture does have some passing relevance to the subject of the Islamic calendar. The point is that if every fact which had some passing relevance was included in articles they would all be the size of full - length novels. This is why the concept of "consensus" was introduced to provide an efficient mechanism for determining what peripheral matters should go into articles and what should stay out.

Although the picture is billed in the article as "Muhammad prohibiting intercalation" that is misleading. It misrepresents the intention of the artist, which was to depict the Prophet addressing the faithful at the Farewell Pilgrimage. A number of matters were covered in that discourse, not least the fact that this would be the last time he would be able to speak to them. So please, in this instance, respect the consensus. Thank you. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that the picture stays - your statistics (half of which consist of people - like yourself - hiding behind an anonymous IP address) do not convince me. The sources mentioned above make it pretty clear that the image refers to Muhammad's abolition of the intercalary month (al-Biruni's text does not refer to the other topics covered in Muhammad's Farewell Speech). I really don't see the point in discussing this any further and wonder what you are trying to achieve. Even if you would be able to get this image permanently removed from this page (which is not likely to happen), what are you going to do about the other WP pages (and the WP pages in other languages) which have this image? And what about the original manuscripts - how will you make these disappear from the web? AstroLynx (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

They say statistics can be made to prove anything, but no statistics prove nothing - they certainly don't support your claim that most editors support your stance. An uninvolved reader looking at this talkpage would come to the opposite conclusion.

You're now trying to smear other editors by insinuating that the vote has been rigged - request CheckUser or withdraw that allegation.

If you are unable to find a definitive statement from the painter that the picture is Muhammad prohibiting intercalation you are not in a position to say that it is. It is highly unlikely that painting 600 years after the event he was intending to convey anything more specific than the delivery of the Prophet's farewell message. Browsing the link you provided, I believe I saw a picture of some men on horse- (or camel) back. Now don't tell me that has some deep chronological significance as well.

Finally, don't smear Muslims by suggesting that they want to tear pictures of the Prophet out of ancient manuscripts. Muslims do not practice censorship as you imply. The simple issue is that readers come to the article hoping to learn about the Islamic calendar and a picture of the Prophet delivering his homily imparts no information at all. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly grasping at straws now. First you claim that statistics prove that you are right and now you claim that statistics don't prove anything at all. Nor did I say that the vote has been rigged - I would however argue that the votes of people who hide behind an anonymous IP (like youself) and who never have contributed anything useful to the article in the past should not be given the same weight. However, I do not know what the WP rules are in this case.

If you do not understand the other images in the Paris manuscript, why do you not take the trouble to read Sachau's English translation and find this out for yourself? You are really acting like a spoiled child now - too lazy to seek knowledge by yourself?

Where do I say that Muslims want to deface ancient manuscripts? I only asked how you intend to prevent the images from appearing on the web. In English there is a very nice phrase about the pot calling the kettle black - recognize anyone?

You are really wasting your time (and those of others) on this issue - it would be much wiser spent on improving the article. AstroLynx (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• How does a picture of a homily delivered 1,380 years ago improve the Islamic calendar article?
• People who don't produce statistics (such as yourself) can't argue from them - but others may draw the inference that the statistics are not forthcoming because they don't support the argument.
• If you don't know what the WP rules are, don't invent them.
• Did I say that I wanted to stop the Bibliotheque Nationale digitising its collection? We're not talking about other pictures of Muhammad - no two cases are the same.
• Who's "acting like a spoiled child?" Aren't you the one who's building up a comprehensive online library of chronological works? Where does a spat about an obscure picture fit into the grand scheme?
• Sachau's English translation (with which I am familiar) isn't going to aid the understanding of the pictures in the Paris manuscript for the simple reason that it is a faithful rendition of what Al - Biruni wrote a millennium ago, not a commentary on some pictures produced by an unidentifield artist 500 years later. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you know for sure that Sachau's edition and translation are a faithful rendition of al-Biruni's original text? One can never be sure as all known manuscripts are later copies. You can perhaps argue that al-Biruni's original manuscript did not contain images but there is no way to prove this. The earliest known manuscript (Edinburgh University Library, ms. Arab. 161), dating from 707 AH [1307/08 AD], is illustrated and there is no reason to doubt that it continues an earlier tradition of illustrating this particular work. AstroLynx (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The only consensus which can be taken into account at this article is the one which is manifest on this talk page. Whether a particular picture is relevant to an article is determined solely by the subject of that article, not other articles. Presumably the different editions of al - Biruni have different illustrations, so unless the author of a particular illustration added a caption saying it was Muhammad forbidding intercalation you can't assume that it was, and your caption will fall foul of the rules against original research. From the picture you have inserted there is no way of telling whether Muhammad is speaking or not, and if he is there is no way of ascertaining what he was discussing at the time. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What gives you the impression that I inserted the image and also wrote the caption? If you study the image file you will see that it was already inserted in 2006 by the user 'Der hungrige Hunne' - I can assure you (and swear on the Bible if you wish) that he and I are not the same. If I had inserted the image, I would have shown the complete page - not the cropped version. Regarding the image caption, you cannot expect that medieval scribes followed the same conventions as modern publishers. AstroLynx (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you. Whether or not it's your caption, this diff [3] shows you inserted it into the article nine minutes before your denial above. Furthermore, you now admit that the caption (whoever wrote it) is a modern fabrication. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

