Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 9

Walima

In the article on Walima, it is noted twice that it should be written/pronounced as "Valima". However, I feel that this is incorrect. Arabic lacks a letter and a sound for 'v'. It simply does not exist without borrowing. The letter waw in Arabic (with which Walima is spelled in Arabic, as noted by the article), when it denotes a consonant, is always transliterated as a "w", never as a 'v'. When a foreign word with a 'v' needs representing, Arabic usually uses an 'f' (fa). However, Persian/Farsi does represent the letter waw as v, but shouldn't the term be kept in Arabic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.18.60 (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ITAQALLAH 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Islam

I want to nominate Portal:Islam as a featured portal. Thus I've added it in Wikipedia:Portal peer review. Please help us to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAR

Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. <eleland/talkedits> 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 523 of the articles assigned to this project, or 44.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read this page to better understanding of the issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I revised Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Assessment on the basis of the last edition of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Zubayr

Article could do with a check for style and Shi'a/Sunni balance. I don't know enough to do it; I just corrected one small spelling error. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested this article be merged into the parent one on the Ten due to sourcing concerns and general lack of content. An example of a similar minor religious figure would be Sif or Jonathan (Samuel). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange claims about the Black Stone

I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could have a look at Talk:Black Stone#Hindu view and this edit, which an anonymous IP editor has repeatedly been adding. Essentially the editor is claiming that the Ka'aba in Macca was originally a Hindu temple (!) and is citing an apparently fringe scholar in support of that claim. I've had a look at the sourcing, which seems to be very thin indeed; some second opinions would be useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Proposals for Names

In the Mecca article, I came across Ismā'īl (اسماعيل, Ishmael). Clearly, all 3 are not needed. I propose that, for names at least, all Islam articles stick to one standard (for consistency's sake). The MOS doesn't stipulate on a definite course of action. If the article is about the person, then clearly the Arabic script can be mentioned at the start. Otherwise, here are the possibilities that I deem reasonable (meaning, having "minimum clutter"):

1. Use a common English transliteration - e.g. Ishmael.
2. Use a transliteration with the diacritics - e.g. Ismā'īl.

It can be annoying and time-consuming to place diacritics in a word. Apart from that, I have no real preference.

I think it's important to sort out this issue once and for all so that we can have some consistency in Islam articles (regarding names, at least). Here is a tip from the Qur'an article: There are various spellings of "Qur'an", but the article uses Qur'an throughout. Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable source examples#Religious sources proposal

Proposing an example explaining the appropriate use of religious sources in religion-related articles. The intention is to clarify and explain existing policy, not to change it. There have been a number of debates over the years, some of them heated, about whether and what kinds of religious sources should be used. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia needs your help

Hello all. Simple English wikipedia is a quaint little project (currently about 40-50 regular editors) that tries to provide the same content than other wikipedias, but in a language that is easy to understand for those with a limited vocabulary, or those learning Enlgish (as a foreign language). I post here out of desperation; our islam rleated articles (examples at end of post) are in a desolate state. On the other hand, we do not have the knolwedge to really improve them. I would therefore like to invite all of you to come have a look. Example articles:

• simple:Islam - covers the very basics, nothing compared to what you have here.
• simple:Sufism - Sufism seems to be the more spiritual part of Islam. There seem to be different orders, but no ideas what whey are and what are the differences between them.
• simple:Mosque - A mosque is a place where Muslims worship. Usually there are carpets on the floor. There seem to be more intricate models (like the simple:Shah Mosque in Isfahan; there is no mention yet that mosques have common elements (niche towards Mecca), or that there are common buliding styles for mosques (much like there are for Christian Churches)
• The simple:Islamic Revolution in Iran occurred because many people disliked the Shah.
• simple:Kharijites were religious sects in the beginning of Islam. TOday, they practically do not exist any more. Some resistance movements are sometimes called Kharijite. The last real Kharijites are the simple:Ibadi (mostly in Oman); they reject the term though. --Eptalon (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tawrat merge proposal

It's being proposed to merge Tawrat into Torah, and in effect suppress it as a separate article.

Discussion at Talk:Torah#Merger proposal. -- Jheald (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Prophets of Islam project

This template is completely useless[1] and I propose deleting.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It probably belongs in WP:MFD. gren グレン 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It has now been placed at MFD, as per the above. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sura (style) shopping

I think sura is inadequately ugly. I remember years ago when adding the ayah number and dabbing them that I thought we should make the page look like the Dutch page with its nice tables. Now there are a number of nice style options. fr:Sourate (Was translating here), nl:Lijst van soera's (I had started translating here). There might be other nice ones but I figured I should ask here and maybe we can help to format ours in a nicer way. Any thoughts? gren グレン 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is remarkably user-unfriendly. I prefer the style of the French article, although I liked the column order of the Dutch one better. The French "legend" is too complicated - I want to understand it at a glance. I'd like to see the column detailing the chronology in which they were revealed added, though. --Leviel (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mosque categorization by deonomination/sect?

I recently noticed that there is a Category:Churches by denomination, but apparently no equivilent one for mosques. I would like to know if I'm correct that there is none, and if people agree we should make one, and decide what naming rules to have. I think it should be made and applied to any Islamic mosques, and anything called a "mosque" by the relevant faith group (i.e. groups who consider themselves muslim, but not recognized as such by mainstream islam).

Should we call the category Category:Mosques by denomination or Category:Mosques by sect instead?

I think subcat names would be Category:Shia mosques, Category:Sunni mosques, etc... I'm not sure how specific to get. The only existing category I saw is Category:Ahmadiyya-Mosque, which I think should be renamed Category:Ahmadiyya mosques or Category:Ahmadiyya Muslim Community mosques. --Rob (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As I know all mosques belong to all Muslims. Thus we don't have Category:Mosques by denomination or Category:Mosques by sect.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, or beleive it or not, mosques are often divided along the same divisions that muslims are. So, please let's discuss reality. --Rob (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Seyyed is denying that different mosques have different tendencies... I think he's saying that these tendencies don't make a mosque "Shia" or "Sunni" but that it's still just considered a generic mosque... which is very different from with churches which most of the time explicitly mention their sect of Christianity. gren グレン 07:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

gren understands the issue correctly. The division is social not religious. There isn't religious difference between mosques. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That could be very problematic to do for a number of reasons. Many Muslims are against acknowledging that they have sects so unlike Catholic churches which will say "Notre Dame Catholic Church", I've actually never heard of a mosque calling itself a Shia mosque (Sunnis are more likely to consider themselves default). Even if a mosque is predominantly Sunni or Shia I don't think they would say they are one or the other you just find out when you pray by the little differences or by the sermons. This might be in part because often Shias, at least, are forced into Sunni mosques unless they live in a city with a Shia one... it might be different outside of the West.

I would only think of doing this if a mosque specifically labels itself as Sunni or Shia or Ahmadiyya (which, apparently, they explicitly label themselves). If it's just a source saying a mosque is Shia because mostly Shias go there I wouldn't add it to the category then... and we have to make sure any of this is cited. gren グレン 07:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A class review:Battle of the trench

I nominated Battle of the trench for A-class review([2]) Please help us with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:BibleAsFact

I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding rename of Criticism of Islam article

Hey all. We're having a discussion about the respective merits of renaming the current Criticism of Islam article (and its daughter articles Criticism of Muhammad/Qur'an) to something more encompassing (i.e. academic fringe views which may not necessarily be 'criticism') and neutral like Appraisals of Islam or Views on Islam. Interested parties should consult the discussion here: Talk:Criticism of Islam#Propose rename. Regards, ITAQALLAH 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad and slavery

This article has recently been nominated for DYK, and given its potentially contentious subject matter I am bringing it to the attention of this Wikiproject so that it can be properly reviewed before it appears on the front page. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with DYK criteria, but the article should be called Muhammad's slaves instead of Muhammad and slaveary. It has concentrated on prophet's slave and neglected his behavior with them.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not "DYK criteria" I'm concerned about. It's about whether the article meets the usual Wikipedia content policies, like WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. - and if not, whether the problems can be rectified. That is why I have notified this Wikiproject, so that users more involved and familiar with this topic might take a look at it and express an opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article doesn't coverage the issue. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments here have been basically correct. The article is a little bit about the issue of slavery in Islam, but that should be a separate article. The main focus of it is the known slaves of Muhammad, which can certainly justify an article. But the lead, about the treatment of slaves and the principle of it, really should be separately treated as a topic, and the current lead contains what appears to be original research: it might be true, indeed, but it's not sourced and will be controversial. --Abd (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User who nominated the article turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, so this discussion is now redundant. Thanks everyone for your input. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view: religious sections

There is a proposal to reword the section on NPOV regarding religious articles. Please see here to weigh in.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaaba spelling

This issue has arisen again. The discussion can be found here. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosques

I seem to be concentrating on standardising mosque articles (see my contributions). I have been creating templates such as Template:Mosques in Uzbekistan and articles on many mosques still need to be written. It would be much appreciated if people could help out here! MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaaba

A discussion (started by me) on Kaaba (using WP:BRD) regards the standardised spelling of that word on Wikipedia.

My comments on the matter are as follows:

I am aware that the name of the article is "Kaaba", which is a common English spelling. However, shouldn't we go with Ka‘bah, the correct spelling, especially given that it employs no special characters? The consensus on other Arabic names seems to be to provide redirects to the correct spelling of the name with the exception of country and established personal names (Iraq, not al-‘Iraq; Saudi, not Sa‘udi; Naguib Mahfouz, not Najib Mahfuz).

A quick googling shows that "Kaaba" nets about 400,000 English results and "Ka‘bah" nets 110,000, so it's not completely out of the blue. Shouldn't we make an effort to provide correct information? After all, we write Muhammad (not Mohammed) and Muslim (not Moslem). Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates

I have started a discussion about templates/navboxes here. Basically, I'm sick to death of seeing the gigantic templates in Islam articles - yes, those ones that clog up articles and intrude into subsequent sections - changed to navboxes with show/hide options. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosque or Masjid ? and Mosque vs mosque

3 issues re mosques:

• When giving names of mosques, for example the Grand Mosque in Mecca, should we use Masjid or mosque? Should it be Masjid al-Haram (the present title) or al-Haram Mosque (similar to Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is the present title of that article)?

• In mosque templates such as Template:Mosques in Bangladesh, should the word 'mosque' (or 'masjid') be attached to the end of the mosque name? For example, Bagha Mosque or just Bagha? I prefer the name without the word 'mosque', as otherwise the template becomes very large (ok, it's a collapsable template, but looking for mosques in the template can become time-consuming); also, it's unnecessary to use 'mosque' as the template header makes it clear that they are all mosques anyway! I'm willing to change my opinion on this if there is reasonable justification for the alternative. Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I raised this next issue somewhere, but can't remember where!

• When referring to mosques, should the 'm' be capitalised. Example: Star Mosque or Star mosque?

We should have consistency in spelling conventions at least. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the Bagha Mosque as the Bagha seems pretty much like referring to the Buckingham Palace as Buckingham. If the only reason behind corrupting proper names beyond recognition is reducing the size of a template then we may refrain from it very well. If a certain template starts to look big (which the template in questions doesn't yet) then it is a simple matter to make it collapsible.

There is already very specific guidelines and policies about capitalizing the Mosque in Star Mosque. Wikipedia:Proper names says - "Proper names are names of persons, places, or certain special things. Typically in English, these are capitalized nouns". Wikipedia:Manual of Style says - "Proper names of specific institutions (for example, Harvard University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, George Brown College, etc.) are proper nouns and require capitalization" (Institutions). At least at that we need not to get confused.

For the masjid/mosque confusion, there again are specific guidelines and policies that are quite explicit. Wikipedia:Naming conventions says - "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Therefore, we shall use masjid when that has a more common coinage, and mosque when that is used more widely. And, when deciding which one is more common, please, be guided by language English. Many of the mosques are known as masjids in vernacular, but that should material for a clarification, may be put within parenthesis. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal

Please see here for my proposed Mosque WikiProject. Feel free to join :) Only just started, so please be patient. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New navigation box created

Just created Template:IslamNavigation. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New Hadith collections template

Just created a new Hadith collections template: Template:Hadith collections2. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New Science of Hadith navbox

Created here. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Same person?

The intricacies of Arabic names eluding me, can someone more familiar with these issues please see if Salit bin 'Amr 'Ala bin Hadrami and Al-Ala'a Al-Hadrami are the same person? I came across the former whilst categorizing articles and, when attempting to determine who he was for cat purposes, noticed he sounds biographically (Bahrain emissary appointed by the Prophet) and nominally (Hadrami) similar to the second person. If they are the same, I hope it's ok if I leave it with you guys to organize some sort of merge. Many, many thanks Sassf (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, all. I have a question for this project, one that may or may not effect our (milhist) project. As I understand it the Islamic conquest are to have spanned two centuries, but Category:Islamic conquests includes all centuries past the eighth. Are these considered to be part of the islamic conquest as well, or is this in fact an error that needs to be corrected? TomStar81 (Talk) 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Loosely speaking, I'd think that all conquests starting from the seventh century right up until the Ottomans could probably be considered 'Islamic conquests.' Regards, ITAQALLAH 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of The Cloak

This AfD discussion could use some input from people who are familiar with the relevant subject matter. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Stats

Where are the articles stats? I've seen couple on the other projects. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can add this but I'm sure it is wrong. It says there are 2 FA articles whereas there are really more than that. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are these sites encyclopaedic?

Hi. We have several dozen links to four domains, all related by ownership; at least one of these we know has been systematically spammed. See this discussion which includes links to the sites:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#twocircles.net

Your input on the usefulness of any of these links as encyclopaedic sources would be very much appreciated and I invite you to chip in on the WikiProject Spam talk page.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Naqshbandi

I have noticed that the Naqshbandi article does not cite any sources. There seems to have been some edit warring too, and I suspect that if future additions to the article were based only on reliable sources that some of that problem would be reduced. (My own knowledge of Sufism is so slight I would not attempt to edit such an article.)

Now that I think of it, the much larger Islamic art article also has very little sourcing. It seems to be an excellent article, but if some knowledgeable editors could add sources it would be a good act for an important article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

informal mediation needed

Please direct level headed editors to my talk page--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

United Submitters International

This page could use more watching, as the members of the organization keep removing even mention of references that are critical of it. I don't know if my reversions were productive or not. Шизомби (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. A lot of the content on that page is unsourced and not really very neutral. The whole article in general needs some decent sourcing, and if none can be found, the notability of the article topic needs to be reassessed. ITAQALLAH 15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Islam-related

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dua

Unfortunately this article is in bad situation and needs more attention. I need your help because I'm not familiar with Sunni viewpoint about Dua. Thanks--Seyyed(t-c) 01:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism or Islamist terrorism

Please add your view about the name of this article in it's talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Zad al-Ma'ad. Needs work?

We have a very short stub on Zad al-Ma'ad. On 25 June 2008, User:75.163.62.159 posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books: "you guys need to get a look at this page; absolutely horrifying what they've done to it!"
I personally can't see any problems other than the very short length of the article, but I'm mentioning here in case anyone wants to work on this. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sects - again

Seven weeks ago, after some discussion, Divisions of Islam was moved to Muslim sects. For some time, a few persons have discussed moving it to a better name. I think we all believe the move was out of the frying pan and into the fire (as the saying goes). A "sect" is "a smaller religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group", according to Sect; and this description coincides well with the way I've seen the word employed and that the dictionaries use. If you want to insult followers of a Christian denomination or members of a political party, you may call it a "sect".

