Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Need some assistance to complete this article Draft:India Islamic Cultural Centre

Assalamo alaikum, I am trying to complete one article on Indian Islamic Culture center located at New Delhi. Could you please take a look on this article and contribute more on this to get it approved on Wikipedia. thanks you Rashid Jorvee (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Walaikum salam - Looks like your article was declined. you may want to look into it. All the best! Mitsurugi78 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Linking non-Muslim to Kafir

A user has been going around linking occurrences of "non-Muslim" to Kafir.[1] That seems ill advised as kufr has more to do with theology and kafir is at present considered a pejorative. What do others think? VR _talk 14:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, I think it depends on the context. In the case you linked the topic is related to the juridical status of non Muslims anyway, so it's not totally irrelevant. In this particular case, I don't have any clear opinion either way. HaEr48 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

VR: It looks as non-neutral as linking laicist, atheist, irreligious, agnostic or Muslim to Infidel. --MarioGom (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Another round of discussion about Template:Islam's logo

FYI: Template talk:Islam#Image again. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rashidun princes and princesses

Template:Rashidun princes and princesses has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.Alivardi (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the naming of madhhab articles

If I go through the madhhabs named in the Amman Message, we have articles at the single-word titles Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Zaidiyyah, and Zahiri. We also have articles on the other three, at Shafi'i school, Ja'fari jurisprudence and Ibadi Islam.

For the sake of consistency, I feel it would be better to move the last three articles to single-word titles Shafi'i, Ja'fari, and Ibadi. I will post pointers at the talk pages shortly.

While I am fairly clueless about the subject, reading the articles, at least Shafi'i and Ja'fari articles seem pretty parallel to the Hanafi etc. ones - dealing mostly with a view on the interpretation of law and how it came about. The Ibadi article mostly is, too, although it contains some significant historical/demographic information so arguably it should not be lumped together.

Any thoughts? If the Amman message is somehow controversial and other schools ought to be included in the debate, please educate me. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The forms ending in "-i" are adjectives. With inanimate reference, they cannot be nouns. If there's a convention that the four "classical" Sunni madhahib are commonly named with adjectives referring to an implicit noun, then I guess that's OK, but I don't see how such a convention would apply to Ibadi Islam... AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

For Ja'fari jurisprudence. Refuse changing. The name Ja'fari is one of the names given to the entire Twelver, Ja'fari jurisprudence is part of the Twelver article, The name must remain as it is because the article is on Ja'fari jurisprudence, It means that the Twelver doctrine consisting of beliefs and jurisprudence that are not separated from each other, This differs from Sunni schools the Hanafi, Shafi'i, or Hanbali, Maliki, which when referred to any one of this terms means jurisprudence only because it does not include a method of theology or belief, The Sunni doctrine takes the belief from the Maturidi and Ash'ari or Salafi or Sufism.

For Ibadi Islam, It is such as articles of Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, The article Ibadi Islam is entirely on the doctrine and not only on jurisprudence, If you want to make an article on Ibadi jurisprudence, you must create another article on Ibadi jurisprudence. (But i dont know what is the correct name to them in english is it Ibadi Islam or only Ibadi such as only Twelver or only Zaidiyyah .. etc.)

For Shafi'i school it should be changed to Shafi'i. Amrahlawymasry (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amrahlawymasry: There is one problem with re-naming Shafi'i school to Shafi'i. however, and that's immense ambiguity. The word Shafi'i, an adjective form as you point out @AnonMoos:, commonly refers to both the school and the person who founded the school, Imam Shafi'i. This is not the case with the Hanafi school where Hanafi is an adjective formed from the name or Imam Abu Hanifah, or with the the Maliki school whose name is an adjective referring to its founder, Imam Ibn Malik. Or the Hanbali school whose name is an adjective referring to its founder, Imam Ibn Hanbal. Ja'fari is an adjective referring to Imam Ja'far al-Saddiq. As to the Zaidiyyah we have an additional problem, an article referring to its madhab and jurisprudence should be named Zaidi, which reflects the dominant naming convention found in Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali. Zaidiyyah should not be an exception to that rule, and the word Zaidiyyah properly refers to the school's body of followers. It can be used as an adjective in Arabic, but it is also a sort of group-noun.

When we come to Zahiri, we have the same problem as with Shafi'i - Zahiri is an adjective form referring to the name of the founder Dawud al-Zahiri, so in this case we have a similar problem with ambiguity as with Shafi'i. That said the Shafi'i school is considerably less obscure than the Zahiri school, so the problem is worse in its case. The article Ja'fari jurisprudence should probably be re-named Ja'fari to match the naming convention of Hanafi and Maliki. Ibadi Islam is problematic for a slightly different reason. The Ibadi madhab is somewhat distinct from Ibadi Islam as a subject, though they naturally overlap and are intertwined. Ibadi Islam would refer to a larger subject scope than just the Ibadi madhab ad its jurisprudence. Ibadi Islam is a broader category and best compared with Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. A separate Ibadi article detailing, and expanding on, its juridical madhab would be quite important. KJS ml343x (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@KJS ml343x: see the definition of Ja'fari in oxford reference and encyclopedia and britannica, the term is another name to Twelver, when you say Ja'fari that's mean Twelver, not only jurisprudence, so i see that the name must remain as it is Ja'fari jurisprudence.

For Zaidiyyah, i agree with you. but i think that not all article take same style such as Ahmadiyya not Ahmadi and Isma'ilism not Ismaili and Sufism not Sufi and may be there is more in this style and other take another style to name the title, some articles use noun in the title and other use adjective and may be other take another style, This means that you must modify all article titles on Wikipedia to be in a single style, and thus you will face opposition to changing some page titles, and you will be given reasons for why they want the article title with Noun or Adjective, or otherwise.

For Shafi'i and Zahiri, you are right, in arabic article they use the Noun not adjective, Zahiriyya and Shafi'iyya, in order not to be similar to the founder of the school of thought

but i don't see that big ambiguity because the founder is Al-Shafi'i, so i see when some one search for The founding person he will write Al-Shafi'i not Shafi'i, the same applies to Zahiri..... Amrahlawymasry (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'm in favour of using "-ism" where possible. It sounds more natural in English and after all, this is the English Wikipedia. All these titular adjectives pretending to be nouns are a pet peeve of mine... --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The four Sunni madhahib are traditions of legal interpretation, and don't necessarily have the type of overall ideology which tends to be associated with the suffix "-ism" in English. The Arabic ending "-iyyah" might be substituted with "-ism" (if useful and appropriate in each case), but probably not usually the Arabic ending "-i". Also, Wikipedia's "common name" policy always applies, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

True, all true. But like you mentioned earlier, the "-i" forms are adjectives and lacking an accompanying noun. At least that was what I thought until I just now realised: maybe the "-i" terms are referring to the adherents, rather than the school. In that case however, sources disagree whether to call adherents e.g. Maliki, Malikis or Malikites (ok, maybe the last one tends to be French rather than English, but not exclusively). --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amrahlawymasry:The Oxford article [2] you cite is interesting, but one thing I would note is that it explicitly states "Those Shiʿite Muslims (Ithnā ʿAshariy(y)a, Twelvers) who follow the codes of religious law associated with Jaʿfar al-Sādiq" in other words this doesn't make the term synonymous with Ithna Ashariyya i.e. Twelver shia, rather this definition indicates Ja'fari as a term refers to those following the religious laws and codes, i.e. the fiqh. This is the primary usage. KJS ml343x (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@KJS ml343x: ok there is no different, "Jaʿfarī Shiʿites. Those Shiʿite Muslims (Ithnā ʿAshariy(y)a, Twelvers) who follow the codes of religious law associated with Jaʿfar al-Sādiq.", this definition mean Twelvers. It is just an illustrative phrase, to distinguish between Twelvers and Alevism and Alawites because sometimes when it refers to the term of Twelver, it is inserted into the term both of Alevism and Alawites, so he put an extra phrase to distinguish between them, this is also done in another way in Wikipedia, at the beginning of the article of Twelvers a phrase is written: "This article is about the predominant sect of Ithnā‘ashari Shia Islam. For other denominations which believe in The Twelve Imams, see Alevism and Alawites.". and the article of Jaʽfari jurisprudence is about jurisprudence and not about Twelver or Jaʽfari Sect, and in article of Jaʽfari jurisprudence you will see in it that defination: "is the school of jurisprudence (fiqh) in Twelver and Nizari[1] Shia Islam", and as [3] that i cite and you read it Previously, you will note this phrase in definition of Jaʿfarī Shiʿites : "Jaʿfarī Shiʿites. Those Shiʿite Muslims (Ithnā ʿAshariy(y)a, Twelvers)" and Nizari[1] Shia Islam is not Ithnā ʿAshariy(y)a, Twelvers .and there is also article in wikipedia under name of Al-Ja'fari. Amrahlawymasry (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

you also can see this the difference when same website Oxford wrote about jurisprudence, you can notes the difference in title and content between this article http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1153 and previous article, you can see also how the title was changed and the title became all this phrase to clarify the difference "Jafari: Shii Legal Thought and Jurisprudence". And the previous article that was about sect Twelver shia = Ja'fari shia, the title was Jaʿfarī Shiʿites and content of both articles clear. Amrahlawymasry (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Can French speakers translate this article to english?

Salam, greetings, Can French speakers translate this article (Anti-Capitalist Muslims) to english? Thanks. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 18:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Walaikum Assalam, did you write that article yourself? Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wakemeup38: No, I did not write it. If I knew French, I'd translate it myself. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 06:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Use Google Translate JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla: would that be appropiate? Is it allowed within English Wikipedia? If so, I'll try to do it, inshallah. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of hoops to jump through ie there is a "Standardized template" somewhere to inform reader that is what you have done. Also Google translate often does not produce good English. Make the effort to Iron out those glitches and there will be less chance of the article being nuked. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 13:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adigabrek: I'd suggest avoiding machine translation, because they tend to have low quality English and can result in mistranslation, especially if you're not familiar with the origin language. Please see the guideline in WP:MACHINE if you haven't. HaEr48 (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thankfully, the french article put the original Turkish text for almost everything they cited in notes (I speak Turkish), and the rest were really simple sentences, which were sourced in Turkish, where I could find the original statement. It worked out. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 15:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Notes from 14 December 2020 moved from redirect page

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/to do

 – moved to /Archive 12 was on a redirect page Funandtrvl (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Right now google is showing mirza maroof ahmed as caliphate of islam on wikpedia.which is totally wrong and biased.it should be immediately removed.The 29-year rule of the Rashidun was Islam’s first experience without the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad. His example, however, in both private and public life, came to be regarded as the norm (Sunnah) for his successors, and a large and influential body of anṣār (companions of the Prophet) kept close watch on the caliphs to ensure their strict adherence to divine revelation (the Qurʾān) and the Sunnah. The Rashidun thus assumed all of Muhammad’s duties except the prophetic: as imams, they led the congregation in prayer at the mosque; as khaṭībs, they delivered the Friday sermons; and as umarāʾ al-muʾminīn (“commanders of the faithful”), they commanded the army.

The caliphate of the Rashidun, in which virtually all actions had religious import, began with the wars of the riddah (“apostasy”; 632–633), tribal uprisings in Arabia, and ended with the first Muslim civil war (fitnah; 656–661). It effected the expansion of the Islamic state beyond Arabia into Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, and Armenia and, with it, the development of an elite class of Arab soldiers. The Rashidun were also responsible for the adoption of an Islamic calendar, dating from Muhammad’s emigration (Hijrah) from Mecca to Medina (622), and the establishment of an authoritative reading of the Qurʾān, which strengthened the Muslim community and encouraged religious scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikawan123 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Created new page for Nasheed singer Ismail Hussain

Hello, I've created my first page for Nasheed singer Ismail Hussain Ismail_Hussain_Singer. Need your valueble suggestions and support to keep it alive on Wikipedia. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by LwdBell (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles with links to DAB pages

I've collected some articles with Islam-related links to DAB pages, where expert attention would be welcome. Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Al-Burooj -  Done, Amrahlawymasry (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Al-Hajj -  Done sort of; I rewrote this machine-translated section (ibn was for example translated as canister/receptacle/container *rolleyes*) to just leave out the ambiguous term, HyperGaruda (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Al-Kahf -  Done, Amrahlawymasry (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) / JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sacred months -  Done, there is no related article to "Islamic traditions" in Islamic tradition, i linked it with the intended word "hadith", Amrahlawymasry (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Iman (Islam) - there is no related article to "Recognition" in Recognition, i think it is better not to be linked Amrahlawymasry (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Arab cuisine
• History of the Quran -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Iman (Islam) -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ishaq ibn Talha -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Saadi Sultanate -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sayyid -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Shaghab -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

JorgeLaArdilla's edits on Quran suras

Sura summaries

JorgeLaArdilla has been making edits to the articles on the Suras of the Quran (example: [4], but there are many similar edits in his recent contribution in other sura articles), that I'd like the community's opinion on. I think adding a list-style content when there is already an existing prose that covers the same purpose is discouraged per MOS:PROSE, plus the list that was added was attributed to one interpreter only (George Sale from the 18th century) which seems inappropriate per WP:WEIGHT. Other than these I don't think the edits were an improvements to the article, but wondering what others here think. I tried to revert but the author restored them saying "Dont remove referenced content" without addressing the reasoning in my edit summary. This kind of interaction has happened before with this editor too. HaEr48 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Overall I'm against this. A lot of the things mentioned in the summary are pretty banal and do not present information of much significance to the readers. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there is the huge messy issue of different interpretations. There also appear to be some mistakes, for example, verse 2 and 3 for Al-Ma'idah are interchanged and then the mistake gets carried over to a heading. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

While I agree the summaries reflect the banality of the Quran, if not the beauty, I dont think that banality should be hidden from the reader, especially as many believe this is the word of God. Yes there is the huge messy issue of different interpretations: And this is exactly Why I am against erasing Wherry's summaries. For instance there is more than one method for numbering the verses, if Wherry's verse numbering differ from the Hafs which was standardised almost 30 years after his authorship, that is not necessarily a mistake. We can inform the reader the reasons they should not get too hung up on verse numbering. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Q5:45: Informs the reader, Links concept to chapter & verse. Informative & not so banal JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

On messy issues of different interpretations there are many edits that can be made. It is the succinctness that is appealing. There are wise words (Q90:1-7)...er...although I need to get it passed @Rosguill: at Redirect Police. Can you audit this edit please before I go too far down the Rabbit hole.JorgeLaArdilla (talk)

JorgeLaArdilla, I'm not sure I understand what I'm being asked to evaluate here. The redirect that you've linked to looks fine, but it seems like the dispute being discussed here is about article content. Not a huge fan of being labeled the redirect police, I'm more of a foreman, auditor or y'know, an editor _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, the problem I'd like to discuss is not the redirect, but the list-style "Summary" section that JorgeLaArdilla has been adding to a lot of sura articles, e.g. [5] and [6] . HaEr48 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla, "banality" wasn't the most accurate word to use, I meant the topics which get repeated multiple times. I personally don't believe they are notable enough for Wikipedia. And the verse 2 and 3 I mentioned above, it isn't a numbering problem, it is that they are interchanged i.e. verse 2's summary matches the content of verse 3 and vice versa. On a side-note, maybe these short summaries should be styled into multiple columns so as to decrease the visual focus received by such content of comparatively lesser significance? — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Al Anfal currently has Wherry information in two formats. Personally I hate the tabular format- It requires a modicum of markup language - and is not flexible. On that page I have started to moving onto a single line prounouncements etc of 'comparatively lesser significance'

Q Why is the holy book of Quran considered perfect? A: Q51:47-49 God reveals himself to men in his works of creation <ref>Wherry</ref> Obviously where topics which get repeated multiple times, the perfection of Quran needs reconsideration. Again I think Wherry's summaries provide information of repetition without having to spell it out. I accept Wherry is not perfect but his summaries are consistent with verse 2's & verse 3 as denoted here. The Original translator Sale was at pains not to add verse numbers as, even in 1730s, he was aware of ahruf & qiraat theories. Wherry's addition of verse numbers may not match Hafs but it does seem consistent with the Sale Text. The Arabic quran used by Sale is extant - so in theory this can be checked. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla, By columns, I meant the references styling where they're rendered borderless, not the common tables styling. Regarding perfection of the Qur'an, I am quite confused regarding the intention behind bringing up such a theological topic and even include an external link to it. This is utterly irrelevant to the present discourse.