IP87, it's time to give up and move on. You are a minority of 1 arguing against longstanding consensus. The issues you raised have been refuted numerous times before and you've brought nothing new to the discussion. Further removal of the image will be reported as vandalism and could lead to your account being blocked. Doc Tropics 20:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a sure sign of desperation when one editor grabs the stick and starts beating another editor with it. I think RMHED put things very well in his statement before the 2008 arbcom election:

"Whether someone is POV pushing or trolling very much depends on personal opinion, so is therefore extremely subjective. It's all too easy to label someone you disagree with as a POV pusher or accuse them of trolling, likely as not, they'll think the exact same of their accuser."

You need to back up your argument with some diffs, and the names of the editors who you claim form this "consensus". 87.194.35.154 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the image

Hi,

this is regarding image which was inserted depicting Prophet Mohammed (Sallellahu alihi wasallam) sitting with followers, which is strictly prohibited in Islam ref: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Calender). My request to remove the picture immediately from there else All muslims will Boycott use of Wikipedia.

Thanks Zareef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.210.100 (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry won't be done, see. See Talk:Muhammad/images, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Help:Options to not see an image. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Always 29 or 30 days per month?

Is it possible, that an Islamic month has 28, fewer, 31, or more days? --84.61.131.15 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the picture showing the prophet

Zohebkidwai (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Please remove the picture stated 'Muhammad prohibiting intercalation'. We in islam do not encourage to draw pictures of our prophet. I hope you understand the sensitivity of this subject and remove the Picture from there.

See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The picture you claim to remove is a 17th century copy of an early 14th century Ilkhanid manuscript. So, it's an islamic picture. If your islamic ancestors could put this picture in their books, who are you to object doing the same today? I don't understand it. Merewyn (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Merewyn. the picture is as you say Ilkhanid, but the Ilkhanate, was part of the Mongolian empire, stretching into the Persian territories, perhaps not regarded too muslim in the aftermath. Another point here to consider in regard of the socio-political power of visual representation and propagation, i.e. history of the discourse regarding iconoclasm, is that this is not a particularly islamic featurer. Wars have been fought between christians of challenging points of view. It is not a settle matter between orthodox christians, and catholics. It is a millenia long discourse relating to the second commandment. Christian Protestantism, especially Zwingli and Calvin, has been considered iconoclastic. Hiskia, King of Judah, was an Iconoclast, even destroying the representation of Nehushtan, the brazen snakes on the ark of the covenant. Even Early Buddhism is considered iconoclastic inregard of its Hindu background, until hellenisation of Buddhism that was. In a modern reflection the commandment needs be related to the discourse of ad-busting and propaganda. On the other hand, what would be the pre-requisites for making a film on Muhammad (PBUH) without it being a blasphemous film. --Xact (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to sound offensive but what is the final short conclusion of your long story? The muslims in 14th century COULD DEPICT the Prophet but now they cannot because of Christian Protestants and Early Buddhism quarrels?? Or what? Merewyn (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

taking pictures and drawing living beings is highly discouraged in islam. with that said, graphics of prophets (peace be upon them) is very inappropriate. even if somebody thinks its useful or educational somehow and some muslims might have previously used the graphics but it doesn't justify the arguments thats taking place now. i know a lot of muslims would be willing to remove this picture but they dont know how to. so please consider the request. peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.6.68 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete the Image

Remove the Picture of Mohammed (PBUH).Big text

We are boycotting. delete the Image Immediately.

Syeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.79.177 (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Title change from Islamic calendar to Hijri calendar?

Hijri is more specific name of the islamic calendar? Let me know if you like the move? Thanks MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how hijri is a more specific name of the Islamic calendar and how renaming the article will help English-speaking users of Wikipedia to be more familiar with its history and use. Personally, I would prefer to keep the current title as this is English Wikipedia, not Arabic Wikipedia. AstroLynx (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is muslim who speak english don't say islamic calendar but Hijri calendar. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As I noted at MohammedBinAbdullah's talkpage, I believe WP:COMMONNAME applies here, in that Hijri is not commonly understood by English speakers in general and wouldn't be a productive search term. This is contrasted with Hajj, which is widely understood and which has been incorporated into English vocabulary. I don't see how the present status quo with a redirect is problematic: Wikipedia generally uses a translated title for foreign terms when there is a satisfactory English equivalent and the foreign-language term is not in widespread use among English speakers. I am open to a rewording of the lead paragraph to provide a better discussion of the Arabic terminology, as the "also called" doesn't seem to do the proper Arabic terminology justice. Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd hate to see such a move even if it were shown that the Hijri calendar is the one only calendar used by Muslims. This is an English-language encyclopedia. Unless your motivation is to make the "inscrutable" Islamic culture even harder to fathom, I'd suggest that we keep Islamic calendar where it is.

