Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Summary: generally, there is consensus that this RfC is itself invalid due to the policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Question 1 asked if Islam-related articles should contain images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars; question 2 asked if these images should be deleted. On both of these, there is unanimous consensus that this RfC cannot override the policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Question 3 proposed enshrining the result of this RfC in the Manual of Style on Islam-related articles. There is no consensus on this question. However, due to the consensus on the invalidity of the previous two questions, there is not much of a result to put into the MoS in the first place. (non-admin closure) Tol | talk | contribs 00:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

---

From time to time editors remove images identifying Islamic clerics and/or scholars from, or add images to, articles in the field of Islam. An example appears in this discussion which is due to have closed very soon, but the more general principle is important. That discussion was catalysed by this IP editor comment: "Tajjusharia don't wanted to take photo video it's haram so don't put his photo here". The word "haram" is significant.

For this RfC there are three questions:

• Question 1: Should Islamic articles (and Drafts) have images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars?
• Question 2: Should images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars be retained or be deleted insofar as this affects Wikipedia, not Commons?
• Question 3: Should the outcome of this RfC be embedded in this segment of the Manual of Style?

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on question 1

Question 1 asks: "Should Islamic articles (and Drafts) have images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars?"

Support having images in these articles or Drafts

Oppose having images in these articles or Drafts

Other opinions

Speedy close per WP:CONLOCAL, specifically this Rfc cannot overturn WP:NOTCENSORED. FDW777 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I seem to find FDW777's argument valid. (Declaration: I am non-Muslim) Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This RfC is about whether we should censor one area or not. We should not, because we censor no area. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on question 2

Question 2 asks: "Should images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars be retained or be deleted insofar as this affects Wikipedia, not Commons?"

Support keeping these images

Oppose deleting these images

Other opinions

Speedy close per WP:CONLOCAL, specifically this Rfc cannot overturn WP:NOTCENSORED. FDW777 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I seem to find FDW777's argument valid. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on question 3

Question 3 asks: "Should the outcome of this RfC be embedded in this segment of the Manual of Style?"

Support embedding the outcome of this RfC in this section of the MOS

• Support regardless of which outcome is determined by consensus. Having it explicitly written is important for the community to be able to reference. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral On reflection seems covered at MOS:IMAGE#Offensive images / WP:NOTCENSORED and possibly any tweaks perhaps ought to be considered at MOS:IMAGE first, but currently electing to recuse from this section. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose embedding the outcome of this RfC in this section of the MOS

Other opinions

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.

Holy Quran and Prophet Mubammad

Calling a book such as the Koran “Holy Quran” is not a value judgment but giving it its due respect as a sacred object. Referring to it with other titles such as the “Noble Quran” might fall into the said category. I recommend updating the article.

Also, calling Muhammad “Prophet Muhammad” is by no means an honorific but a description of the person as he was a prophet whether one believes in him or not. It doesn’t change the fact he prophesized and so was a prophet by default. Referring to him as “Most Beloved Prophet Muhammad” would be an honorific. I highly recommend updating the article accordingly. 786wave (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Deeming a religious scripture, object, place, or person to be sacred is a value judgement that depends entirely on one's religious beliefs.

We don't ordinarily prefix a person's name with their profession or role. For someone who isn't writing "Prophet Muhammad" out of personal devotion and religious custom, writing "Prophet Muhammad" is like writing "Actor Olivier" for Laurence Olivier.

Articles on Wikipedia are in Wikipedia's "voice". Wikipedia doesn't have a religion and has no opinion on the holiness of anything, so it expresses no such opinion. Largoplazo (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel this demonstrates that the OP is unable to view subjects relating to his religion from a neutral position. Alssa1 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sacred is sacred whether one believes in it or not. The problem with post-modern thinking is it considers everything as equal and nothing as sacred. It’s not. It will never be. 786wave (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with "post-modern thinking" or anything else of that sort. It has everything to do with being objective and writing from a netural point of view. You may personally believe that the Quran is holy, others don't. You may believe that Muhammad was a prophet, others do not. Referring to the Quran as holy, or Muhammad as a Prophet would be an endorsement of the Islamic position; which is something Wikipedia cannot do because we have to be neutral. On Muhammad's article, we show very clearly how to be neutral in relation to revered figures in world religions:

Muhammad (c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of the world religion of Islam. According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

Do you understand? Alssa1 (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Sacred" things are, almost by definition, not sacred to people who don't believe in them. Which is why, I suspect, WP does not have a category of "sacred articles" – there is absolutely no way in which such a category could not devolve into an endless POV-pushing tug-of-war, and I can imagine no sense in which it would improve this project. Its sole likely consequence would be to invite protracted sectarian squabbling over which religious figures deserve what amount of deference for what reasons, etc etc, with the likely end result that articles about religions would become the personal fiefdoms of adherents of those religions, and ultimately little more than proselytism and propaganda. Same story whenever any special-interest group with a conflict of interest is allowed undue editorial control over articles relevant to them. We're not in that game; we are aiming to make available a resource that informs readers about what different groups of people in the world believe, from as close to a neutral perspective as practicable. This has nothing to do with whatever you consider "postmodernism" to be, and everything to do with a need to keep WP articles a bias-free space. In this case, we don't preface prophets with that title "Prophet X" because it's simply not normal English-language practice; we do not describe Einstein as "Physicist Albert".

Even the concept of such a category of "sacred" Wikipedia content is against the spirit of WP:NPOV, as observed above. These practices of respecting neutrality – most especially in naturally contentious matters such as religion and politics – have been adopted for good reasons. Ultimately, endorsing a particular perspective on the sanctity of prophets or religious teachings is not a goal of WP, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the basic policies and objectives of the encyclopedia. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That something is sacred is entirely a declaration of belief that it is so. It has everything to do with what one believes. Is the Bhagavad Gita sacred to you?

What do you even understand the word "sacred" to mean? That's important to define in order to discuss this in any more detail. Does it mean "something given by God"? In that case, every plant and animal and rock on the planet was given by God. Is every one of them a sacred object? If not, then the decision to name some of them sacred and others non-sacred is a subjective one. Largoplazo (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If it’s related to God and religion it’s sacred. Very simple actually. 786wave (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Which, as God is a fictional character, means that "sacred" is meaningless.--Khajidha (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Sharia" not "Sharia law"

I propose we add a guideline that, when referring to Islamic law, we should either call it "sharia" or "Islamic law", but not "sharia law". Dictionary.com contains an entry for sharia but no entry for sharia law. Similarly, merriam-webster contains an entry for sharia, but none for sharia law, and Cambridge Dictionary contains sharia, but not sharia law. In fact there is nothing conveyed by "sharia law" that isn't already conveyed by "sharia". So we should definitely not use "sharia law" in article titles per WP:CONCISE (meaning Ban on sharia law should be moved to Ban on sharia or Ban on Islamic law).VR _talk 03:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Seems perfectly normal phrasing to me. Especially given that several of the examples of how to use sharia in a sentence on the Dictionary.com page you linked to use it. --Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying its invalid English, but rather "Sharia" is more WP:CONCISE than "Sharia law", which matters for article titles.VR _talk 23:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Sharia" by itself would be as recognizable, though. --Khajidha (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Khajidha how is "Sharia" not recognizable? Our article on the topic is called Sharia, not Sharia law, and the most reliable sources routinely use the term "Sharia" (as opposed to "Sharia law") in their titles: [1][2][3][4][5].VR _talk 17:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. "Sharia law" has connotations that are useful when describing the subject. Alssa1 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Alssa1 what connotations does "Sharia law" have that "Sharia" or "Islamic law" doesn't?VR _talk 17:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Given that the current MOS recommends using "God" instead of "Allah", it would be more consistent to use "Islamic law" instead of "Sharia law".VR _talk 17:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Apaugasma, as you recently pointed out that we should be using English when possible what is your opinion on "Sharia law" vs "Islamic law" vs simply "Sharia"?VR _talk 18:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• The general guideline to use English applies for terms that are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, like for example Jewish law vs. Halakha (cf. [6] vs [7]). However, the difference between Islamic law and sharia (cf. [8] vs. [9]) is not big enough in my view to impose one of two usages. Sharia law is used a lot less often though [10] [11], but since it's rather equivalent to the commonly used sharia and since it still gets 38900 hits in Google Scholar, I don't see a reason to outright ban it. Best usage would probably often be to use something like Islamic law (Sharia) or Sharia (Islamic law). I also agree that sharia law may in some contexts have a slightly different connotation, as in 'sharia put into law' (i.e., traditional sharia pronouncements converted into a codified law voted in by a parliament and enforced by the system of justice). All in all, there's not by far enough here to create a guideline on it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for those statistics! The ratio between "Jewish law" and "Halakha" is 128,000:17,600 or about 7:1. The ratio between "Islamic law" and "Sharia law" is 245,000:38,900 or about 6:1. In terms of ngram link you gave, "Islamic law" seems 5x more used than "Sharia law". So I agree that best usage would be either Islamic law (Sharia) or Sharia (Islamic law), on first usage in the article, but all subsequent usages should either be Islamic law or Sharia (i.e. without the bracketed explanation). And point taken about not creating a guideline around it.VR _talk 19:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Writing salutation after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM)

I edited a content on wikipedia few months ago and added durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). A few days latter when I visited the page again, I found that another editor had removed the durud after the name of the Prophet, referring Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. When I explored the manual I came to know about Wikipedia 's principle of omitting honorifics including Islam-related articles in order to maintain a neutral environment.

