Talk:Islamic view of miracles

Our Lady of Fatima is/is not Fatimah Az-Zahra?

I've looked around for academic sources that might link this two together. As such, I found no connection other than the fact that the name of the place of the former miracle is Fátima, Portugal (see its wiki page; note also that Fatimah Az-Zahra wasn't mentioned at all on that page). So if you can find any, please include it in reference, I would greatly appreciate it. As of now, I am removing the link again not out of spite, but because I think we can objectively agree that no evidence points to any link between the two yet. I would be happy to leave it in if you can cite a source to support it. Haya shiloh 02:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any online source, but there is such a conection made in the Muslim world, in Iran, they make a huge point of a supposed quote from her saying "i am the daughter of the prophet". --Striver 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is odd to link the christian Fatima to the Muslim Fatima just because they have the same name. Fatima is common name in Portugal and Brazil, and might have been inherited from the times the Iberian peninsula was under Islamic rule.--A Jalil 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As said, they support the conection on the above quote. --Striver 09:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I know about Virgin Mary apparitions throughout history, I still find the link somewhat tenuous. I've added "citation needed" tag to it to alert anybody who might know any online reference to put it in. Haya shiloh 20:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read before that in Muslim-populated areas, historically Catholics increased Fatima-related veneration. It helped smooth relations with Muslims. Maybe they thought the Catholics were honoring Muhammad's daughter. Maybe some understood the difference, but still felt it was a step in the right direction by the Catholics. The flip side and the one that is more speculative is whether there is a tie-in to crypto-Islamic practices within Catholicism.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS

[1], [2], and [3] are not reliable sources. They are extremist websites. This page needs more reliable sources.--Sefringle 01:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked, your works. Sorry to say that many of them have the same pattern

1. Adding so many tags to the wiki pages (esp. to the ones which are about Islam), then saying 'let's clean up', and then erasing all the page

2. Or adding biased words and comments to those pages and presenting them as facts. A source which contains some claims are not to be given without the counter arguments.

3. I checked also the source you mentioned, [4] seems really fine: nothing is written without references. Calling smt/smo as with some labels such as 'extemist' w/o any proofs is calles as slander.

4.Please keep NEUTRAL (Obuli 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

islamonline.net is not as scholarly source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Non-scholarly_sources. Islamonline.net is clearly one-sided and bias. Also see WP:RS#Self-published sources as secondary sources. It says " Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." In this article, Islamonline.net is being used as a secondary source. It needs varification from a reliable source.--Sefringle 21:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know about Sefringle that much, but it is true that he has added a flood of tags to the page. These are redundant since the title of the page is "ISLAMIC VIEW" and it presents the things believed by Muslims, even we like them or not.

Also, this page is mostly a collection of other wiki pages about their beliefs so it is funny to say present more proofs.

Peace(Stand4truth 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

This page is a disgrace to wikipedia policies. I don't care if it includes an Islamic view, as long as it Cites its sources and doesn't contain origional research. Sources should be from scholarly sources. Islamonline.net is not a scholarly source. It should also be written in a neutral way per WP:NPOV.--Sefringle 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The page is neutral under its title. There is only one reference for [5] and it presents its references. We do not have to believe all of them as miracles, but this page is by no means a disgrace. You'd better to keep neutral in your comments. There is no sense to fill the page with so many redundant tags. The left tags already presents your view. (Stand4truth 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Islamonline.net is not a reliable source. It has a clear bias and certianly does have a goal: to further the goals/conversions of Islam through the internet. It is extremist or at best Partisan, and it certianly isn't scholarly. The other problem with this article is its format. It is written as a list. It should be written in prose, that is why the rewrite tag is there. It is not neutral, as this article is very one sided, favoring an Islamic view. It says nothing about the secular or non-muslim views of Islamic claims, and in this format, it cannot.--Sefringle 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the only wiki page written in a list format. Also, this page is a sub-article to Islam. I know that wikipedia has many other pages to represent Islamic views; about God, prophets, traditions, etc. The same is applicable for other religions. Again: There is no sense to fill the page with so many redundant tags. The left tags already present your view. (Sorry, the missing sign (Stand4truth 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)))

No, this is not the only wiki page written in list format, however the articles that are in list format are lists of people, places, or events. They do not describe events in enough detial to warrent an article, nor do they offer a secondary opinion. See Wikipedia:Listcruft. It says "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." There is no other article on wikipedia that deals with the Islamic view of miracles. This article should be in the same format as Miracles attributed to Jesus. There are other wikipedia articles that represent Islamic views, but they are written far better than this article. The left tags do not present my view. There are no reliable sources mentioned in this article, so this article does not cite its sources. It needs a rewrite, and this article certianly doesn't have a NPOV, as it gives excess weight to the Islamic viewpoint--Sefringle 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

deleting this article

i suggest deleting this article, or merging it with the Qur'an and miracles article (Imad marie (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

• support proposal Yahel Guhan 06:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Imad, actually I suggest the reverse. This present article is broader. There's no need to make a separate Quran and miracles article which you made. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That would work too. THis is the better of the two titles, after all. Yahel Guhan 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Qur'an and miracles into Islamic view of miracles

I propose merging Qur'an and miracles into Islamic view of miracles. Qur'an and miracles is redundant. Islamic view of miracles is a more NPOV title as well and is more broader than Qur'an and miracles. Not to mention that Qur'an and miracles is a really small article so it should really just be moved into the other one. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the two articles should be merged, they discuss two different subjects, the first discuses the miraculous claim of the Qur'an, and the other discusses the Islamic view of miracles. (Imad marie (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC))

if that the case then they defiantly should be merge.The is so much overlap.Moreover the way I see it this article is merely propaganda or Islamic Dawah.Oren.tal (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the discussion that is still going on? And I don't understand why two distinct topics should be merged into one. (Imad marie (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

• support As I stated in my above comment. Yahel Guhan 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reviving merger proposal

I believe that the current state of the articles justifies reviving this proposal. There is already a sub-section on this article on the Quran, and the content from the other one can go there. Most of the content in the article is uncited or cites the Quran without commentary from reliable secondary sources (WP:PSTS urges extreme caution interpreting primary sources for ourselves as editors). The part that is well-sourced can easily fit within this article and we will not even be approaching maximum recommended article length.

An editor said above that the two topics are separate, but I don't believe this is true because the Quran is viewed as a miracle in Islam, and the ijaz movement has been incredibly active promoting the view that the Quran contains scientific miracles. Both of these points are well-sourced already. I also agree with the editor above who said this article has a better title in terms of NPOV. Gazelle55 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Just one more note: there are already pages for I'jaz and Challenge of the Quran which further overlap with the article I propose to move here, so if needed, any material that isn't suitable here could go to those articles. Gazelle55 (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Matt57, Imad marie, Oren.tal, Yahel Guhan, I don't know if you guys are still active on WP, but I saw you participated in the previous merger discussion. If you see this, what are your thoughts now? Gazelle55 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)