We can always emphasize that the "proper" term for the calendar uses a foreign word. By the way, I don't agree that Hajj is either (a) widely understood or (b) incorporated into English vocabulary (not the way Sushi is, at least). I daresay for every English-speaking Westerner who knows that each Muslim must make a one-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca, less than 1 percent of them know that Muslims call it a Hajj (let alone what language they are using when they call it this).

You still run into people who aren't sure that Qu'ran means the holy Koran. (On the other hand, the transition from Calcutta to Kolkata went rather smoothly, but there were political reasons involved.)

There have been many attempts to de-Westernize the English-language Wikipedia, including a concerted attempt to pretend that many major scientific advances were discovered first by Muslims (or within the Islamic world). It took a lot of trouble to remove all this bias, and I'm not sure it's been completed - or even undone!) so let's not start more trouble. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

English is not just spoken by english people but by many different people so that argument is flawed. Hijri calendar is islamic calendar and islamic calendar is hijri calendar. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with English people: this is the English language Wikipedia and policy requires that article titles be in English unless the foreign-language term is a recognized English word. Hijri is not used in the English language. Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Acroterion above. So far as I can see, English usage is for "Islamic" (a term which most English speakers understand), as opposed to "Hijri", a term few if any non-Muslims even recognize. [{WP:COMMONNAME]] would seem to support the use of "Islamic" on that basis. While I could see, if anything, Islamic religious year might be preferable, as that is the title of the article in the Eliade/Jones "Encyclopedia of Religion", parallelism would probably support the usage of the word "calendar." John Carter (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Authors who discuss this calendar in the English language use Islamic and Muslim with about the same frequency. Usage of Hijri or Hijra is quite rare. Although Muslim had been present in the first sentence for many years, somewhere among the recent edits by MohammedBinAbdullah and reversions, Muslim was lost. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, because there is also a Solar Hijri calendar. Khestwol (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Crescent Islamic Calendar?

This just redirects to the main article and the section is otherwise empty. A quick google reveals nothing but mirrors and knock-offs of this page. Deleting. Tigerboy1966  09:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: the picture in Islamic calendar

Please take the picture out of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, illustration of Al-Bīrūnī's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. It is blasphemy under Islamic law to put a picture of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This picture offends all of the Muslims and needs to be taken off immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.156.153 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

what is the importance of this image in Islamic calendar article.I think it has no relation with the islamic calendar.please remove it.--Moda yahia (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi.
Hmm, someone removed parts of the image caption at some point. The image is apparently an illustration of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, and as such is used to illustrate the Islamic calendar#Annulling intercalation section. You're quite correct that as it was, it didn't make much sense.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is not important in Islamic calendar#Annulling intercalation.I think it should be removed.--Moda yahia (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that it wasn't me who restored the image this time, so apparently I'm not alone in thinking that it is a useful illustration. Could I ask you to start a discussion about it at Talk:Islamic calendar instead of removing it again?
Thank you, Amalthea 09:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yahia, this image don't have any importance to add in this article, and for muslims it is very offensive to show prophet Muhammad in an image or statue, so i really want it to be deleted . Dr B2 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think that this image is not needed here. yasirniazkhan (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

how to dare you dont again take this image .
its so disturbing for muslims.ok be care full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noman.king (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This image is blasphemous ! Please understand that it hurts billions ! Pay some respect to such a large amount of HUMANS for the sake of HUMANITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.130.163 (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image (again),and I will do so every time it is replaced. It is offensive to Muslims, and serves no purpose other than to get a rise from us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.16.163 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You do that and watch the image get re-instated as per the community consensus of KEEPING the image in the article! Barts1a (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, I ask of you, what's the harm in removing this image? I understand that some might find the illustration useful, but I really think the article would still provide the necessary information without it. On the other hand, Muslims are forbidden to display or illustrate the face of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), any other Prophet such as Jesus or Moses (pbut) or God. This image, although may not seem much to you, will offend many Muslims around the world. I plead you to remove this image if only as a favour to all the Muslims who visit this site daily. Perhaps we would be able to find an image in its place that would respect everyone's personal belief's? 78.150.127.225 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The picture you claim to remove is taken from 600 years old Ilkhanid manuscript. So, it's an islamic picture! If your islamic ancestors could put this picture in their books, who are you to object doing the same today? I don't understand it.Merewyn (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no respect for the Islamic faith. They can't even perform such a petty act as remove the picture of the Prophet (PBUH). Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.198.24 (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please just remove the picture, just because it is from an arab manuscript doesnt make it ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.153.111 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DEPICTION OF THE BLASPHEMOUS ARTISTIC RENDERING OF THE PROPHET OF ISLAM (PBHU): Sheeraze