I am truly amazed by your concern about maintaining neutrality respecting all nations, race, gender, religion and I really admire that. But in Islam we have a religious obligation of saying durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). A hadith have been mentioned in the book Fazayele Amal by Hazrat Moulana Zakariya (d.1982) (RU) regrading this. In this book from the part Fazayele Ramadan (page 24):

Once the Prophet Muhammad (SM) said to his sahabas to get closer to the mimbar. They got close to the mimber. Then the Prophet Muhammad (SM) stepped on the first stair of the mimber and said "Ameen". He repeated this for the second and third stairs. When he came down from the mimber after finishing khutbah, the sahaba (RA) told him " What we heard today while your stepping on the mimber, we hadn’t heard it before." The Prophet Muhammad (SM) said, "Just now, Jibril (AS) said, 'Destroy he might be who gets (into) the month of Ramadan but his sins are not forgiven.' I said Ameen. When I stepped on the second stair Jibril (AS) said, 'Destroy he might be in front of whom your name is spoken but he doesn't say durud on you.' I said Ameen. Just after stepping on the third stair Jibril (AS) said 'Destroy he might be in front of whom his parents or any one ( mother or father) reach at their consenescence but they couldn’t make him achieve Jannat (the child couldn’t achieve paradise through serving or devotion to his parents).' I said Ameen."

Please note that Fazayele Amal is a renound and authentic book with verified hadiths. According to this hadith there is a religious obligation (wajib) of saying durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). Whenever we see any content saying only 'Muhammad', it pierces our heart! Allah has made this sending of salutation obligatory not even after His name, but after His habib Prophet Muhammad (SM).

I truly respect Wikimedia's conscience of keeping neutrality. But I also hope that Wiki will consider the importance of sending durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM) and will be kind enough to allow writing salutation only after his name. Uxorus (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I was looking for details on (SM) in Islamic honorifics - cannot find it? What does it mean? Also I note the comment at the top of the page For previous discussions about PBUH, please review the archives. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla

(SM) is the short form of 'ṣallā 'llahu ʿalayhi (wa-ʾālihi) wa-sallam'. You'll find it on the 'Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles' page, right after PUBH Uxorus (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That is SAW not SM? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Even while appreciating how jarring this is to you, nevertheless:

• Am I correct in my understanding that in some branches of traditional Islamic thought, humans are not to depict God's creatures in art? If so, well, Wikipedia is nevertheless rife with photographs and drawings of people, animals, and plants.
• Even if I'm not correct about that, Wikipedia includes imagery of women that would offend many Muslims, and that women are depicted at all would offend some Muslims, and also Jews whose beliefs are such that they remove women from group photos published in newspapers (as was reported to have been done when a photo was published of attendees at a meeting that included Hillary Clinton).
• Many Jews are presumably offended to see "God" spelled out as such rather than written as "G-d".
• Many Christians are presumably offended that there's an article on Piss Christ.

The only summary I can give is that Wikipedia is a secular publication. When it comes to the question of tailoring the guidelines, and especially the question of making exceptions to them, there's a choice between accommodating every faith's sense of what must or must not be included or accommodating none of them. The former seems unmanageable and fraught. Largoplazo (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo

Brother/sister, along with the points that you've mentioned, there are thousands of other disputations. I was talking about adding honorific only after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM).

The honorific 'PUBH' after the name of the Prophet Muhammad (SM) [Muhammad (PBUH)] is so commonly seen in all types of publications that everyone (including non-muslims) is familiar with it. So adding PUBH (if not SM) wouldn’t seem anything unfamiliar to the readers or hurt anyone's feelings. Uxorus (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"I was talking about adding honorific only after ...": I'd understood that's what you were asking when I responded that neutrality requires that we make exceptions to accommodate the sensitivities of every sect of every faith or that we make exceptions to accommodate none of them. What you're asking falls into neither category. Largoplazo (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, don't you mean "PBUH" rather than "PUBH"? "Peace Be Upon Him"? Largoplazo (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uxorus I am not familiar with it. Thus everyone is not. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As a non-Muslim, I can tell you that it would be quite offensive for Mohammed to be singled out for such treatment on Wikipedia, for that would make it the official Wikipedia position that he is to be praised, and that that position is unique (unless we started to PBUH all names, which sound neither reasonable nor practical.) That he is seen as deserving of praise is understandable but clearly not uncontroversial.

What I do recommend for my fellow non-Muslim editors is that we be very mellow about edits from our Muslim editors who include PBUH phrasing within the additions that they make. Delete the honorific, sure, but don't give them a hard time for having included it. So long as they're not going around adding the honorific after existing invocations, they are moving the project forward, just as someone who adds information but doesn't follow MOS:LQ for comma placement does, and generally they are not doing it out of ignorance but from personal spiritual requirement. (And the same logic applies to Jews who use "G-d".) To effectively shut people out of editing because they have this relatively addressable religious compulsion would not serve the project as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this. Well said. Largoplazo (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo Yes, it is PBUH (Peace Be Upon Him). Just mistaken in hastle Uxorus (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla It is just another form of SAW and is frequently used in many regions. I added this one also. Uxorus (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you for clarifying. Can I ask you why you chose to use an Arabic language honorific (SAW) and not an English language honorific (PBUH)? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I just wrote how I pronounce it. There's no other reason. Uxorus (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uxorus: I see. If Muslims consider it an obligation, I'm struggling to understand why The Study Quran, a religious study text written by Muslims who are also Western Academics, does not use the honorific?

[[User:JorgeLaArdilla|JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla, As per my understanding, it is a translation of the Quran. Quran is the kalam of Allah. In Quran, Allah has adderssed Prophet Muhammad (SM) as Rasul, Muddassir, Muzzammil and many more. Allah has directly mentioned him (O the messenger of Allah....). It is obligatory upon us, the ummah, to send salutation on his mention.

I could have said more properly if I had access to that book.

Uxorus (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

May be you are concerned about the fact that people will think Wikipedia as a biased platform by allowing PBUH after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). But may be they'll do so because they don't know that it is an obligation. If we let them know that this is an obligation, I don't thik they'll have any objection against adding honirific after his name. I think they'll understand the sophistication of Jibril (AS)’s quotation mentioned above, rather than thinking of it as biasness or any kind of tailoring.

As far as I know, there is no such obligation for any other person. Even in Islam, we don’t have any such obligation of sending salutation after any other prophets, though we do that form the cordial respect of our heart. From this point of view, this position of Prophet Muhammad (SM) is unique. And as a unique one, this honorific should be added to the Manual of Style. Uxorus (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect. I see your explanation that you consider writing the honorific an obligation, but I still feel that Wikipedia would be biased for extending this special treatment to one person. Special treatment like that is bias. You may think it due bias, that your religion calls on you to have that bias, which is understandable and no condemnation; we all have beliefs of sorts, and beliefs are, at heart, biases. This isn't just your prophet that we do this with; we strip honorifics from all. For example, we do not call the Queen of England "her majesty" (except in discussing that honorific.)

There may be some room for a browser extension that would display PBUH or similar notation every time your prophets name appears on the screen, which would serve the observant reader without interfering with Wikipedia as a whole. (It would have to be done with care, however, so that it doesn't insert it in the editing field; we have run into similar problems in the past.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You're suggesting people will be willing to make an exception for this because Muslims consider it an obligation. But that amounts to making a special exception for this one Islamic obligation without doing the same for every other religious obligation. I responded to that already. It's as though you don't understand that Islam is not the only religion in the world that imposes obligations.

If editors removed images depicting God's creations because they considered that an obligation, I guarantee that that wouldn't be accepted. Nor would it be accepted if editors were to begin replacing "God" with "G-d" everywhere.