It seems like the few of us who have discussed this at Talk:Muslim sects are getting close to a move to a naming including "denomination". If nobody protests, the move should be made; and ordinarily I'd not hesitate to follow a clear-cut consensus, arguing that abstinees show that they agree or are indifferent by their abstentions. However, since the last move was fairly recent and was preceeded by some discussion, I'd just like to make an extra check of possible "silent opposition". Hence this notice. JoergenB (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Denomination is hardly used in scholarly literature in regards to Islam. I have preferred the term branch and still do. --Enzuru 17:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Party" is often used, shi'a Ali is often translated as "the party of Ali." "Denomination" sounds really weird to me. "School" is sometimes used, particularly under the Sunni umbrella. "Sect," however, isn't a bad translation of "shi'a" as used in the Qur'an when it means a group that has split off and considers it's got the truth and the others are astray. "Division" means about the same as "sect," really. So, as to Divisions of Islam or Muslim sects, I'd want to know what kind of "division" is being considered. The article introduction mentions "There have arisen many Muslim sects by means of schools of thought, traditions, and related faiths." I can see this needs attention, it's incoherent. Sects *are* schools of thought. What are "related faiths" which are the "means" by which "Muslim sects" have arisen?

The article is a can-o-worms: "Sunni sect" is an oxymoron. Even though a case could be made that, in practice, the Sunni schools are "sects," in a sense, or that all of them together constitute a "kind of sect." I.e., the sect of not belonging to a sect, of hewing to the consensus or majority. Confused? You should be, you are getting my point. "Sunni," as the article notes, is short for Ahlu s-sunnah wa'l jamaa', i.e., the people of the sunna and the consensus.

This doesn't help the present problem, though. I suggest Schools of thought in Islam. Even though there are also "schools of practice" and "schools of faith," because I think that Schools of thought, practice, and faith in Islam is just plain too long. --Abd (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, the article should be broken up into pieces according to the kind of classification. You can find a "Shi'a" congregation or a "Five Percenter" congregation or a "Sunni masjid," but you won't find a "Maturidi congregation." Sufi circles tend to be organized around a specific teacher, and the members of the circle may consider themselves to be "Sunni" or "Shi'a" or might be classified in some other way, including "Jewish" or "Christian" or "Buddhist" -- I've seen all these. Lumping these all as "sects" or "denominations" is poor organization. They are social and historical phenomena of various kinds, not so neatly classified together. "Denomination" works for Christians, generally: an individual may associate with a church, a congregation. And the church will be affiliated with other churches of the same "denomination." As the word implies, it's a "name." It's a "Baptist" church, and that will frequently be in the actual name of the church. But a masjid will often be given a name which provides no clue as to any sectarian affiliation. I'm not going to be able to go to the phone book in most communities and find, say, a Maliki masjid. I'm not even sure what that would mean. The Imam is Maliki? Maliki is a school of practice, based on certain principles of historical and textual analysis. It's not a sect, division, or denomination. You could call it a branch, I suppose. But "school" is the term I've always seen. "The Maliki school." But then what are these other groups? Maybe "school" could cover them. The Shi'a are a school based on and developing out of a belief in the imamate of 'Ali and his successors. The Nation of Islam is a school based on the acceptance of Fard Muhammad as, well, I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole. Accept what they accept about Fard Muhammad, and the rest follows. It's not offensive and it is reasonably accurate. --Abd (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that school is the philosophical leaning, i.e. Maturidi, Ash'ari, Mu'tazili. School is used for Buddhism, although the indigenous terminology is actually literally "vehicle", but it is inaccurate for Islam. Denomination isn't so bad; sect is awful. Branch, I have to say, is a bit more Shi'ite... "branch" sounds kind of weird. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

School as above per Emilyzilch is "school of philosophy." The four sunni schools are "schools of practice." "Vehicle" is not so far away from the Islamic concept, but I'm not going to elaborate on that, it's moot here. "School" here means "a group of people with similar thinking, theory, dogma, study, practice, belief, accepted sources, or the like. --Abd (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick recap!

• Example of schools being used: Template:Twelvers, this refers to minor (generally methodological) differences in the approach to law, belief, etc. Despite this generally being minor, schools sometimes can be heretical, such as how the majority of the Sunni learned view the Mu'tazili.
• Example of branches being used Template:Ismailism, this refers to major differences in fundamental theological principles and sources of religion. Often different branches view other branches as seriously misled or apostates, and so forth.

I honestly don't feel denomination or sect or division or whatever have any place in here. We can get by with these two, and also, these two can be found in scholarly literature on Islam, denomination less so, and sect is very often a pejorative in contemporary English. --Enzuru 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost anything is better than "sects". If some users find "denominations" inappropriate, then "branches" or "scools" could be used; but I think it should be done soon. It is quite possible that (as someone pointed out) there are too many different kinds of subdivisions in this article; but in waiting for an overhaul, I think that the name rapidly should be changed to an inoffensive term. It is not unusual for an article to be in a state of "waiting for rewriting" for a long time, and unless someone states the intent to do this editing in the very near future, I do not think we could wait for it.

There is a kind of misunderstanding of the common usage of the word "sect" which perhaps someone could fix directly, namely that it means the opposit from what it does. I quote the introduction of the section Muslim sects#Spinoffs of Islam:

These religious traditions are not recognized as sects of Islam by mainstream Islamic fiqh, but claim themselves to be Muslim. They are considered heretical by mainstream Muslims.

Perhaps that section name could be changed to Islamic sects? JoergenB (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Have moved

I've moved the article to Islamic schools and branches. This is seemingly not the ideal name; but hopefully passable while the absolutely and undisputedly best name is found:-), or until someone splits the material into several articles. JoergenB (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab case

MedCab has a backlog of cases. Anyone can volunteer as an informal mediator. I was wondering if an active member of WikiProject Islam could adopt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-07 Council on American-Islamic Relations. Thank you for any assistance! Vassyana (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased in the section of persecution of muslims in Mecca.

It seems to me that the section regarding persecution of Muhammed is quite biased, or at least not telling the entire truth regarding this topic. In my eyes, it seems that the regular "apologetic" way of viewing islam has won through. I won't attempt to change the article itself but rather point out a few discrepancies:

From the article: "The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated; while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Prophet Muhammad(SAW) and his followers, his denunciation of the Meccan idols provoked hostile reactions."

This is not very inaccurate, actually, but it misses the simple point that it wasn't only Muhammeds denial of Meccan gods, but as Ibn Ishaq records:

"When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq 167) "

"[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq 183). "

Thus, it was Muhammed that openly insulted the Meccans, not only denounce them. This was when Meccans started to treat Muhammed as a hostile.

Ibn Ishaq is not a reliable source for Wikipedia (or even Islamic scholarship in general). If you can find valid secular sources detailing the historical events like this, please go ahead and cite them and change the article. --Enzuru 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it should be noted that the Meccans didn't want this dispute. When Muhammed later revealed the ayas that was later to become known as the satanic verses and with those verses opened for islam to live side by side with the Meccan Gods, the Meccans were above all relieved. This has been recorded in Ibn Ishaq too:

"When [the Meccans] heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him… When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command. Those mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods. In the whole mosque there was no believer or kāfir who did not prostrate. (al-Tabari, the Tarikh Vol. 1) "

The Satanic Verses story has been doubted by both Islamic and secular scholarship for decades. --Enzuru 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There are even Ibn Ishaq records that says:

"Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)"

The final part of this quote is in fact what was revealed in the Qur'an, you to your religion, and we to ours. This does not, and never has, included preaching. --Enzuru 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Meccans didn't want trouble and just wanted Muhammed to respect their religion.

Much of early Islamic revelation was less about beliefs and more about actions. Islam enjoined two practices the pagan faith of Mecca didn't like: charity and a prohibition against burying their baby daughters. These pagans had a highly patriarchal society (in contrast with the Qur'an that clearly states male and females are equal with only different lifestyles), and would bury their baby daughters at birth (they preferred sons obviously). --Enzuru 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

---

From the article again: "Apart from insults, Prophet Muhammad(SAW) was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim. This protection did not extend to much of his followers, who were subsequently persecuted by the Meccans."

This is a very biased claim. It appears irrefutable that it was in fact muslims who first got violent. Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas struck a local polytheist with the jawbone of a camel who interrupted the muslim prayer. This is recorded by Ibn Ishaq as "This was the first blood to be shed in Islam" (Ibn Ishaq 166)

As I've already showed you Ibn Ishaq is far from a valid source (and when it was valid, it was Sunni-only, much like any Catholic text would have no bearing on a Protestant). And I'd have to go through the source, but it seems doubtful that even he would have recorded that as the first blood (he may have used that phrase, but I doubt it was the first aggressive action), and also, there needs to be sufficient context for this story. So, once again, bring sources by contemporary modern scholarship, which is what Wikipedia is based upon. --Enzuru 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the "first martyr", Sumayya bint Khubbat, was reportedly killed AFTER Abu Jahl was struck by Hamza, which humiliated Abu Jahl enough to hate his muslim slave enough to commit this act. I have sources claiming that only Umm Summayah was killed by persecution, and even that incident was most likely a heat-strike to an elderly woman, but I have been unable to verify that from other sources.

I find many of the articles written about islam as not very accurate and a little biased toward appeasing muslims at the expense of accurate information. I find this disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.19.145.78 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I find many more articles against Islam than for Islam. I don't want anyone to appease Muslims, but I get from reading your writing, that you yourself have your own bias. You use a source that is neither accepted by many contemporary Muslim scholars (especially non-Sunni), nor secular scholarship. Ibn Ishaq may be among the earliest, but even then his materials did not go through the scientific historical process that later Islamic sources did, which is why those sources have been both acceptable within Islamic and secular scholarship (and yes, those materials still contain controversial stuff that is accepted by many Muslims, it's not that Islam is a cult with something to hide from its followers and the world). I don't think articles should be biased, but I don't think we should try changing the articles so we can match someone's already low opinion about Islam that they have garnered from unreliable and in the case of Ibn Ishaq to many Muslims, heretical sources. --Enzuru 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Message

First Crusade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OpenSeven (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahmed Shah Massoud and Sufism

I'm not an expert on Islam, but since Ahmed Shah Massoud expressed a deep interested in Hafez and founded a cultural education centre named in honour of Ghazali, would this qualify him within the category of "Sufis"? Is this a correct representation of his position? - Kilfeno (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No. He should identify as a sufi clearly or have been called that by at least some reliable sources. Having those interests doesn't necessarily make you one. 147.210.84.89 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

clericalism

I found that the article states that Islam has no clergy but then there are references referring to clerics.

This is on the page referring to "sharia"

Islam has no clergy, but women do not traditionally become Imams or lead prayer.

Bradrice (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more of an issue of phraseology. There is ritualism, but almost anyone can partake in it, with a few exceptions such as women leading prayer. These individuals aren't clergy, per se. --Enzuru 02:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Prayer

I would like to see the section on Muslim prayer expanded in the article Prayer to avoid giving undue weight to Christianity and Judaism. Can anyone help? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem here enough weight is given to Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.138.56 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC) — 79.68.138.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think the sections on Christianity and Judaism may be bigger because there is more diversity in prayer in those faiths, both because of rituals and because of the differences between denominations. --Enzuru 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There are currently in that article

3 Images relating to Islam

3 Images relating to Christianity

2 Images relating to Judaism

1 Image relating to pagan Norse

1 image relating to Buddhism

1 image relating to Hinduism

1 image relating to Shinto

So how can you claim weight isn't given to Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.232.178 (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it neutral for Wikipedia to describe the Quran as "mythology"?

This refers to a LONG running (3 years) dispute at Talk:Noah's Ark regarding whether or not Wikipedia should state that the story of Noah / Nuh should be described as "mythology". There are some editors who surface periodically and insist that it should, and I have been trying to make them see that this is defamation, and unneccesarily forcing wikipedia to endorse their opinion. However they will not accept any compromise. They will not even accept a neutral compromise such as "These groups see it as mythology, while these other groups consider it historical"; this defeats their purpose, which is not compromise at all, but forcing wikipedia to endorse their POV and issue declarations about how to characterize others' faith and beliefs they don't happen to like. As far as they are concerned, it simply IS "mythology" because they say so, and therefore they have an agenda to inform everyone accordingly. Please comment on this unacceptable use of POV-pushing weasel words at Talk:Noah's Ark. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It clearly is mythology and why post this here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.231.130 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Islamic holy books

There has recently been a lot of material added to the article. Unfortunately it appears to me that it's mainly original research and has no references except the Qur'an. I wasn't sure how much of the material is salvageable as there appears to be a slight language problem as well. I wonder if someone could look over the article and perhaps discuss it with User:Farrukh38. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mosques task force

There is a Mosques task force that people may want to help out with. :) Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fitna (word) needs review

Could Project members please take a look at Fitna (word)?
(A) Has been tagged "This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" since at least the beginning of June 2008.
(B) We have a disambiguation page at Fitna --

Fitna may refer to:

• Fitna (film), a 2008 short film by Geert Wilders
• Fitna (word), an Arabic word
• The First Fitna (656–661 CE) the first Islamic "civil war"
• The Second Fitna (c. 680/683-c. 685/692 CE), the second Islamic "civil war"

I question whether Fitna (word) is the best title for this page -- since "word" could refer to anything, this isn't a very useful page title.
Could we rename this to something more appropriate and helpful?
Thanks -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

List of largest mosques

i have started a list of largest mosques by capacity and it would be really helpful if somebody could add some more mosques to the list and add more columns and tidy the list of according to your whims. thanks. Canadian (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about Amir al-Mu'minin

Hello. I cannot register an account (because I rarely use Wikipedia as it is), but I am writing a book on Islamic Caliphates, and I believe "WikiProject Islam" would be able to help, so I am asking you and others who has put their name on the "Expert Wikipedians in Islamic issues" list who might be able to help. I am about the title "Amir al-Mu'minin" which many Caliphs claim and which is the standard Arab-style Caliphate title. What I want to know is: Do everyone who uses the title "Amir al-Mu'minin", by extension, claim they are also the Caliph? So would the Morroco Sultan, Muhhamed Omar (leader of the Taliban), and the Sokoto Sultan, all implictly claiming the title of "Caliph" by claiming the title "Commander of the Believers"?

(As you are an expert on Morroco, you would likely know what the Sultan of Morroco intended when he claimed the title of Amir al-Mu'minin, I hope. If you can tell me what he means by holding that title, that would be great.)

If you can help me with this question, that would be really helpful.--72.208.76.124 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of "Amir al-Mu'minin" in Morocco was first introduced by the Almoravids though the concept of the Caliph has never been used. The Moroccan constitution stipulates that "Islam is the religion of the State which guarantees everyone the freedom of worship." The Constitution does not specify the terms of worship. This leaves a great freedom of interpretation. "The King, Amir Al Mouminine, Supreme Representative of the Nation, a symbol of its unity, guarantor of the permanence and continuity of the state, ensures respect for Islam and the Constitution. He is the protector of the rights and freedoms of citizens, social groups and communities". The King is, therefore, the guarantor of the diversity of opinions and beliefs. In fact, Hassan II --Mohammed VI's father-- needed clerics in 1981 to agree to legitimize his religious supremacy and support a population torn between a nascent "fundamentalism" and a leftist "atheism" in vogue at those times.

The establishment of al-Imarat Mouminine is now the only one to combine politics and religion. It should be noted that institutions linked to al-Imarat Mouminine as the Higher Council of Ulema, the Ministry of Religious Endowment and Islamic Affairs and the League of Mohammadian Ulema of Morocco, meet the demands of society, without any partisanship.

The King has also the title of Grand Imam. This means that all official fatwas and sermons are issued on his behalf. The political management of the religious affairs in Morocco has been set in place so that the spiritual security is protected, under the Moroccan specificity, represented by the Commanderie of believers, safeguarding the ideological and doctrinal unity in connection with the Maliki rite and Achâarite doctrine, and promote the spiritual through the Sufi experience that has shaped the religious spirit of Moroccans for centuries.

Note that, under the Constitution, the King is also the Chief of the Army. As with the military title, the religious title does not go beyond the scope of the Moroccan State and nation eventhough the Alaouite family claim descent from Muhammad through the line of Fāṭimah az-Zahrah, Muhammad's daughter, and her husband, the Fourth Caliph ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

It should be also noted that the function is contested by the movement Al Adl Wa Al Ihssane -a movement calling for a Calipahte. However, the moderate Islamist party Justice and Development Party has never objected to the function.