There are several problems with these summaries:

• Numbering differences. Leading to confusion as pointed out previously regarding verses 1-3 of Al-Ma'idah, (Wherry's verses 1-4).
• Multiple topics. A number of times even individual Qur'anic verses don't encompass a single topic, but multiple ones. Such single line summaries are naturally going to be inaccurate.
• Non-notable portions (in the context of Wikipedia). Such as in Al-Anfal's "20-21 Muslims exhorted to steadfastness in faith".
• Interpretative differences. For example, Al-Anfal's "22-23 Infidels compared to deaf and dumb brutes", but the verses don't actually contain the word "infidels". And even if it can be interpreted as such or where the word kafir (commonly translated as infidel/disbeliever) is actually used, there is the added problem of interpretation difference i.e. a lot of Muslims consider kafir to not refer to all non-Muslims but to only those who publicly disbelieve in Islam while actually having become aware of the truthfulness of the religion.

In such instances, this becomes an obvious case of WP:UNDUE and that too where the one-sided content gets placed at almost the very front of the article.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Numbering differences It may not be amiss here to acquaint the reader, that there are seven principal editions, if I may so call them, or ancient copies of that book; two of which were published and used at Medina, a third at Mecca, a fourth at Cufa, a fifth at Basra, a sixth in Syria, and a seventh called the common or vulgar edition. Of these editions, the first of Medina makes the whole number of the verses 6,000; the second and fifth, 6,214; the third, 6,219; the fourth, 6,236; the sixth, 6,226; and the last, 6,225. But they are all said to contain the same number of words, namely, 77,639; and the same number of letters, viz., 323,015 (Sale Preliminary discourse 3) This is not controversial. A boilerplate warning may be more appropriate "This page uses the Hafs System" - should we get that sorted I will commit to renumbering Wherry's comments to suit.

If this is not theological topic then I really do not know what is but to elucidate a little. This site was (sort of) chosen at random. I fully intended to link back the first Quranic reference (Qur’an 21:30) but accidently chose the second Qur'an 51:47 and apologise for that element of confusion. Having now updated the summary at Q51 this links back to cogent prose to support that authors claim - Wikipedia is doing its job.

Q8:20-21, not being a "proper" page, does not trigger WP:Notability. In any case, firstly I checked whether it was already used in Wikipedia - no - then, with very little contrivance, I was able to incorporate it into the main article on Islam. JorgeLaArdilla

Multiple topics If a reader feels a particular comment of Wherry's does not do a verse justice they are free to edit using a suitable reliable source. I suspect I will be doing this myself in the very near future.

Interpretative differences UNDUE should not be presented as the main or the sole authority on the subject. I would love to add A Prominent recitation (Surah Al-Hujurat) to juxtapose the banality of the translation. I get the Arabic poetic. There will be no sole authority, as much as I would love that, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. By all means claim a stake for the main authority. I like defering to the earliest extant Arabic Qurans with : Al Badawi copy in Dutch Church, London & Vatican Quran & whatever other authority you feel is unrepresented (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) with update (3) adding previously missed comments at 00:00 20 December 2020 (UTC)

JorgeLaArdilla I think you're still missing the point. As per your "Numbering differences", no one is arguing about the total number of verses in the Quran in this discussion, I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. As for your redirect like Q51 or Q8:20-21, again no one disputing those. As fer "UNDUE should not be presented as the main or the sole authority on the subject", what you said does not make sense. WP:UNDUE is part of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. In short, Wikipedia articles should reflect the current scholarly consensus on the subject and not aimed at emphasizing the point of view of one or two commentators, unless there is evidence that such views are part of the mainstream today, which I don't think is the case for Sale and Wherry. You haven't addressed other problems re formatting, list vs prose, emphasizing on trivial points, etc. that has been brought above. Since your edits have been disputed and reverted, please defer making more of such edits until you've reached consensus here, that is how collaborative editing in Wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. HaEr48 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like they are still missing your point, HaEr48. If read you correctly, the issue is the list style. I agree, these summaries are better written as prose (=continuous text), not as a list. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you not then expect to see incremental improvement, with such an editor rewritting the summaries as better prose?: It would be nice to add all the ۩s so I need to add another summary. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I find it hard it to see them as "improvements" at all. Many of the articles you edited already have descriptive prose summaries, and you're just adding parallel content with a non-recommended style that doesn't sync with the rest. The other problem is that they are all cited to a single specific source. Adding diversity of sources is okay, but they should be integrated with the existing content/sources. The way you add them as lists with a lot of visual space and deliberately move them up so that they appear before existing content, give your content undue weight, especially as this is one commentator from the 18th century that should not be presented as the main or the sole authority on the subject. I really don't think one should add all these problems and then present them as "incremental improvements" for other people to fix. HaEr48 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at one of my first edits at, say, Quran 40, I am struggling to see the veracity in the above statement. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with HaEr48 above, especially in regards to UNDUE wieght being given to Sale. JorgeLaArdilla you seem to be making mass changes across many articles. Can you seek consensus before you go make such a large effort?VR _talk 14:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I will continue the various themes at Talk:Al-Mumtahanah ‎ Talk:As-Sajda Talk:Quran 5 JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I just took a quick look at Elwood Morris Wherry and George Sale. They are both fairly old at a time when orientalists didn't understand Islam very well. AhmadF.Cheema is right that we shouldn't give them that much weight on wikipedia. The Study Quran is a better resource. AhmadF.Cheema, JorgeLaArdilla, HaEr48 and HyperGaruda what do you think of using summaries given in modern Islamic tafsir like Tafhim-ul-Quran?VR _talk 03:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree on not giving due weight to Wherry and Sale, that was one of my original point above. Not sure about Tafhim-ul-Quran, based on reading the description it seems to be an exegesis on its own, in my opinion it is preferable to use sources that builds on such exegeses, especially if they are published by reputable publishers or journals. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, HyperGaruda, AhmadF.Cheema, what do you think is the right course of action for these articles? These "summary" sections continue to have the same basic problems and the editor does not seem willing to fix them, outside minor issues like external links. I tried reverting (especially those article that already have a good enough summary section before these addition), but the editor keeps insisting on restoring them back without consensus, e.g. [7] [8]. HaEr48 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I am neutral towards prefering one translation over the other. You should keep in mind though that modern summaries cannot usually be copied to Wikipedia. Tafhim-ul-Quran for sure not, because its author died in 1979, meaning the text will not enter the public domain before 2030 (Pakistani copyright rule of 50 years post-mortem). Or you would have to paraphrase it. @HaEr48: I would again urge JorgeLaArdilla to use MOS:PROSE and not a list for these summaries. As-Sajdah in particular already had a prefectly fine summary written as prose, before JorgeLaArdilla inserted another summary. That is plainly redundant. I support removing the Wherry summaries altogether in such cases. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you check the reference I have added at Q50:16 you will see how I planned to proceed in the specific. Where something sounds off, check another reference and amend as necessary. In this instant I thought Wherry was being melodramatic but Khattab backs him up. In the General, as I mentioned before, if there is a difference then amend the summary. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, everyone-- I haven't been following this discussion, but I've been drawn to its offshoot at User_talk:HaEr48#Surah_summaries by a ping and made a comment about Wherry's commentary there. HaEr48 invited me to chime in here. I haven't been watching the surah pages, so I'm not familiar with most of the issues discussed in this thread. I'm just going to reproduce my take on Wherry... I wasn't familiar with Elwood Morris Wherry's commentary, and based on a brief review, it seems that we should be very careful about using this source. The author was a missionary seeking to convert Muslims to Christianity, and the preface of his commentary makes it clear that it was written as a tool for missionary work. This reminds me of William Muir, whose work Wherry seems to be using extensively. Muir was a diligent scholar, but the overarching aim of his work was not to produce a neutral corpus of research in the manner of modern academic research, but rather to proselytize Muslims and convince them to reject their religion, i.e., polemical in nature. Although such sources may be convenient to use, and their different portions may be polemical to a greater or lesser degree, as a rule of thumb WP should not present the views 19th century Christian missionaries on Islam in WP voice. Eperoton (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would reiterate, I have found the Study Quran to be broadly in agreement with Wherry. Does anyone know any different?. The motivation for his summary was, in his own words, was to enable the average student of Islām to speedily acquaint himself with the main points presented. Wherry uses his footnotes to highlight areas of different perspective which he discusses in the preface and he republished Sale's advice of 150 years earlier that it was counter productive to advance propositions devoid of truth. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)+1

For Surah summaries a good source is "The Clear Quran" by Dr. Mustafa Khattab. Might be a good source to check out for those interested.Mitsurugi78 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have come across the "Summary of Holy Quran: An Ultimate Guide Series" by Muhammad Farooq and Nagina Kanwal. It seems like a pretty good summary of each surah in the Quran based on my reading. It's not very verbose like a classical tafsir collection but it definitely covers the main points at a very high level. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

• HaEr48, HyperGaruda, AhmadF.Cheema, what do you think about JorgeLaArdilla creating redirects to a lot of Quranic verses like Quran 21:107, Q37:35, Quran 4:159 etc. Some Quranic verses are notable enough to deserve an article (like Quran 4:34), some will deserve their own section in an article, but most verses should not get either their section nor article. Per WP:NOT, we can't have an article, section or redirect for every verse in the Quran. I think the best practice is to link verses using Template:Cite Quran (and that template should point to a different website as proposed on its talk page). What do think?VR _talk 19:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFD is best Regarding REDIRECTS I would suggest asking User:Rosguill or [Those uncredited editors who review my work-ty], the latest being @John B123: . JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

From a redirect patrolling perspective, I don't see a problem as long as the verse is mentioned in some capacity at the target, but it may not be the most productive use of your time, and I would defer to other editors more involved in Quranic editing to make the final decisions here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If a specific verse is described or even has its own article, a corresponding redirect indeed makes sense. That is however not the case with the first few Vice regent mentioned. I'd advise JorgeLaArdilla to only create a redirect once the verse is actually discussed. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have never approached it Q2:1 Q2:2 etc. Every single one is either from a book I am reading or a Wikipedia article page. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)+2

User:Vice regent, as you have said to me I say You've done a lot of hard work. I say it to @Onel5969: - thank you! It has been a pleasure for me but I guess a chore for you. Didn't think about it before. Also making redirects for Quranic verses (e.g.Q37:35). Instead of that I think it is better to externally link

107 Muhammad proclaims himself to be a warner

34-35 Makkan idolaters call their Prophet “a distracted poet”

159-160 Certain kinds of food forbidden to Jews as punishment

You are now 2 Clicks from 50+ translations. There is a problem with having the external links smattered all over because they can quickly become deprecated. Send everything to one page. Then there is only one page to update.

JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)+2

Creating the redirects is not necessarily problem, but excessively linking to those redirects when there is no article or specific section on those verses does not make sense and will confuse the reader. We don't link for the sake of linking, we link if there is something in the target link that can give context for the reader. If the problem with external links is that they can become deprecated, we should use templates so that when they need to be updated they can be updated in one place. {{Cite Quran}} seems to be already doing this. Note that creating massive amount of redirects that are linked from other articles has its own maintenance problems. HaEr48 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all this. Where a redirect does not make sense or will confuse the reader, those who review my work are quick to take it to WP:RFD. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links: External links should not normally be placed in the body of an article. Internal links are not so constrained.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Suitable name for "Criticism of Muhammad"

The article Criticism of Muhammad is a WP:POVFORK as it currently only covers the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light. Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_(POV)_forks says,

Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative.

There are sources that praise Muhammad and excluding that point of view violates neutrality. There have been discussions at Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Praises_of_the_Prophet_Muhammad and Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Responses_to_'criticism'. Alternative names proposed include:

• Historical evaluation of Muhammad
• Perception of Muhammad
• Perception of Muhammad by non-Muslims
• A different suggestion is welcome.

Pinging for feedback the editors involved in that article's discussion page: @Anachronist: @A.889: @Wakemeup38: @Sa.vakilian: @Ghazaalch: @Maplecreek1: @Cleopatran Apocalypse: Bless (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a move discussion, and it should be initiated at WP:RM. A wikiproject is the wrong place for it. Please go to WP:RM#CM and follow the instructions there.

Also, criticism of Muhammad isn't a POV fork until some other article exists to present a different POV. Just because coverage is negative (and I disagree that criticism of Muhammad is negative) doesn't make it a POV fork, and remember criticism isn't always negative, it can be positive too. Until other content exists that would make it a POV fork, there is no need to rename it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The objective of this discussion was to get advice on a new name so that a new move discussion can be initiated and the results of this discussion may also apply to Criticism of Islam and Criticism of the Qur'an.

The article Criticism of Muhammad is overwhelmingly negative and contains almost no praise of him. The lead calls Muhammad a "Madman", "Possessed" "perverted", "deplorable", "a false prophet', "the Antichrist", but does not contain a single praise of Muhammad. There are many scholars who have praised various aspects of Muhammad's life but none were quoted until I added praise from Gandhi[9].Bless (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure to save the baby save bath water is best strategy ever, but many people who keep attempting it many times end up preserving bath water and miss the baby itself.

Every topic should have scope for 'Criticism' and 'Responses to Criticism'. 'Criticism' and 'Responses to Criticism' together (sans Original research) provide measure of neutrality.

Hiding 'criticism' does not hide 'criticism' but rather may prove counter productive by creating impression that there is some thing to hide, so 'whispered criticism' may have a measure of truth can become the public perception in long run (Pl. do read again)

If there is nothing to hide then, Why any topic or it's supporter need to be afraid of any criticism. If one includes Criticism they can include responses to Criticism too.

If the main scripture itself can take note of criticism of the Hero and answer the criticism, then why followers need to be afraid of to take note of criticism ?

Since there is criticism add praise is not the solution, specific criticism needs to be answered with ref. where response is available. where third party referenced response is not available encyclopedia editor need to wait and watch until response become available.

Bookku (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support changing the title into "Perception of Muhammad by non-Muslims", and expanding the article to include both positive and negative views, since there is a crystal clear policy here that says: "If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception";" If Wikipedia's policies are not meant to be applied in action, then what is the point of having them?! Are they meant to be shown off only without being applied?!--Zymogen.88 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy,_religion,_or_politics seems to present different perspective.