I'm puzzled that you've stated, in response to two people who are objecting and who have explained why, and in light of all the other commentators who've objected in previous discussions about the same question, that you believe no one will object. Largoplazo (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo, because I thought that's not your personal opposition, rather professional concern. Nat Gertler seems trying to analyse the matter from both point of view. Uxorus (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• General Comment: Encyclopedia provides Knowledge, which needs to be → Truth dependent → Truth should be non partisan → honorifics indirectly declares soft corner and partisanship→ Lead to attempts or condoning of censorship → hence honorifics are antithesis to critical evaluations→ hence ' honorifics are wordy superstitious rituals encouraging virtual literary idolatry of Cult of personality which can cause compromising the truth→ hence use honorifics ought to be avoided rationally and theologically both. ' Bookku (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, general comment: I read other subsections of this talk page. All I would like to say is, it will be more wise for wiki to involve only admin editors in policy determining pages like this one. In determining policy where there are disputations, there should be equal number of admins from each opinion group, all having sound knowledge of the matter. Only then the final decision can be called biasfree, neutral, justified and equitable.

Durud is obligatory salutation. It should not be categorized as honorific.

Also, I am withdrawing my words about other disputations I’ve said before. Allah is the greatest, so as his commands. What He has made prohibited, should not be admitted by any means. Uxorus (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

learn-islam.org class-9-durood fails to mention that Durud is obligatory? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ JorgeLaArdilla, the word written in arabic after 'prophet' is ṣallā 'llahu ʿalayhi wa-sallam. You should argue about the things you have sound Knowledge of. Uxorus (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already mentioned about the significance of sending durud after Prophet Muhammad (SM) referring Fazayele Amal. WE ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED TO INVENT SOMETHING FROM OURSELVES IN ISLAM. If we do that, we'll be put into hellfair. May Allah forgive and protect us. Uxorus (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We are also prohibited to talk or argue over things that we do not have knowledge of. Uxorus (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope you have read the 'Importance of Sending Blessings' part from the source you have mentioned carefully. Specially last few lines.

Fazayele Amal is a renouned book followed by many Islamic scholars. I think I should also have mentioned the explanation written after this hadith:

"In this hadith, Jibril (AS)'s curse was enough for destruction, moreover Prophet (SM)'s saying Ameen made it more firm. May Allah protect all of us from those sins. In 'Durre Mansur' it is mentioned that Jibril (AS) asked Prophet Muhammad (SM) to say Ameen, for which it's significance has increased more. First person is he whose Ramadan has been passed, but he was not granted forgiveness. This means despite the month of Ramadan's being full of rahmat and barkat that person not giving up his permanent bad deeds due to laziness has become deprived of inexhaustible forgiveness. Therefore his destruction is inevitable." Uxorus (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It's an honorific. Islam has no say over how anyone else chooses to write, and it's absurd to claim otherwise. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, there is no place for religious propaganda. FDW777 (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ FDW777, I was just defending JorgeLaArdilla how he was accusing that I have clamied something false. Uxorus (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Uxorus, 27 of your 33 contributions to Wikipedia have been edits to this discussion; most of the other six have been additions of (SM) to articles. Nobody wants to offend your religious sensibilities, and I'm sure that's the reason other people are being so patient. But you are overwhelming the discussion by repeating your opinion and your arguments ad infinitum, and taking up a lot of the time and energy of experienced editors here — time and energy which is Wikipedia's most precious resource. Please read Wikipedia: Don't bludgeon the process and desist. This discussion has definitely run its course, whether or not you are willing to accept the explanations you have been given. Bishonen | tålk 15:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC).

I have already mentioned my expectations from wikipedia. I am sorry if I could not make it clear that I don't want to argue with anyone who do not have knowledge about the matter in policy determining situation. Then why bringing up wrong explanations of sources after my final words? Uxorus (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Cambridge dictionary, honirific means "showing or giving honour or respect (an honorific title)". According to Oxford dictionary, honirific is "showing respect for the person you are speaking to". According to Wikipedia, An honorific is a title that conveys esteem, courtesy, or respect for position or rank when used in addressing or referring to a person.

According to Mufti Muhammad Abdullah's translation (2013) of Riadh us Salehin (by Imam Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi), (pg 624), Arabic ‘Salah’ (durud) when used after any worshipper (human being) means wish blessings for him. So durud, by no means, is a title/honirific. Muslims say/write durud as an obligation after the mention of Prophet Muhammad (SM), about which I have previously provided the references. So durud, by no means should be removed after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM).

Uxorus (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is not governed by Islam or by the proclamations of Imam Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi. We also don't write "G-d" instead of "God" even though many Jews believe writing out the name "God" is blasphemous and customarily write "G-d" instead, so you can see that Islam isn't being singled out in this regard.

Wikipedia is not speaking for Islam or Judaism or an other religion. It does not wish blessings on people, wish peace to be upon them, or call for their memories to be a blessing. Largoplazo (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Muhammad (PBUH) is so commonly seen in all type of prints, just as 'God'. Don't remove PBUH after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). Uxorus (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

'Hadith' section problematic

The section 'Hadith' is problematic: it says that articles on hadith should make clear the level of reliability of the hadith. This is misleading: the 'reliability of the hadith' refers to the judgement of medieval hadith scholars, whose declared methodology was exclusively based on analyzing isnads (though underneath this they did use other, not explicitly declared criteria). This is not the same as the methodology of modern historians, who take a lot of other factors into account, and generally assume that at least part of every hadith reflects concerns dating from the time of its recording (8th/9th century) rather than from the time in which it was purportedly originally related. In other words, the modern scholarly view is that no hadith is perfectly and straightforwardly 'reliable' as a source on events dating from before the late eighth century, and that the choice of which hadiths were considered 'reliable' or not by 9th/10th-century authors was very much informed by their own agendas.

What this means for Wikipedia is that articles on hadith should report not on whether a hadith is 'reliable', but, for example, on which medieval scholars considered it 'reliable', and especially for what reason they did so and what that entailed for the broader development of Islamic doctrine. Or these articles should report, for example, on the extent to which modern scholars believe the hadith to contain a kernel of truth (which may emerge when ideological layers are stripped off, a common methodology).

Now I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of this section. Is it to streamline the use of these four terms, and only these four (Sahih, Hasan, Da'if, and Mawdu'), from among the rich and complex hadith terminology? But that seems disingenuous: we should use the terms used by the reliable, secondary sources on which we base our articles. Could it be that this section dates from a time period when it was still acceptable to pump out whole WP articles purely on the basis of primary sources (as hadiths, as well as medieval works about hadiths, are)? In that case, I think it should be removed, because its intent would contravene WP:PRIMARY: what we write about hadiths should be firmly based on independent and reliable (basically: modern), secondary sources. If there is some other purpose to the section, the section should be reworded such as to make it clear that this is not about 'reliability' in the common sense of that word (and especially not in the Wikipedia-sense of the word!). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to add that the comment "which medieval scholars considered it 'reliable'" should apply to all scholars, both medieval and modern. Unless a view is very commonly accepted, we should state it with attribution, eg "Nawawi believes hadith X is authentic" or "Donner has disputed the historicity of hadith Y".VR _talk 17:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Terminology consistency

I could not get any feedback from the Islam article so I'm trying posting here. Considering consistency, Wikipedia articles have the words, for example, Sunni Islam and Sunnism, Shia Islam and Shiism, the adjectives Shiite and Shia. Would anyone know how Wikipedia handles that when translating from other languages in other topics when there are difference in how the sources translate a term? The options I can think of are a) Use the term that the source of that sentence happen to use b) Use the most commonly used version of the term for the whole article. Anyone can think of other options? Either way, it would be nice to have a consensus to refer to. Sodicadl (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would go with b). Wikipedia may or may not want to maintain consistency across different articles, but it should definitely maintain consistency within the same article.VR _talk 21:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Using an unqualified "Prophet" in place of Muhammad

I have seen both Muslim and non-Muslim reliable sources sometimes refer to Muhammad as "the Prophet", after having introduced him first as Muhammad and assuming there are references to no other prophets in the text. For example, Irving Zeitlin writes "The strict and absolute monotheism at which the Prophet had arrived meant that no real compromise with Christian doctrine..." or Takim writes "A more accurate picture of the Prophet appears in Simon Ockley's History of the Saracens and George Sale's translation of the Qur'an.". Yet currently MOS:MUHAMMAD seems to prohibit that. There's also discussion at Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy on whether to rename the article something like "2022 Prophet remarks row", the "prophet" would be used in the title without any qualifier. Should the guideline be changed to allow the use of "prophet"/"the prophet" in place of Muhammad in some cases? VR _talk 18:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I would say it's OK as long as the context is crystal clear that "Prophet" as a stand-alone proper noun refers only to Muhammad and no one else. I am pretty sure that the cases where this would be possible are quite rare. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree, though I don't think such cases would be that rare. In articles like Muhammad at Medina, Hadith, Battle of Badr etc its pretty clear that "Prophet" (without qualifier) refers to Muhammad and no one else. The article Pope Francis very frequently refers to him as "the pope" or "the Pope" and this is similar.VR _talk 20:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent I don't think that is analogous. And even at Pope it is only capitalised rarely. Doug Weller talk 07:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's analogous either, Vice regent. And in the Pope Francis article, Francis is generally referred to as "Bergoglio" before he's elected pope and as "Francis" afterwards. You think the references to him as "the pope" are "very frequent" really? I think they're very rare, and tend to come in places where they help clarity, such as distinguishing him from the other Bergoglios in the family section ("According to María Elena Bergoglio (born 1948), the pope's only living sibling, they did not emigrate for economic reasons"). Or to distinguish him from his very name, as with "At his first media audience, the Saturday after his election, the pope explained his papal name choice, citing Saint Francis of Assisi as "the man who gives us this spirit of peace, the poor man"". Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC).