I hope this is helpful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Subscribed this project to User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription, by transcluding that box to the WikiProject main page. It has to be on the WikiProject main page for it to work - so please don't remove it - thank you! Cirt (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Update

The bot went through and did the cleanup listing, extensive report listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Cleanup listing. Hope this is helpful to project members. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Does Barack Obama fall under here, since he received an Islamic education? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Many Catholic clergyman also had Islamic textbooks for their learning too, but they don't fall under WikiProject Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A terrible sentence in the lead paragraph for article descibing an anti egalitarian concept.

The following sentence, which is in the first paragraph of the article, is a contradiction to what the practice really does;

"The term connotes an obligation of the state to protect the individual, including the individual's life, property, and freedom of religion and worship"

Can you not see how this does anything but protect an individuals rights? If you can't, I'll copy and paste every contradiction to that sentence that follows it, but do I need to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesmartass (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Individual reassessment of God

The article God is currently under individual reassessment, which can be found here. Editors are encouraged to participate. Thank you. DiverseMentality 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Baitunnur

Baitunnur is a mosque in Calgary. I believe it's infobox affiliation should be listed as "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Somebody else feels it should show as "Islam". I would appreciate other opinions at Talk:Baitunnur#Religious affiliation. --Rob (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look... ITAQALLAH

Islam in the African diaspora

I would like some input on Islam in the African diaspora, in terms of should this article exist, what should be in it, and should Black Muslims redirect to it. Please visit Talk:Islam in the African diaspora#problems with the article. --Rob (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Shaikh Alauddin Siddiqui

Could someone take a look at Shaikh Alauddin Siddiqui - someone is attempting to include a major criticism section as he does not agree with the beliefs of the subject. A criticism section would be fine if it could be sourced. The article itself could do with some sourcing as well. Agathoclea (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As a BLP, the first step is to remove the unsourced claims which are promotional or critical, which meant removing almost everything. After sources are found, information can be re-added, with proper citations. --Rob (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wahhabism as a Sect

Wahhabism is considered a sect or a branch of Islam. However, it is a sect because of the misunderstanding of Sheik Muhhammad according to some texts, but other texts claim that the movement was born to clean Islam from the influence of Sufism, in that case it would be more appropriate to call it a branch, given the reform.

Which theory is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.82.220 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the term "sect" should never be used in English discussions on Islam, because it is (relatively) absent in secular literature on Islam. It is hard to say what Wahhabism precisely is, I would define it as a "movement" within Sunni Islam, not a school or a branch. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maqbara

Anyone care to take a look at this article? It's quite... confusing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Update on The Islam Portal

•  – Update: Portal:Islam has recently become a Featured Portal. All of the articles at Portal:Islam in the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections are of WP:GA or WP:FA quality status, and there are some great contributors who have churned out interesting WP:DYKs. One area where we could use some more contributors is at Portal:Islam on Wikinews. Thanks to the efforts of folks from this project, for churning out such great high-quality material! Keep up the great work getting articles to Good Article and Featured Quality Status ! Cirt (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I didn't know that Portal:Islam was even close to FP status! Good work! ITAQALLAH 16:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For further discussion about the portal, please refer to Portal talk:Islam. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention

The following articles need the attention of someone who is more familiar with the subject. I've tried to do some basic cleanup, but anymore would need knowledge of the subject that I do not have.

• Khwaja Najamuddin Ahmed
• Khwaja Wali Kirani
• Maudood Chishti
• Khwaja Qutubuddin
• Khwaja Abu Ahmed
• Abu Yusuf Bin Saamaan
• Kirani

Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is it possible to get some more eyes on some of the articles. It appears that there is a influx of newer editors who don't seem to understand the idea of neutrality. A couple of examples are Abu Bakr's infobox, look at the reign line. Then there are this and this at Umar. There may be others but those are the only ones I noticed right now. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just noted this to myself too! It's been going on for quite a while now, and it's generally what I presume to be Sunni IPs deleting the Shi'a section in Abu Bakr and I think Umar, and the Shi'a IPs character murdering them. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Qualification Issues

Same old same old

Whenever I see statements as in the Guide lines section "the verifiable opinions of qualified academic scholars" red lights start flashing in my head, who are these qualified scholars, are they the same people who have made a mess of the teaching and spirit of Islam. Is there a list of institutions one must go to or should we mindlessly keep repeating the alien concepts of Taqleed and Abrogation to perpetuate the lies. This is Wikipedia please stop promoting scholars who hide behind institutions and give fatwa after fatwa that are against the letter and spirit of Quran. Some recent examples about the age of marriage "Ten", Ethanol and methanol cars declared Haram and the most outrages one about women colleges nursing male colleges should wake us up. Let everyone participate (within the reasonable verifiability guide lines) and we have seen the majority of subjects on Wikipedia are just doing fine, let’s keep to the spirit of Wikipedia. PlzNLies (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Christianity project organization

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Some of the subjects being discussed relate to Judaism and this project, and any members of this project are more than welcome to make any comments they think appropriate there. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit requests at Talk:Allah#Arab Christian terminology

Resolved

A new user has requested a few edits to the semi-protected page Allah. They've been sitting undone for about a week now - on the face of it they appear reasonable, but I really don't know much about the topic and apparently neither do any of the other people who watch the semi-protected edit requests category. Would someone with more of a clue about Islam care to take a look at them and either make the edits, ask for clarification, or decline them as appropriate? Thanks in advance. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's now been resolved. Thanks for your time. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Enoch

I would like to create category called Category:Enoch in order to re-organize the material in the Enoch series. Enoch is a very mysterious character that would still need to be de-mythologized for the sake of ancient and modern studies in religion. Is there anywhere I can propose or discuss the creation of this category ? ADM (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of folks named Enoch; any particular one? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I imagine that you could just start adding the category to relevant articles (WP:BEBOLD maybe?), but of course there is no guarantee that the category would remain if other editors disagreed. Are there other, similar categories already in existence for Biblical figures? I tried looking for some, but my already sparse religious knowledge seems to have deserted me! You could try looking through the sub-categories under Wikipedia:Categorical_index#Religion_and_belief_systems for a precedent.

For discussion, perhaps the best place to begin might be the talk page of Wikiproject Religion, or alternatively the talk page of one of the articles mentioned at Enoch (I wasn't sure which Enoch you meant), although a discussion there may not get as many contributors. --Kateshortforbob 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The son of Jared is by far the most famous one, known simply as Enoch, there is merely a problem in the disambiguation which I would like to fix. ADM (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal FAR

I have nominated Muhammad Iqbal 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR

I have nominated Noah's Ark 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Islam and Civil Rights - A School Project

Please note that there are several students presently creating the article, "Islam and Civil Rights" as a part of a school project. Any help you might give them or edits you might contribute to this page are graciously welcome. Also, please note that a couple of antagonistic editors have been interfering in these students' work, and so an assistance with this would also be appreciated. Most notably, one editor has requested the page be deleted despite the fact that it is tagged with an "under construction" tag and is being improved at this moment. Thank you.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The article you are creating seems to be covered by other articles on Wikipedia. I don't believe Wikipedia can give you special leverage to edit in a certain way simply because this is a class project. You should have discussed with an administrator how to have had done this, but in the meantime like others have suggested, you should use a sandbox. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message here. Note that I did not create the article. As for the use of a sandbox, as you know, the sandbox only allows a ginel editor to work, it does not perit multlple editors to collaborate. That is the purpose of Wikipedia itself. As for the content, the inent of this article, as I understand it, is to bring together a number of issues relating to civil rights in Islam under one unified article. Some of this information may be available at other articles, but this article will allow readers to have a quick reference. Further, there ought to be new information in this particular article as well. That is, at least, the goal.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here we have a basic misconception that is easily corrected. Any number of editors can work on an article in a sadbox. I myself have collaborated with other editors working in my sandbox or theirs to get articles into shape before putting them out into mainspace. You could use your own userspace as a hub of sorts for your students to work on articles (and you can let other editors know as well and invite participation) until the articles are ready for moving into mainspace. You are displeased with nominations for deletion and merger; this would solve that problem (mostly, barring things like gross copyright violation) for at least the duration that the articles are in the sandbox/userspace. Aleta ^Sing 03:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've replied more fully in my talk page.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed Khan

I have nominated Syed Ahmed Khan 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism in Mosque

I've been reading the mosque article this evening (very well written and informative, BTW), and found some suspected vandalism, all dating from March 3. It's all been done by an anonymous IP; here is the diff showing the changes made. Some bits were later corrected, but other bits never were. Somebody with more knowledge than I have needs to read through the whole thing and remove the remaining garbage! MeegsC | Talk 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on Wikipedia.

It has been brought to my attention that there are pictures of the prophet on Wikipedia. There is a partician on Facebook to have them removed ([3]). Many people are offended by this as the prophet should not be portrayed in any media, including pictures. I suggest that ALL pictures containing a picture of the prophet, however unrealistic the picture looks. If the caption and the name of the Picture say that it 'is' the prophet it should be deleted. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Five Pillars

What happened to the Five Pillars category? MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Help needed: Umar Israilov

The article Umar Israilov is about a Chechen soldier who was killed in exile, allegedly for accusing President Kadyrov of human rights abuses. Kadyrov allies deny the charge, which they blame on the president's political enemies. The article needs assistance from impartial editors who can evaluate reliable sources, etc. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 21:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has responded yet. Please see the request for peer review. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Moors # Seensawsee's edits # The facts

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Moors#The_facts. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The Ogre (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Islamic calendar: Opinions requested

Hi
Could I solicit some input at the last two sections at Talk:Islamic calendar? It happens to be on my watchlist, but I have absolutely no knowledge of the topic.
Thank you in advance, Amalthea 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Luqman

It has been proposed that Luqman (person) and Luqman (sura) be merged together and moved to Luqman. The merger has been completed but the move is still incomplete, pending discussion. Please discuss this at Talk:Luqman_(person)#Requested move. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Islam project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr.Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Going over the list, I note that there aren't that many "Stub" class articles on it: Afterlife, Islamic view of anal sex, Abaya, Islam and clothing, Muezzin, Arabian mythology, Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, Jumu'ah, Junaid Jamshed, Islamic holy books, Religion in Afghanistan, Chrislam, Islamic hygienical jurisprudence, Geography in medieval Islam, Anwar al-Awlaki, Sema, Fard, Ijma, Islamic sexual hygienical jurisprudence, Islamic state, Marmaduke Pickthall, Agal (accessory), Messengers of Islam, Jeffrey Lang, Murabaha, Nazim al-Qubrusi, Saud Al-Shuraim, Makruh, Al-Ma'arri, Ahle Hadith, Medieval Christian view of Muhammad, Muezza, Irfan, Timeline of 6th century Muslim history, Mustaali, Hisham Kabbani, Sultan Abu Bakar State Mosque, Islam in Bangladesh, Ali Hujwiri, Maturidi, Aqsa Parvez, Seven pillars of Ismailism, Mosque of Omar (Jerusalem), Salaf, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Raka'ah, Islam and Jainism, Iftar, Barakah, Al-Isra, Nikah 'urfi, Islamic view of Aaron, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Noha, Islamic cleanliness, Islamic view of Jonah, Al-Muwatta, Al-Tirmidhi, Luqman (person), Rub el Hizb, Pir (Sufism), Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Murid, Qibla compass, Isma'il ibn Jafar, Tayammum, Data Durbar Complex, Sunan ibn Maja, Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, Zaid Shakir, Religion of Peace, Maulana Ilyas, Shi'ite Crescent, Ihram clothing, Ubudiah Mosque, Juz', Hojatoleslam, Rashid Rida, Islam in Finland, Juwayriya bint al-Harith, Green in Islam, Zaynab bint Khuzayma, Ansar (Islam), Sidrat al-Muntaha, Islamic Center of America, Kampung Laut Mosque, Hawza, Mosque Maryam, Nahdlatul Ulama, Shireen M. Mazari, Al-Ahzab, Mizan, Bani Shaiba, Ash-Shams, Abangan, Al-Sunan al-Sughra, Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque, Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Umawi, Eid al-Ghadeer, Ottoman Army of Islam, Abu Dawood, Abuja National Mosque, A Is for Allah, Fidayeen attack, Islam in Sudan, Chaand Raat, Mustahabb, Haqiqa, Arabic star, Durood, 'Aql, Ibrahim-al-Ibrahim Mosque, Shia clergy, Blue Mosque, Yerevan, Mir Babar Ali Anis, Id Kah Mosque, Istihsan, Hadith Qudsi, Batiniyya, Suhoor, Putra Mosque, Single-sex school, Islam in Morocco, Al-Qurtubi, Ishfaq Ahmad, Abu Yusuf, Islam in Tunisia, Sadrist Movement, Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Haghani Circle, Marsia, Akhoond, Adalah, MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism, Abu Hanifa Mosque, Akhirah, Muhammad Rafi Usmani, Wasif Ali Wasif, Ainsarii, Afghan (Australia), Ahmad Rafique, Islam in Trinidad and Tobago, Kapitan Keling Mosque, Hadrat, Dunya, Mubah, Carl W. Ernst, Kobe Mosque, Islam in Eritrea, Hidayat tv, Treaty of Ramla, Tahrir-ol-vasyleh, Masjid Agung Demak, Tone Trump, Islam in Brunei, Islam in the Gambia, Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid, Al Rakim, Walayah (Ismaili and Druze pillar), Hussainia, Fasad, Batin (Islam), Ansar-e Hezbollah, Hizb. One thing we're doing over at WikiProject Christianity is giving out an award to every editor who can bring a stub up to at least a Start class by the next time the list is generated. Maybe the same thing could be done here? John Carter (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps notice of possible demotion of Isaac

I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamization of history

Members of this project might like to have a look at the above article, which has multiple tags. I would think that the main question is whether it is a notable idea in the first place. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. It doesn't seem to be a significant or notable concept, rather a generic phrase like 'basket of apples' (not very imaginative, I know...). Going to prod it with a deletion stick... ITAQALLAH 02:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hadith authenticity template

Please contribute to the following deletion proposal of the Hadith authenticity template. Some people seem to have a misunderstanding of the reason(s) for creating the template. Thanks MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Population

Brazil has an estimated lebanese population of 11 million. If only 27 % of those lebanese were muslim then yes you would have 3 million muslims alone from lebanese descent living in brazil. These figures are correct I lived in Foz , population 250 000 and there were about 150 000 lebanese in the city and about 30 000 muslims alone , so the figure of being only 70 000 in the whole country is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmdood (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Ishmael

I have done the GA Reassessment of Ishmael as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found a few items that concern me about the article. My review can be found here. I have held the article for a week and I am notifying all the interested projects in the hope that work can be done to keep it at GA. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Biblical narratives and the Qur'an

Eyes on this article would be appreciated. Lskil09 (talk · contribs) is trying to insert Christian apologetics about tahrif, which are frankly irrelevant to the main survey content of the article. Jheald (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Latinisation of Maniyy?