It is indeed, as many have emphasized in this section, a blasphemy in the extreme to depict an artistic rendering of the prophet of Islam(pbuh). As a matter of fact it is blasphemous in Islam to depict any prophet - that is to say that it is equally blasphemous to depict Moses, Jesus, Ibraham and Noah to name a few. By giving one example from of such a blasphemy from Muslim world (a few centuries ago) does not nullify one of the most important Islamic injunctions. Can you deny the fact that modern Islamic world detest any such blasphemy - in spite of the preponderance of such depictions of Jesus, Moses and other prophets, on part of non-Muslim world. By giving reference of a solitary incidence of such a depiction of prophets image you are insulting your own intelligence, displaying rather uncivilized behavior towards Muslim world. You are clearly disregarding the courtesy you owe towards Muslims. This is the intellectual-terrorism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeraze (talk • contribs)

This isn't the Islamic Encyclopedia. No such proscription (or indeed, the notion of blasphemy) exists here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Names of Months and Weekdays

I have two, somewhat unrelated, questions:

1. Are there are any traditional English names for Islamic months that could and should be provided in this article? I happened to be reviewing the U.S.–Tripoli treaty signed and ratified in 1797. The text of the treaty mentions Hegira months such as Junad and Argill. Could someone look into this further?

1. What is the purpose of providing a table with names of weekdays in various world languages? While the names may be specifically related to Islam or the Islamic calendar in some languages, there are others that make no distinction whatsoever. The names usually belong to the Gregorian or local civil calendar and are "religion-neutral" in the sense that they're used by non-Muslims, too. If you look into the Albanian names, for instance, you'll the see days of the week named after Roman and Illyrian gods and celestial bodies ("e martë" means Mars day; "e mërkurë" Mercury day; "e enjte" Jupiter day; and the rest have the same meaning as in English; so the Semitic root for Sabbath isn't used either.) Is it this discrepancy that the table is trying to prove then?

Thank you, --Getoar TX (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving Sunday to the top of the weekday table?

In view of the often-recurring changes (and reverts) made to the meanings of the Arabic weekday names (is Monday the first or the second day of the week?) it may be less confusing for most readers if we move Sunday (now at the bottom of the table) to the top of the table. Any thoughts on this proposal (and my earlier proposal of 9 October)? AstroLynx (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So far nobody has commented on my proposal, so I assume that most editors have no strong opinion on this matter. Unless someone objects within the next 24 hours, I will restructure the weekday table and move Sunday (the first day of the Islamic week) to the top (where it properly belongs). AstroLynx (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the date converter at the top be more specific?

At the top of the page the date converter Today presents today's date and its equivalent in the Persian solar calendar and the Islamic lunar calendar.

Considering the different versions of the Islamic calendar which are currently used and which can differ one or even two days from each other, I think that some indication should be given about 'which' version is actually followed. Many unsuspecting users of WP may be inclined to believe that it always displays the 'correct' date.

For today (9 October 2014) the converter gives the Islamic date as 14 Dhu al-Hijjah while the date in the Umm al-Qura calendar and in the Turkish Islamic calendar is actually 15 Dhu al-Hijjah. I suspect that the converter is probably based on one of the several possible tabular calendars. AstroLynx (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. There's currently a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia: Village pump (technical)#Template access to Preferences: Appearance: Offset (or local time generated from it)?. One thing I noticed is that the template contains a link (AH appears in blue). When I clicked on it it directed me to "Tabular Islamic calendar". I guess this is the only option for a script like this. Wouldn't putting the rules of the Turkish Islamic calendar or the Umm al - Qura calendar into a template be too difficult? Incidentally, what are the rules for the Turkish Islamic calendar? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is more difficult but it can be done, see the JavaScripts used for The Umm al-Qura Calendar of Saudi Arabia and The Islamic Calendar of Turkey. AstroLynx (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Arabic names of calendar months and Turkish months

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian months, articles on names of months in specific languages are not likely to be notable as stand-alone articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose a merge: This is an article about this Islamic calendar, those articles contain information about the names of Gregorian months in various languages. Also, the AFD resulted in a keep for Serbian months, with the understanding that the article could be improved. I think the same goes for Arabic names of calendar months and Turkish months. Fitnr 15:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Gregorian months and Islamic months are two different topics. Let's not confuse Arabic and Islamic. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)