I suppose word 'reception' is usually used for literature philosophy etc., I don't know if it can be used for a person. Again when it is clear that content inside is going to be more of critical it will present critique much more in surprise to the reader. This suggestion helps objective of critics more, so I don't know how does this word helps.

I find word 'perception' is kind of denial–ism, it presumes what critic is saying is more likely to be wrong and passes a judgement in Wikipedia's voice.

Where as word 'Critique' and 'Criticism' strait away put forward opinions of third people, as is without putting words in Wikipedia's own mouth. And reader already knows it is about criticism and he can decide for himself whether to read the criticism or not .

I find who suggest alternate wordings instead of 'criticism' are unnecessarily worrying and and proposing self defeating solutions IMHO.

Bookku (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose renaming for the reasoning described in WP:PRECEDENT - we have countless "Criticism of..." articles on many subjects including religious subjects. However, of the alternatives proposed, I feel that "Perception of Muhammad" without the qualifier "by non-Muslims" would allow for both positive and negative perceptions, although so does "criticism". ~Anachronist (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment:: @Anachronist, both WP:Precedent and Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy,_religion,_or_politics are essays, not policies. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_(POV)_forks is a policy, not an essay. I would definitely support applying this same policy to the similar articles as well. For example, I would support changing the title of the article Criticism of Jesus to "Perception of Jesus" per the same policy.--Zymogen.88 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I dont think it is worth doing a vote here. I suspect User:Bookku's views would be generally be respected by User:Bless sins? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: 29 Octo. 2020 @ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 161#Criticism of X vs. Anti-X sentiment, I just placed question marks

• • (Redirected from Criticism of Pakistan) → Anti-Pakistan sentiment

  Criticism of Pakistan = Anti-Pakistan sentiment ?

  • (Redirected from Criticism of hinduism)→ Anti-Hindu sentiment

  Criticism of Hinduism = Anti-Hindu sentiment ?

• ?
• Nov. 11, 2020 Wikipedia community votes again @ Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_11#Criticism_of_Hinduism to restore Criticism article.
• Now my next question How far word 'perception' is different from 'Anti-X sentiment' basically both terms intend to play down any criticism?
• Now my next question: Why does Wikipedians ask for well peer reviewed references? Not for going through a rigor of critiques and balancing? When one article or book is being criticized by scholars whether those critiques are played down as perceptions?
• In any case there are many more 'criticism' related articles and section headings in Wikipedia. On some of those articles too earlier some discussions would have taken place over the years, let us rather than going downwards first escalate at more central place like Policy village pump once again then Vote for the policy once again and whatever decision take it for all articles, what is point in wasting time on different different talk pages?

Bookku (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support changing the title into something neutral as well. It makes sense to have a page that will have a balanced summary of praises and criticisms, rather than just one severely biased article. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sujud Tilawa

I kindly ask you to take a look at the draft Sujud Tilawa and make the necessary improvements and corrections. Cordially.

--Kalimoun (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The references section needs better formatting. Look up Template:Citation for more details. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Xinjiang re-education camps#Requested move 17 January 2021

There is an ongoing discussion above about chaning the name of the article about "Re-education camps" in Xinjiang to another name such as "Internment Camp" or "Concentratin Camp". You are welcome to participate.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   07:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Shia Islam#Requested move 22 January 2021

I've opened a page move discussion in regards to changing Shia Islam to Shi'ism. Feel free to give your imput.
Alivardi (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Muslim genocide

Talk:Uyghur genocide#I suggest adding a new section, as people start to question the truthfulness of the "Uyghur genocide" The thread name above is self explanitory.  // Timothy :: talk  09:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Moorish Castle#Requested move 23 January 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Moorish Castle#Requested move 23 January 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Need review of As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Hisham

I have started a draft on As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Hisham. I could use some feedback on improving the article. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@KuroNekoNiyah: Seems ok to me JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Jorge, nice job. Just one remark: the current link to Wikisource leads to Ibn Hisham's author page. I would expect a direct link to the Sirah instead. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: and @JorgeLaArdilla: Thanks for the feedback! Changed the Wikisource as per your suggesion. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@KuroNekoNiyah: I actually meant the page on which you land after clicking the link, but I have fixed that now. Otherwise it looks good to go to mainspace. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Article is now live! KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@KuroNekoNiyah: Good work! You should bring other articles that are currently missing on wiki. Let me know if there are any articles that I can create. Maplecreek1 (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maplecreek1: I do not have any specific article in mind. I do remember Ibn Katheer's Seerah not having an article and it seems notable enough to have its own article. You can also find a lot of books without articles but notable as per Wikipedia policy on List_of_Sunni_books. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Fatimah bint Asad

Hello. I am working on Fatimah bint Asad. Could you please name some other reliable sources I could use improving this article? Thanks.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed Amine Smaili

This stub has been tagged for several issues for over ten years! Bearian (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I see JorgeLaArdilla has already helped with a lot of the issues. Thanks Jorge! VR _talk 01:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wahhabism

Hello,

So the Wahhabism page has been locked for the next 3 days due to edit warring. When I looked over the edit history, significant edits have been made that either point to a problem with how the article was previously or how the article looks now. Hoping some editors with knowledge of the topic might have some time to take a look and see which way is up. I can wade through sources but don't really have a framework to properly evaluate. Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 6 § File:Manqabat-e-Qari Muslehuddin.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 6 § File:Manqabat-e-Qari Muslehuddin.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal system of Saudi Arabia

There’s a new user at Legal system of Saudi Arabia that’s made this change x3 both as an IP and under their new account. There is a POV there but I can’t actually figure out what it is - there’s a talk page discusion I’ve been having with them but I’m none the wiser what they’re up to. Their edits are a mixture of being unsourced and against the inline citations, poor English or just don’t make sense, or using as a source a website called sharialaw.org which looks non-RS/SELFPUB. The issue itself revolves (I think) around what will be quite an obscure topic for most people: whether Saudi Arabia uses Hanbali, one of four Islamic (Sunni) legal schools of thought (known as Maddhab), in its law courts or whether it should be described as Wahhabism which is certainly the dominant religious movement in the country. I’ve not seen any sources that say Saudi’s law courts don’t follow Hanbali. It’s a low traffic article and on obscure topic hence I’m trying to get other inputs. That’s a bit of a long shot I know but if anyone one is inclined, please take a look. (I’ll post this at a couple of other Wikiprojects). DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: this is not a subject I fully understand so I am trying to get a handle on his perspective. I think he is saying that Salafi was so iconoclastic that it totally and utterly undermined the pre-existent Hanafi order in SA and that the current article doesn't tend to reflect this? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

yes (I think you mean Hanbali not Hanafi), since posting the above I think I’m a little clearer: I think that’s what he’s trying to say. He needs to support that with WP:RS though. it’s a particular POV criticism of Saudi Arabia. I think he’s saying Wahhabism doesn’t accept XYZ, Hanbalis do accept XYZ ergo Wahhabis aren’t Hanbalis. The problem is (a) At best it’s WP:SYNTH - it would need a source to make that specific point and connect the dots to the legal system at Saudi Arabia (b) currently it’s just pure WP:OR - as far as I can ascertain it’s unsourced (c) the overwhelming opinion of mainstream RS is that Saudi Arabia is “just” Hanbali. I’ve put the sources on the talk page. If an RS can be found which supports his POV it might be worth an additional sentence saying that there’s a view that SA is not classic/orthodox (for want of a better word) Hanbali or that it’s moved away from Hanbali, but that doesn’t justify deleting references to Hanbali or saying Saudi Arabia is not Hanbali at all. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

OK - I need to research Wahhabism and the Qur'ān (Brill Encyclopaedia of the Qur'ān volume five Si – Z) My bad, you are correct: Hanbali not Hanafi. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Quite a good way of getting caught up on the background is this Chapter (chapter 3) of Natana J. DeLong-Bas’s 2008 book on Wahhabism. Her book is quasi-controversial (doesn’t call out the Wahhabis as much as some would like) but quite accessible and I don’t think that chapter was part of the controversy. :) DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok - found some sources on Wahhabi/Hanbali divergence and added to article. DeCausa (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sunni view of Ali

Sunni view of Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This article has long been neglected. Bashir Iran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring with an IP to include content. I redirected the article to the relevant section on the main Ali article, but Bashir reverted me. Bashir has been adding unreliable content to other articles (more specifically claiming that mammoths were mentioned in the Shahnameh without any sourcing which is ludicrous), but I don't know enough about Islam to evaluate the content in the article, so I hope somone more familiar with the topic can take a look. Cheers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Xinjiang papers

Hi WikiProject Islam, I've been working on the Xinjiang papers article. Please feel free to make edits or provide feedback on how I can raise my article rating. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and still trying to learn! Thanks. Couchcupcross (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar has an RFC

Ilhan Omar has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

please fix Trousers as women's clothing

Islam, that wish to enforce what they see as a distinction in the sexes, as well as the prohibition of women revealing the contour legs, requiring all women and young girls to wear a long dress or skirt rather than trousers

this is wrong! I live in Central Asia and traditional islamic dress code is required to wear long trousers under a long dress or skirt (Idot (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC))

✓ Done JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts regarding Hadith references in Islamic articles

Basically, finding the right hadith from the hadith references seem to be an issue from time to time because various publishers and authenticators will use different numbering and different order of the chapters even though there are standards for hadith referencing. For example, one might use Sahih Muslim xyz and another might use abc but abc will typically be a number close to xyz. This leads to the references present being practically invalid in the exemplary use case (that is, if someone uses one publisher instead of the other). So, while one can find the hadith by making an effort, it is often very time consuming. Finding a referenced hadith can also become a hassle especially if the cited webpage where the hadith was supposed to be is now dead.

This issue may be avoided by changing the style of the references. Basically, even though the overall hadith number may vary, the relative number typically doesn't - as in, the hadith will still have the same serial of the same chapter. Therefore, if we use the name of the chapter and the serial number of the hadith in that chapter - then the hadith will be the easiest to find even if the overall number and the order of the chapters and thus, the chapter number varies. This will work well in translation as well since the meaning of the book headings in translation remain similar. Should/can this be implemented? - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see Q3:33. How are you suggesting "Sahih Muslim 2135" and "Ibn Kathir 19:28" should be presented? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear JorgeLaArdilla, I think those references (in this case, inside the quotation system) are non-functional and thus, make very good examples of my point. For the first, we could instead add details to the reference in order to indicate the book (section) in Sahih Muslim that it is taken from - as in, to add the details that the relevant hadith is Hadith 13 of Book 38, The Book of Manners and Etiquette. I prefer to present that as: Book 38 (Manners and Etiquette), Hadith 13. This is added inside the reference so as to prevent clutter. In the case of the reference from Ibn Kathir, which isn't a book of hadith but rather a book of Qur'anic exegesis, it isn't as necessary because 19:28 seems to be a verse reference in the Qur'an which is completely standardized and not subject to change and someone can just look it up in the contents section of the book. I think that the references to the Qur'an can also be improved by including the name of the Surah as well but it isn't strictly necessary to begin with and definitely not as necessary as the improvement to the hadith references. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Sahih Muslim 38:13"? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Um... I'm sorry, nope. Sahih Muslim 2135 was better and that's not exactly what I'm talking about actually. Also, this could be confused by some with Qur'an references which is not a good thing either. What I'm talking about are ref tags referring back to the source.
This is what I'm suggesting be used: <ref>{{Cite web|title=Sahih Muslim 169e|url=https://sunnah.com/muslim/54/123|website=sunnah.com|access-date=17 June 2021}}; In-book reference: Book 54 (Tribulations and Portents of the Last Hour), Hadith 123; Reference: Sahih Muslim 169e</ref>
Instead of: <ref>{{Cite web|title=Sahih Muslim 169e|url=https://sunnah.com/muslim/54/123|website=sunnah.com|access-date=17 June 2021}}; In-book reference: Book 54, Hadith 123; Reference: Sahih Muslim 169e</ref>
Hope that helps - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I doubt anybody is going to stop you doing that. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a relief! Appreciate it, JorgeLaArdilla. I was worried that I might be going against some guidelines. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sunni Orthodoxy and sect-relevant beliefs are not being clarified in Iblis

As-salamu 'Alaikum wa rahmatullah

In the article Iblis, an editor is presenting his own understanding (as checked from his/her user page) as a valid interpretation in the Interpretations section of the article. S/he also chose to put that interpretation at the top of the list. This understanding is that Iblis is a fallen angel and it seems to be based on a book (Les 100 mots du Coran) by an anthropologist named Malek Chebel who also seems to have a modernist-reformist view of Islam. This does not represent the mainstream position of the Sunni Orthodoxy and this should be clarified in order to avoid misrepresentation of the Sunni Orthodoxy and to not confuse the audience of Wikipedia, esp. because Wikipedia is one of the most widely used online encyclopaedia dispensing information to millions of people of varying ages and educational backgrounds. There are clear restrictions and limitations on what can be represented as the beliefs of the Sunni Orthodoxy. Someone entirely disconnected from the academic tradition of the Sunni Orthodoxy will clearly not understand this and carry on the works of the Orientalists by presenting the opinion of any Fulan and Allan as a position held by the Muslims. One glaring example of this is the matter of camel urine. Just because some Muslim dudes who are ignorant hold a certain position does not mean that it is an accepted position in the Sunni academia. Any help is appreciated. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look at the Iblis article later. Regarding the camel urine hadith, I have ascertained that it is definitely mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari (Sahih al-Bukhari 233/ Book 4, Hadith 99) and Sahih Muslim (Sahih Muslim 1671a/ Book 28, Hadith 12). What is Sunni academia's position?. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am reading Iblis article now. Where is the first sentence that misrepresents Sunni Orthodoxy? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla: Alright, this is embarrassing. I made a major mistake because I was triggered by the matter. It's the article Shaitan and not Iblis. Should I change the original text? The arguments are basically all for the article Shaitan instead of Iblis.

Regarding the matter of camel urine: Yes, there are some authentic narrations regarding the matter but just because there is some hadith that seems to transmit it does not necessitate that it is settled. It must be verified and furthermore, there is other evidence that you have not considered which is a flaw in the methodology. We must be wholistic in our assessment of the evidence while fact-checking the evidence. Let us now look at some comments on this matter.

Imam Bukhari also narrated a version of this Hadith of Anas, without the mention of "urine":

Narrated Anas Ibn Malik: Some people were sick and they said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, "The weather of Medina is not suitable for us." So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, "Drink of their milk."

(Sahih Bukhari, 5685) [10]

Narrated Anas Ibn Malik: "Some people from ʿUraynah came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW], but the climate of Al-Madinah did not suit them. The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said to them: 'Why don't you go out to our camels and drink their milk?'" - (one of the narrators) Qatadah said: 'And their urine."

(Sunan an-Nasaʿi, 4030) [11]

Narrated Sa'eed bin Al-Musayyab:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ السَّرْحِ، قَالَ أَنْبَأَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، قَالَ وَأَخْبَرَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ أَيُّوبَ، وَمُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ، قَالَ قَدِمَ نَاسٌ مِنَ الْعَرَبِ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَسْلَمُوا ثُمَّ مَرِضُوا فَبَعَثَ بِهِمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِلَى لِقَاحٍ لِيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا

"Some ʿArab people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and accepted Islam, then they became sick. The Messenger of Allah [SAW] sent them to some milk camels to drink their milk.