I agree that the two cases are not comparable. "Pope" is basically a job title, for a position to which Francis was duly elected by the hierarchy of his religion. A non-Catholic, even an anti-Catholic, can refer to Francis as "the pope" with no value judgement (whereas referring to him as "His Holiness" in Wiki-voice is a value judgement). Non-Muslims, on the other hand, are quite unlikely to regard Muhammad as a prophet, much less "The Prophet", so referring to him as such in Wiki-voice is problematic for NPOV reasons in the same way that referring to Joseph Smith as such would be. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@PohranicniStraze: from what I understand not all Christian denominations consider the Roman Catholic pope to be their pope. Also, what if "Muhammad" was replaced with "the Islamic Prophet" instead? Surely that would be NPOV, right?VR _talk 16:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Referring to Muhammad as "the Prophet" at second and subsequent mentions is very common in reliable sources. However, it's a scholarly convention that is likely to create confusion, if not among Wikipedia's readers, then certainly among Wikipedia's editors. Since I don't see a use case where "the prophet Muhammad" or "Muhammad" wouldn't do, it's probably better not to change this.

What is an often recurring problem though is that editors sometimes cite MOS:MUHAMMAD to remove "the prophet" before Muhammad's name at second and subsequent mentions, but given the fact that there are a lot of Muslims named "Muhammad", it's often necessary to disambiguate. I think that we should add After the first reference, "the prophet Muhammad" is acceptable if used to disambiguate from other people named Muhammad. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if there are sources that do this, I see no motivation for that to be done here. Without looking, I'm going to guess that, after first mention, Gloria Allred refers to its subject exclusively as "Allred" or "she" and never as "the lawyer" or "the attorney". I'll guess likewise that Frank Gehry doesn't refer to him as "the architect", Amanda Gorman doesn't refer to her as "the poet", and so forth. If this sort of thing is found in Wikipedia articles from time to time, I'm guessing it's infrequent. So to give Muhammad such treatment would make him a special case, which is inappropriate. Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up: I checked those articles and I was right. Largoplazo (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say so given the trouble you've taken, but this is irrelevant. We either follow sources or find a good argument not to do so, but we're not going to make up our own standards without even taking the sources into account. Please look at the reliable sources that deal with Muhammad and see what usage you find there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure that’s a good way to change this guideline. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's style guidelines don't amount to "You can do what you want as long as you see it done in a few reliable sources." For example, you can find reliable sources that use periods to separate numbers in the thousands and millions and billions and commas to separate the whole and fractional parts of a decimal number, but that doesn't conform to the MoS. You can find reliable sources that routinely refer to people by their first names, but we don't normally do that here. I'd venture that most reliable sources use title case for headings, while we use sentence case. Conversely, you aren't going to find anything in reliable sources (in neutral ones—that is, sources that don't take for granted that Muhammad is an object of veneration) that indicates that it's wrong for us not to sprinkle references to "the prophet" here and there. Largoplazo (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you familiar with RS (let's say, anything 'University Press') on Islam or not? I strongly suspect not. It's why I opposed the proposal above: it's sure to confuse Wikipedia editors, who are ignorant about the literature but do have all kinds of preconceptions. As I said, sometimes there's a good argument not to follow the sources. This is mine. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing about something entirely different from what I was referring to. The proposal is to allow Muhammad, once identified in an article, to be referred to in the remainder of the article as "the Prophet". I was arguing against that. Then you responded to me in a manner that implied you were disagreeing with me, but now you say you also oppose the proposal. So I can't figure out what point you're trying to make. Largoplazo (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It would require an RFC to change the guideline. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the kerfuffle. It's just that I disagree with the proposal for a different reason. The OP is right to say that "the Prophet" is common in RS. Making comparisons to random terms that are not capitalized in the sources is not a valid counterargument. A reason is needed to ban capitalizing a term that is commonly capitalized in the sources. My take is that it's going to make it more difficult for the average editor to consistently apply this guideline, which may not be worth it. If OP would consider a RfC (though I don't think they would, given the initial response here), I strongly recommend them to quote a lot more sources showing that this usage is indeed common. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe you're still on a tangent. The proposal wasn't about capitalization. That was beside the point. The question was whether to allow Muhammad to be referred to with an unqualified "the [P/p]rophet". Further, reliable sources would be irrelevant anyway, as the MoS also calls for "the king", not "the King", etc., without regard to the fact that "the King" can be found in many reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

As I stated in my original reply, any use of an unqualified "the Prophet" (without "Islamic" qualifier) would have to be in a crystal clear context that we are referring specifically to the Islamic Prophet Muhammand. Otherwise, we violate WP:NPOV, because non-Islamic religions may have their own figures whom they call "the Prophet" (Ahmaddiyya and Mormons might be some examples). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Coming to look at this a little closer, I really think we do have a problem here. Last week there was an editor going through Islam-related articles to apply the MOS, also editing a few articles I wrote (e.g., here). At the time I didn't think too much of it, but now that I'm actually reading the revised text, it does come over as very weird to me. This is not how RS write. When Muhammad is mentioned in his capacity as a religious model, he is almost always referred to as either "the prophet Muhammad" or simply "the prophet"/"the Prophet".

Our guideline says that the recommended action is to NPOV to just "Muhammad", but there's nothing NPOV about just "Muhammad". Not that he is never referred to as just Muhammad in RS, but this is only in the specific cases where he is not cited in his capacity of prophet, like in biographies or when referred to in specifically non-religious contexts. For example, in my article referred to above, I wrote "Having initially fought against Muhammad at the Battle of Badr (624), [...]": 'the prophet Muhammad' would have given a completely wrong connotation here. Or in the biographical bit, "Muhammad himself had had a close relationship with Abu Talib, who had adopted him after his own father Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib had died a few months before his birth": in this context, 'the prophet' wouldn't make much sense. On the other hand, speaking of the Islamic concept of ahl al-bayt as "the extended family of Muhammad" rather than "of the prophet", I assure you, is weird.

The spirit of the guideline here is that we don't do honorifics, and I appreciate that allowing a capitalized "the Prophet" might seem to contravene that. But banning the use of "the prophet" before his name or as a way to refer back to him has nothing to do with honorifics, and is absolutely mistaken. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Can Wikipedia's own language, without attribution, be used for unverifiable claims since some one sees Wikipedia in totality readers will find equally contradictory claims in Wikipedia's voice. Where does Wikipedia stop?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku sorry, I'm lost. Could you please rewrite that (not literally, in a separate post) to be more specific. I also don't know how anyone could see Wikipedia in totality, what does that mean? Doug Weller talk 10:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

a) I am truly against usage of honorifics in encyclopedic environment, only if policy is consistently followed across, but since Wikipedia practically fails in consistency, until a true consistency is followed across I can bear with any number of honorifics across. That would not be issue with me.

b) But, IMHO, direct or indirect usage of honorifics is not ideal in encyclopedic environment.

c1) Example if a Pope's name is used First time and there after only the Pope is used in the same article. In a way that would not matter but that remains back door use of honorifics. ( In principle I do not support usage of word Pope in the article titles too)

C2) Still in Pope's case their claims to popedom is at least verifiable. But then designations in some (specially historical) cases are unverifiable. Many times many godemens are seen even being declaring themselves as God Now suppose even some reliable source books write their name first and write 'the God' latter referring the Godman. Should Wikipedia article use same way using the name once and the God in the later sentences in Wikipedia's own voice?

I do not have issues if some one writes 'the God'/ 'the demi God' according to so or so (attribution) and so book (attribution).

If Wikipedian's write The God / demi God did this in one article (without proper attribution) and other Wikipedians write The God / demi God did that in another article (without proper attribution) and what God / demi Gods did in Wikipedia voices in different articles contradicts then? Would anyone support any such position. So I am just suggesting to first avoid honorifics as much as possible , if at all used then use with relevant attribution.