I tried various spellings, but couldn't find an article on Maniyy, so started a stub. If there is an existing article, please redirect. If not, I'd appreciate the proper Arabic spelling of the term. I was looking up info on wudu and other cleansing rituals and ran across the term, and it seems important to Islamic concepts of ritual purity, and definitely worthy of WP inclusion if not already in an article, though with encyclopedic detachment and proper tastefulness. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see the related deletion discussion -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (2nd nomination).PelleSmith (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious response to ART

Hi, I'd like for one of the experts here to review what I wrote about the Islamic positions on assisted reproduction here: Religious response to ART. I did my best but a check over or an expansion would be really useful. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [4]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I join wiki project Islam

How can I join this project ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notedgrant (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Add your name to this list. Izzedine (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you --Notedgrant (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename Islamofascism to Islam and the fascism analogy

Please share your views here. Izzedine (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

K :D--Notedgrant (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've been in discussion with a gentleman who is seeking assistance in this area (I believe). As I am not particularly well schooled in this topic, I tried to find some information for him. A rather lengthy discussion can be found on my talk page at: this thread. His talk page can be found at: User talk:BrandonYusufToropov. If any of you kind people would be willing to assist this editor, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  10:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sufi Saints of South Asia

Greetings to all. I have put forth a request on the Reward Board for assistance in bringing the Sufi Saints of South Asia article to at least B-class. All meaningful contributors will get barnstars. The article is in dire need of being developed. It is an important article in relation to the Islam in South Asia. Please help in developing the article. Regards--Shahab (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

shiah

Hi my name is hossein my faith is islam my religion is shiah.I read a lot of your topics,opinions questions but didn't found any thing about this progenitor religion.about Ali peace upon to him about hossein our great sample to live.what do you know about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.219.161 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

here you go Ali--Notedgrant (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to help manage religion related content

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New cat and subcats Category:Sufism by region

Figured that there are enough articles on Sufism that they can be additionally sorted by region, and thus integrated into the "Islam in Foo" structures as well. If anyone has more articles to add, or if there are [i]any[/i] articles for Category:Sufism in South America, that'd be great to add. I still haven't started Category:Sufism in Europe yet, as I mainly wanted to get Category:Sufism in Africa rolling, as heterodox Islam in Africa seems a bit under-covered on WP. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Qur'an#Requested_move

There is a survey about moving Qur'an to Koran. Alefbe (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Severe vandalism at Barelwi‎

I noted that Barelwi‎ appears to get a ton of edits, many obviously meant to degrade the article. Not being an expert, I can't tell what is honest contribution and what is interference. I can say though that, as an outsider, the article does not clearly explain exactly how the Barelwi differ from mainstream Sunni Islam. Instead it lists a series of beliefs, with no context as to how it differs from other groups. It's as though an article on a Protestant sect just offered the Nicene creed with no explanation as to why that group broke away from other groups. In any case, this article probably needs Protection to prevent frequent IP vandalism, as well as some editing help to make the purpose of the article clearer. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Article is about Sunni Islam which is found all over the world.It is not different from traditional sunni Islam but as this sunni Islam gets strength in the city Bareilly, (as the article tells) Opponents like Deobandi and Wahabi start calling it Barelwi Movement.Everyone start calling them selves true Sunnis so Scholars of India supported this Movement which goes naturally against the other Movement in terms of certain belief of Islam.

For example- The Barelwi by their Fatwas supported Celebration of Mawlid and going to the Shrine of Holy Saint of Islam but Other rejected these things saying they are against Islam. On the other hand scholars who are also known as barelwi by others also got verdicts against some contemporary Movements like Deobandi and Wahabi from Holy city of Mecca and Medina .

• The Barelwi is a just a term given by opponents to sunni Muslims who were against them.Actually People practising Sufism in India got this term becuase they were not reday to support Modern Version of Islam as practised by Other contemporary Movements.This term is nowhere written in the literature of Sunnis .

• This is the Reason the sunnis(read Barelwis)are associated with all other Muslims except Wahabis and Deobandis all over thye world.specially in countries where Indian Muslims are living ,like U.K,U.S.A ,R.S.A,France etc

So the Article may needs temporary protection but it is written neutrally atleast present version is neutral.

Shabiha 16:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Genie/Djinn/Jinn

I was looking for information on Jinn on WP, and dismayed to find we only have the article Genie which is a mixture of crappy Orientalism about Disney movies and vague references to Solomon. In addition to needing clean-up (which I'll try to do myself as I learn more), I requested that the page be moved to Djinn or Jinn - the request has failed in the past because Western editors shout "No, genies are more famous, keep the article about genies!" - but I think they would not be so quick to delete the article on Saint Nicholas and replace it with Santa Claus, of course.

I would appreciate support, criticism and opinions at Talk:Genie#Move over the next few days. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Vaccination requirements for Hajj/Umrah

No mention at Hajj/Umrah/Ihram of longstanding requirement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for Meningitis ACWY vaccination with a valid certificate at least 10 days prior to travelling. This year additional requirements, according to London Embassy website, for seasonal flu vaccination with certificate at least 14 days prior, and once H1N1 swine flu vaccinations become generaly available (at least a few weeks if not 1-2 months yet in the UK) then this too (although not specified is whether will need just one or a full course of two immunisations 3 weeks apart - i.e. possibly starting at least 35 days prior to travelling). See Health requirements which must be complied with by incoming travellers for Umrah and Hajj during the season of 1430 Hijr

In addition the Ministry Of Foreign Affairs states: "Experts advise prospective pilgrims for Hajj and Umrah that the elderly and persons with chronic diseases, children and pregnant women should postpone the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages this year for their own safety".

I appreciate Hajj article is concerned with the religious aspects, rather than the secular health requirements of Saudi Arabia as a country issuing 'Hajj Visa', so I have no idea where such information is best placed. David Ruben ^Talk 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be the Tourism in Saudi Arabia article, because that seems to be the most directly relevant to the topic and the Hajj pilgrimage is a form of religious pilgrimage/tourism. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure if there's anywhere else that such information would easily fit in. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiIslam

While I was monitoring the new pages, I came across WikiIslam. I've made some fixes to it, but this Islam-related articles are outside of my area of editing, so I thought I would raise it here in case anyone else wanted to take a look. Singularity42 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Quilliam Foundation

Can someone resolve an edit war that appears to accuring on Quilliam Foundation Dwanyewest (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

List of religious organizations

Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? --Cyclopia^talk 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

new article

Al-Azhar Mosque. nableezy - 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed at Punishment of the Grave

I noticed this article when I was cleaning up Category:Islam. I trimmed the huge number of categories down, but noted the article is quite confusing. I know a decent amount about Islam, but still found the article baffling. At the very minimum, the intro needs to be re-written, and the huge sections of extreme detail about Sunnah need to be trimmed down: Punishment of the Grave. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia fork

I've come across something peculiar that I thought may be of interest to WP:ISLAM participants. A couple of weeks ago, I had noted some problems with the Aissawa article at Talk:Aissawa. Having dug a little deeper, I found a Global Encyclopaedia of Islamic Mystics and Mysticism at Google Books. It has an entry on "Aissawa" that is nearly identical to an older edit of the Wikipedia article on the subject. Note that the book was published this year, while the Wikipedia edit occurred in 2007. I scrolled down further in the Google Book and found that the book's entry on "Manzil" is also quite similar to Wikipedia's Manzil. However, not everything in the book appears in Wikipedia, so it isn't simply a copy. I am not sure what is going on with that particular book, but I thought I should make note of this. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a 2007 edition of the book that contains the exact same text, compare this with the edits made in 2007, here. The current article is an unambiguous copyright violation. nableezy - 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am inclined to believe the WP article is a copyvio. However, the book link you gave looks like the same edition I found: on page "iv" it says Copyright 2009 ([5]). At the same time, the Google Overview page says 2007 ([6]). If it is from 2007, are there possibly older versions of the book? The "Manzil" Wikipedia edit is from 2006. Thanks again, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that too, I see a "first edition, 2009" in the book, so Im not sure anymore. I'll see what I can find though. nableezy - 22:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A worldcat search on the isbn returns two results, Global encyclopaedia of Islamic mystics and mysticism in 2009 and Global encyclopaedia of education in 2007. While the google book summary says it is the Global encyclopaedia of education, the actual preview is for Global encyclopaedia of Islamic mystics and mysticism, for which they have description pages for volumes 1 and 2 under different ISBNs. I have no idea at this point what is going on. nableezy - 22:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the publisher's website. I found a table of contents (link) for Global Encyclopaedia of Education (2007), with no mention of "Aissawa". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Combined with the TOC for the 2009 book matching what is actually shown I think that at least what is shown in google books is from 2009. Sorry for the confusion. nableezy - 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Google and/or the publisher just needs to straighten out the book listing. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to find the whole thing peculiar. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Need an Arabic translation for Kaaba image

Can anyone translate the caption on this photo and add it to the image description? Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Khizer

Please take a look at Khizer. It's so poorly written and possibly mis-titled that I PROposed it for Deletion. I'm really hoping someone familiar with the topic can fix it up and remove the dated prod tag and the other cleanup tags. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jeffrey Lang

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jeffrey Lang. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Lang. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • The result of this vote was deletion. Thank you to those who tried to prevent the article's deletion. --LatinoMuslim 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

There is a declared homosexual editor at LGBT topics and Islam asserting his bias that there is some ambiguity about the question of whether homosexuality is forbidden in Islam - when there patently is not, and never has been. I recommend Muslim editors keep a close watch out for this kind of thing. ^Izzedine 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion Controversies related to Islam and Muslims and Template:Muslims and controversies

I've nominated this anti-Islamic page for deletion here along with its corresponding template here. ^Izzedine 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Open Discussion

Project participans might be interested in the following discussion. As a Third Opinion commenter on the subject I shall not make additional comments regarding the present discussion in the interest of remaining neutral. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality check

Could someone please look into Muhammad and assassinations? I feel that the article has quite a few problems but do not consider myself qualified enough to comment -- Raziman T V (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Mujadid

Hi folks

I found Category:Mujadid in the list of uncategorised categories, and have proposed its deletion.

I know little about the subject, so it would be great to have input from members of this project in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Mujadid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Battle of Waddan

Here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Nakhla raid

Please comment on the merge proposal here -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Talib ibn Abi Talib

Please comment here -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Islamic views of anal sex

Not within my range of study, yet it seems apparent that this is a controversial topic, with additions and deletions of content based on personal reactions to the subject. This could use oversight from someone who is familiar with Shia and Sunni policies, which themselves appear to be contradictory [7], to prevent edit warring. Thanks. JNW (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sharia enforced on Christians and Jews?

Aquib american muslim (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I will assume good intentions, and caution the SMEs to remember these articles are used by the general public. While it may be true the collocation "Sharia Allah" is used by Christians and Jews, the statement that it is ENFORCED ON Christians and Jews implies to the casual reader that Sharia law itself is enforced on Christians and Jews. I have removed the words "enforced on" and replaced them with "also by". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquib american muslim (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. It was changed here so I changed it back. something lame from CBW 06:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sharia article

Aquib american muslim (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Next-to-last sentence in first paragraph. I am not at all convinced Sharia is commonly used as a replacement for the word Islam. The word "Islam" refers to the totality of the Islamic way of life. Sharia is law. Is there a scholar with an opinion on this point? Can someone cite a reference here please? Thanks -quote- It is used to refer both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life.

Takbir

There appears to me to be a problem in this article with undue weight being given to minority usage in relation to extremism. This project would appear to have some interest in the subject. Please see the ongoing discussion on the issue. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The True Furqan

I don't know if you guys want to take the above article into your project. I expect you will want to have a look at it anyway. It has multiple issues flagged. A controversial book purporting to relate to Islam. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Khawaja Abdul Hakeem Ansari

This article needs some expert eyes. From the outside it seems that it just regurgitates claims made by the subject in his writings but not knowing anything about Sufism I cannot tell whether they are credible and whether the subject is notable. Many thanks in advance, Nancy ^talk 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Islam topics

There are quite frequent requests for additions to this template and it would be nice to have some input from other editors on whether these are appropriate or not. The relevant discussion is Template talk:Islam topics#islam denominations. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

kalam with the branches Murji'ah and Mu'tazili

kalam with the branches Murji'ah and Mu'tazili should have a separate heading and branch since they have different laws and different theologies

they are currently grouped under sunni denomination even though most sunni scholars reject them as committing bid'ah

could someone group them as a separate denomination please? Jigglyfidders (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Frank now a mascot for Wikipedia sister project Wikiversity

Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century Jew who founded his own religious movement called Frankism, and converted to Islam in emulation of a rabbi named Sabbatai Zevi) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and his doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Akmal Shaikh on hold

The GA review of the Akmal Shaikh article, which is tagged as being within the scope of this project, has been on hold for over 30 days. It is near to being passed, but the Akmal_Shaikh#Reaction section needs editing to reduce the amount of direct quotation as per Wikipedia:Quotations, and also to be trimmed in general to meet GA criteria 3(b): "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Any assistance in this matter would be appreciated. See Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 for more detail. (If you feel that the article does not fall under the scope of this project, please remove the project tag from the article talkpage). SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has now passed. As the article does not fall under the scope of this project, the project tag has been removed from the article talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 14:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Muslim astronauts

FYI, List of Muslim astronauts has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV discussion regarding Criticism of Judaism

A point-of-view discussion has been initiated at NPOV notice board to discuss the deletion of material from the Criticism of Judaism article. The material (seen here) discussed how critics claim that Judaism sometimes is used to justify or motivate violence, particularly violence in the Middle East in modern times. (Disclaimer: I am the editor that contributed the deleted material). --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Islamic States

I'm concerned as to whether the introduction to Category:Islamic States is NPOV. If the term is generally accepted with that definition, then I'll withdraw any objections. Woogee (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit review

Hello! A new user recently made this edit to the article Laghw. I admit I do not know enough about Islam to see if it is a valid edit that needs cleaned up or not. Could someone take a look at this and either revert it or clean it up, as needed? Thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 06:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

jewish exodus from arab/muslim lands

there is a debate going on here [8] about an extension of the above article about the exodus from arab lands to a convergence of exodus from muslim lands even though the parallel is scant. i have suggested they start a new article if they so please but this is a racist connotation to attach.(Lihaas (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tahir Allauddin

Hi, this article seems to lack reputable sources, and all that are presented are bias. Hence, I needed some feedback on how we can tackle this. I've proposed a 'merge' tag, a 'need-of-expert-attention' tag and 'additional citations...' tag to it.

Please try and reply on my talk page or if convenient, it can be discussed here.--  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Islam 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

bogus source on islamic inventions page

"How Islamic Inventors Changed the World" is a bogus source! as shown here

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/20_Islamic_Inventions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.30.213 (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Chanto

I've been working a bit on the Chanto article as a copy editor, but since I'm not an expert, I was wondering if anyone familiar with the topic could take a look and perhaps suggest some additional references. Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

A discussion on the reliability of two websites regarding Islamic history (History of Jihad and Islam Watch) is in progress here. Please feel free to comment and give your views. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Satpanth and its related information

Hi,

I have observed that on wikipida.com, when we give search on word "Satpanth" and what we get information on this word is totally wrong. Some one is changing and putting wrong information on word "Satpanth".

Prior to 2 days the information available on word "Satpanth" was correct.

Now information is mis-represented by someone.

I very humbly request you to do the necessary investigation on it and do the needful by putting correct information, as it was available earlier.

Thanks & Regards Pradeep Nathani E-mail: pradeepnathani@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepnathani (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey all

Hi guys, I took some time off for studies but I'm glad to be back and am looking forward to editing and producing good/featured quality articles. Look forward to improving Islam-related articles :-). ITAQALLAH 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved from project page

Hi, I dont know how this works but there is an important page related to Islam and Christianity that not neutral to the favour of Christianity. They misquote Qur'an and put ideas that are not part of Islam or are misleading. Here is one of the pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam

I suggest you look at other pages like these that are related to this page like: Islam and Judaism and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.85.149 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 October 2009

I'll look into it, thanks. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback and assistance required please

Hi, I've been doing a fair bit of editing on Islamic sites over the past few days. I've done pretty much all I can on Quran Alone, Rashad Khalifa, Islamic dietary law and United Submitters International and I'm currently working on Criticism of Hadith, which I removed from the orphanage. I wanted to get involved here, get some help with my editing and perhaps get involved with some of the projects your working on. I would really value some input on these articles. If they can be brought up to scratch, it'll be easier to keep on top of them. I'm new to editing so I can't put the polish on them that someone experienced can, but I've tried to sort out the worst of it. Thanks. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Quran Alone...

This article reads ok, but still lacks quality citations in places. I've added a mention of Free-Minds to bring the 'non-affiliated Quranists' back into the article without adding too much. It just seems to cover it nicely. It's an ongoing issue and we can't really use the term non-affiliated Quranists anyway - no one says that. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rashad Khalifa...

Islamic dietary law...

United Submitters International...

Criticism of Hadith...

I've only done the top two sections of this article so far. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Metwalli Aharawi

Hey guys, I translated the Arabic Wikipage about Imam Muhammad Metwalli Aharawi to English. I need prof leaders and some project to adopt this article. Do you guys agree that it falls under Islam wiki project?