(Sunan an-Nasaʿi, 4036) [12]

Imam Abu Dawud said: "وَلَيْسَ فِي أَبْوَالِهَا إِلاَّ حَدِيثُ أَنَسٍ تَفَرَّدَ بِهِ أَهْلُ الْبَصْرَةِ ‏.‏"

That is, "The words "their urine" occur only in the version reported by Anas and transmitted only by the people of Basrah."

(Sunan Abi Dawud, 333) [13]

The point is: there is doubt/uncertainty about these words "and their urine - وَأَبْوَالِهَا ".

This "urine" addition only comes via the people of Basrah, the other chains - also Sahih - which DO NOT contain "urine". This fact by itself, is not a reason for it to be false - but it does cast a strong doubt and suspicion. For this reason, some scholars suspect that it could be a mistake of some narrators. There are indeed others who consider it usable but put conditions on it (no other option being available) and even others who considered it to be generally correct but this is not the mainstream position and not the reason why some ignorant people use it. Basically, this is one of the greatest matters of controversy.

By all means, we should highlight that it came via various routes, and some contain "urine" others don't - we have to be academically honest - but we have to make clear: "urine" is not established with 100% certainty - there is doubt/suspicion around it. I hope that clarifies this matter.

- Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have copied above over to Talk:Camel urine OK, Quick look at Shaitan. I see your comment you have instead chosen to focus on attacking me. It is not immediately clear where this personal attack is. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sultan.abdullah.hindi do you have secondary sources for the claim some scholars suspect that it could be a mistake of some narrators? Who are the scholars who say that this could be a mistake?VR _talk 00:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla: The user kept attempting to draw similarities between what he claims that I said and what "Salafists" say without even understanding or trying to understand what my statements might have meant. I felt that such a claim was made in order to belittle the issue being raised. This was offensive to me since I am opposed to the Salafis on various things and am not one myself. I am a Hanafi Maturidi. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi:Can you show me the first instance of this? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Yes, 1:275 of Ma῾ārif al-Sunan by ʿAllāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori. The book being referred to is his famous 6-volume Arabic commentary on the ῾ibādāt portion of the Sunan of Imām al-Tirmidhi.

Shaykh said: “Based on this, it is very likely that the mention of urine with milk in the context of the command of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ was the handiwork of one of the transmitters of the ḥadῑth. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ may have commanded them to drink camel milk and to wash their nostrils with camel urine, but they may have also drank the urine. Thus, they were both mentioned together [by a transmitter] in the context of drinking of milk, in view of what actually happened – and not because the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ had commanded them to drink camel urine.

In summary, it is not correct to use the ḥadῑth under discussion to prove the purity of camel urine, in the presence of these strong possibilities.

As for the proofs for the filth of all urine, they are very many. [We shall mention a few here.]

Al-Tirmidhi has reported the ḥadῑth of Ibn ῾Umar:

نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أكل الجلالة وألبانها.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited the eating of the flesh, and drinking of milk, of animals that eat animal faeces.”

The reason for the prohibition is its eating of animal faeces. Thus, we know that the flesh of such an animal is impure, as the filth [from the consumed faeces] would have spread to its flesh.

The ḥadῑth of Abu Hurayrah that has been mentioned by Ibn Mājah, al-Dāra Quṭni, al-Ḥākim in his Mustadrak – and he said: [it is] authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhāri and Muslim). Al-Dhahabi has concurred with this:

استنزهوا من البول ، فإن عامة عذاب القبر منه.

“Cleanse yourselves from urine. For, most punishment of the grave is due to [carelessness in this regard].”

[and so on… the entirety of the analysis has not been presented for the sake of conciseness] (Source: Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:178)”
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk • contribs)

Well, as far as I can see, you can provide a reference and have a point to make which you are perfectly capable of articulating. This is Wikipedia. If you want something doing, you need to do it yourself. I would suggest small incremental changes to improve the article. However Wikipedia requires emotional intelligence. No matter how right you are, if you express annoyance, you will find that Wikipedians always have a valid reason to remove your edit. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Omar listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Omar to be moved to Umar. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Are orientalists scholars of Islam?

Dear Wikipedia editors, I've noticed that some orientalists have been mentioned under the title of "Islamic scholars" in Wikipeida. It's beyond argument that orientalism and Islamic jurisprudence approaches to this issue from opposite views. Non of us would debate on their essential differences and even rivalry in terms of starting point and acquis. As far as I can see, this mistake is not compatible with Wikipedia's principles. Sincerely Ass Prof V. Selcuk Engin

Hey Prof. is this an issue regarding Eastern views of the West and Western views of the East? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I do not see why they would be considered scholars of Islam. They're scholars of Oriental Studies and not Islam. I suppose that this stuff is a result of the mass laity being unaware of the 14 centuries long traditional authoritative Sunni Islamic scholarship. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It depends how one takes the word of. Meaning 1: scholars whose subject of study is Islam. Clearly this applies to them. Meaning 2: Scholars who “belong to” or adhere to the religion i.e.the Ulama. Clearly this does not apply to them. “Scholars of Islam” is ambiguous and can have both meanings. The OP’s linked to article is Ulama - and that’s not them and they shouldn’t be mentioned in that article. DeCausa (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

False and subjective binaries:

Greetings,

Information is information, Knowledge is Knowledge, critique is critique.

Accepting divisions within them based on origins of author or point of views may remain even encyclopedic compulsion, since some scholars rather than examining arguments and facts rationally and logically divide and label authors by their origins and point of views and use these divisions not only to dump arguments that do not pass test of facts rationality and logic but they also use same tact even to dump rationally logically valid facts also as strategy of convenient rhetoric.

Smart Dustbin

"A is of A background so can not criticize B, B is of B background so can not criticize B"; does not stop here, When 'A' criticizes 'A' then also their criticism is matching with criticism of 'B' so that criticism is invalid. When B criticizes 'B' their criticism seems as if A criticizing B so that is invalid and needs to be dumped in dustbin. This way all sort of criticism can be muted and censored.

What is forgotten in the whole game by conservatives is, none of the prophets or scholar's any critic will pass as valid criticism in this way. People will only need to praise no scope for any criticism ever.

Why I am discussing this here is this false binary and rejection of criticism this way does not remain limited to related Wikipedia articles but same arguments are used by some users to not allow to include some of the criticism in the articles giving same reasons like, "that scholar is orientalist!"

Last but not least this problem is just not faced by Wikipedians but by scholars too. One can listen in to

Haider, Prof. Najaf (- Dept. of History, JNU) (Dec 19, 2018). "All India History Summit 2018". YouTube. Retrieved October 28, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Interested in the topic further? Pl. help expand Draft:Criticism of Edward Said's Orientalism

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Bookku, the point being raised by yourself feels rather out of place since even a layman can criticize a scholar - which doesn't really prove anything and nor does it raise that layman to the status of a scholar. There is a clear distinction between a scholar of Islam and an Orientalist in Academia. Someone who has studied a wholistic curriculum in Islami studies for the most part of their life is not the same as an outsider to that academia even if it be a scholar of a different field. So, this claim of the matter being completely 'subjective' in an Encyclopedia which aims to provide accurate answers and the catchy assertion (similar to: War is Peace, Ignorance is Knowledge) and the long paragraphs elaborating on what seems to be an invalid premise does not help and does indeed feel extremely out of place. Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: How would you suggest Bayard Dodge is described? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla: Sorry about the delay. Undoubtedly I would not describe him as a scholar of Islam since I can neither find anything that suggests he was even remotely connected to that tradition by being trained in it, having a chain of knowledge or having a wholistic understanding of Islami academia nor can I find any academic work listing him as a scholar of Islam. The page being hyperlinked here [[14]] describes him as an "Arabic" scholar and this one ([[15]]) describes him only as a University Head and does not mention what his majors were and what he specialized in. Also, after having looked at his list of works (collected on Wikipedia, that is) and finding a review of his work "Muslim Education in Medieval Times" (hyperlinked ([[16]]) as being published in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and a review of his edition of "The Fihrist of al-Nadim" (hyperlinked [[17]]) as being published by the American Oriental Society and another review of the same work (hyperlinked [[18]]) as being published in "International Journal of Middle East Studies" by the Cambridge University Press, I think that he is better described as a scholar of Arabic or as a scholar of Middle East Studies or as a scholar of Islamic civilizations or perhaps even as an Orientalist. Note that his work edition of "The Fihrist of al-Nadim" was published in the "Records of Civilization" and he was only described as the editor and translator of the book as the President Emeritus of the American University of Beirut. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 05:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s imposing a Muslim perspective on the meaning of the phrase, which is not generally accepted outside of the Muslim world. For WP, a scholar of Islam most certainly is not an ʿĀlim or even a Muslim. A scholar of Islam, in the English language, is not the same as a scholar in the Islamic tradition. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. So, going through academic descriptions of a person is imposing a Muslim perspective - is it? Academics and scholars themselves typically accept the Ulama to be the scholars of Islam and distinguish between actual scholars of Islam and other field of expertise that view it from the outside. It is indeed accepted outside of the Muslim world amongst academics and scholars and people who don't accept it are either contending what the phrase should refer to or are ignorant whether they be laypeople or otherwise. Also, kind reminder that WP literally redirects Scholar of Islam to Ulama. So, I will be bold enough to claim that your response is biased against reality itself. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 08:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

When you say “WP literally redirects Scholar of Islam” you mean an editor has done that. Per WP:CIRCULAR it means nothing more. I should correct what I previously said: I should have said “a scholar of Islam most certainly is not only an ʿĀlim or even a Muslim.” DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi:. I feel you are confusing Islamic scholar (per OP) and a scholar of Islam. I have done this myself as I have learnt more about Islam, but a scholar is perceived as in the Linked article. The OP was not specific and I am struggling to see where a Western Academic has been mislabelled as an Islamic scholar. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

We can be as semantic about it as we want but a scholar of Islam or an Islamic scholar are the same as far as I'm concerned. How actual scholars perceive it can be seen in the following lines:

"Can a non-Muslim hope to understand the origins of the Muslim world?" asked historian Tom Holland. "No," was the emphatic one-word response of Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University.

Sure, a non-Muslim could be a scholar of Islamic studies at a western university or perhaps a scholar of Arabic but never a scholar of Islam or an Islamic scholar. Reiterating that in a different manner: “a scholar of Islam most certainly is only an ʿĀlim (who must be a Muslim to begin with).” - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 06:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understanding of your position. I didn’t think you were confusing the terms. But your position will never be accepted in Wikipedia as it is a purely a Muslim religious point of view which conflicts with a broader global perspective and therefore conflicts with WP:NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Abdul Hakeem Azhari#Requested move 1 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Abdul Hakeem Azhari#Requested move 1 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 02:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Khadija bint Khuwaylid/Archive 1#Requested move 30 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Khadija bint Khuwaylid/Archive 1#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 02:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Marawi#Requested move 10 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Marawi#Requested move 10 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.VR _talk 18:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Chapters in the Quran

The 114 articles about 114 surahs in the Quran are some of the worst POV-filled articles in the encyclopedia and the present status of sourcing is almost never compliant with WP:HISTRS. I will be trimming all the articles, leaving only the lead and properly sourced parts. If you have objections, please note. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Can you detail what sort of issues you see? And why do you WP:HISTRS on articles that are not about history, but rather religion?VR _talk 18:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Help needed on Umm Qirfa antti islamic properganda

This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from editing by having the wikipedia page protected and even after lengthy talks in the talk page with a admin c.fred and ratnahattin not even ratnahastin could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?

My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consensus before its done?

Tolwol56 plays the same tactics as ratna and accuse me of another user exil who reverted his edits I am not exil but if he keeps playing this game I can accuse him to be ratna is he so eager to use his version and same accusation?

His new accusations is that the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.

Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?

https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/

So can anyone deal with this here is the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umm_Qirfa here is my edit whicvh was reverted after a month long period of no new accusation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1044995801

Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 00:05, 23 Sep 2021 (UTC)

That article is a mess and doesn't cite reliable and secondary sources. The current sources are mere translations of WP:primary Islamic texts, therefore unsuitable to establish notability or due-ness.VR _talk 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Question from Wikidata

On Wikidata we have recently gotten a property for madhhab (P9929). Currently the only allowed values are Hanafi, Hanbalism, Malikism, Shafi`i, Isma'ilism, Ja'fari, Zaidiyyah, Ibadi, Ẓāhirī and Al-Mawardi

Does the members of WikiProject Islam have any suggestions for improvements? Which value do you think should be allowed and not allowed? King regards--Trade (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Islam in Finland has an RFC

Islam in Finland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for inputs

A Peer review request has been made for article Islamic marriage contract to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tafsir ibn Kathir#Requested move 7 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tafsir ibn Kathir#Requested move 7 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 20:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Society of Baltimore needs revision!

Assalamu alaikum, can some one please check the controversy part of the Islamic Society of Baltimore. Seems like they have omitted a couple of information in the sources they had given. I think it needs to be edited thoroughly. Particularly the edits by Tim [history)] I reverted those but on closer inspection i think the wording have been biased. for example i mentioned in his talk page that

I believe there are valid concerns as to why some of the sections were deleted. For example its mentioned a couple of times that Washington Times (in particular, oh i just realised its not Bezos' The Washington Post ) and Fox network accuses the Organisation of terror associations because the imam had supported the Muslim Brotherhood, but it mentions only once that the imam had "cut relations with the group in 1992." I find the section needing some thorough editing even though I reverted Tim's edit earlier. Let it be put on the record for future viewers that i am giving Tim a clean chit for the time being ie he has made reasonable deletion and that some edits needs to be re-edited. The "Controversies section" has been deeply cited by News articles by the way. Moreover there's a couple part left out

"But he told the Post in that same article they had cut ties to the Muslim Brotherhood abroad and “we don't receive an order from any organization abroad, and [they] have no authority to tell us what to do." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/baltimore-mosque-set-for-obama-visit-has-controversial-ties

My overall verdict is there needs to be thorough editing

Can some one help me out as i am still a new editor. Thanks --LostCitrationHunter (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I've started a discussion at Talk:Islamic Society of Baltimore, please add your concerns there.VR _talk 22:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Islamic studies by author (non-Muslim or academic)#Requested move 10 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Islamic studies by author (non-Muslim or academic)#Requested move 10 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 15:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

History task force

Assalamu Alaikum. i think the Historical department need more attention. Ahendra (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ahendra: Walaikum assalam. Which specific articles are you referring to?VR _talk 15:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

mainly about Rashidun caliphate history, and the figures during that era, sire. Ahendra (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, i personally think Battle of Zhu Qissa should be renamed to Dhu Qissa. Ahendra (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ahendra: why is that? Do most sources call it "Battle of Dhu Qissa"? Can you provide examples? VR _talk 23:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

for example: Dhu Nuwas, Dhu al-Qarnayn and Dhu al-Hijjah using same arabic of 'Dhu' here Ahendra (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ahendra: Sometimes the same word in Arabic is spelled differently in English. For example, "Muhammad" is spelled in so many different ways on wikipedia: Muhammad, Muhamed Haneef, Mohamed Salah, Mohammed bin Salman, Mohomed Dilshad, Mehmed I, Mehmet Nas etc. In order to show that Battle of Zhu Qissa should be retitled Battle of Dhu Qissa you should show examples of sources that use "Dhu" when talking about the battle.VR _talk 13:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Well. i've checked the Arabic article. the place of allegedly Zhu Qissa were ذي القصة there... notice the "ذي " should be spelled Dhu according to Anglo-Arabic vowels. same goes with Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan سيف بن ذي يزن . notice here Sayf Dhi Yazan also using "‎ذي". Ahendra (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ahendra: I understand, but wikipedia titles are not based on Anglo-Arabic vowels, but rather how English-language WP:reliable sources spell them. If sources spell it incorrectly, then we will also have to spell it that way on wikipedia. That's just how it is. This source (the only online English one used in the article) is spelling it as "Zul Qissa". But if you can find more sources that spell it "Dhu Qissa", then we can go ahead and request the title to be changed.VR _talk 15:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Congregational mosque#Requested move 22 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Congregational mosque#Requested move 22 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 15:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Fatalism in Islamic world, requesting inputs

Greetings,

Once in a while I browse topic of Islamic literature to find sources for Islamic advice literature and many times I came across topic of fatalism in Islam and reasonable number of scholarly sources seem to be available. Up til now I have been bypassing the topic and keeping away from mind partially for already too many encyclopedic tasks on hand, and again I did not want to engage in more content dispute issues for a low priority article for me. But still number of times those scholarly work cross me can't think of not covering at all.