I hope this explains my opinion adequately, Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand Apaugasma's point that many Reliable Sources in the field use the Prophet instead of Muhammad. I've also noticed this trend in other media such as the BBC. That said I think it's critical that Wikipedia maintain a firewall separating verifiable NPOV encyclopedic articles from being a sermon. The rhetoric to me seems critical in maintaining the structure, content, and NPOV aspect of articles, which is probably something that many RSs in the field don't have to worry about. It's difficult to imagine that the Journal of Near Eastern studies' editors are concerned about authors attempting to use the publication to proselytize, or to edit war or what have you. But these are very real concerns on Wikipedia; I'm not casting aspersions, but merely saying just as one must know one's audience, one must also know one's writers. By maintaining a detached, encyclopedic rhetoric we are able to create a forum that best lends itself to making corresponding articles and setting an example to new editors. If we start using Wiki voice to refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God who is the Natural Union of God the Word and the Flesh it's not going to be long before the page Sermon on the Mount comes off like an actual Sermon. I agree with Bookku that we don't do a perfect job, and I'm just as guilty of this as anyone but I think the best course is progress not perfection as opposed to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I guess beyond that I think I'm like many in that I don't really care for the overtly religious stuff, there are plenty of places for that Wiki is not one. Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed! as one must know one's audience, one must also know one's writers: exactly what I was trying to say above. There is somewhat of a problem with editors robotically removing "the prophet" where it's perfectly valid for stylistic or even content-related reasons, and it would be nice if this guideline could avoid that by being a bit more fine-grained, but ultimately our main problems as a wiki that anyone can edit are of a different nature. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Muhammad is somewhat the primary topic for prophet, just as Jesus is somewhat the primary topic for Christ and messiah, Siddhartha Gautama for Buddha ... There isn't really a lot of prophet primary topic competition around these days, unless it's Moses, and he tends to crop up in specific contexts. Judicious use of prophet helps avoid the repetition of Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Apaugasma, Doug Weller, Bookku, Alcibiades979 and others: one practical example of using "prophet" in lieu of "Muhammad" is the recent proposal at Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy#Requested_move_8_June_2022 where it is shown that the most WP:COMMONNAME used in RS is simply "Prophet" and that in 2022 there seems to be no ambiguity as to just who this Prophet is. It is also appears the overwhelming majority of sources that use simply "Prophet" to refer to Muhammad are non-Muslim.VR _talk 16:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would be astonished to learn that all the writers who customarily refer to him as "the Prophet" do so because they consider that to be his name. Largoplazo (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, I'm not considering an RfC. But out of curiosity, were these guidelines established via RfC or some consensus mechanism? Can someone point me to that? VR _talk 16:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  The consensus mechanism for this appears to be through editing; these guidelines were in the original version and have been stable for seventeen years. However, there is some relevant history; it appears to have started as a manual of style for WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which was moved to the general MOS when editors realized that WikiProject-specific manuals of styles were a WP:BADIDEA. However, WikiProject Islam:SIIEG was not a normal WikiProject; it was deleted in December 2005, a month and a half after creating this page, for consisting primarily of Islamophobic bigots. BilledMammal (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Well that's an interesting origin story, to say the least. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I'm actually considering an RFC here, though probably for different purposes than you are; I'm not seeing any benefit to having this as a standalone guideline.

MOS:ISLAM#Grammatical standardization is already covered at WP:MOSAR, MOS:ISLAM#Templates does not belong on a MOS page, MOS:ISLAM#Islamic honorifics isn't currently covered by MOS:HONORIFICS but can be; we don't this level of detail. MOS:ISLAM#Words to watch is covered at MOS:LABEL and MOS:ISLAM#Categorisation is covered at WP:CAT. MOS:ISLAM#References is just a mess; none of the content belongs in the MOS; some of it duplicates guidance at WP:V and WP:OR, while the rest belong in an essay.

I also don't see a general justification for a guideline like this; if it isn't necessary for Christianity of Hinduism, it probably isn't necessary for Islam, particularly given the context in which it was created. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

To avoid systemic bias, I am all for removing decision making of all honorifics issue to be remove from MOS talk pages and put under WP:NPOV and it's decision making talk page.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a religion-specific guideline is not particularly useful, especially when, yes, language transliteration issues etc. are better viewed at WP:MOSAR, and it would indeed be better to have the honorific component, which is probably the most important part anyway, listed centrally at MOS:HONORIFICS. Qref is useful and would need a new home. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

My experience shows little to no problems with other religions, just Islam. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: It is also worth noting that while most of the material in MOS:ISLAMHON is about abbreviated phrases, the "prophet" contraction is more akin to the WP:NCCL guideline on religious clergy job titles, where it should probably have a presence. Some other faiths, not least Buddhism, are also frankly in dire need of a clergy style guide. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Islamic clergy titles

It might be worth considering outlining guidelines for the usage of Islamic clergy titles, including, but not limited to, prophet, ayatollah, mufti, imam, sheikh, etc. - logically the treatment of most of these titles can be deduced from WP:TITLESINTITLES or the parallel guidelines for Christian clergy titles found in WP:NCCL, but I'm now wondering if this should perhaps be made more user-friendly and explicit for Islam. The use of "prophet" in relation to Muhammad should probably also be disentangled from the honorifics section, with the parts about the usage of "holy" clumped with the above notes on the Quran and the use of "prophet" split off entirely. If this were not already obvious, as the section stands, it explicitly notes that the Durood article discusses these honorifics in more detail, making plain that is referring to the irksomely recurrent protuberance of SAW/PBUH in articles, not the job role/title of "prophet", which is not discussed at durood and which is far more akin to MOS:SAINTS guideline that anything else. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:MUHAMMAD co-opted in article title naming discussions

An interesting case has just cropped up in the form of 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy, where MOS:MUHAMMAD is being used as an argument against using the most widely sourced terminology for the event, which, in case people are unfamiliar, is a row in India over a politician making derogatory remarks about the Prophet Muhammad and the ensuing drama. The most common name in sources is to refer to it as a row over the "Prophet remarks", but MOS:MUHAMMAD is being proffered as a guideline that can contravene common naming in sources and demand that "Muhammad" be used in the article title instead of "Prophet". I see this as overreach, since I highly doubt that this guideline was ever sincerely intended to apply to article titles. The guideline singles out and makes exceptions for the first mention of Muhammad in an article, for instance, but makes absolutely no mention of titles - and why would it? Titular references to the Prophet Muhammad are a rare thing indeed, and current event episodes titled after the prophet are borderline non-existent. One rare, titular exception can bebfound in the form of Companions of the Prophet, though I see that the same pointed application of the guideline has also recently been broached there, see its talk. I see the guideline as very much pertaining to dealing with body copy mentions after initial mentions. I see nothing in the wording that hints at jurisdiction in naming discussions. What do others think? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Part of the intent of MOS:MUHAMMED is to assist editors in ensuring articles comply with WP:NPOV; considering that context, I would consider it an appropriate argument to make. It would be clearer to directly reference NPOV and WP:POVNAMING, but I wouldn't consider referencing this to be inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a common problem on WP. When in 90% of the cases the majority of sources do X, a WP guideline is created that says that the NPOV thing to do is X, and only X. But that's just not true: in the 10% other cases, doing X would completely go against NPOV. Except where some valiant editor intervenes to make sure NPOV is properly applied, WP in fact goes against its own policy in most of these 10% cases. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that often, most editors very much like X, or very much dislike not-X. Applied to this specific topic, where editors don't like that Muhammad is called 'prophet', more often than not they are willing to against sources to make sure he isn't. Ironically, (false) recourse to NPOV is often extremely POV-driven. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I think that part of the issue is that editors aren't aware of how WP:POVNAMING works, due to a discrepancy between POVNAMING and WP:POVNAME. POVNAMING creates a narrow exemption that allows for the use of a non-neutral title if using a different one will cause issues with recognizability; POVNAME creates a broad exemption that allows for the use of a non-neutral title if it is the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there really that much of a discrepancy? Titles that are the most recognizable will generally also tend to coincide with the most common terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally, but not always. In addition, POVNAMING says that neutrality should be balanced with recognizability; it supports us choosing a slightly less recognizable title if that title is significantly less biased. BilledMammal (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment

a) IMHO MOS:HON and MOS:MUHAMMAD discussion when closely related to WP:NPOV policy formation itself then be discussed @ WT:NPOV and not doing so amounts to inadvertent systemic bias.

b) Unfortunately as another user pointed out in one earlier discussion on this board we do not know which RfC discussions have formed MOS:HON and MOS:MUHAMMAD so referring conclusively to previous policy discussions becomes difficult.