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Metwalli_Aharawi --Saab 1989 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's really good work Saab, nice one. I'd be delighted to go over it tomorrow and do what I can to help - it's pretty late here now. I can't comment on whether it'd come under WikiProject Islam as I'm really new here, but, Inshallah, I'll proof read it for you tomorrow. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank for you so much!--Saab 1989 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Worth having a List of mosque standoffs‎? Category instead?

I ran across a news article about the 2007 Maldives mosque standoff, found it interesting, and wrote an article about it. It occurred to me that the event had conceptual similarities to the Lal Masjid siege, and that the such events should be joined together either as a category or as a list. I've tentatively started a list article, List of mosque standoffs‎. What do folks think of having a list/category, and if it's worth doing, which would be best? MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ranking of countries by Shia population

There's currently a debate on Talk: Shi'a Islam in India whether India's or Pakistan's (or possibly Iraq's) Shia population is the second-largest in the world. The debate includes questions about the reliability of various sources, whether an "external" source (the Pew Research Center) is equally reliable as Indian sources, and whether some of the reported numbers suffer from bias. Input would be welcome. Huon (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanding coverage of "Shi'a Islam by country"

I've noted that there aren't a lot of "by country" Shi'a Islam articles. Though it's definitely a minority religion in many areas, that hasn't stopped plenty of even smaller religions/groups from having quite comprehensive coverage of those religions' presence throughout the world. I recently added coverage on Shi'a Islam in Uzbekistan and Shi'a Islam in Tajikistan, and have added a "Shi'a Islam in Africa" template to the very few extant articles. I'd appreciate any help on this issue, including suggestions as to which countries have enough of a verifiable Shi'a presence to make them a high priority for coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is "Taqwa-e-Ilahee"? Does it need an article?

I've seen the term Taqwa-e-Ilahee in various articles, mainly Shi'a ones. What does this term mean, and does the concept merit having at least a short article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it just the same thing as Taqwa but with an expanded name? Should it just be a redirect to that article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Renomination

An article that you have been involved in editing, YaNabi.com has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. warrior4321 00:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge Kalimah and Shahadah?

The article Kalimah has been modified to promote the Shi'a viewpoint as the "correct" one, and bears more watching. However, might it not be easier to just merge Kalimah and Shahadah? As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the "kalimah" is the phrase and the "shahadah" is the act of saying the same, so is there really a need to discuss the two, arguably completely entwined, issues separately? Merging them together could make it easier to keep one high-quality article going. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps of muslim areas

FYI some Muslim state maps have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 4.

76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Source

This article about Malaysia's astronaut could be a source for stuff about Islam, as he is a Muslim and had a dilemma about how to worship in Space: Di Justo, Patrick. "A Muslim Astronaut's Dilemma: How to Face Mecca From Space." Wired. September 26, 2007. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Who ever wrote this article is an orthodox muslim and has an academic understanding of the subject....

Not that there is a "wrong or right" definition of the subject nor that I am sufi master who can give you the "correct" definition but if I wrote this article, I would define most of it very differently. As for sufism itself, I would say "It is a system of learning, wholly different from orthodox religions, in the fact that the teachings of sufism are imparted through a strict master-disciple relationship. Although, historically rooted in the Islamic tradition, each master is free to modify, and expand or renounce orthodox Islamic beliefs in order to teach their disiciple. Historically, Sufism developed as an organized movement in two primary locations: Baghdad or the Baghdadi school and Khorossan or the Khorsassni school. The later took a more characteristically Persian influence and the former a more Arabic influence. With the later also strong emphasis on systematic and logical discourse and while the former much less and more heavily relied on Persian influences of Javan Mardi."

See

(http://www.oneworld-publications.com/books/texts/the-heritage-of-sufism3-preface-and-foreword.htm)

Foreword: The Evolution of Sufism by Javad Nurbakhsh

The school (madhhab) of classical Sufism originated in Khurasan in northern Iran and from there was transmitted south-west to Baghdad. In the early days of Islam, the great representative masters of the Path in Khurasan included the likes of Abu'l-Fadl Qassab Amuli, Abu Sa`id ibn Abi'l-Khayr (d. 440/1049), Abu'l-Hasan Kharaqani (d. 426/1034) and Bayazid Bistami (d. 262/875).

The paradoxical sayings of Bayazid Bistami, even in his own day, gained a wide circulation in Iraq and soon exerted a captivating influence over the minds of students in search of the spiritual path of divine Unity and seekers who aspired to understand the meaning of the `Unity of Being'. In particular, his ideas deeply affected the thinking of Abu'l-Qasim Junayd (d. 295/910), Abu Nasr Sarraj al-Tusi (d. 378/988), Dhu'l-Nun al-Misri (d. 245/859) and many others, inspiring them to write extensive commentaries on his sayings.

Persian Sufism from the very beginning -- even prior to Junayd -- had a great effect on the Sufi masters of Baghdad, many of whom were also of Iranian descent. One may well speculate that Hasan al-Basri (d. 110/728), for instance, who fought with the Muslim armies in battles to subdue Khurasan in northern Iran, very likely associated with, and frequented the company of, the spiritual masters of this region during these campaigns. Amongst his sayings one finds the statement: `The lover is in a state of intoxication, from which he awakes only during contemplation of his Beloved.'

Malik reportedly asked Hasan al-Basri, ``Wherein does this world's chastisement lie?

``In the heart's death, replied Hasan.

``What is the `heart's death'? asked Malik.

``Love of the world, he replied.

A century later, some of the finer points of Sufism appear expressed by the sayings of Ma`ruf Karkhi (d. 200/815), such as: ``The Sufi is but a guest here, for a guest to request anything of his host is discourtesy. A courteous guest waits with confidence, rather than pressing his petition. Ma`ruf Karkhi also is known for his statement that ``hroughout all being, naught but God exists.

In the generation following Ma`ruf Karkhi, one finds some extraordinary sayings among the masters of the Baghdad school of Sufism. Junayd's master, Sari Saqati (d. 255/871), for instance, when asked to describe the Sufis, explained, ``The food they eat is like that eaten by the sick, and their sleep is like that of the drowned. Junayd reported that Sari once said, ``Love between two people is not equitable until the one says to the other, `O me . . .!' [instead of `O you . . .!']; that is to say, that there is no place for separate individual identity in love. Sari's lovely remarks about the `idolatry of beards' are worth quoting in this context:

There exist two types of idolatry in keeping a beard. Firstly, one must either comb it for the sake of people, or secondly, leave it to become matted so as to maintain an ascetic facade.

If a visitor to drop by to see me, and were I stroke and comb my beard with my hand to please him, in my own eyes, I'd be an idolater.

As if describing the passage of Sufism from Khurasan to Iraq outlined above, Sari also remarked, ``As long the science of Sufism was preserved in Khurasan, one found it (diffused) everywhere, but ever since it came to an end there, it cannot be found anywhere.

However, by the time of Abu'l-Qasim Junayd (d. 295/910; born in Nahavand near Hamadan in western Persia), the school (madhhab) of classical Sufism had blossomed luxuriously and little by little acquired innumerable advocates, devoted followers and spiritual masters. As a matter of course, this excited the jealousy of the exoteric authorities. Particularly alarmed by the Sufi's popularity were those jurisprudents and judges who, in order to further their own dictatorial aims, wished to live freely off the state by collaboration with the caliphs. In an attempt to curb the rise and diffusion of Sufism, these authorities began to harass and issue fatwas for the death of some of the Sufis such as Hallaj and Ibn `Ata.

One reason for their animosity was that the school of divine Unity (tawhid) and Sufism in Islam is based on the principles of freedom, chivalry, altruism, service to all humanity and advocacy of human rights, the very principles which these exoteric judges and jurisprudents discerned -- quite correctly -- to be directed at neutralizing their own dogmatic control of Islamic thought. By way of allusion to these oppressive social conditions, Junayd said, ``For twenty years I have been discoursing only on marginal aspects of this science [of Sufism], but of what concerns its profoundest depths have not breathed a word, for tongues have been forbidden to utter that and hearts not permitted to apprehend it. One may also interpret Abu Bakr Shibli's (d. 334/945) remark, ``Now is a time of silence, of seclusion in houses and putting one's trust in God, the Everlasting in the same vein.

The Schools of Intoxication and Sobriety

The school of Khurasan, which was also known as the school of intoxication (sukr), pertained to Bayazid Bistami and his followers. Since Khurasan was beyond the reach of the caliph and the theologians on his payroll, Bayazid was able to express his ideas more openly, with less inhibition and greater boldness, although some of his adages took the form of ecstatic sayings couched in symbolic paradoxical allusions (shath).

The school of sobriety (sahw) -- also known as the school of Baghdad -- which pertained to Junayd and his disciples, who maintained that there was a second sobriety which is higher than intoxication, was on the other hand, subjected to the powerful autocracy of state-controlled Islam, so that most of Junayd's sayings bear the influence of the oppressive political milieu in which he lived. Although `sobriety' literally denotes the state of temperate consciousness following drunkenness, the term also contains political overtones, implying: ``Put a halter on this spiritual drunkenness; be vigiliant lest the mullas declare you a heretic!

Whereas the spiritual attitude of the school of intoxication in which the ideals of classical Persian Sufism are best represented, might be summed up by Kharaqani's maxim: ``Give bread to all those who enter the khanaqah, but do not interrogate visitors about their faith; the Baghdad school, based on temperance and sobriety, would have voiced the opposite sentiment: ``Interrogate all who enter the khanaqah about the probity of their faith, and only then, if acceptable, admit them.

Therefore, one can say that up until the middle of the fourth Islamic/tenth Christian century, a trace of genuine Sufism was still left, although this gradually disappeared and became forgotten. After that date, however, despite appearances and the often great popularity and widespread following of significant figures in Sufism in the lands of Iran beyond the borders of the school of Baghdad -- in particular one should cite the names of Farid al-Din `Attar, `Ayn al-Qudat Hamadhani, Suhrawardi, Ghazali, Ruzbihan, Jalal al-Din Rumi, `Abdu'llah Ansari, Najm al-Din Kubra and Ibn `Arabi (albeit in Spain) -- most of these Sufis were either slain, exiled or subjected to severe pressures by the religious authorities of the state.

In a word, one may say that upon the death of Junayd in 295/910, the expanse of gnostic Sufism (tasawwuf-i `arifana) was folded up and came to an end, and with the death of Ruzbihan Baqli three hundred years later in 606/1210, the flame of Sufism based divine love (tasawwuf-i `ashiqana) was snuffed out. What is left of Sufism today can be summed up in the poet's verse:

So togged up

in gild and lacquer

you'd never recognize it

if you saw it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.168.113 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Sufism focuses more on personal experience of the person when it comes to the divine rather than theological studies and applying the teachings of others. --Saab 1989 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Al-Insān al-Kāmil

I've just noticed the article Al-Insān al-Kāmil which includes some claims for Islamic belief in the divinity of the Prophet Muhammad. This seems to my poorly informed eyes a little unorthodox; the article needs someone from this project to correct errors and/or add references. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Muslims and controversies has been nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3#Template:Muslims_and_controversies. --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

New category: Category:Ahmadiyya by country

I realised that there's probably room to start covering countries in which there's a substantial Ahmadiyya presence, so I've created Category:Ahmadiyya by country. It could probably use a "by country" template at the base too. Any help adding articles to this cat would be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Christ myth theory page name

Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ehyaa

The article Ehyaa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references was not able to validate this article. Fails WP:V and WP:N. If reliable sources are available in non-English language please add them and remove the prod

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Apes and pigs in Islam

A new article called Apes and pigs in Islam has sprung up. It should probably be deleted but I'm hoping someone from the project can deconstruct it more eloquently than I can. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of Islam

In the early days of the Seventh Century a monk who had been excommunicated from the Christian Church for teaching heresy impregnated a woman near the desert where he had been taken. The woman and her husband found the monk and nursed him back to health. The couple had no children for the man was impotent. Soon thereafter the woman became impregnated by the Monk. The man surreptitiously invited the monk to go with him near the dessert where he pulled a scimitar to kill the monk. The monk explained that he would raise this boy to become a world figure and would make his name famous. The man acquiesced and the monk true to his word and always writing in a book he carried at all times, began schooling this child to become a Priest & a Scholar as well as a preacher. The boy was christened Mohamed. Although he had epilepsy he was a quick learner and during his seizures the monk, Abu Talib, {purported to be Mohamed's uncle}explained them away as speaking to God. The monk pushed the young man to learn constantly and constantly drove him hard to learn. On one occasion during a scheduled huge gathering Talib, who by now had finished his writing of the Quaran showed it to Mohamed, at the same time showing him another writing with blank pages. Talib instructed Mohamed to preach to the gathering and at the end show the book of blank pages to the crowd and tell them you will throw the book into a well located near them and God will create a book upon those pages. The monk would lower himself into the well and upon the book being tossed to him he would send up the written book showing the crowd the miracle God had wrought. Now was a good chance for Mohamed to take back his life and become his own leader so he shouted to the crowd for each person to take three rocks and cast them into the well as a token to God for the Book. This was done and now Mohamed was his own man and would continue building the lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.32.202 (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Redemption (theology)

This article could benefit from the addition of Islamic views on the subject. bd2412 T 01:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article source: women in Islamic finance in Malaysia

Hi! I found:

• Gooch, Liz. "A Path to Financial Equality in Malaysia." The New York Times. September 26, 2010.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Muslim atheists

Category:Muslim atheists, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Genie" or "jinn"?

If you have an opinion on what ought to be the appropriate title for this article (currently at Genie), feel free to participate in the discussion here. Cavila (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarwari Qadiri

Could editors with expertise in Sufism please improve or merge Sarwari Qadiri? Please also note that the article's creator has also attempted article forks at Qadri sarwari‎ and Qadrisarwari. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Islam-related articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Islam-related articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging Al-Insān al-Kāmil with İnsan-ı Kamil

I need help from Project Islam. There are two articles with very old merge tags on them - Al-Insān al-Kāmil and İnsan-ı Kamil. Please let me know if these articles are about the same thing and if they should be merged. Comment at the talk page please. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Help requested: Articles on Muhammad and Ali in the Bible

Could I have some help please, on the articles Muhammad in the Bible and Ali in the scriptures? English is not the first language of the articles' creator, and he has asked for help on what appear to be good-faith articles. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it's difficult to tell which of the claims the articles make of references pointing to the arrival of Muhammad and Ali in the Bible are mainstream Shi'a theology as he claims, and which are original research per WP:NOR. Muhammad in the Bible in particular contained a line beginning "I have found...", which points to WP:NOR, if I'm reading his English correctly. All help and advice will be gratefully received. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ali Masjid

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of Daniel

FYI, Islamic view of Daniel has been prodded for deletion . 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was able to have this article restored. However, I believe if we would like it to stay alive that more needs to be added to the article to bring its quality up. Right now its little more then an unsourced stub. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

There are three editors pushing POV and attempting to keep out of the article on Gaza War information showing the recent conviction of two IDF soldiers for war crimes in using a Palestinian child as a human shield. These three editors act similarly across Wikipedia articles relevant to Israel and Palestine. This is the well sourced information they keep removing. [[9]]

n March 2010 what has been recognized as one of the most high-profile criminal cases from Operation Cast Lead began. Two Israel Defense Forces soldiers were suspected of using a 9 year-old Palestinian boy, Majd Rabah, as a human shield by forcing him at gunpoint to open a number of bags the IDF soldiers though might contain explosives. On October 3, 2010 both soldiers were convicted of reckless endangerment and conduct unbecoming. This was reportedly the first such conviction in Israeli history, where the use of civilians as human shields is banned. During sentencing the soldiers were placed on 2 years probation with a suspended sentence of a minimum three-month jail term if they commit another crime. Both soldiers were demoted to the rank of Sergeant. Bill Van Esveld, an Israel-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, noted that using civilians as human shields is under the laws of war a war crime. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I will file a report at WP:NPOVN, but first I need the names of the three editors that are pushing POV. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They are Jiujitsuguy, Mbz1, Cptnono. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at a couple links and the relevant discussion on Talk:Gaza War, and it looks like all of you are making these edits in good faith. However, it looks like they are going to write the information in a draft (see this entire discussion) and then put it in the article. So as far as I can tell, there's no need to bring this to NPOVN. I have an idea. I am a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, so if you were to write up a draft as recommended by the editors on Talk:Gaza War, I will copy edit it for you, meaning I will fix any grammar mistakes that I find. I will also do my best to make it encyclopedic. What do you think? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is my draft which as far s I can tell is NPOV and encyclopedic but you can certainly improve and post:

In March 2010, what has been recognized as one of the most high-profile criminal cases from Operation Cast Lead began. Two Israel Defense Forces soldiers were suspected of using a nine-year-old Palestinian boy, Majd Rabah, as a human shield by forcing him at gunpoint to open a number of bags that the IDF soldiers though might contain explosives. On October 3, 2010, both soldiers were convicted of reckless endangerment and unbecoming conduct. This was reportedly the first such conviction in Israeli history, where the use of civilians as human shields is banned. During sentencing, the soldiers were placed on two years' probation with a suspended sentence of a minimum three-month jail term if they commit another crime. Both soldiers were demoted to the rank of Sergeant. Bill Van Esveld, an Israel-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, noted that using civilians as human shields is a war crime.