Presently en WP has following kind of articles

• Predestination in Islam
• Taqdir
• Tawakkul
• Fatalism

Requesting inputs which way to give coverage to the topic of 'Fatalism in Islamic world'. Should we start a Draft:Fatalism in Islamic world then decide to keep it separate or merge etc. How to go about it ?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fatalism in Islam can mean a couple of different things. The first could, as you correctly pointed out, relate to predestination in Islam. The second could be Despondence in Islam. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam's entry on fatalism talks about predestination. VR _talk 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Baqibillah Mishkat Chowdhury

Hello, WikiProject Islam,

I came across this article because the editor keeps moving it around from main space to Draft space and back again. I'm hoping that editors well-versed in Islam could look it over. It seems like it is in pretty bad shape to me but perhaps this individual is notable. I went to post this same message at WikiProject Bangladesh but there is no activity on the talk page so it looks inactive. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: thanks for the message, though it appears none of the sources are in English, so it might be a bit challenging.VR _talk 04:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sultan Ahmed Mosque#Requested move 30 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sultan Ahmed Mosque#Requested move 30 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 13:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Musaylimah#Requested move 2 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Musaylimah#Requested move 2 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I hope that you will comment there. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Are the edits here by Penjogjoposioćio correct?

The ones in this article. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: According to Wikipedia that is Secret Knowledge. Tiny Particle (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tiny Particle: right or wrong, they're part of this sock farm. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/İsmail Kendir/Archive Doug Weller talk 11:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Some more edits that need to be verified

Would a member of this WikiProject please review Special:Contributions/Calcit12 for edits made to three articles relevant to this WP. The editor has been putting nonsense into articles that I understand so I have to assume that they have done the same to articles I don't. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Which ones specifically? The picture added to Al-Fatiha is appropriate. This addition is correct, but this is something I'd expect in an Islamic guidebook so maybe it shouldn't be on wikipedia (per WP:NOTHOWTO)? This is not a great image for wudhu and should be reverted. This audio is correct but misplaced (I'll fix it).VR _talk 03:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, was in a bit of a rush. Qunut, Wudu, Ritual purity in Islam.‎ I see today that they have all been reverted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, this account (and more) was blocked for sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hadysylmy/Archive#23 December 2021. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

About the construction of Template:Hijri month

I have left a comment about the way that Template:Hijri month is constructed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#About Template:Hebrew month and Template:Hijri month. If you are interested in the template, please see there. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Jumada al-awwal => Jumada al-Awwal

The title of the article on Jumada al-awwal should be changed to Jumada al-Awwal (i.e. 'a' => 'A') to bring it in line with the names of the other months of the Islamic calendar. I know how to edit a WP page but not how to change the title of a WP page. AstroLynx (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya

I have started a draft for Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

İslâm

Sâd / 1 Sãd. Öğüt ve uyarı dolu o şerefli Kur’an’a yemin olsun ki, tek kurtuluş yolu İslâm yoludur! 85.108.199.119 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge request

Editors are invited to participate at this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Muhammad's letters to the heads of state into Diplomatic career of Muhammad

Editors are invited to help establish consensus at Talk:Diplomatic_career_of_Muhammad#Merger_proposal. Felix QW (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Request for comment on removal of prefix "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty"
		Contested and attempted removal of the prefix "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty", which is construct used as a pipe for the wikilink Capital punishment in Islam and as phrase remains unreferenced. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪99° 09:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Fix Qurban (Islamic ritual sacrifice) article

Kindly fix Qurban (Islamic ritual sacrifice) it seems to have been vandalised. Since I have reverted 3 times in a row, I could not revert it. Kindly have a look at it. And correct it if needed. Thankyou. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 17:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s not WP:VANDALISM - be careful how use that word. It is poor English (“sentinent” isn’t a word and they seem to mix up “condone” and “condemn”) and it is POV needing consensus so I’ve reverted. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Ritual and a reference to Qur'anic verse

• Could someone familiar with the Qur'an check the reference made to it at Ritual § Islam?

I looked up the verse myself to see if I could elaborate on the scant info provided by that section, but the verses don't seem to have anything to do with the rites of pilgrimage or any rituals at all. Perhaps I'm missing some context, or found the wrong verse. I added links to more informative sections at both Hajj and Umrah, because the section doesn't specify what "pilgrimage" is translating and both of those sections are more informative than what's currently at Ritual. I'd like some more informed eyes to take a look. (Asking here rather than at Talk:Ritual because it needs specific attention of someone familiar with Islam.) – ,Scyrme (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: I have replaced existing with a referenced fact from the Study Quran - there are over 150 references to ritual in that book, so I may or may not expand further depending on my time (and inclination). I think the missing context derives from differing verse numbering systems etc (Ahruf, etc) that us humans need to add, inorder that to make the perfect words of God a little less unintelligible. Tiny Particle (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tiny Particle: Thanks for taking a look. I thought the ahruf refer to how the text was recited, not to differences in verse numbers? Regardless, do you recall the page number for the relevant text in the Study Quran, so that the relevant verses and associated commentary can be located? You provided the sura, Al-Baqara, but that sura is long; having the specific pages would be helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned "(Ahruf, etc) " because I was not sure how to spell Qira'at. In my opinion both are conceits from a pre-internet era to reconcile the cognitive dissonance of the Quran being the perfectly preserved word of God, this despite the many (minor) variations in text and numbering (Wherry's summaries predate the 1924 Cairo Quran which [more or less] standardised the current text). My Study Quran pdf copy does not have page numbers and, at close to 5,000 pages long is very unwieldy, but I have done my best to narrow down the references. Tiny Particle (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles

• Muslims and
• Muslim world

and provide your inputs @

• Talk:Muslims/Archive 8#Requesting inputs and
• Talk:Muslim world#Requesting inputs

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Help request with Nizari Isma'ilism

Hello. I was wondering if someone in this wikiproject has the interest and time to help reference and redact properly the article Nizari Isma'ilism. Thanks in advance.--Thinker78 (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps, try to recruit article expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.

Requesting your visit to following drafts / articles and help expand the same if any of these interests you.

• Islamic marriage contract

• Draft:Sufi shrine

• Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Image on Template: Islam (again)

We had no consensus (ever) on which image to use on the template which led to years long series of edit wars. so let's (try to) make this discussion the final say on this old debate.

This is my opinion on the subject:
those who claim that the word Allah is "inclusive of all Muslims", please provide your proof. All religions with all the sects believe in a God but that doesn't make the calligraphy of the word God a symbol of the said religion! Please support your claims with sources that prove that this word symbolize Islam! Is there any Islamic organizations that use it? No. But many Islamic organizations does use the crescent and star.

Here's a few examples:

• It is used on most Muslim countries' flags:
  • Malaysia
  • Pakistan
  • Turkey
  • Tunisia
  • Algeria
  • Mauritania
  • Libya
  • Turkmenistan
  • Uzbekistan
  • Azerbaijan
  • Maldives
  • Comoros
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands
  • Western Sahara
  • East Turkestan flag and emblem
  • used in flag of Singapore to represent the Muslim minority
• it is the most recognized symbol of Islam in the world :
  • Brandon University: [19]
  • dictionary.com
  • United Religions Initiative: [20]
  • simple Google search shows that crescent and star is almost the only symbol displayed
  • Yale University: [21]
  • Massachusetts Peace Action
• it is used by many Islamic organizations:
  • Abdulla Bin Zaid Al Mahmoud Islamic Cultural Center
  • International Red Cross and Red Crescent, a red crescent indicates that followers of Islam are respected and treated accordingly.
  • Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
  • Islamic Relief Worldwide
  • Muslim Charity
  • Research Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture
  • International Islamic Relief Organization
  • International Union of Muslim Scholars
  • Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries
  • Union of OIC News Agencies
  • As-Sabiqun
  • Jamaat-e-Islami
  • UMAA
  • Islamic Help
  • Islamic Society of North America
  • Islamic World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  • Qatar Charity
  • IslamInSpanish
  • Central Council of Muslims in Germany
  • Central Council of Ex-Muslims
• All-India Muslim League
• Nation of Islam
  • Al-Azhar University logo
  • The Islamic Advisory Group

• • countless Islamic banks:
    • BankIslami Pakistan, Pakistan
    • Bank Aceh Syariah, Indonesia
    • Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt
    • Bank Islam Brunei Darussalam, Brunei
    • Bank Islam Malaysia
    • Masraf Al Rayan, Qatar

• it is representative of Ramadan and the lunar calendar.
• it is the only emoji that is representative of Islam: (☪️)
• it is seen on many many mosques' domes and minarets including iconic mosques:
  • Kazan mosque, Russia
  • Mecca
  • Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, Abu Dhabi, UAE
  • Blue Mosque, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Moscow Cathedral Mosque, Russia
  • Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Mosque, Malaysia
  • id:Masjid Raya Hubbul Wathan, Indonesia
  • Spiral Mosque
  • Al-Zaytuna Mosque, Tunisia
  • Mosque Maryam, US

That's why I think the Star and Crescent is the most representative of Islam and I don't think that there's any Islamic sects that is against it and hence why it's the one that should be used in the template. Thank you! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User:‪DA1‬, do you have anything to add? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: (Shorouq★The★Super★ninja) ۞ As a native English speaker using English Language Wikipedia, I can't support the Current Calligraphic ۞ While I now have a level 1 understanding of Arabic & script when I first started out, the more Arabic an article contains the less accesible it was to me ۞ RE star and Crescent see Template talk:Islam/Archive 1#Crescent - there is an ongoing dislike of its link to the caliphate of the Ottomans ۞ How about the Rub el Hizb? ۞ Tiny Particle (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been numerous discussions about this over the years, including in: Template talk:Islam and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 11. If there hasn't been consensus over it, then it shouldn't be arbitrarily changed. The change requires consensus.

But to address some of your points and to share my own:

1. Template:Islam is about Islam, not Muslim countries. So what they use on their flags is not a deciding factor. A five-sided star without crescent is used on many flags too by Muslim-majority countries (Morocco, Syria, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, Djibouti). I wouldn't want that to be the image either.

2. "Allah" is the only symbol that is unanimously-recognized by all Muslims across schools, sects and geography. It being used by non-Muslims doesn't negate its place or importance in Islam itself. The Crescent is also used by non-Muslims; it was used by pagan Greeks, Christian Greeks, and is currently also used by Wiccans and pagans.

3. There are many people and groups who do not consider it a symbol of Islam (or any symbol for that matter). If the "Allah" image didn't exist, then we could go with the Crescent and Star since that would be the default largest-majority, but there is already a far larger majority that accepts "Allah" as a symbol, including the former group. Countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon also tend to shy away from using Crescent symbolism.

4. Many of those images you shared aren't even the same image as the one you're proposing for the infobox. Malaysia's flag has a 14-point star, Azerbaijan's has an 8-point star, Turkmenistan's has 5 separate 5-point stars, and so forth. —DA1 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:DA1,

1. "Template:Islam is about Islam, not Muslim countries."
what do you mean? Muslim countries comprise the Islamic World. Christian countries use the Cross on their flag and/or emblem to refer to their traditional religion. Your argument is insufficient.

2. "Allah is the only symbol"
provide your source that backs up your claim of the word "Allah" being a symbol that is agreed upon/widespread to represent Islam. It is not used by any notable Islamic organization!

3. "There are many people and groups who do not consider it a symbol of Islam (or any symbol for that matter)."
who? Please, specify. However, giving that these groups did not identify with any symbol, it does not indicate their disapproval of the said symbols. As long as they did not explicitly state their disapproval, this would not count as objection.

4. "Many of those images you shared aren't even the same image as the one you're proposing"
what's the problem? Every country added its own touch to make the flag unique, different and representative of its own characteristicsb and distinguish it from other Muslim countries' flags. There's nothing wrong with that. Malaysia, for example, used 14-point star to represent "unity between 13 member states".

The widespread official use of crescent by different Islamic organization and governments with different sects and beliefs worldwide indicates the tolerance and acceptance of the crescent and star as a symbol of Islam. I don't see any notable/prominent disapproval of it by major religious institutions. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:‪DA1‬ do you have any further comments or should we consider that an approval? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Tiny Particle, I don't think this symbol is actually notable/recognizable enough. I personally didn't know about its existence till recently. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a need to find an alternative to the Star & crescent if the current .jpg is to be replaced. Notable/recognizable is just word salad to a disinterested mediator. Tiny Particle (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first point. In regards to the second point, I'm sorry, English is not my first language, that's why I don't have a large vocabulary to choose from. I was referring to Rub el-Hezb symbol being "uncommon", "not well known", "unfamiliar". I think that if we reach a consensus to replace the crescent and star, we should use Kaaba or mosque icons as they are more familiar and more accessible for non-Arabic speakers. What do you think? Thank you! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like we should simply not have any image at all in that template. Ironically, that would be symbolic of Islam's general attitude towards images. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Help needed regarding islamphobic content regarding umm qirfa in banu fazara wiki page

The original content features a source from a islamophic writer whose source still remains I didn’t even remove it all the additional information added is from the sealed nectar a seerah or biography regarding the prophet muhammed life and Hadith sources which are sahih and the views of Islamic scholars regarding in what happened to umm qirfa however certain users like Tolwol and mehmood have reverted this edits based on baseless allegations like whitewashing and being poorly sourced even though they can’t prove it the recent edit by mehmood gives no reason there is a lot of edit warring going on to just look at the edit history I request fresh eyes look at the case from a more neutral source on here who know the Wikipedia rules and are obliged by them here is where the Wikipedia article in question

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Fazara 213.107.1.209 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the lead of Criticism of Muhammad include pedophilia?