When I raised points at some discussion forums I found generally old users are afraid of addressing this issue openhearted manner and are apprehensive of opening the discussions again.

C) I have more to write here, but unfortunate casting of aspersions in comment of @Apaugasma unfair enough and let me address that first.

" ..Applied to this specific topic, where editors don't like that Muhammad is called 'prophet', more often than not they are willing to against sources to make sure he isn't. Ironically, recourse to NPOV is often extremely POV-driven. .." ~ @Apaugasma

Ca) Can we realize, unfortunately here things get personalized sans WP:Goodfaith , others can raise parallel objection that for undermining of NPOV usage WP:Common name or POV name policies it self may be POV-driven. So can there be end to casting of aspersions on each others?

Cb) I am prominent user to contest undermining of WP:NPOV @ move discussions @ this linked talk page. From history of this "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles" page itself to Wikipedia Village Pump policy to WP ANI my views about avoiding honorifics across all sort of articles is crystal clear consistent and with provable neutrality. When I had approached policy village pump I had requisitioned list of all Wikipedia articles using honorifics from other users for neutrality sake, and raised questions about systemic differentiation and expectations of parity in the policies (and then I was seeking parity for Muslim cultural honorifics irrespective I am not supporter of honorifics at all). May be I did not succeed in those raised discussion, but in any case still facing such insinuations is quite disheartening.

Have a look @ Talk:Muhammad/Archive 4#Titles of veneration by @Benne where they say ".. I've changed "Holy Bible" to "Bible", "Holy Qur'an" to "Qur'an", and "Lord Krishna" to "Krishna". I have received some criticism for that, I was at one point accused of engaging in a "crusade" against the word "holy". At this moment, I have a hard time editing Hinduism/Vedas-related articles, because my removals of the term "Lord" are not appreciated. But that was to be expected, ..". Since beginning of Wikipedia several users like @Benne to me do exist on Wikipedia who consistently do not prefer honorifics in article title and certainly not slippery slope of Playground slide. I request @Apaugasma and other users to take due note of the same.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There is generally exceptionally little consistency with respect to religious honorifics and titles on Wikipedia - that much should be apparent. MOS:HON is primarily about optional prefixes and suffixes, less so formal religious titles. Popes are still popes, in titles and text - a title far more akin to prophet. And we have Mahatma Ghandi, who is still a "Mahatma", despite it being a more openly apparent religious honorific. "Buddha" when used in the sense of Gautama Buddha is likewise titular, much like the noted exception of Mother Teresa. Back to MOS:HON, we have the entire genre of exception for Turkish pashas, and the likes of Emin Pasha. The cry of 'consistency' in this space is largely imagined, and indeed, as Apaugasma notes, often POV-driven. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

".. often POV-driven. .." See this is unacknowledged one sided aspersion. In that case why insistence on Common name and POV names should not be called out as POV-driven too. At least any POV-driven insistence for NPOV works in favour of core encyclopedic value of NPOV where as POV-driven common name and POV name pushing does not add to encyclopedic value of NPOV in any case. So, I suggest, better not cast such aspersions and attempt to color discussions.

If some one does not get the point, I will prefer not to argue more Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not identifying any particular "side" on any particular issue, but all of the examples above have "sides" that have led to the inconsistency. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

An input request is made @ WT:Bias (Since WikiProject Countering systemic bias is not much active project the input request has only record & marginal info value as such) also added @ WT:NPOV. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bookku, would it help if I would clarify that I wasn't at all thinking about you with regard to (false; added that to original comment) recourse to NPOV often being POV-driven? It's more of a general observation on how Wikipedia works. When a large majority of editors hold a certain POV, WP:NPOV often becomes a dead letter, and Wikipedia de facto adopts an editorial policy in favor of that POV. It's not uncommon for that editorial policy then to be reclaimed as a kind of 'good bias' supposedly also found in the sources; I have tried to warn against this previously in my essay WP:NOTBIASED.

But I'm actually okay sometimes with Wikipedia having a purely editorial-POV-driven policy that overrules NPOV: not following the majority of sources in every last detail gives Wikipedia its own identity, and that's not always a bad thing. What I don't like though is when NPOV itself is cited to defend that POV-driven editorial policy. There's even a whole section within NPOV, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, which as currently written (see here for a proposal to emend the text) advocates going against sources to make sure the word 'pseudoscience' is mentioned very prominently everywhere. Sure, make rules saying that we should maximize the mention of 'pseudoscience' or that we should minimize the mention of 'prophet', regardless of usage in sources, but don't cite NPOV to defend such rules. Doing the contrary of what most reliable sources do is not being neutral towards these sources (the only relevant meaning of the word 'neutral' in NPOV, another point that too often goes unrecognized). Note, again, that I'm not saying that you are doing this in this specific case, just that a lot of editors do this in general. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling this out. I think you've hit at the crux here. As an editorial-POV-driven policy to eliminate massive repletion of honorifics in discussions of Islam, I totally approve of MOS:MUHAMMAD in general, but I've found myself banging my head against the wall over the idea that it should override a neutral assessment of sources in a move request. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, whenever it comes to take decision over an disputation, they'll reject a valid thing, because 7 non-muslim editors are speaking against an islamic issue, and only three muslims are speaking for it. Then their judgement will come out "Majority of the editors denies these and these logic, hence the valid thing can not be approved“. That’s how they maintain NPOV!

You'll also notice that whenever we speak of any right thing, and they see that this is logical, they'll be silent so that the discussion can not move further, least the truth will be prevailed.

They pretend that they understand certain rules of Islam, which are essential to follow, better than us. Now we have to learn from them what we can do and what we can not. After extracting these and these issues from Islamic articles, they only represent writings from which nothing can be understand but an indistinct shadow of Islam. If their aim is to inform people about Islam, then they should inform the whole of if instead of the essence.

Uxorus (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What you've said here amounts to "Seven non-Muslim editors stand up for Wikipedia not giving special treatment to particular religious groups, and it's unfair that members of one religious group fail in their campaign to be accorded exactly that special treatment." In short, "Neutrality is unfair." Well, sorry. And I don't have to fully understand the rules of Islam. I only have to understand that Wikipedia doesn't follow those rules. Because, again, Islam doesn't get special treatment here.

The information given here is the same whether or not Islamic styles and honorifics are used to convey it, just as articles about figures from popular culture can be fully informative despite not being written in the style of lifestyle media and articles about companies can be fully informative without being written like press releases. Largoplazo (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

If you extract the vital thing and present only the skeleton, the information it provides becomes insignificant. Uxorus (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no Ilah to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam is His true messenger. Allah has graced prophet (SM)’s dignity to a very high level. He joined his name in the kalema after His own name. Calling Rasulullah (SM) as Muhammad, we won’t bare this disrespect to our Prophet. The vital truth is, Allah is the only Ilah. There is no one to be worshipped but Him. He is the only creator of everything. This is the only truth. And you know it very well. But still you antagonize it. Everything is just like Allah has described it in the Quran. Allah is the Most Truthful of all.

Uxorus (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images

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.

---

MOS:ISLAMHON currently reads:

In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations.

I propose changing this to:

In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations or images.

Images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy should have a well-documented usage outside of Wikipedia and not be user-generated.

Rationale:

Currently we have numerous articles featuring user-generated calligraphic images containing Islamic honorifics such as raḍiya Allāh ʿanhu (= 'God be pleased with him', e.g. Ali, Abu Hurayra, al-Ash'ari, al-Ghazali), raḍiya Allāh taʿālā ʿanhu (= 'God Most High be pleased with him', e.g. Umar), ʿalayhā al-salām (= 'peace be upon her', e.g. Fatima bint Asad), etc. Compare this with some other (often good or featured) articles, which have calligraphy taken from historical or architectural sources (e.g., Muhammad, Ibn al-Khatib), historical coins (e.g., al-Zubayr, Harun al-Rashid), postage stamps (e.g., Avicenna, al-Biruni), or simply no lead image at all (e.g., Mu'awiya).

The images in the latter type of articles may also contain Islamic honorifics, but these were first used by historical or other significant Islamic actors, and their usage can be documented with reliable sources. The calligraphic images containing the honorifics in the first type of articles are user-generated (compare also WP:USERGENERATED), which will generally mean that they are not used as such in historical or significant contemporary Islamic contexts. Thus, as images they fail to be "significant and relevant in the topic's context" (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). More than that, the fact that they are used almost exclusively on Wikipedia means that they could be regarded as presenting Islamic honorifics in wiki-voice.