In June 2010, Israeli Advocate-General Avichai Mandelblit summoned a recently discharged soldier for a special hearing. The soldier was suspected of opening fire on Palestinian civilians when a group of 30 Palestinians that included women and children waving a white flag approached an IDF position. The incident, which occurred on January 4th, 2009, resulted in the death of two non-combatant women. Israeli Advocate-General Avichai Mandelblit decided to indict the IDF soldier, a member of the Givati Brigade, on a charge of manslaughter after the hearing, despite some contradictory testimony. This may have been based on the soldier admitting to firing on a woman he says he feared endangered his life.

I also don't see where it is good faith to delete this information, change the information in the last paragraph to unverified information that doesn't match the source, specifically with statements attempting to show that this person did noting wrong. The top paragraph being deleted left the preceding paragraph stating that the only human shields are used by HAMAS. :

Information prior to Jijitsuguy edit and deletion of well sourced information [10] Original copy before any edits and my first edit :[11] Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have started to copy edit the draft you provided, but I still need to trim it down a bit. I was assuming good faith because four editors, the three you mentioned and Sean.hoyland, don't believe the information should be included unless it is drafted to be shorter and more encyclopedic. If they were to revert the trimmed and copy edited version and not provide a reason for doing so, then that would be a violation of policy, but as of now, they aren't doing anything wrong. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've put the draft in my sandbox to work on it. You're welcome to make any edits you would like. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will follow your progress. Thank you for the help. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Islam Makrifat

I came across this article, and could not understand at all what it was trying to say. Then, I went looking for references, and found a reference that tells me that makrifat is the final stage of mystical advancement in Javanese Sufi sects, the attainment of intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths. I will update the article to reflect the reference I've found, but would be grateful if another editor could take a look at it because I really don't know anything about this topic. Many thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving to Makrifat, as a brief google search doesn't turn up any non-Islamic term makrifat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

FYI, Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism has been sent for deletion at AfD. Someone then slapped a CV tag on it without providing a reason... 76.66.202.72 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I realise that an actual CV is an administrator issue, but this CV appears to be a blatant attempt to block the text rather than a legitimate CV. I checked for explanation, for an alleged copyvio'ed URL/source, and ran several samples from different parts of the text throughy Google and found no hits other than that article which match the phrasing. Accordingly, I've removed the CV tag as undefended, which I would not have done if any of the CV procedures had been followed in any way. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

TfD: Religious text primary

Regarding Template:Religious text primary, please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Religious text primary. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed annual interreligious discussion

I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Annual meeting? a possible annual discussion of religious matters here in an interreligious forum. Any input on the subject is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Shia holiest sites

There was an edit dispute going on and i would like some feedback and consensus.

• This is my version i want to revert it to : [12]

• This is the current version : Holiest sites in Islam (Shia)

In my version, i did not delete any entries. i only organized them so that instead of having (for example) Medina repeatedly scattered throughout the article, (with a seperate section for Al-Masjid al-Nabawi and a seperate one for Al-Baqi'), i merged them into one subsection if they are in the same city. I addressed my concerns more thoroughly in the article talk page. Also, the only 2 cities sacred to all Shias are Karbala and Najaf, but the current article adds dozens of other sacred sites to these two places.

So, do you support or oppose my edit? Someone65 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Last night you moved 20 or 30 "Islamic science" articles to "Caliphate science", claiming authority under an RFC you weren't involved in, and which contemplated no such actions. Then you deleted the name of Allah from the "Islam" article without mentioning it in your edit summary. Regrettably, I must oppose your edit, since I cannot be sure how it might actually turn out. Aquib (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aquib over the move drive. Regarding 'Shia holiest sites' it seems article is good in differentiating sites as per their acceptance by different groups, its better that sites are not repeated but I don't think to list them according to any other demarcation (e.g. cities, etc) will be a good idea as that may be confusing. Or we can have a table which lists name of site, city, and acceptance. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User Faizhaider, we can think on his feedback and accordingly proceed further with working on it. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Shi'a vs. Shia vs. Shiite : can we get a spelling agreement and add it to WP:MOSISLAM?

A year or more ago I floated this idea, got little feedback but some lukewarm support for "Shi'a", so started using that in my new articles. Fast forward a year, and nobody had undertaken any standardisation. I floated the idea on the talk page of Shia Islam last week, didn't get much comment, so started moving articles to the "Shi'a" spelling. Note that almost every category was already spelled "Shi'a", so I didn't think it was that contentious.

Turns out there's another user switching articles from "Shi'a" to "Shia". So at this point I thought we should consult some folks, try to get a consensus, and maybe even get the approved spelling added to WP:MOSISLAM or some similar policy page.

To open the floor: what spelling do folks prefer, and what is your clear argument for said spelling? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I vote for the spelling Shia, but dont really mind Shi'a. I am however completely opposed to Shiite, since its the equivalent of Sunnite. Its not near arabic transliteration there. Someone65 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I orignally responded to a post at Talk:Shia Islam, this is a bit tweaked & expanded version of that response,

Shiite is a Orietal transliteration and now sort of archaic in academic circles. Shia is used more often as it is simple without an apostrophe but Shi'a is better representation of original Arabic word. Whild Shia is more often used in South Asia (by all muslims, non-muslims, govt., academicians, etc.) and rest of the world were British Empire ruled at any point of time and exported English to that region (rememeber it was Indian-subcontinent where English first came in close interaction with Shia Muslims). Rest of the world (esspecially Arab & Persian speaking) uses Shi'a but remember English was not a common language in any of this countries till recent (& not even now) so they tend to have different standards of transliteration. Until last century in English Orietal transliteration were being replaced by South Asian transliterations but recently (in last decade or so with spread of internet) now it is more globaly accepted phenomenin to transliterate words as per orignal language pronounciation (i.e. how Oriental Osman became South-Asian Usman & then Arab Uthman or Koran→Quran→Qur'an, etc.). So, in this case it is, Shiite→Shia→Shi'a. Wikipedia favours local language transliteration , is there any clear guideline for it? and do we have transliteration guidelines for Arabic words? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The term Shiite is almost not used nowadays as it's exact latinization of it's Arabic origin. (It's notable that in the Arabic origin, the letter T in the end is not pronounced). Between the terms Shi'a and Shia, the latter is preferred nowadays. It is comparable with terms like Aisha, Umar, Uthman and.... instead of 'Aisha, 'Umar, and 'Uthman. Number of results of Google search confirms this: 720000 for Shi'a [13] and over 9 million for Shia [14].--Aliwiki (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm relatively cool with "Shia" as well. One of my personal views on diacritics, etc, is "will many readers pronounce it differently because of it?" Heck, even I pronounce Shi'a and Shia the same in English, and I'd venture to guess for most people that apostrophe isn't adding anything. That said, I do think we should continue to solicit input for the rest of the month; a quick survey shows around 50 or more categories with that word in the title, plus however many pages, so it'll be a substantial change. One big WP:CFD can knock out all the cats, but I'm not immediately aware of any way to quickly change all the article titles. On a minor sidenote, I do think we should retain "Shiite" for specific set phrases where that spelling is more common, such as Shiite Tide, but otherwise no. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Same with me, I don't have any reservation for any Shia or Shi'a and I also pronounce them exactly same (I think inthis case I just ignore apostrophe, may be this because we are aware of correct pronounciation or the pronunciation correct to our region) but Arabic language has great emphasis on directrics/syllables and meaning of words change accordingly, so, may be for an Arab or Arabic speaking person there is difference between Shia & Shi'a (there have to be). BTW, there is one more spelling Shi'i (pronunced as She-ee its equivalent to Shi'as) but its not concern here this is plural variant form. As Matthew pointed out that this is a big change I think opinion from wp:arabic/arab project & wp:lingustics project will be more helpful we need native and lingustic experts. Can we create discussion page in common space? so, that all of us can have discuss it. That will also be helpful to get the approved spelling added to WP:MOSISLAM. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 04:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Assassins

The usage of assassins is up for discussion, see Talk:Hashshashin . 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Terms from Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year

The category Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year had quite a few Islamic terms redlinked. Most of them appear on Glossary of Islam, so I've linked them to that page and appropriate filing letter. At this moment those links are blue, but it causes some minor confusion in that some of those terms were redlinked on Glossary of Islam, so it ends up creating a redirect to itself in those cases where there is no larger article outside the definition on this page.

The other terms, still redlinked, are ones that either do not appear at all on Glossary of Islam and could be added to the glossary (and a redirect to its entry here made on the redlink), or items which may appear here under a different spelling/form.

Ehtiaat (See:[15]) - Ehtiaat-Mustahabbi - Ehtiaat-Waajib - Hadath-Asghar - Haid - Hajjatul Tamatu - Halif - Halq - Halqah - Fidyah - Foroo-e-Din - Haud-e-Kauthar - Hijr-e-Ismaaeel - Ihtiyat Wajib - Istihaada - Ihtiyat - Istinja - Ja'iz - Kaffarah - Ma'zur - Maqame-e-Ibrahim - Mas'ala - Mawlaya - Mu'aamalaat - Mu'jizah - Musalli - Mushawarah - Nahi anil Munkar - Nasihah - Nifaas - Qadha - Qard - Qira-at - Sabirin - Suffah - Suhuf - Surmah - Tahur - Thawab - Wafat - Wakil

Thanks for any help in knocking out these requested articles from more than a year back, and making it easier for Islamic terms to be defined. I've knocked out half the list, but the rest are beyond my knowledge. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A new project for Islamic civilization has been proposed

I have created a new project proposal, with explanation,here. Support and discussions are needed. I see this as a long term objective, rather than an intense, short-term effort. Thanks for your time. Aquib (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Mir Asedullah Quadri

There is some blatant COI editing here. However, the chap may or may not merit an article, and it would be good if some knowledgeable people could take a look, before we either have a puffery promotion article, or have the who thing removed by people over-reacting to Islamic promotion.--Scott Mac 21:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I already have concerns that his denomination might actually be Barelvi, but they confusingly claim the larger "Ahle Sunna wal Jamaat" term exclusively for themselves, though most Sunnis would lay some ownership to that term. If outside sources describe him as Barelvi, that term should be used in the lede vice letting the Barelvis claim the term exclusively. Not unlike having a Baptist preacher prefer being called simply "true Christian" to the exclusion of non-Baptists. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, at this point I have to admit my utter ignorance of Islam, and hope that folk who know more can sort it, or nominate it for deletion, as they see best.--Scott Mac 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Article seems to indicate he's still alive, so tagging WP:BLP. If they don't provide a reference soon, it can be deleted just on BLP grounds. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinions

Imadjafar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Aquib american muslim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Someone65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

AllahLovesYou (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As we know, Shias and Sunnis have different hadiths; thus different opinions on prophets who are not mentioned in the Quran. I'm having issues with user:Imadjar and need a 3rd opinion. Im especially looking for Shia opinions.

I think his articles are textbook violations of Wikipedia:No original research policy. User:Imadjafar has a habit of falsely associating Biblical figures with islam, providing no references; misinterpreting Quranic references; and mysteriously, even using bible references.

For example, he thinks the following names are important figures honored in islam;

• Jochebed, Zipporah, Rachel, Rebecca, Anne, Elizabeth, Miriam .

All are obviously false; but he reverts my revert and puts the uncited absurdities back in This Template. (see his edits [16])

Do you agree that Samuel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel or Isaiah play absolutely no role in Islam? Or is it just me? User:Imadjafar claims they are all prophets of islam.

He even created an article 50 days ago (now deleted), stating Yusha ibn Nun is considred a prophet by all muslims. He doesn't seem to understand there are only 25 prophets in islam. [17] These socalled prophets are not mentioned in Quran Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Six major Hadith collections and most of his articles dont even have legit Primary sources.

So what are your thoughts?

Are they mentioned in any Shia hadiths?

Do you consider them prophets of Islam?

Someone65 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Someone65 and thanks for your question. That's true their names are not in Quran, but indeed they are honored figures and some of them like Daniel and Ezekiel are considered prophets. --Aliwiki (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Someone65,

I found references to all of the women you listed, in the Quran. But you might check with user:AllahLovesYou, who is interested in those sorts of things too. Of course, AllahLovesYou hasn't been around since the 19th, the same day you got busy.

Aquib (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

*FACEPALM* No offense but i'm honestly wondering if User:Aquib could be suffering from a mental disorder, or he doesn't understand what 1 plus 1 means. Just because Moses is mentioned in the Quran, doesn't mean his entire extended family is also mentioned in the Quran! Thats like saying, "Zeus was a prophet of Islam.... because the ottoman caliphate conquered the outskirts of Athens". What kind of twisted logic is that? I'm honestly baffled at the logic of users such as Imadjafar and Aquib. Basic infant school quarrels like this make me feel Wikipedia is heading nowhere. If Jochebed and Rebecca etc. are really mentioned in the Quran why is there not a single Quran google index that has their name? In fact, i'm going to prove Aquib makes as much sense as a special-needs-student by challenging him.

Below is a Quranic search engine giving 3 major Quran translations where you can find any name, title or word in the Quran;

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/search.html

If Aquib can check and find a SINGLE mention of any of the six female names in This list, i promise i will personally retire my account immediately. If he can't do it, i hope he will stop reverting me.

I have edited wiki for several months now and this is the 1st time i've come accross that much nonsense. It's getting tiresome debating and reverting against such nonsense. Someone65 (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your trick question. They are all in the Quran, but they are not mentioned by name. For instance, Jochebed.

• Jochebed - Moses' mother
• Jochebed
• Jochebed
• Jochebed

Your strategy is simple and effective. Throw it on the wall and see what sticks. Do whatever you like and get the other editors scrambling around to find facts and disprove you. Make any claim in your discussions that is convenient, then deny you did so, even when the facts are in plain sight. I see you have decided to edit non-Islamic articles for a while to cover your tracks. Hopefully you will find another topic that interests you. Ethics perhaps.

Now I have a challenge for you. I haven't noticed a single original citation in your edits. Show me where you have entered an original citation from your own research, from an authoritative source, since you started editing.

Aquib (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User somone65, you must define for yourself what is definition of prophet in Islam. There are thousands of historical figures names which are not directly mentioned in Quran, so can you conclude there are not part of Islam or human history?! At least I saw with my eyes how respectful the Muslims visit the tomb of prophet Daniel in Susa. That his names in not in Quran, doesnt affect his prophecy. On the other hand, many persons such as Nimrud or Paul the Apostle who are considered great enemies of God and religion in Islam are also not mentioned directly. It maybe interesting for you to know Quran says God sent prophet(s) to ALL nations. For sure the prophets were more than 25!.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam article diagram

The Islam article as of today

This News and Notes edition discusses making diagrams of Wikipedia articles using free software.

Diagrams can be created here and downloaded

FreeMind software can be used to display, explore and export the diagrams to image files

The software is GPL licensed.