Until it was recently change it said he had been criticised for " and his marriage to Aisha when she was six years old, which according to most estimates was consummated when she was nine." It now reads "and pedophilia for his child marriage to Aisha when she was six years old, which according to most Islamic sources was consummated when Aisha was nine." Doug Weller talk 13:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Islam and Controversy task force

Does anybody still work on the Islam and Controversy task force? I've been making improvements over time to the task force page but I'm not sure if I should remove the non-existent links to project pages. It seems the project was partially abandoned. Pinging GregKaye, it seems you're the last active member from this task force. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

good luck with others, GregKaye 20:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Greg, what? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Does the term Al-Aqsa Mosque need disambiguation?

Al Aqsa Mosque (the large compound) vs Al Aqsa Mosque (the small southern building, from where prayers are led)

300,000 worshippers at the Al Aqsa Mosque (the large compound), facing the Al Aqsa Mosque (the small southern building, from where prayers are led)

Please comment at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque#Requested move 30 May 2022 - we are in need of editors who have the time to review the sources. Our Al-Aqsa Mosque article is about the small building. The large compound, also known as Al-Aqsa Mosque, is our article Temple Mount.

For reference:

• Al Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount) is the third holiest site in Islam
• Al Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount) was the first qibla in Islam
• Al Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount) gave its name to the Al Aqsa Intifada, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades
• Al Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount) can hold over 300,000 people (note: the small building can hold only 5,000)
• Al Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount) was recently in the news after clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians: the location of the route is shown here
• Al Aqsa Mosque (building) is an important monument of early Islamic architecture
• Al Aqsa Mosque (building) houses the Imam of the Al Aqsa Mosque
• Al Aqsa Mosque (building) is where the Islamic prayers are led from

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, what matters most is whether it is highly likely — much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. It is also important to assess how the term is used amongst scholarly sources - an assessment of this has been provided at the discussion, and it would be good to have it confirmed by editors who have the time to review the sources themselves.

Thank you.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

More editor contributions here would be appreciated. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Input needed at requested move for Muhammad ibn Qasim

Talk:Muhammad ibn Qasim#Requested move 4 July 2022 could use some input. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Baháʼí Faith Featured article review

User:Nutez has nominated Baháʼí Faith for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Fatimah

There is a requested move at Talk:Fatimah#Requested move 16 July 2022 which may be of interest to members of this project or watchers of its talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Input requested at edit request on Talk:Muhammad

Hey there! There's an edit request open on Talk:Muhammad that I would like input on because of the topic and nature of the request. It has been open for over a month without replies, and I am not knowledgeable to accept it. Could someone take a look at it to see if it's good, needs changing, or deniable? Thanks. SWinxy (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Al-Muti FAC

The article on the Abbasid caliph al-Muti has been submitted for Featured Article. All interested editors are invited to participate. Constantine ✍ 18:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Jabbar Al Rifai

AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Jabbar Al Rifai needs assistance in evaluating notability. Jahaza (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Islamic sexual jurisprudence, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Want to add Ibrahim Raza Khan on this project

Want to add Ibrahim Raza Khan on this project, how can i do this, can anyone tell me. KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Islamic dietary laws

The page Islamic dietary laws covers most of the key points, but has a retinue of cleanup tags - largely in relation to the particularly bad state of its sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library now features full access to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and other Brill resources

The Wikipedia Library now features what appears to be full access to Brill Online, including all of their books, the many top journals published by them, as well as all of their encyclopedic reference works.

For users editing Islam-related articles, this notably includes all versions of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the Encyclopaedia Islamica, the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, the new fascicles of Encyclopædia Iranica, and much, much more.

Once registered and logged in at WP:LIBRARY, click this link to search their entire database, and this link to select the encyclopedic reference work of your choice. You may want to add those links to the bookmark toolbar in your browser...

Be sure to spread the happy news to other editors who might be interested! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Deoband Community Wikimedia

Salams, Deoband Community Wikimedia is a recognized affiliate of Wikimedia and it began with its subjective focus on the global Deobandi scholarship. The affiliate is looking forward to widening its focus to "general Islamic scholarship, Islamic history, Islamic academia etc", something that has remained deeply underrepresented on the encyclopedia. I'd be more than glad to have opinions of interested editors from the WikiProject on the affiliate's Meta page. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The affiliate is trying to roll out some programs like this. Looking forward to hearing your insightful suggestions here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for inputs

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic bicycle

Bookku (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wahhabism#Requested move 19 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wahhabism#Requested move 19 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Islamic bicycle

An article that you have been involved in editing—Islamic bicycle—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Islamic scholars has been nominated for discussion

Category:Islamic scholars has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.— Qwerfjkltalk 22:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Blasphemous content on Pakistan

Which articles are deemed to have blasphemous content leading to Pakistan's current ban on Wikipedia? If they can be identified, it might be possible to review the content.--Ipigott (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Wikipedia:Ahmadiyya Caliphate information. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images

There is a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images which may be of interest. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muslim campaign at Córdoba Cathedral#Requested move 15 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim campaign at Córdoba Cathedral#Requested move 15 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 21:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Please check ratings

I have seen an editor mark several articles as being of "top importance" to this group. Since this editor was marking articles as being of top-importance to every WikiProject, I doubt that this was done correctly. Please consider reviewing Category:Top-importance Islam-related articles and adjusting the contents to reflect this group's preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, the irony is that inexperienced editors have completely messed up with the assessment/rating system. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that some editors misunderstand the ratings system, and they think that if they mark an article as Top-priority, then the article will get improved soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation page Hijri calendar

Could you help to fix links to the disambuiguation page Hijri calendar. It is generally better for the reader to link to specific articles rather than disambiguation pages and this could be Islamic calendar, Tabular Islamic calendar or Solar Hijri calendar but I do not have the exertise to link to the correct one. A list of the articles including this link is available at Disambig fix list for Hijri calendar. Thanks for any help.— Rod ^talk 11:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the disambig to a redirect and only link to the alternatives were it is specifically stated Tabular Hijri calendar or Solar Hijri calendar, both of which can added as "see also" if not specifically mentioned in the parent article.Tiny Particle (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muslim conquest of Spain#Requested move 28 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim conquest of Spain#Requested move 28 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Super Ψ Dro 07:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

RFD for Islams

Hi, I think we need your opinion on the RFD for Islams. Thanks. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:DGG/Arabic-Persian literacy relation

User:DGG has died, but left User:DGG/Arabic-Persian literacy relation in progress. Please see if this content is of use to this project. BD2412 T 17:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Rfc

You are invited to give an opinion. Panam2014 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) move discussion

Please see here for more details: Talk:Afghanistan_conflict_(1978–present)#Should_be_renamed_to_Afghan_Conflict_(1978–present) FOARP (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Question_about_using_ﷺ_in_WP-articles

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This picture (Prayer in Cairo, painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1865)

...is used in many pages (Aqidah, Imam, Muslims) for illustrative purposes without any critical analysis. I am not sure it is wise to have a painting from an orientalist painter as that illustration; there is a good chance that it may incorrectly depict some aspects of salah.

Could someone with experience check that the details are correct? In particular the following look suspicious to me (though I know next to nothing about Muslim rites, Sunni or otherwise):

1. the hand gestures look nothing like those given in File:Different postures of a Muslim service.jpg
2. some characters are holding a text. I have never seen any photograph where worshippers had a text during salah (not that I have looked very hard though). Also, the text is unbound, so I guess it’s too fragile to be a Quran - but then what is it?
3. the background characters are arranged somewhat randomly rather than in rows (which might be excused by the location on the roofs)

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Who is supposed to be holding a text? I can't see it, or its form of binding. Certainly the positions are not all in time with each other. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod, there are at least two people that I see holding a text. The one in the saffron or clothes, and the one right before him wearing white turban. Although, the is not format of rows when people pray individually in a mosque, of which this images appears to be a portrayal, I fail to find it fitting the whole scenario. ─ The Aafī (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, still can't see it! The light is dim, & the image not very hi-res. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't seem anything obviously resembling a text. One individual is looking down at their hands; whether or not their hands contain anything is impossible to see due to the resolution, as mentioned above. In addition, they are praying ad hoc on rooftops, not at the mosque. My personal impression is that this is actually a very interesting snapshot of a lost moment in time. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what's going on - which is one reason to avoid making WP:ORish assessments. I had a quick to look to see if there was any RS giving an explanation and found this source which describes it as "probably" realistic and observational - unlike other works of this artist. Those with better access to art histories probably could find a better source. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, if it's used to illustrate salat -- which seems to be its main use, but not in the salat article - another clearer and more conventional image (rows, sumultaneity etc) would be a better representation for an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it’s aesthetically pleasing, there’s value in that. File:Muslim_prayer_in_Damascus.jpg (or similar) is more accurate, sure, but for general illustrative purposes at Muslims its color palette is kind of ugly. Of course if you’re not a professional photographer, your subjects aren’t posing, you cannot use good photography equipment etc. the result isn’t going to be as pretty as a painting; that’s not a criticism against the uploader, and I will admit that photo is better than any of the stuff I uploaded to Commons. Both Christians and Hindus have art as the lead image FWIW; Jews don’t have a picture of people until you scroll down a bit (but the first such picture is indeed art). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

{{AHM}}

FYI Template:AHM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Standardizing the format of articles about surahs.

There should be a style guide for articles talking about surahs of the Qur'an. There is some consistency between articles, as most of them contain summaries of the surah (eg. Al-Baqarah) but there are other some sections in some articles about surahs that are not in others. For example, some articles (especially ones about short surahs) contain a section transcribing the text itself (eg. At-Takathur), some contain a section about the mentioning of specific prophets in the surah (eg. Al-Baqarah), and some contain exegesis (eg. Al-Ma'idah). There should be a specific format to follow when writing articles about surahs. For example:

First few paragraphs Summary Text (can be translated) Exegesis etc. Homeostasis39 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for proper sort keys for category:Eid (Islam)

Could someone more knowledgable take a look at Category:Eid (Islam) and help with the sort keys. Looks sort of odd to have Eid al-Fitr sorted as F, but Eid al-Ghadir sorted as an E. Thank You.18:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Naraht (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Lake Zamkaft for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lake Zamkaft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Zamkaft until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for inputs

There is sudden change to longstanding redirect to a different article. To understand Wikipedia community opinions, requesting inputs @ Talk:Usama#Request for inputs. Bookku (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Bible, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Userbox

References

Hi there, I'm experimenting new layouts for this project userbox. Do y'all prefer the current version or a new proposal? Let me know your thoughts! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Islam at GAN

Hello, User:Sodicadl nominated the article Islam (which I assume is a rather important article for this wikiproject) for GA at Talk:Islam/GA2. I came on as a reviewer way back in January, but I have been unable to dedicate enough time to continue the review and asked for a new reviewer in April. No one has come forward yet, so I'm posting the request here if anyone would like to pick it up. Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I already see one reviewer who would 100% recommend it for GA. Does it not laready meet the crieria? Tiny Particle (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone still needs to read over it and ensure the text matches the sources. If you see my incomplete review there were a sizable amount of errors (fixable, but errors nonetheless). It's a big article, errors are bound to occur, which is why the review process exists Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the use of "-iyya" and "-ism" in articles about Islam

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

What do you think about moving this discussion to the guideline talk page? Æo (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure! Use {{Moved discussion from}} and {{Moved discussion to}} when you do. Also feel free to not copy along this reply. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Æo (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! about changing the content of the lead and core definitions at Witchcraft. As the article has content about practices in Islam, members might want to check it out. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible Merger?

I found the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwas_of_Barelvi_Muslims during random fixing of uncategorized pages and I suspect it should be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas.

I am not the most knowledgeable about Islamic jurisprudence and would greatly appreciate any help that could be given on this matter. AevumNova (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeesh. I boiled down the list of fatwas a while ago into the most notable historical entries. The Barelvi looks like a collection of distinctly not notable items, so I would say that merging that anywhere would just create a mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Syed Ahmad Khan#Requested move 11 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syed Ahmad Khan#Requested move 11 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Arab–Byzantine wars

Arab–Byzantine wars has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Scholars categories

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_10#Scholars_of_Islam was closed without consensus. Does someone here have a better idea how to untangle this knot? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mubarak Mosque, Tilford#Requested move 22 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mubarak Mosque, Tilford#Requested move 22 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque compound

I have taken the long overdue step of creating an Al-Aqsa Mosque compound page to encompass the full architectural history of Al-Aqsa all in one place. This was not done previously, with there being separate articles for the Dome of the Rock, Al-Aqsa Mosque and Minarets of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, etc., but no single page drawing them all together historically and architecturally. The temple mount page provides some architectural overview, but it is so bound up in narrating the full history of the site and is substructure (so much so that it uses the 'mountain' infobox template, not the 'religious building' one) that it has never done full credit to the actual superstructure. Now there is a page that ties it all together. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Protests against Quran desecration in Sweden

 You are invited to join the discussion at Protests against Quran desecration in Sweden, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no discussion at all on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I have started one now. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also put a requested move on the talk page and would appreciate what members of this WikiProject think on the move. Thank you. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

LGBT in the Ottoman Empire

Hi – this seems like a very promising article on a notable subject. Not new as such, but could do with some copyedits from members of this Wikiproject if anyone is interested. Thanks 😊 GnocchiFan (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting inputs at AFD - Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque

Requesting inputs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque (2nd nomination) discussion. - Bookku (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Documentation Centre Political Islam at Political Islam

See Talk:Political Islam#Section Documentation Centre Political Islam violates NPOV Doug Weller talk 15:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Arba'een#Requested move 30 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Arba'een#Requested move 30 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent#Requested move 8 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent#Requested move 8 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:MOSISLAM regarding the NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet"

There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles regarding the NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" which may be of interest to this WikiProject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam

There are several repeated sentences/paragraphs in Conversion to Islam. This should be fixed. Kk.urban (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Al-Inshirah#Requested move 10 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Al-Inshirah#Requested move 10 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 03:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Order of Assassins merger discussion

Input welcome in merger discussion about the Order of Assassins. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Islam and cats dispute

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Islam and cats#Change Contents in Islam and cats (and the post immediately above it). I'l leery of editing that article in the detail-level requested because I'm not a subject matter expert and don't have a basis on which to evaluate the claims made about the sources in relation to other source material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Western Wall

Western Wall has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muslim conquest of Spain#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim conquest of Spain#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muhammad Khatami#Requested move 6 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muhammad Khatami#Requested move 6 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Holit massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Holit massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nir Yitzhak massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nir Yitzhak massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mu'tazilism#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mu'tazilism#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nasheed#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nasheed#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Banu_Fazara#RfC on Umm Qirfa

Please provide your opinions and comments at Talk:Banu_Fazara#RfC on Umm Qirfa that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 2A00:801:707:AFAE:FC02:57DA:9BB7:8E6E (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Peer review of LGBT in the Ottoman Empire

Hi everyone - just letting this WikiProject know that a Peer Review of LGBT in the Ottoman Empire (with the intention of improving this to Good Article status) is currently under way. If anyone has anything to add to the article / review, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

As someone who who had the late stage of the Ottoman Empire in their academic carrier, I think I can do the review. I have always been resistant oto review a GA article myself, but I do feel confident about this subject. I have to read myself into the guidlines for performing a review first, however. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

50 names of God in Islam

Dear all, I work at the University of Edinburgh as Wikimedian in Residence and am currently supporting students on a 55-80hr volunteering project where they choose a topic they would like to research from October to (end of) March and where their research and writing would help help improve their studies and also the topic coverage on Wikipedia. One student has chosen as their focus: Islamic history and culture. Within this, they have February and March left to work on their project and they have decided they would like to spend 50hrs researching and writing pages covering the 50 names of God in Islam. A couple of example pages have already been written:

Al-Qahhar

Al-Khaliq

They are keen to continue on the same trajectory as they find the research rewarding and believe Wikipedia readers will too. My only concern is that the two examples are quite quote-heavy as things stand and that 50 individual pages might not be welcome in terms of 'bloating' Wikipedia or that it might not be academically challenging to write 50 similar articles or that it might just be better covered in one condensed summary page on Wikipedia (something one of Islamic Art lecturers also confessed might be more appropriate for an encyclopedia). The argument put forward is that Arabic Wikipedia and Kazakh Wikipedia already have versions of the pages linked above so why not English Wikipedia too. I just thought I'd check what the consensus view might be before they proceed further. I do not want to dismiss the project or 'gatekeep' in any way but thought I'd check what the view of WikiProject Islam editors might be before we progressed or if you might have alternative suggestions for a project focus given Islamic history and culture covers a vast swathe of potential topic areas if this current idea is not viable. Any thoughts do let me know and I'll pass on to the student accordingly. Thanks! Stinglehammer (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It would seem that the student's answer to your concern is to invoke WP:Whataboutism. Wikipedia has 99 Names of God in Islam although nearer 50 in Category:Names of God in Islam. Just looking at the pages you highlight I am less than impressed. It would take all day to articulate the issues. I really do not have time at the moment but will make a start but I suspect any encyclopedic content that remains will be comfortably merged into the main article. Tiny Particle (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your student is misrepresenting the references as relatively modern. The references are old (almost 700 years in one case). It is the translations that are modern (if Salafi can be defined as such) Tiny Particle (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We have to have a consensus on whether we should be using the crescent and star symbol or Allah word to represent Islam in Wikipedia

And by that I mean all projects that are related to Islam in Wikipedia (Template:Islam, Portal:Islam and WikiProject Islam) We need to use a unified icon for all of them.