This can also lead to other problems: recently a user added calligraphic images of unclear provenance featuring the names of the terrorist leaders Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi and Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurashi followed by the honorifics raḥmat Allāh ʿalayhi (= 'God's mercy be upon him') and ḥafiẓahu Allāh taʿālā (= 'God Most High save him'), respectively. In the ensuing discussion, they cited the many articles containing similar user-generated calligraphy.

This is a very specific problem involving user-generated Islamic calligraphy, which even if not containing explicit honorifics is still clearly created to 'honor' the subject. User-generated art does have its purposes elsewhere on Wikipedia, but in the case of Islamic calligraphy it will be unencyclopedic in almost all cases. New or inexperienced users are often unaware of the reasons for this, and experienced users have allowed user-generated calligraphy to proliferate because there is no clear guidance which they can cite to remove it. This proposal is meant to change that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-exhaustive list of articles featuring user-generated Islamic honorifics at this time (feel free to add)

Aban bin Uthman bin Affan ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf Abd Allah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab Abd al-Razzaq al-San'ani Abdullah ibn Abbas Abdullah ibn Masud Abdullah ibn Salam Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr Abu al-Aas ibn al-Rabiah Abu Bakr Abû Dhar al-Ghifârî Abu Hanifa Abu Hurairah Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah Ahmad ibn Hanbal Aisha Ali ibn Abi Talib Ammar bin Yasir Anas ibn Malik al-Ash'ari Asmâ' bint Abî Bakr Aqeel ibn Abi Talib al-Baqillani al-Bayhaqi Companions of the Prophet al-Daraqutni Fakhr al-Din al-Razi Fatimah bint Asad al-Ghazali Hafsa bint Umar ibn al-Khattab Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib Hasan al-Basri Hasan ibn Ali Hashim ibn Abd Manaf Hisham ibn al-A'as Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman Husayn ibn Ali Hujr ibn 'Adi Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani Ibn Hajar al-Haytami Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri Ibrahim ibn Muhammad Ishaq ibn Rahwayh Jaban al-Kurdi Ja'far ibn Abi Talib al-Juwayni Khadijah bint Khuwaylid al-Khansa al-Khatib al-Baghdadi List of caliphs List of organisms named after famous people (born before 1800) Lubaba bint al-Harith Malik al-Ashtar Malik ibn Anas Maymuna bint al-Harith Mu'adh ibn Jabal Mus`ab ibn `Umair Qadi Iyad Ramlah bint Abi Sufyan Ruqayyah bint Muhammad Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas Sa'd ibn Mu'adh Sa'd ibn Ubadah Sa'id ibn Zayd Safiyyah bint ‘Abd al-Muttalib Safiyya bint Huyayy Salman al-Farisi Sawdah bint Zam'ah al-Shafi'i Sufyan ibn ʽUyaynah Sufyan al-Thawri Suhayb ar-Rumi al-Suyuti Talhah ibn Ubaydullah Tamim Abu Ruqayya Tamim al-Dari Ubayy ibn Ka'b Umamah bint Zaynab Umar Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad Umm Salamah Umm ul-Banin Urwah ibn Zubayr Usama ibn Munqidh Usama ibn Zayd Uthman Zakariyya al-Ansari Zayd ibn al-Khattab Zayd ibn Harithah Zayd ibn Thabit Zaynab bint Jahsh Zaynab bint Khuzayma Zaynab bint Muhammad Zubair ibn al-Awam Articles featuring user-generated Islamic calligraphy without explicit honorifics (feel free to add) Abd Allah ibn Hanzala Abd al-Muttalib Fatima bint Muhammad Ibn Kathir al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi al-Nawawi al-Tabari Ubadah ibn al-Samit

Editors at WT:ISLAM, WP:VPP, WP:NPOVN, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, and the talk pages of various Islamic figures have been notified of this discussion.

• Support: I once had started an initiative of getting such calligraphies at DCW but my mind has changed since then. The rationale that Apaugasma has provided above is fair enough. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per the rationale above. We should also discourage the use of calligraphy as the primary representation when we have images available, due to the latter providing more benefit to the reader. BilledMammal (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I totally agree with the nom. We really should have a policy on this to prevent calligraphic bombing of our articles. I thank the nom for starting this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support User Apaugasma has provided a detailed and helpful description of the problem (a problem of which I think many of us were not aware). These images are certainly unsuitable for WP and seem to circumvent (whether intentionally or not) existing policies. The use of such images on WP to glorify and celebrate modern mass-murders reflects badly on us, and all images of this kind should be forbidden. Jeppiz (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I couldn't agree more. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per the rationale outlined by the nom. –Austronesier (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment, I am not necessarily against this but I think the usage of them is not necessarily deliberately trying to be non-neutral. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, Fair enough. I agree, per nomination.--TheEagle107 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the rationale provided. This has been a problem in several articles, where users have uploaded calligraphy of their own creation. This will prevent further issues with edit wars to change the calligraphy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Fred (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment To be honest, I was expecting some more opposition. Do editors here realize that the 114 articles currently listed above (and there are many more) will lose their lead image, and that in most cases these will be very hard to replace (realistically, they won't)? In my view, articles will be better off without lead image than with user-generated calligraphy, and this is precisely what multiple featured articles do, but it is a trade-off that should be carefully weighed.

For some (most) user-generated calligraphic images the decision to reject them may be made easier by the fact that they are often badly done, but in this context it should be noted that there are also some that are quite beautiful (e.g., the one currently in the featured article al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi). The objective argument against them is that being created by a random internet user, they do not illustrate the subject's notability and significance in a real-world Islamic context. But is that enough to de facto prefer no images at all?

There is of course the additional problem that the great majority of user-generated calligraphic images also contain inappropriate honorifics (106 of the 114 articles currently mentioned), and that most editors cannot differentiate these because they do not read Arabic, but the question stands: is it worth leaving countless articles without lead image? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. The immense majority of articles about persons don't have a lead image. In these cases, the lead image serves no encyclopedic value as they are merely user-generated text, not an actual picture. So taking that into account has no impact on my view that these images, some of which are highly offensive and inappropriate, should be removed. Jeppiz (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In short, yes, it is better to have no image in these cases, as WP:MOSIMAGES recommends. Al Ameer (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support (edit conflict) Thanks to the nom for bringing this up here rather tackling this issue on an individual article basis. The user-generated calligraphy found in many articles about early Islamic figures serve no encyclopedic purpose, their main purpose being to honor the subjects of the articles, which is against Wiki guidelines. They are primarily or solely decorative. Even if the honorifics are removed, what would be left other than an artistic, Arabic rendering of the name? We already provide the Arabic names in all of these articles. Al Ameer (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks to Apaugasma for bringing this issue in a very concise and well-considered manner. Articles about historical figures are generally plagued by the addition of pseudo-historical images, and it is difficult to draw a line (is a completely fictional and ahistorical 18th-century depiction from some book uploaded at Google Books encyclopedically notable, or representative of the subject?) but these images are clearly just decorations: they do not facilitate understanding of the subject, do not add any knowledge about it, and are indecipherable to most people to boot. Constantine ✍ 16:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support I don't think I have anything to add to the above. Much needed to fill a gap in our guidelines. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support User-generated calligraphy does not contribute to the understanding of a topic – with the possible exception of articles about particular calligraphic styles, although a strong case would have to be made – and it does no harm for an article to be without a lead image if the alternative is a lead image without encyclopaedic value. Folly Mox (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – In the spirit of the 'implement' advice at WP:PGCHANGE, I have started to remove the user-generated calligraphy from the 114 pages listed above. I am using the edit summary "remove user-generated calligraphy, per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images". Let's see if this draws in any oppose rationale. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:24, 16 February 2023 (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.

Allah v God: just wondering...

For many years I've reverted drive-by edits in articles like Shahada and restored "God" per MOS:ALLAH in Islamic-related articles. I've done so for the sake of a consistent MOS, rather than seeing anything inherently wrong in using Allah when referring to God in Islam. I suspect I'm not alone in taking that view. But a couple of thoughts occur to me.

• First, outside of active MOS-supporting Wikipedians, it seems clear to me that most people (including most Muslims) expect to see Allah rather than God and don't really get the use of God, however technically correct in English-language terms it is. As a result some of us spend a lot of time reverting drive-by changes of God to Allah. That's fine if Allah were actually wrong and something the English-language RS don't support but that's not the case. Is this a worthwhile use of editor effort? This is exacerbated by it being quite a difficult point to explain the difference between God and god - quite a few native English speakers don't get it let alone 2nd language-English speakers. ("There is no god but God"...) As a result large swathes of Wikipedia articles end up using Allah rather than God and the whole consistency point is lost anyway.
• Secondly, I tried to find the where the decision to prefer God over Allah was made. I was quite surprised to see how few were involved in the discussion and how flimsy the arguments were. (But just to be clear, I'm not saying using "God" is technically incorrect at all.)