Aquib (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam in India

This article is in a mess. The last stable version was NPOV and focussed on socio-religious-cultural aspects of the Muslim community in India. The current version removes all references without discussion and slanted towards highlighting military and political aspects only. Can someone rework it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seethakathi (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Criticism of Islam is not developing very well and is, IMO, poorly written compared to other "Criticism" articles. It needs help. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Islam and violence

I came across this article today which I notice has not been tagged by this project. My initial reaction is that it is aa poor article that would need considerable work to make it worth keeping. Would people who know more about the subject care to have a look at it and express their opinions?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Peter. This article needs to be nominated for deletion and discussed in an objective manner, as it is an apparent synthesis of sources to support the primary unsourced assertions in the lead. Additionally, the article does not conform to the policy on neutrality in article titles and exhibits undue weighting towards the thesis, which is to say the article leans towards a particular POV.

I doubt there are quality studies of this subject in itself. If there are, they would be most welcome and doubtless cast the subject in a different light. There are likely to be many books and articles around this subject, most of which can be discarded on the basis of reliability in the proper forum.

This is not to say there is no violence in Islam. Of course there is, as there is violence in bicycle manufacture or any other topic involving humans. And everyone has opinions. But this article will not stand up to objective scrutiny. Perhaps it was spun out of the religious war article for excessive weight on Islam, but as a stand-alone article, it is even more egregious.

Best regards,

Aquib (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to check out the article with "open eyes", in that I was totally prepared to perhaps find it was an NPOV article that was being attacked simply because the material was controversial. That said, I would agree with above posters that the article seems quite heavy on WP:SYNTHESIS, and even a cursory glance shows stacks of quotations used as proof of factual evidence (even when, in some cases, the quotes don't even agree). Further concerns that a lot of the cited works (by no means all) seem highly politicised by the titles, and there seems a real lack of Muslim accounts/apologetics in the footnotes. I would argue that the topic is valid, if highly controversial, but that the current approach is not appropriate for a good 70-90% of the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that independent assessment. I have thought about this a good deal since I posted, and I agree the subject itself is topical. If the article were a balanced treatment of the subject, I would not object. In fact, it seems worthwhile. Aquib (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I came across Islam and war which links to the below similar articles. I would say there is a bigger problem with the coverage of Islam and violence on Wikipedia. Not only is there bias in the samples I have seen in this topic area, but there seems to be overlapping coverage of the subject to the point where every Google search phrase on the subject has its own article.

• Islam and violence
• Qur'an and violence
• Islamic Jihad
• Islamic terrorism
• Jihad in Hadith
• Jihad Watch
• Mujahidin, cognate
• Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad
• Militant Islam
• Muhammad as a general
• Muslim conquests

Some of these are legitimate topics in their own right, but I wonder what they contain.

Has anyone ever see a comparison of the topics and content of violence-related Islam articles to those of other religions?

Aquib (talk)

I am guessing that your assumption is correct. On the other hand, how many religions today have a significant cadre of people actively supporting violence, with many of the rest "tolerating" it. This wink-wink-nudge-nudge also persisted in the American South in the 1920s-1950s, with most Southerners procaliming their disassociation with the violence of the Klu Klux Klan but allowing it when confronted with it in a legal capacity, as Muslims have done for centuries, The American problem BTW, is well documented. See for example, Lynching in the United States. Islamic violence cannot be chronicled in that detail because there is so much of it. Student7 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just skimming around, there seem to be comparable articles for many of these topics among the other major religions. So, in terms of compliance with the core content policies, it may simply come down to the quality of the articles. There should be some academic papers out by now dealing with some of these subjects. Aquib (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AH year articles

Note, many AH year articles are being deleted. See PROD. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeemlingly all such articles are being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/320 AH . 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ergun Caner?

Should this page be under the scope of WikiProject Islam, and listed as articles affected? Caner is a purported former Muslim (Turkish father, Swedish mother) who has stated some blatant lies about a supposedly past as a "jihadist". The article has been vandalized a few times.--Filius Rosadis (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone rescue these articles?

We have a new editor, just blocked, who has created some problem articles:

Jafar Al Khadhab (one problem is his actual name, is it "Ja'far ibn Ali"?, sources are another).

Sarjoon is about someone called Sarjoon ibn Mansur and may be entirely copyvio. Is this this person? [18].

John ibn Jowey, maybe all copyvio also. If they are copyvio they may be deleted as they are so short and sources seem hard to find. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another Admin deleted the ones red-linked above, so the only problem now is the first article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wikified the Jafar Al Khadhab article, but unfortunately I was late for the other two.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Further improved the Jafar article, but it needs better refs. He appears to get some academic coverage though: "Hasan's brother, Ja'far, has received noteworthy attention"[19]. Is this the guy that the Jaffariya sect is based on? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Matthew, you are right, the article needs better references and in incoming days I will try to add more (now I am a bit busy). He is not the man who established the Jafari sect. There were two Jafars among Hashemite descendant of early Islam (to be more specific among Muhammad's descendant through her daughter Fatima): Jafar al-Sadiq means Jafar the truthful (6th Imam and founder of Jafari or Twelver sect) and Jafar al-Kadhab means Jafar the liar. The adjectives truthful and liar are based on Muhammad's prediction that two of his descendant in the name of Jafar would claim Imamate, one is truthful and one is liar.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar problem, I think in the same family

Here's another fellow who I think is in the same Jafar imamate lineage; the article seems hugely POV though, taking a stance on the person rather than describing: Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Aftah. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time I heard this name. Abdullah al-Aftah died few months after his father without any descendant and his followers joint Musa al-Kadhim. Heinz Halm in his book Shi'im has described this (See page 29 and 162 [20]). I suggest to nominate it for deletion.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I had to read it a couple times to make sense of it, but it appears to state that a faction, the "Fathites", believed Abdullah al-Aftah had a son, which is not believed by anyone else. I've reorganised the article to make it more legible, and also copied some content to create Fathite to explain the existence of this group. EDIT: looked them up by another spelling on GoogleBooks, turns out that they briefly followed Abdullah before coming over to Kadhim's camp, and that a small faction of them claimed that al-Aftah had a son and had not died without issue, but apparently they about all eventually got on-board with Musa al-Kadhim. Still worth noting as a historical breakaway sect, however brief. Added references to Fathite to make it an okay start. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Title selection for articles on Islamic prophets

Many of Islamic prophets are known by different names in biblical background. There exist main articles on these prophets with name known by the biblical background. There are also article of these prophets with Islamic prospective, but here also title is named by only Biblical names and Real Islamic name is not at all mentioned. Now think once a title has been allocated on biblical familiar name of a personality, the second article on the same personality on Islamic background should have mention name of Islamic context, when both biblical name and Islamic name exist in English reliable sources as common name.

Names are personnel noun and no names are called to be English or Arabic. The names are just names still Biblical names are only considered for the title. For the title selection Wiki has a policy and definite guidelines are framed for title selection. ‘Most common name in English’ is one of guideline, but it has been treated by some as only guideline overruling major criteria of ‘recognizability/familiarity’. The article on ‘Isa’ is named as ‘Jesus in Islam’which needs further analysis.The name Isa should come in the title. There is lengthy discussion in talk page of this article, but the issue was turned down on the single logic of ‘Most common English name’, all other logic placed are not accepted in absence of consensus. Somebody has suggested bring the issue here.

Hence I want to discuss the issue again here .A questionnaire was prepared on the subject, interested may answer so that we can know what is consensus on this platform. Title selection Policy is also described in brief here followed by questionnaire:

‘Wiki Policy:'

Wikipedia:Article titles

This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. ‘’’The principal criteria’’’ used by editors when deciding on a title for an article include:

“Recognizability –

an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject”. + 'Naturalness'...+Precision...+Conciseness...+ Consistency.. Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice.

Further Wiki guide line to above points

Common names:

1.‘Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.’

2. ‘When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above’.” Now point by point analysis is done .I request all the contributors to answer each question in yes or No only.

Questionare:

Q.1- Is the policy guideline taken above from Wiki policy is ok to decide on title ?

Q.2-Should be the ‘main criteria’ listed above to be main guiding factor?

Q.3.Is Recognizability, + 'Naturalness'...+Precision...+Conciseness...+ Consistency.. are main criteria?

Q.4- Recognizabilty is listed first in main criteria have lot importance ?

Q.5 ‘An ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject’ describe ‘ recognizibility’.Yes or No?

Q.6 Hence title should; ‘confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic’.Yes or No?

Q.7 One aspect of recognizibilty(Q.5) is ‘use of common english name’ . It is one of ‘important aspect’, but ‘principal criteria’ is fulfiling ‘recognizibility’.Yes or No?

Q.8.Title to be selected on ‘principal criteria’ of ‘recognizibility’ and ‘When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above’.Yes or No?

Q.9.Hence the ‘other criteria identified above’ namely 'Naturalness'...+Precision...+Conciseness...+ Consistency..’ are the ‘main criteria’ which have lower order preference than ‘‘recognizibility’ ,but will guide further in judging common name.Yes or No?

Q.10 In matter above, policy has asked for at least a ‘single obvious common name in english’.Yes or No?

Q.11.There is policy guideline available for ‘common name’ which guide further in case of common name vs.Title, which says that ‘Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.’ .Yes or No?

Q.12 ‘Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer the subject.’As per policy above. Hence’ most common name’ is not compulsory .Yes or No?

Q.13 ‘Recognizibility’ is ‘main criteria’ deciding title and not ‘the name most commonly used’.Yes or No?

Q.13 (a). Hence an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. Common name in English would be acceptable . If in dispute most common name and then other criteria to be referred.Yes or No? Now on the specific case of article “Jesus in Islam’;

Q.14 Type of article= Biography of Religious person related of specific religion Islam.,Yes or No?

Q.15; Detail of person: One of prophet of Islam, known by the name

Amongst Islam ;First name :Isa(known to all,even to less educated English reader)), Second name :Jesus etc. ( only known to well educated )

Amongst Christianity and others ; Jesus,Yeshu etc.etc.( some of them also know him as Isa)

Yes or No?

Q.16;Most person ‘who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic’ are follower of (directly concerned with) topic, hence follower (directly concerned with) of religion of the topic. Yes or No?

Q.17;Concerned Religion of the topic is Islam,Yes or No?

Q.18 Hence Most familiar person ( ‘who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic’) are follower (directly concerned with topic) of Islam.

Q.19 Population of these most familiar person are 1.8 billion. Even lowest literacy of 53 % , 1.0 billion most familiar English readers. Yes or not?

Q.20 One billion familiar readers are sufficient qty to have right to have the separate article on the subject of their interest.in Wiki.. Wiki has already provided the article on the subject.?

Q 21. Hence as per wiki policy title of this article should confirm to these most familiar readers(1 billion) who are follower (directly concerned with topic) of Islam?

Q.22 As subject of article is most familiar to these most familiar reader by name ‘isa’ . Tittle confirm to these readers are ‘Isa’. There is no ambiquity for this name amongst these most familiar readers’?

Q.23 ‘Isa’ name is also one of ‘common name in English reliable sources’.

Your Suggestions on the issue and answer to above are welcome.--Md iet (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. These are good questions, and I would like to know the answers, but I don't. I am still trying to get my head around the organization and development of this encyclopedia, especially the Islamic articles. The Islamic material on Wikipedia seems like a coral reef to me. There are relatively few editors interested in developing the articles, and there are forces constantly working to degrade the material once it's in place. In addition, a lot of the material going in comes from people with strong feelings one way or another - which manages to turn up in their work: not always very NPOV. Then there are obstacles such as the cultural conflicts on whether figures are being addressed in a respectful manner in the material, their titles and honorifics, ie a morass of regrettable cultural misunderstandings. Then we come to the topics of multiple spellings in English, and finally article names.

Article naming is of special interest to me because I wish to see this material developed in a neutral, factual manner. I am beginning to think there may be a case for integrating Islamic materials into their main, English titled articles. With improved visibility, some protection against vandalism, especially sneaky vandalism, might be afforded. Extreme bias might be more easily warded off.

In addition, I feel Islamic thought, history, culture and beliefs deserve a rightful place within the main articles of Wikipedia, rather than just alongside them in separate articles. It's an apartheid of Islamic content, and I expect much of it is self imposed.

Which brings me to your specific topic. In a perfect world, I would say Islamic views of the Abrahamic figures should be presented within the main, English-named articles so the reader has the most accurate, balanced view of the subject. However, I wonder if such an approach is practical. Would the Christian, Jewish, Muslim - and other - editors of these main articles be tolerant enough to support the inclusion of large amounts of differing and sometimes contradictory materials on subjects central to their beliefs? Are we ready for that? Perhaps, for now, a separate Islamic article with the Islamic name of the prophet, linked from a stub Islamic section in the main article is the best we can do.

Regards,

Aquib (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Aquib for your kind reply and understanding my basic feeling toward Wiki first and then for Islam. I am not in favor of giving any undue advantage to any religion or any specific view. Wiki's basic aim and its policies are framed like that only but they are misunderstood or the group of editor at present don't want to understand that way. If you have time please go through my complete discussion in the Talk:Jesus in Islam and User Talk:Md iet page. Hope understanding the need by people of like mind would help Wiki make more neutral and effective.

Your concluding remark for the article on Islam would go long way. Separate article exist linking stub Islamic section but there also the name is not as per known in Islam. Peoples are confused and defining Islamic name as Arabic. Name is name, it can't be English or Arabic. Name is important to identify or get imagine the thing in one word then why there is hitch in identifying by name 'Isa' of Islamic personality when it is described in that context. --Md iet (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Answer to my questions is not difficult. Just see the Wiki policy on title and use your common sense. Answer is only to be given in Yes or No, no justification required. This will make clear view points on these issues, to reach on some consensus.--Md iet (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

In the wake of the recent events in Egypt, many mainstream English media sources have reported on the Muslim Brotherhood, including in articles that provide an overview of the organization. Some, for example a recent article published by the Wall Street Journal (see the link on the talk page), have emphasized the diverse character of this organization. This may be a good opportunity to improve this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Need page for Jafar ibn Ali (Kadhab

There was previously an article Jafar al-Kadhab that was deleted (discussion earlier on this page). Not quite sure why it was deleted, but this figure does appear verifiable, and is mentioned in plenty of other articles such as Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Hasan al-Askari. The fact that he was called Kadhab (liar) is notable, though I don't know if it's overly POV to have that in his title, but we need some way to disambiguate him from Jafar ibn Ali back from Muhammed's generation. Any ideas on how to approach this page, and reliable sources? I'm finding plenty of non-RS religious sites on Google that give great explanations of Jafar al-Kadhab, but not finding any good gBooks references.MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Put Prophets and Messengers up for deletion?

It seems this article is just OR, and an unreferenced essay on the concept vice an actual summary of scholarship. Anyone object to putting it up for AfD? If we do though, recommend we communicate well with the main editor, as he's put good work into it, showing definite skills we'd like to keep on Wikipedia. I'd hate to discourage a good writer by sinking an article, but I'm just not seeing the WP validity of this one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely original research, and deleting it may be the best option. However, this is a topic that can be written about using only secondary sources, such as this or this. So I think an article could exist on the topic, but this isnt the article. nableezy - 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also this article, Messengers of Islam. Is there any legitimate/academic/non-OR reason to lump the Islamic concepts of "Messenger" and "Prophet" together? Ah, and then there's also Prophets_of_Islam#Distinguishing_between_prophets_and_messengers, which our [[Prophets and Messengers

]] is the {{main to. There's got to be some way to sort these out. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

FA review of The Autobiography of Malcolm X

The Autobiography of Malcolm X has been nominated as a Featured Article candidate. The editors who have nominated it would appreciate it if editors would volunteer to review it.