And I think we should be using the crescent and star, because it doesn't matter if it was related with The Ottoman Empire, Greeks or any other nation, it is now the most popular icon for Islam in both Islamic countries AND especially across non-Muslim people to refer to Islam. And people of non-Muslim backgrounds and those who can't read Arabic or still learning it and the ones who are not familiar with Arabic alphabet and calligraphy would have it difficult for them to know that this word is Allah and it means God in Arabic and in this context it refers to the Muslim God only (although it used by all religions in the Arab World) and then realize that this article is about Islam. So, whether that this icon was popularized by Ottomans or not it is now the most recognizable icon for Islam across all nations. And moreover some researchers say that it wasn't popularized by the Ottomans: How the quarter-crescent moon came to symbolize Islam is uncertain. Many explanations with varying degrees of plausibility have been offered. Among the most popular is the assertion that the symbol signifies the position ofthemoon and the planetVenus at dawn on 23 July 610 A.D., when the Prophet Mohammed received his initial revelation from God.

Cyril Glassé in his The New Encyclopedia of Islam (2001 edition, s.v. "Moon") states that "in the language of conventional symbols, the crescent and star have become the symbols of Islam as much as the cross is the symbol of Christianity."

The word Allah simply means God in Arabic and it predates Islam. Those who claim that the word Allah is "inclusive of all Muslims", please provide your proof. All religions with all the sects believe in a God but that doesn't make the calligraphy of the word God a symbol of the said religion! Please support your claims with sources that prove that this word symbolize Islam! Is there any Islamic organizations that use it? No. But many Islamic organizations does use the crescent and star. Here's a few examples:

List of examples

It is used on most Muslim countries' flags: Malaysia Pakistan Turkey Tunisia Algeria Mauritania Libya Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Azerbaijan Maldives Comoros Cocos (Keeling) Islands Brunei Western Sahara East Turkestan flag and emblem used in flag of Singapore to represent the Muslim minority Emblem of Afghanistan Flag of Morocco (uses a star only) Arab Islamic Republic (dissolved) North Caucasian Emirate (dissolved) cities and districts: Grozny Nozhay-Yurtovsky District Shalinsky District, Chechnya it is the most recognized symbol of Islam in the world : Brandon University: [22] dictionary.com United Religions Initiative: [23] simple Google search shows that crescent and star is almost the only symbol displayed Yale University: [24] Army University: [25] it is used by many Islamic organizations: Abdulla Bin Zaid Al Mahmoud Islamic Cultural Center International Red Cross and Red Crescent, a red crescent indicates that followers of Islam are respected and treated accordingly. Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Islamic Relief Worldwide Muslim Charity Research Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture International Islamic Relief Organization International Union of Muslim Scholars Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries Union of OIC News Agencies UMAA Islamic Help Islamic Society of North America Islamic World Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Muslim American Society (uses a star only) Qatar Charity IslamInSpanish Central Council of Muslims in Germany Central Council of Ex-Muslims Nation of Islam Muslim American Society of San Diego Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs countless Islamic banks: BankIslami Pakistan, Pakistan Bank Aceh Syariah, Indonesia Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt Bank Islam Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Bank Islam Malaysia Masraf Al Rayan, Qatar used by many Islamic educational institutions: Islamic University of Technology Al-Azhar University logo Jamia Millia Islamia used by many Islamic seminaries: Darul Uloom Deoband Madrasah Irsyad Zuhri Al-Islamiah Jamia Al-Karam Used by numerous Islamic political parties: Lakas–CMD Ennahda Al-Wasat Party Sri Lanka Muslim Congress Moro Islamic Liberation Front Iraqi Turkmen Islamic Union Islami Oikya Jote Crescent Star Party (Indonesia) Indian Union Muslim League Prosperous Justice Party All-India Muslim League Jamiat-e Islami Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan) used in many Islamic movements: al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya used by many Islamic groups: Jundallah (Iran) Islamic Defenders Front Moro Islamic Liberation Front Patani United Liberation Organisation it is representative of Ramadan and the lunar calendar. it is the only emoji icon of Islam: (☪️) the mosque emoji has crescent in most of its versions across different platforms (🕌) it is seen on many many mosques' domes and minarets including iconic mosques: Kazan mosque, Russia Mecca Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, Abu Dhabi, UAE Blue Mosque, Istanbul, Turkey Blue Mosque, Yerevan, Armenia Moscow Cathedral Mosque, Russia Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Mosque, Malaysia id:Masjid Raya Hubbul Wathan, Indonesia Spiral Mosque Al-Zaytuna Mosque, Tunisia Mosque Maryam, US King Abdullah I Mosque, Jordan among many many other uncountable number of small and big mosques in every corner of this world

That's why I think the Star and Crescent is the most representative of Islam and I don't think that there's any Islamic sects that is against it and hence why it's the one that should be used. Thank you! ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Then does anyone disagree on using this file of a green crescent and star symbol to be used as the new default icon representing Islam across Wikipedia?

and these ones when the background is green?

☆SuperNinja2☆ 06:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Star and crescent is no related to Islam as a symbol, even International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement use it. And why we need a unified icon. Zsohl^(Talk) 12:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you read my argument? A red crescent indicates that followers of Islam are respected and treated accordingly.

And why we need a unified icon

Because using the word Allah is misleading because it does not represent Islam. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Made up argument, See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Red_Crescent.

This can't be a reason to change all different images to one. Also, In the English language, the word Allah generally refers to God in Islam.

Star and crescent can be symbol of a organization or as design of mosque. Various calligraphies including calligraphy of the word Allah are also used in the mosque. So reason is not valid.

Star and crescent do not represent any religion as a whole. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

the Red Cross is the name used in mainly Christian countries. The Red Crescent is the name used in mainly Muslim countries. (A cross is a symbol of Christianity and a crescent is a symbol of Islam.), a red crescent indicates that followers of Islam are respected and treated accordingly

and the article on Wikipedia mentions this "For over 50 years, Israel requested the addition of a red Star of David, arguing that since Christian and Muslim emblems were recognized, the corresponding Jewish emblem should be as well", and "The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was concerned with the possibility that the two previous symbols (Red Cross and Red Crescent) were conveying religious meanings. This may not be compatible in a majority Hindu or Buddhist country from the Asia-Pacific region, for example, where the majority did not associate with these symbols " which means that the red crescent IS associated with Islam.

Star and crescent do not represent any religion as a whole.

According to who? Provide your sources.

Also, In the English language, the word Allah generally refers to God in Islam.

Allah is Arabic word, not English.

Star and crescent can be symbol of a organization or as design of mosque.

So what?

Various calligraphies including calligraphy of the word Allah are also used in the mosque. So reason is not valid.

But they are not used on the domes. Using it on the domes of the mosques to distinguish them from the domes of the churches make it representable of Islam.

You kept attacking the crescent and star but you did not provide a single reason to make Allah more reasonable to be used as an icon.

This can't be a reason to change all different images to one

Then, un addition to the use of word Allah in both WikiProject Islam and Portal:Islam (for the pre-stated reasons) , I object using the Arabic calligraphy of Shahada in Template:WikiProject Islam because it is hard for foreigners to understand that this is shahada. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

According to who? Provide your sources: Burden of proof is on you, you are making claim that Star and crescent is related to Islam.

Allah is Arabic word, not English: I know, but it is English Wikipedia, even though ar:Template:Islam also use calligraphy of the word Allah.

did not provide a single reason to make Allah more reasonable to be used: I am against Star and crescent image, for other image we can also discuss, but if not Star and crescent then default is File:Allah3.svg

And you haven't provide any Islamic sources which claim that Star and crescent is related to Islam. Zsohl^(Talk) 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on you, you are making claim that Star and crescent is related to Islam.

I already did. Please humble yourself and have a look at my argument above.

You can't object for the sake of objection. You need to explain why you're against using the crescent and star with solid reliable sources to back your claim and provide alternatives. Saying for other image we can also discuss is not reasonable. So, why are you objecting the use of the crescent and star if you don't have a better alternative? How are we supposed to know that the said alternative is better than the crescent and star if we postpone the discussion if it? That is not rational. I already provided reliable sources and academic studies and researches but it's now clear enough for me that you didn't bother reading my argument. What a pity!

even though ar:Template:Islam also use calligraphy of the word Allah

that means it is used in Arabic context.

And you haven't provide any Islamic sources which claim that Star and crescent is related to Islam.

Not all readers are with Muslim background, which means that the icon has to be familiar with both Muslims and non-Muslims to be able to serve its duty of letting the reader relate it with Islam. And there is no better fit for this than the crescent and star which is a universal symbol for Islam according to the sources I already provided above. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 18:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I do read the arguments, but it look more like a Original research, none of the cited sources are reliable except one, The New Encyclopedia of Islam states as opinion, The crescent and star feature in the flags of many Islamic countries which were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, in the language of conventional symbols, the crescent and star have become the symbols of Islam....

Brandon University: [26] This article is about work on Stained Glass. Yale University: [27] states- certainly not in uniform use among Muslims

that means it is used in Arabic context: What? See calligraphy of the word Allah as symbol or icon. To become familiar with the icon you need to know what it is.

you don't have a better alternative: I do have, leave it as it is.

If Islamic sources neither endorse nor support the crescent and star, then how can we use it to represent it.

The image you propose represent Ottoman Empire and Pakistan more than Islam. If a country's flag is used it does not mean that it represents any religion.

Do you know that is written on image of Template:Chinese Buddhism, but still it represent the religion. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

it look more like a Original research

Explain more.

none of the cited sources are reliable except one

According to who? And why are they not reliable?

See calligraphy of the word Allah as symbol or icon. To become familiar with the icon you need to know what it is.

I didn't find any source that says it us used as an icon or symbol. If you find any, I would be happy to have a look at them.

The crescent and star feature in the flags of many Islamic countries which were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire

Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, MaldivesCocos (Keeling) Islands, Comoros, Brunei, East Turkestan, Western Sahara, Singapore, Algeria, Morocco, North Caucasian Emirate, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Grozny, Nozhay-Yurtovsky District, and Shalinsky District were not part of the Ottoman Empire.

The image you propose represent Ottoman Empire and Pakistan more than Islam.

Pakistan wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire.

Brandon University: [5] This article is about work on Stained Glass

So what? This doesn't make it any less qualified.

Yale University: [6] states- certainly not in uniform use among Muslims

I didn't say it is in uniform use. Not even the cross is in uniform use among Christians, for example Russian Orthodox Christians use their own version of the cross.

The crescent and star feature in the flags of many Islamic countries which were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, in the language of conventional symbols, the crescent and star have become the symbols of Islam.

I already stated in my argument that it doesn't matter if the Crescent and Star symbol was popularized by the Ottoman Empire because it is now the most popular symbol associated with Islam.

I do have, leave it as it is.

Then prove that the Allah calligraphy image is more prevalent and better associated with Islam, appealing to both Muslim and non-Muslim readers. Criticizing the Crescent and Star symbol without providing evidence that Allah calligraphy is a better alternative does not impact the Crescent and Star's significance or standing.

If a country's flag is used it does not mean that it represents any religion.

Read the article about the flags of the countries I mentioned; the crescent in each of them represents Islam.

Do you know that is written on image of Template:Chinese Buddhism, but still it represent the religion.

I don't know much about Buddhism, so I can't give my opinion on this subject. But introducing Buddhism into this conversation shifts the focus away from its main topic.

This discussion is tuning into a WP:FORUM, if you don't have any reliable sources to support your POV then this discussion is useless. No offense. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 15:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about Buddhism, so I can't give my opinion on this subject: Neither about Islam. It's not whataboutery, it's about Wikipedia consensus and common rule across site.

@VenusFeuerFalle You may agree with me or not, but share your views on this. Zsohl^(Talk) 15:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What you just did is WP:Canvassing and it is aginst the rules!!!☆SuperNinja2☆ 16:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings,

I don't think this falls under WP:Canvassing but rather third opinion, given that I do a lot of Islam-related edits and have a focus on Islamic history especially Central and South Asia. Since, there is no reason to assume we know each other from other edits or talkpage, there is little reason to assume I was tagged in favor of a specific opinion. Please remember the good faith policy even if it is hard in frustrating discussions. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding and I take back what I said. Thanks for the advice. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Super ninja2 Disrespectful, I think you should review your words from your unblock request. Zsohl^(Talk) 05:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Symbol of the crescent has been used as a symbol for Islam for a long time. Accordnig to Symbols of Islam#Star and crescent it was used since the "Umayyad Caliphate Muslims after the Rashidun Caliphate's conquest of the region." and is further more accepted by different nations and countries who identify with the religion of Islam (Star and crescent#National flags. The article mentions that the crescent was also used "in western heraldry from at least the 13th century, while the star and crescent (or "Sun and Moon") emblem is in use in medieval seals at least from the late 12th century." However, it confirms that it is "in contemporary times used as a national symbol for some countries, and a recognized symbol of Islam."