Is it time to reconsider this and, if nothing else, to recognise the inevitability of the greater popularity of Allah. DeCausa (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Allah may be more popular among a certain strand of Wikipedia editors who see their editing as part of their religious duty (in Islam, spreading Islamic religious knowledge is a virtue) and who regard the use of Arabic words a an identity marker, or as another form of religious virtue (God made the Quran an Arabic one and the prophet Muhammad spoke Arabic, so using Arabic is sometimes regarded as part of the behavioral pattern or sunna to be emulated).

But the critical point is that reliable (academic) sources on Islam by far prefer the use of God. This is because using Allah may mislead into thinking that it is a proper name for the Islamic God specifically, while in reality it's just the Arabic language word for 'God' (as easily deduced from that fact that Arabic Jews and Christians also use the word Allah for 'God'). Because of this preponderance of God in reliable sources and the concurrent preponderance of Allah in Islamic identity politics, reading 'Allah' really gives a bad impression. It's bad style, and I do think it's worth to continue enforcing it, especially for drive-by edits where the motive clearly is identity politics. It's a bit like with the Islamic honorifics, something we won't ever really get rid of. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The case around the usage of 'Allah' is one that Wikipedia certainly does not approach in a particularly nuanced manner. The situation is certainly a little more complex than Allah being the Arabic language word for God, because, for a start, which god? It is also more of a name than a common noun. It would be slightly more accurate to suggest that Allah is the Arabic language name for God in the Abrahamic faiths. The evidence that it had widespread currency outside of this context is considerably weaker. Unlike with "God", which in the New Testament is typically derived from theos (god) or adonai (lord), Greek words that are indeed common nouns, there is no such parallel ambiguity with "Allah", which cannot be used to denote simply 'a god', for which the word is 'elah'. There is also the question of whether systemic bias may be at work in the way in which Wikipedia prefers the generic translation of 'God', following what I imagine is the emergent choice of the largely Western Christian scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Allah(u)" does simply denote "the God","al-ilah" الْإِلٰه or الْإِلٰهُ, as a contraction of that, ٱللَّٰه or ٱللَّٰهُ, and transparently so. Etymologically, it's no less a common noun than capital-G "God". Largoplazo (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wait, wait, I was just making an effort to explain why reliable sources use God rather than Allah. What Largoplazo says is correct and is also part of that reason. But if a WP editor does not agree with reliable sources and claims that Allah (lit. 'the god', i.e., the one godhead as described in the Abrahamic tradition) is anything other than the closest equivalent in Arabic of capitalized 'God' in English, then that's just not relevant: we follow usage in reliable sources.

Claiming that reliable sources are biased is a non-starter, because that could in principle be used to push any editorial point of view. If reliable sources are biased, then that's just tough luck: we follow reliable sources. Of course they are not biased in this case, and of course when editors claim bias in reliable sources it's almost always due to ignorance on their own part, but in any case bias in reliable sources can only be countered with other reliable sources: if all or nearly all of them are 'biased', then that's just what we will have to work with. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

And I was just saying that Wikipedia's approach isn't very nuanced on the subject. On the etymology side of things, it is worth noting that all the theories are just that, and this also misses the point, which is that "Allah" now has a distinct meaning as a word/name from whatever its etymological origins were, and cannot be used interchangeably as a stand-in for any sentence containing 'the God' - it's more like the other way around: "al-ilah" with an "al-" is by default understood to refer to "Allah" (whichever Abrahamic version), and requires context to denote that a non-Abrahamic god is being referred to. I incidentally wasn't saying that the systemic bias in this instance is something that either can/should be fixed - I was purely noting it in the spirit of enquiry of this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The references in Islam-related articles are to the same being as they are in Christianity and Judaism, so why should we use a different name as if to imply that it's a different being? There are likewise Jews (Ashkenazic Jews, at least) who, while speaking or writing English, nevertheless refer to God as "Elohim" or "Eloheynu" or, as a matter of taboo, "Elokim" or "Elokeynu", or else as "Adonai" or, euphemistically, "Adoshem", but it would likewise confuse readers and convey a misimpression if those terms were used here.

Also, don't Muslims generally know that "Allah" is simply a contraction of "al-ilah", basically "the god"? Isn't that transparent to Arabic speakers? Largoplazo (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that most Arabic speakers know this, but not the great great majority of Muslims who are not Arabs. It's a form of ignorance, really. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The thread has gone off in a slightly different direction than I was meaning - but that shouldn't surprise me. My starting point was that Allah and God have an identical meaning - the single monotheistic deity - and validity in English usage. Iskandar is quite wrong in suggesting that God is any less specific than Allah. But I also don't agree with Apaugasma's suggestion that Allah "is bad style". Plenty of RS use Allah and I'm very doubtful that there is a preponderance of "God" in RS - or at least a preponderance is so apparent that it would make use of "God" by us de rigeur. Perhaps Allah is used by some in identity politics. But it is also used and widely understood by most (I would argue) non-Muslim native English speakers as "God in Islam" (and to whom the difference between God and god is incompletely understood). Making ourselves understood to our readership should, in my view, be more important than fear of being seen to kow tow to those who are using WP to advance a particular religious perspective. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah. BUT. :) Let X be the set of all reliable sources in English that refer to the Abrahamic God by some name. X is X is still X whether someone is writing an article about Saint Paul, the prophet Elijah, Omar Khayyam, or Bertrand Russell. In checking reliable sources for the name by which God is most customarily known, we shouldn't, therefore, get a different outcome in each case. Largoplazo (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa, I agree that we shouldn't let purported religious perspectives influence our decision making. But despite popular associations, Allah is not just 'God in Islam', it's also 'God in Judaism' and 'God in Christianity', in Arabic. Just ask one of the c. 1,500,000 Arab Christians about this. You also forget that Allah is potentially misleading, because it may suggest that it's a proper name for some native god different from the Jewish and Christian God. This is in fact a common misconception. Maybe for this reason in particular it very much is de rigeur in RS to use God rather than Allah. This is rather hard to prove, but for starters just look at the usage in other encyclopedic sources like Encyclopaedia of Islam (2 & 3), Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, or the Persian-origin Encyclopaedia Islamica: searching for Allah will only yield the article on Allah and articles on concepts or personal names which include Allah, while searching for God will show that God is consistently used to refer to, well, God: [12] vs [13], [14] vs [15], [16] vs [17], [18] vs [19]. Unfortunately Encyclopædia Iranica's search function does not work very well for this, but just ctrl-f "Allah" and "God" in any random Iranica article like [20] [21] [22] [23]. I know that the use of Allah is not completely unheard of in RS, but I'm still curious as to what sources you had in mind. Probably scholars who are neither arabists nor Islamic studies scholars? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: "God", derived from theos, is very definitely less specific than "Allah". E.g.: hits regarding Hinduism. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Not to say that we shouldn't be using "God", if that's the trend in reliable sources, but again, there's some nuance. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Back to the original question - where I think the project often gets this wrong is inside of English language quotations, where "Allah" is often expunged for "God" even though, ironically, this style guide makes a clear allowance for English-language quotations. This can be seen on God in Islam, where all of the Qur'anic quotes have had "Allah" replaced with "God" even though all of the various translations linked to at perseus.tufts use 'Allah'. Is this the correct stance on MOS:ALLAH? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Or on Allah, where in the Islam part the first lines of Al-Ikhlas become: "SAY, God is one GOD; the eternal GOD", which is almost nonsensical, when all of the normative translations make a lot more sense simply by using 'Allah', e.g.: "Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute" Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

My interpretation of the guideline exempting English language quotations is that this naturally extends to translations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course, quotations of text in English (even if those quotations are translations) should leave them as they are. Largoplazo (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Quotations should always be literal. They shouldn't even exclude spelling or grammar mistakes, let alone that they should exclude things contrary to the MOS. Please, wherever you find a quotation modified, replace it with the original quotation on sight. That's not to say of course that we couldn't consciously choose for Quran translations that use 'God', as all the best translations in various languages do (Perseus only lists very outdated English translations that are in the public domain). We should probably for the most part be using Arberry (the classic go-to translation for anglophone academia) or The Study Quran (perhaps the new academic standard). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma well said. I agree completely. We do not change quotations, something which I see happening all to often. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• It is true, as said above, Allah is a contraction of Al-Ilah (and as a sidenote, I can say as an Arab that at least half of Arabs don't know this). But it has come to be used as a reference to God in Islam. So when it is said that "there is no deity but God..) which God? The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  The correct way to phrase that question in English is "which god?" (lower case "g") to which the answer is "God" (upper case G). DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)