If you're interested, please see the second blue box ("Supporting and opposing") at the top of WP:FAC and the review FAQ for additional information. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Stumbling upon Qasim Ali Zahir Nejad I was surprised at the modern terminology used in an article about such an ancient person, but then I realized that all the dates in the article are in the Islamic calendar. I'm not sure if there's a conversion template to show both or whether the dates should all be converted to Gregorian or what. (Plus one of the dates is given as in October.) I'm just very confused and wondering if someone here could help. Danger (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The article depicts an important and controversial general who served in the Iranian army during the Iran-Iraq war. [21] The dates are not accurate Hijri or Gregorian dates, there must be a conversion error. The 1357 date (if it were an AH date) would translate to 1938 CE, but the revolution being referred to is actually the 1979 Iranian revolution. [22]

The name is hard to find because his first name is often spelled many ways other than Qasim. Qaseem Qassem Qasem Ghasem... Take the Qasim Ali off, and you will see his name appear prominently in books on the war. Whether we can find his birthday and year of death in English is uncertain. But there are many interesting hits on his name out there, and quite a story to his life, it seems.

Aquib (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Hijri dates, Persian dates. See Persian calendar. The current Iranian calendar also starts Year Zero from the Hijrah, but rather than counting lunar years (like the Islamic calendar), it counts solar years starting on 21 March. We're ending 1388 in the Persian calendar now, turns 1389 this 21 March. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was turning 1390 - Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting! -Aquib (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Too bad there isn't a conversion template someplace. So dates could be left in their original (referenced) form and still be listed out in standard. There are conversion sites on the web, of course, but using one is "kind-of" or-ish. Opportunity for error. Student7 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My bust, Eulenspiegel is correct, it's turning 1390 in the Persian calendar at the end of this month. Converting from Persian years to Western is actually pretty easy provided you know what month it happened it. Otherwise you could be a year off, since Persian years start/end around March 20/21. Both Persian and Western are solar calendars, so their years are almost exactly the same length (they do the fractions/leap-years a tiny bit different), the issue is just that they don't both start in January. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Steyn

There is currently a dispute on Talk:Mark Steyn as to whether or not Steyn should be identified as a human rights advocate. CJCurrie (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help, and to help yourselves, at two pages

I ran across the following (wikified) text at, what I consider, an important article for this project. It says:
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs"
That specific phrase occurs twice in Wikipedia, with the other instance existing happily without a fact-tag yet, on a similarly important page. This wording seems basic and I do not dispute that the phrase in English is (in some transliterations from Arabic) a viable translation of the prophet's, thoughts/words (or interpretations of them, based on the wording associated with its in-article usage), but the words/thought now exist only either unsubstantiated or fact-tagged. It seems likely that a book:chapter:verse location of those words (or the thought) might be more-readily available from editors who are religious- or interest-based, and patrolling this page. While I could spend the time to do so, by looking through my bilingual book-version of the primary source, it does not pass my interest/time-based threshold to do so; I do however, consider it sufficiently important to mention it here, for others more fluent and interested. From personal experience as well as the phrases' usage in these two articles, I consider the thought of considerable significance in bettering a reader's knowledge and understanding of your project's work; editorially however, I feel the lack of citation is similarly significant in its absence. This really should be ref'd, it is a 'to do'. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article

You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Muslim holidays

Hi, I'm in the process of arranging the distribution of 400 free Credo Reference accounts to Wikipedians, generously donated by the company and organized by Erik Moeller of the Wikimedia Foundation. See WP:CREDO for more details. The accounts will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, plus some eligibility requirements, and the application list will open on March 23 at 22:00. I want to make sure that this day doesn't clash with any religious Christian, Jewish, or Muslim holidays that would make it less likely, or impossible, for observant Wikipedians to be online. Could you please let me know if there's any such issue with March 23? The list will remain open for a week, but the first day is likely to be the busiest. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Too close for nominees. With time, I might come up with some. I can't justify this for myself, but have seen referencing Stakhanovites that I would like to see have this. Student7 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts if you're interested in applying for one. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured sound candidates

Hi! I'm Adam Cuerden, one of the directors of Featured Sounds. We're a somewhat minor featured content process at the moment, but we'll be getting on the main page soon, which should increase our visibility a lot.

Unfortunately, we completely lack any Islam-related sounds. If anyone knows of free-licensed recordings, or is willing to record any, even if they're just simple, every-day occurrences like a muezzin reading out the call to prayer, they would be greatly valued. As well, they may prove useful to the Muslim community: when I was in Utrecht last month, I was staying with a friend who lived next to a mosque, and they broadcast what I was told was a recording of a muezzin, since the community was still fairly small, and it is to be hoped that Featured sounds could be used to let such communities know about such recordings.

Thank you,

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Islamic candidates in US political races

I found:

• Boundaoui, Assia. "For Muslim politicians, running for office is the American way." CNN. March 24, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Family Planning in Muslim Communities

I am proposing expanding upon and possibly editing the page entitled Family Planning. The Wikipedia page indicates a need for a greater world view of the topic because though it mentions China, Hong Kong, and Family Planning in Iran, there is a great deal of content missing. I am interested in adding a major section to the page covering Family Planning in Muslim Communities. This topic is incredibly important as Islam, a religion which by its most conservative standards considers family planning solely in terms of the writings of the Qur’an and hadith, comprises approximately 21-23% of the world’s population.

There exists an increasing body of research on this topic in various Muslim communities as well as increasing legislation on the topic in most Islamic states. I propose to give examples of varying Muslim communities in order to explain family planning practice differences according to geographic location, differences between the Shia and Sunni denominations, and current legislation in various Islamic states.

One of the World Health Organization’s Millennium Development Goals (5.B) highlights a need for universal access to Reproductive health, pointing out an unmet need for family planning. I believe a thorough, unbiased presentation of family planning in Muslim populations will expand upon challenges to this goal and bring light to the development of women and human rights in these communities.

I thought this was important to post here because Islam is a large part of my suggested entry. I would like to ask the members of WikiProject Islam for suggestions in sources? In addition, are there any suggestions for how to best structure this topic in the most neutral, non-sectarian way? Are there specific considerations I should make that I have overlooked? Mschweickart (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)mschweickart

Economic histories of religions and ethnicities

Please see the central discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews#Economic history of Religion X, regarding:

1. Economic history of the Muslims and its related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims.
2. Economic history of the Christians and its related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians.
3. Economic history of the Jews and its related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Islam/Members

Reorganization of WP:WikiProject Islam/Members proposal. See its talk page. --Peaceworld 21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Quranistsnetwork

This is a new user who is interested in the various categories of Muslims, and many of his contributions have been undone or tagged for deletion. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to tell to what degree his contributions are helpful; could someone with more knowledge take a look? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge

All or several of the following should be merged:

• Islamic marital jurisprudence
• Islamic marital practices
• Interfaith marriage in Islam
• Nikah
• Islamic marriage contract
• Beena marriage
• Islam regarding intentions to marry
• Polygyny in Islam
• Nikah Misyar
• Nikah 'urfi
• Nikah mut‘ah
• Nikah Halala
• Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam

There also seems to be a double article for divorce:

• Khula
• Talaq

I'm not sure which should be merged or with what. But its pretty untidy and sloppy to have so many articles on the same (or similar) marriage subject. I would like invite others to help me choose which articles should be merged. I think they could all fit into 2 or 3 articles. Pass a Method talk 10:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for arranging the material:

I think it may help to think of the topics more objectively through better naming. Doesn't have to be actual:

• Martial jurisprudence in Islam
• Martial practices in Islam
• Interfaith marriage in Islam (same name)
• Marriage contract in Islam (Nikah) (which is now obviously duplicated with the name that follows
• Intentions to marry in Islam
• Polygnyny in Islam (same name)

I don't think I want to separate Beena marriage for now. Strange enough that it might require a separate article. A bit reminiscent of Native American practices BTW.

Disclosure: have not really looked closely at any of these articles. Looking at titles only.

Note that instead of merging together all Islamic topics on marriage, a different sort of merger is possible: merger of all article on "marital jurisprudence", all articles on "Interfaith marriages", etc. So merely sorting them out this way may not suggest they be merged at all, except the one whose contents seems to duplicate. Student7 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should sort them into around two or three or so articles. However, i'd like to get some more input first. I will now add a RfC tag Pass a Method talk 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, only looking at titles, it would seem reasonable that "Marriage contract" be a subsection or a fork from "Marital Jurisprudence." Since we are only talking Islamic law here, I suppose "Intentions to marry" also under "Martial jurisprudence." The "Intentions to marry" article appears antique. It is poorly named, in reality. I'm not even getting tabs to move it, if I wanted! Student7 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just added five more marriage articles. This is ridiculous. There also seems to be a double for divorce. Pass a Method talk 22:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note these actually cover separate subjects for the most part. If you become familiar with the subjects, you will see their separation into separate articles parallels the way similarly complex subjects are covered in other cultures. One difference here is some of the articles are little more than stubs. This is not because there is little to say on the subjects, but rather that no one has gotten around to filling them in. Let me give you some examples.

Khula is one form of divorce in Islam, but there are others as well. Compare to western no-fault divorce, annulment, divorce, divorce law, collaborative divorce etc articles.

Nikah is one form of Islamic marriage, but there are others. Compare to western marriage, common law marriage, wedding, marriage law etc articles.

The point being this is a vast, undercovered Islamic topic area. It needs attention and development far beyond the stubs we currently have. There are a few duplicate articles, and also missing articles. Hopefully some day there will be good articles on most of these (there are some duplicates and problems, but not particularly in the ways identified here).

-Aquib (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

First, one should not amend the comments of others on the discussion page.

Second, we should not be trying to "teach" English speakers foreign terms. "Nikah..." articles should all be given common English names. Arabic does not carry over. We might have been able to tolerate one, but five or six is not reasonable. And, for discussion purposes, we would need "virtual" (pseudo) (objective) names to consider what to do with these new ones. If we're going to wind up with yet another dozen, maybe we should wait?

My thought would be to combine the two that duplicate and merge others as they come along. There is no way you will ever get consensus on all of these, plus the unreported dozen. My suggestion is just hammer away at the most obvious duplicates and then come back for discussion. Otherwise, we'll be still be discussing when Wikipedia is getting edited by AIs. Student7 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the Islamic marital practices should become more of a survey article, and most of this content could be merged and redirected. Other larger and more important topics could be given an overview and linked to their separate article. I would tentatively say the bulk of these articles could be redirected, but I would have to look a little more indepth to find out. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Islam and violence revisited and User:Noleander

People might recall this thread in which I brought attention to the above poor article. I had originally looked at the article as I was interested in whether it had the same sort of problems as the articles created by the same author on Jewish-related subjects. The author has since been topic-banned by Arbcom from Jewish-related subjects. The case unearthed fairly extensive misrepresentation of sources by the user in question. The author's editing in Islamic-related areas was less extensive than what he did in Jewish areas, but it might be worth someone seeing whether there are the same issues with his work in your project's area of interest.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. Makes me wonder. The implied article titles are "Violence caused by religions" (various religions). Is this assertion stated and sourced in these articles? Without mainstream sources, the articles are actually syntheses of facts to reach a novel, unstated conclusion. As clear as the implication is, and as obvious as the answer may be to some, it seems to be treated as a forgone conclusion. These sorts of questions are seldom answered so easily. Regards -Aquib (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As you state, the implied titles do suggest synthesis by people with axes to grind. The error in Islam and violence that is most obvious to me as someone not very knowledgeable about Islam, namely the reference to the secularist Saddam as a jihadist, happens not to have been introduced by Noleander but this only suggests that his is not the only POV axe being wielded.

For what it's worth, I've floated a test afd for a Noleander-created article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Jewish control of the media.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thinking further on your point. If the article was really on violence related to Islam, whether caused by Moslems or not, then the crusades and communal violence in India such as the destruction of the mosque built on a Hindu holy site would get coverage in this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently all are tarred by the same brush. I'm working mostly on another religion (and violence!). If the adherents of a particular group claim to be of a certain religion, like the Klu Klux Klan, for example, and they are violent, it is "Christian violence." Having other Christians refute/argue their position is irrelevant. In religions with no leader (most) this means that anyone can do anything in the name of their God, and generally do. It all gets rolled up here.

Hard to get enthused, but I'm not sure it's incorrect or even morally wrong either. Student7 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and Science

After a post on the fringe theories noticeboard I tagged the article as in need of attention by an expert in Islam. I think it needs in the first instance some discussion as to whether it is actually an encyclopedic topic. There is a lot that could be covered, but is it too much and too disparate? Anyway, I hope to leave it in your capable hands. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to drop by and post a notice, Judith. These comparisons between Quranic scripture and modern scientific knowledge are a notable feature of current Islamic popular culture. They abound on Youtube and Facebook : ) -Aquib (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor's just asked LatinoMuslim (talk · contribs) for a Wikiproject Islam barnstar and been given one. LatinoMuslim seems to be an extremely inactive editor, if I wasn't full of good faith and all that I'd wonder. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aquib. If you could help to refocus the discussion it would be very useful. If you think the article is about an aspect of popular culture then can you have a think about appropriate sources. YouTube and Facebook aren't sources in themselves. Science and the Bible is being used as a comparison, but is hardly any better. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I found this tangential example in a recent USA Today article(?) It touches on some aspects. The topic doesn't seem to be well covered in the English speaking press. Odd; I find the subject fascinating. Unfortunately, I am stuck on a related cleanup detail for the time being, and can't get away to look at it. I'm glad to know you've taken an interest. Best regards -Aquib (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review

• Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
• I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
• However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

One of the articles was related to this WikiProject:

1. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Pledge of the Tree

Our article on Pledge of the Tree has been nominated for deletion.[23] As best as I can tell, none of the editors participating in the discussion can speak Arabic, so it's a bit difficult to assess its notability. Perhaps someone here can help us out? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

can speak Arabic, so it's a bit difficult to assess its notability - what a strange thing to say William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Should Ishmaelites be merged with Arabs?

Since the term "Ishmaelites" is a Biblically-based name on Ishmael is it correct to merge it with Arab people? See discussion at Talk:Arab people#Merger proposal from Ishmaelites. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hijri date conversion

I have opened a related discussion here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), editors are welcome to contribute to it.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Strategy of improving Islam articles

Hi, I have been thinking of drawing up a plan of improving Islam related articles. Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Members and have your say. Any input would be appreciated. --Peaceworld 17:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

'Asma' bint Marwan

There is an edit dispute in the article on 'Asma' bint Marwan, your input is needed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect edits

Please pay attention to edits like those of User_talk:174.117.182.104#Warning, who replace "Mohammedan" by "Muslim". I can understand so in some cases, but it may definitely not be done inside quotes, as this editor did. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

New spellings

I made some redirects from spellings I found in Islam for Dummies (an educational book part of the X for Dummies series)

Here are some alternate spellings for concepts that may not yet have Wikipedia articles:

• `adl (Justice)
• `isma (infallible)
• Ja`farite School (Twelver Shiite law school)
• Abul `Abbas al-Saffah

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC

 Done. Thanks for the info :)

• Added redirect.
• Added alternative and redirect.
• Added alternative and redirects.
• The article is only using the last name, same spelling, so I only added the alternative spelling in the article. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Source reliability

There's a discussion going on at RSN (here) over the reliability of a book called The Sealed Nectar, which is relied on extensively in a series of articles created by one user and whose reliability or lack thereof may affect a pending DYK nomination. Your input would be appreciated. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested date-conversion style

A discussion is currently open on MOS:ISLAM regarding a proposed guidlines when adding a converted date from Higri to Gregorian calendar. Your thoughts are highly appreciated... Thanks ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Islamic divorce

The articles on divorce in Islam are a mess. We currently have the following articles:

• Divorce (Islamic), previously titled talaq
• Talaq (conflict)
• Khula
• Triple talaq

These articles are confusing and contradictory. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Islam to clean up the mess. Here are some specific things that I'm confused about:

• What does the word talaq actually refer to? Divorce in general (including secular)? Just Islamic divorces? A specific procedure of divorce used by Islamic men but not by women?
• What does the word khula actually refer to?
• Are these words used by non-Arab muslims?
• Is khula practiced in both Sunni and Shia Islam? If so, are there differences?
• What are the difference between talaq and khula?
• If an Islamic couple wants to get divorced in a secular state, what do they do? Do they typically do both a legal divorce and a religious divorce? Do they refer to the two with different words?
• Is there any reason why all 4 of the articles above can't be merged under Divorce (Islamic)?

Kaldari (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)