I see little reason to contest that the crescent is a symbol of Islam, but I have not seen any reason prefer this over the calligraphy "Allah", which is also used as a symbol in mosques. I do not have a strong opinion on either of both. Both work for me. If the consensus would go towards the crescent, I would choice the green, since it holds importance in in Islamic tradition. An alternative color would be blue (Blue Symbolism in Islam | Slightly Blue). I would recommand not to use black, since black is rather associated with grief, the End-Times, or even Jihadism, thus bearing a negative connotation.

I hope I was able to help and thanks for the tag,

sincery VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable reply.

I will go with this. We need to reach a consensus. Without this, there should be no changes otherwise it will be reverted.

As calligraphic "Allah" is a symbol of Islam.

Oppose: Star and crescent Zsohl^(Talk) 05:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Re-opened as clearly an editor who has taken part in the discussion and espoused one particular format cannot close this. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. As a Muslim myself, I see both symbols as a good way to represent Islam. calligraphy Allah is a good choice because that is written in Arabic, and most people associate that type of writing with Islam. The star and crescent is more tricky for me. While it is a symbol that can also easily by associated with Islam, as Zsohl did bring up, it didn't become a popular symbol of Islam until the Ottomans, as proven by multiple sources. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The problem with the calligraphy icon is that, while it should be understood to readers as the word "Allah" in Arabic, it's not really being used that way. A vast majority of this site's users can't read that script so they see it, figure it looks like Arabic, and deduce that the topic at hand is Islam. Such readers would come to that conclusion no matter what the word is as long as it's obviously Arabic writing. (The next few sentences contain information I got from Google Translate so I apologize in advance if I get anything wrong.) Replace it with "الإسلام" ("Islam") and it does the same thing. Replace it with "عربي" ("Arabic") and it does the same thing. Replace it with a completely random word like "صباح" ("morning") and it does the same thing. I think the calligraphy functions as a generic signifier to people who don't know what it says and that feels awfully offensive.

Super ninja2 is right that the script icon isn't ideal. Zsohl is right that the crescent and star icon also isn't ideal. It's frustrating that they had this nasty back-and-forth because it all just means that there is no perfect option here. If I'm right about how the calligraphy icon is actually used by readers, it really ought to go and the only appropriate replacement is the crescent and star icon. City of Silver 18:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand but about calligraphy icon used by readers. No Arabic word even "الإسلام" ("Islam") will do the same thing, because Word "Allah" have unique two parallel "Big and small W like script (for users can't read that script) " which make it a unique symbol of Islam.

If you were right about script, Template:Hinduism will not have that icon because Devanagari script have many letters to resemble it, but that icon rightly represent Hinduism. Same goes to other templates and icons.

Star and crescent is not unique to Islam or Muslim countries.

- Flag of Portsmouth, England

- Coat of arms of Oelde, Germany

- Coat of arms of Tarnobrzeg, Poland Zsohl^(Talk) 04:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention it was originally used in Byzantium, the Kingdom of Pontus, and the Sassanid Empire before it's wide usage as a symbol of Islam, according to the article star and crescent. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning is based on what helps this site's readers, a vast majority of whom don't know much about Islam. I'm totally convinced that crescent/star isn't a 100% perfect option. I agree with you both on that. I just believe neither is a perfect choice to make here. We need an icon that automatically makes readers think "Islam." Both options do that. I just think, since almost any word in Arabic does this for most of our readers, it's just the less ideal option. I'm not convinced that most readers of English Wikipedia can look at "الله" and immediately know it means "Allah" and want to know why? Because Zsohl, until you pointed out the big-and-small-W thing, I couldn't differentiate it from anything else in Arabic. (So thank you for pointing that out! Now I can instantly recognize it, which is really cool.) This is all my opinion and if consensus doesn't go my way, that'll be fine. City of Silver 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the only reasoning presented is that the word "Allah" predates Islam, which is even more true for the star and crescent. Why not use the name of Muhammad, as a figure central to all Islam and only Islam, or no icon at all? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support the s+c symbol (less emphatic on colour etc) as far more recognisable to non-Muslims, and perhaps many Muslims. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support The argument that the star and crescent is not universally recognized as a symbol for Islam seems a bit specious to me. The sectarian nature of religion being what it is, the same argument could be made for any religious symbol. However, the star and crescent is widely accepted as a symbol of Islam in both Muslim and non-Muslim communities - broadly enough, I would assert, that it can serve as a nearly, if not completely, universal symbol of the Islamic faith. Coalcity58 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  • sectarian nature of religion... This may be a reason we should not impose a unified symbol across Wikipedia. This point regarding the unified symbol should be discussed first in any comments supporting this change. Why do we need it?
  • No Islamic source (from any sect) recognizes the star and crescent as symbols of Islam. This is not the same about any other religious symbol.
  • Why oppose the calligraphic icon of Allah? This should also be discussed in any comments supporting this change.
  • If a symbol(Allah) is not recognizable to people of another religion, it does not mean that it is not a symbol of that religion. Again, Star and crescent is not unique to Islam or Muslim countries. Zsohl^(Talk) 06:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Isaac

Isaac has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 10:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for a Ramadan edit-a-thon on Islam-related articles

@JorgeLaArdilla, QalasQalas, Idell, TheAafi, TheEagle107, Captain Assassin!, Wiki id2, Sa.vakilian, Ed Poor, Alarob, Imagine Wizard, Masum Ibn Musa, Resnjari, Ahendra, and Super ninja2:@Cplakidas, Chongkian, Ratekreel, Ulubatli Hasan, Melofors, Hamza Ali Shah, MartinPoulter, GoldenBootWizard276, AvDahan, Ammarpad, Farhoudk, Svest~enwiki, Zereshk, LatinoMuslim, SFGiants, Chaos, Sulaimandaud, Zakksez, Absar, Darz kkg, Euryalus, AA, Leroy65X, Doc sameer, Peter Deer, Nafsadh, Razimantv Alt, Nasiryounus, Nawabmalhi, Masssly, Samee, MezzoMezzo, Arteyu, Owais Khursheed, Em-mustapha, Naila Khan, City of Silver, Johnbod, and Coalcity58: Can we arrange a Ramadan editathon to edit create, elaborate, correct, and translate Islamic articles? Arabic wikipedia is arranging it for 3 years 1, 2 and Bengali wikipedia for 5 years. So why not the English wikipedia? 202.134.9.145 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

An WP:RFC is not a good format for this. It last for 30 days, at which point Ramadan will be over. Initiatives like this typically happen when at least one person does the work of starting and coordinating such event. If you would like to see an edit-a-thon (an online edit-a-thon, I presume), a better approach would be to articulate the kind of event you would like to help run and see if there's interest from others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sexuality in Islam

@Ahendra, Sa.vakilian, Peaceray, Bduke, Steelpillow, Gog the Mild, 4meter4, GELongstreet, Utfor, Invasive Spices, Rytyho usa, Faendalimas, StarTrekker, Vanisaac, and Emir of Wikipedia:@JorgeLaArdilla, QalasQalas, Idell, TheAafi, TheEagle107, Captain Assassin!, Wiki id2, Sa.vakilian, Ed Poor, Alarob, Imagine Wizard, Masum Ibn Musa, Resnjari, Ahendra, and Super ninja2:@Cplakidas, Chongkian, Ratekreel, Ulubatli Hasan, Melofors, Hamza Ali Shah, MartinPoulter, GoldenBootWizard276, AvDahan, Ammarpad, Farhoudk, Svest~enwiki, Zereshk, LatinoMuslim, SFGiants, Chaos, Sulaimandaud, Zakksez, Absar, Darz kkg, Euryalus, AA, Leroy65X, Doc sameer, Peter Deer, Nafsadh, Razimantv Alt, Nasiryounus, Nawabmalhi, Masssly, Samee, MezzoMezzo, Arteyu, Owais Khursheed, Em-mustapha, Naila Khan, City of Silver, Johnbod, and Coalcity58: Please look over the last discussions about anti-Salafi edits in Talk:Sexuality in Islam. 202.134.9.145 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) This, too, is not a good RfC. RfCs should have clear questions that make it realistic for uninvolved parties to opine. Saying "look at [multiple long] discussions elsewhere" isn't helpful. You could just post a pointer to that page here, though, without the RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Featured Article review for Empire of the Sultans

An article in the scope of this Wikiproject is currently up for Featured Article review. Input is welcomed to decide if this article is worthy of the FA rating. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute over content on belief in Jinn in Islam

Briefly, the dispute described here is
1) whether this statement should be allowed in the lede

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.

2) whether revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi should be included along with two other scholars listed who support this position (i.e. belief in Jinn is a necessary part of Islam).
3) and whether as evidence of the significance of this belief, a brief description of the troubles of Nasr Abu Zayd "who was threated with death for apostasy" in the 1990s "(in part) because he didn't believe in jinn", should be included in the article. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Please help improve Muslim World Article

User Manticore had repeatedly deleted sentences about Muslim growth projection in the past and in the futures based on Pew Research estimation. He obviously using different reason. Firstly he claimed it was of topic, then he claimed it was poorly written (it could targetted Non English speaker contributors) and he also claimed it was crystal ball which denied in wikipedia (but Pew Research estimation based on science not crystal ball and many wiki articles used it as sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.166.103 (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on using the crescent and star symbol or Allah calligraphy

According to the discussion above:

1. Should we have a unified symbol for Islam that is used on all relevant pages/templates across Wikipedia or at least in content spaces (e.g., articles and portals, templates that are used in articles)?
2. If so, should that unified symbol be the Star and crescent symbol, or should it be the Allah word in Arabic script?

☆SuperNinja2☆ 16:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think it's necessary to have a unified symbol in articles. It's acceptable but IMO unimportant. I think it is inappropriate to force conformity throughout the non-content spaces (e.g., talk pages, WikiProject pages, essays, userboxes, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Allah word calligraphy is already the only icon used in content spaces, it's like the "de facto unified icon for Islam in content spaces of Wikipedia". Here I suggest replacing it with the crescent and star symbol. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 02:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to 1. with the understanding that wherever the calligraphy icon is used by default as a unified symbol of Islam, it would be replaced by a star and crescent icon. Yes to 2 per my reasoning in the previous section. City of Silver 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with User:WhatamIdoing that there's no need for a unified symbol. If we need to choose one, I think the star and crescent is more widely recognizable as a symbol of Islam. At least it's more widely recognizable for non-Muslim, non-Arabic-speaking readers. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: (Summoned by bot) I agree with WhatamIdoing and Mx. Granger - there's no need for a unified symbol. Both are broadly recognisable though star and crescent is probably more used by non-Arabic-speakers.Pincrete (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Crusading movement

Crusading movement has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Religion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion concerning the question of religion and whether or not it is an appropriate subject for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Experienced editors are encouraged to join the conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Biblical and Quranic narratives#Requested move 7 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Biblical and Quranic narratives#Requested move 7 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Input request

Couple of week back @Louis P. Boog had made brief input request on this discussion board but may be users missed during busy schedules last some weeks.

As a discussion facilitator I feel more inputs at Talk:Jinn would be helpful in the on going WP:Due discussions. Pl. do not give inputs here but at Talk:Jinn only.

Bookku (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Empire of the Sultans still seeking reviewers

Since I posted the above notice about the Featured Article Candidacy of Empire of the Sultans, there has been more interest and the review process has progressed further, which I'm very grateful for. We still need more reviewers to take part, following the instructions at Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE. A great deal of work has gone into both the article and the review; this is a chance to make a community decision on the results. Thanks in advance for any help! MartinPoulter (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Help needed at Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, re addition of Persian name and concerns of circular sourcing

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz#Sources for the name Piruz Nahavandi. Summaries of the dispute and discussion thread may be found here. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Grand Mosque of Erzurum#Requested move 4 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Grand Mosque of Erzurum#Requested move 4 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Pre-RfC stage @ Talk:Jinn

• Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Users are discussing DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness inputs requested also at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology.

also Pre-RfC stage info:
Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn. As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section.

Bookku (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Rafida

An RFC is in progress at Talk:Rafida#RFC_on_Rejection_of_Truth_in_Lede. Your participation is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel has an RfC on the topic: mention apartheid in the lead?

Talk:Israel has an RfC. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad page

Hi folks. We have a bunch of false and inauthentic things added to the Muhammad page which i have been trying to address but people undo my edits. Please add to the discussion if you are educated about this topic. DivineReality (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is a new discussion open at WP:RSN#RfC: Sources for Muhammad that may be of interest to this project. Left guide (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Cain and Abel be merged into Cain and Abel?

Your view is welcome at Talk:Cain_and_Abel#Should_Cain_and_Abel_be_merged_into_this_article?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal at Talk:Akhiya

There is a merge proposal affecting two articles on the same subject, Akhiya and Akhi Brotherhoods. All interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Akhiya#Merge proposal. Constantine ✍ 10:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Divisions of the world in Islam

There is a discussion at Talk:Divisions of the world in Islam#Removal of sourced content that could use input from editors with subject matter knowledge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Jihad

Should this article be restructured? Personally I think there should be sections on greater jihad, lesser jihad, and then history of usage as I think that might be more logical. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Jinn: RfC: Proposed additions of text 1

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User inputs and comments are requested at:

• Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1.

Bookku (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The islamic Articles should be named by their islamic terms.

The islamic Articles should be named by their islamic(Arabic) terms like the page "Abraham in Islam" should be named as Ibrahim, similarly the page Gospel in Islam should be named as "Injeel" or the page Islamic funeral should be named as "janazah". User.inu6 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

الإنجيل في الإسلام translates as The Gospel in Islam (Google Translate) starts Injil (Arabic: إنجيل, romanized: ʾInjīl, alternative spellings: Ingil or Injeel)

إبراهيم في الإسلام translates as Abraham in Islam

الميت (إسلام) translates as Washing the dead (Islam) (Google Translate

How would using the Arabic benefit the English speaking reader? Tiny Particle (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to answer my own question here. In many cases there is no one English translation for the Arabic word/ phrase. But in many cases there is one succinct English word/ phrase but no one agreed Arabic word/ phrase. When I first took an interest in the subject I found it almost impenetrable due to the amount of surplus Arabic jargon. Tiny Particle (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not mention using arabic language but islamic terminologies. Like janazah for islamic funeral, i mean, "janazah" is the actual term and the short desceiption of it is "Islamic funeral", etc User.inu6 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

جنازة (jinaza) translates as funeral. This is the Arabic wikipedia article for جنازة . It is clear from the translation that the term encompasses all Abrahamic funerals - not exclusively Islamic funerals. Tiny Particle (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi#Requested move 20 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic#Requested move 16 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Baghdad. Legacy

Could you check the following statements attributed to Israeli historian Michal Biran in the Siege of Baghdad article? They seem contradictory, or perhaps they are disputed by other historians.

Whereas an oft-quoted description from a 16th-century historian details that so many books from Baghdad's libraries were thrown into the Tigris that "the colour of the river changed into black from their multitude," the historian Michal Biran has shown that large libraries reopened for learning and teaching within two years of the siege. Hulegu and his successors as rulers of the Ilkhanate actively patronized and encouraged musical and literary traditions; it was subsequent sieges like those conducted by Timur in 1393 and 1401 and by the Ottomans in 1534 that ensured the city's long-term marginalization.

Account20 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of the Yarmuk

Battle of the Yarmuk has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#Requested move 22 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom#Requested move 3 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom#Requested move 3 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)