Talk:Al-Fatiha

Arabic Text

Why was the Arabic text below removed from the page? Its really hard for arabic learners to read the handwritten text shown on the image.

1. بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
2. ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ
3. ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
4. مَـٰلِكِ يَوْمِ ٱلدِّينِ
5. إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
6. ٱهْدٱلْمُسْتَقِيمَ
7. صِرَ ٰطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ ٱلْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ ٱلضَّاۤلِّينَ

Al-Fatiha Foundation

I understand that some editors dislike the content of the Al-Fatiha Foundation article, but it is a legitimate article and the disambig is necessary. "Offensiveness" is a POV concern and we cannot hide haram topics from Wikipedia readers. Please do not remove the disambig again. Thanks. Babajobu 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then, why not a nice Disambiguation page? 193.146.45.126 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Because there are only two relevant articles, and a significant majority of people looking for "Al Fatiha" will be looking for this article, not the gay rights org. Babajobu 15:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I removed the link today thinking it was vandalism - and this change was subsequently reverted. However, I think this article should reconsider having a disambiguation page and also contemplate rephrasing the disamb link.

Firstly, it is not at all unusual to have a disambiguition page with just two links (there are many examples - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc....), so this shouldn't be an issue.

Also, it is bound to offend muslims by having a gay and lesbian organisation link at the top of a page likely to have a large muslim audience. I suggest that we rephrase the disamb link at the top to -

"al-Fatiha" redirects here. For other uses, see Al-Fatiha (disambiguation).

[8] and [9] use a similar disamb link phraseology and link to a disamb page having only two links. I assume my suggestions would be popular amongst editors here given the good-intentioned removals of the link. Wikipidian 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? How could a disambig link to another article of similar name count as vandalism? Anyway, if people were deleting the link because they personally dislike the content at the other end, they should be reminded that Wikipedia is not censored for their (or anyone else's) religious beliefs. However, we can explore other ways of presenting the link. The Bokaro model is an option, but you see that the unqualified use of the term "Bokaro" links to the disambig page, not to either of the articles. My guess is that this is how all the binary disambig pages work. It doesn't make much sense to have the main term (here, Al-Fatiha) link to one of the articles, with a note that other uses can be found at Al-Fatiha (disambiguation), which then includes only one other article. That's a lot of steps for just two articles, my guess is that terms with two articles are not handled this way elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the only reason I can see for doing it is as concession to theology. Wikipedia doesn't make editorial decisions based on readers' religious sensibilities (e.g., Muhammad Cartoons and Piss Christ), and I don't think we should start now. Babajobu 10:00 am, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)

Babajobu I have already given you an example of such an article where wikipedia handles 2 similarly-named articles by linking to a dismmbiguation page in the way you described: it is reference 8 in my list, the article entitled bilberry. But because it suits your argument you chose instead to talk about about the bokaro article (reference 9).

If you type bilberry in the search box you will get the bilberry article with the disambiguation {{other uses}} model template at the top, this then links to a disamb page with 2 articles.

IN FACT HERE ARE TWENTY MORE EXAMPLES OF WIKIPEDIA HANDLING DISAMBIGUITY BETWEEN TWO SIMILARLY NAMED ARTICLES IN THIS WAY- AARP, Apparatchick, Brett Whiteley, Callisthenes, Daisy Systems, Daniel O'Connell, Dead Man's Switch, Dunedin, Fraser River, Fulke Greville, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Harpers Ferry, Kilsyth, Maradona, Max steiner, Michael Phelps, Schizophrenia, Short Circuit, Trafalgar Square, Zefyri and so on and so forth.

So you see, we would not at all be setting a precedent by following my suggestion. Personally I don't think we should have the link at all, as there is no ambiguity - when you click "go" when searching for al-fatiha you will expect to see the article on surah al-fatiha, if you want to see something else click search[10].

ALSO DON'T THINK I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT YOU CREATED THE AL-FATIHA ORGANISATION PAGE AND HAVE THE MAJORITY OF EDITS FOR THIS ARTICLE - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX Babajobu - "Creating overly abundant links ... to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable." [11]. I reitterate that removal of the link appears popular with editors, in fact you are the only editor who is reverting BUT I want to achieve some compromise so I again point to my original suggestion. Wikipidian 7:27 pm, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)

I didn't choose the Bokaro example because it suited my argument, I chose it because I had never encountered the sort of disambig arrangement you described, and because Bokaro was the first of your examples I clicked on and was consistent with how I've usually seen a two-term disambig situation handled. But ignoring your assumption of bad faith, you've satisfied me that the "see disambig page" link to a two-term disambig is in use on Wikipedia. I think it's a clumsy solution, and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly rejected the notion that the protection of religious sensibilities should affect editorial decisions. And, of course, it's certainly plausible that someone interested in GLBT issues would know the name of Al-Fatiha, but not know that it is called a "foundation" rather than a community or an organization or whatever. But if you want arrange the disambig in a way that will protect Muslims from haram information, I won't object, because you've demonstrated to my satisfaction that the alternative disambig arrangement can also be defended on more reasonable grounds. Babajobu 8:26 pm, 7 May 2006, Sunday (4 years, 10 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)

arabic font size

could this be bigger? It's really hard to read.

Allah or God

The word 'Allah' is a name while God in english language is a general word. I think Allah should be used in english translation.

God (with an uppercase G) is a proper name in English which can not take a plural, not a general word. The name God is the name of the one and only god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in English. Many people (both English speakers and non-English speakers) confuse it with the word god (with a lowercase g), which is a general word refering to any deity of any religion (and can therefore take a plural). The correct translation into English of the name Allah is God, just as the correct translation of the name Isa is Jesus, Ayyub is Job, Yahya is John, Yunus is Jonah, Talut is Saul, etc. --Drivelhead 9:42 am, 20 May 2006, Saturday (4 years, 10 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−7)

The work God in English is in no way a general word. Were a translation of biblical text made from English to Arabic it would be translated as Allah in a similar way, albet opposite, as is done in this article. To do otherwise would be to propagate a the misconception that Allah is a separate god from God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.67.6 (talk) 7:20 pm, 8 December 2009, Tuesday (1 year, 3 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−8) # I am a Muslim and I must agree with SineBot. Jewish articles do not use Adonai or Hashem, why use Allah. This tends to make ppl think it's a different God when they don't know much about Islam. Also they don't mention that Ir Rahman Ir Raheem are two of Hashem Adonaior Allah's names. ~GCleph

In the Notes

Well, quoting "Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody" in an article about Al Qur'an and Surah Al-Fatihah might appear a little bit ... misplaced. No ? TwoHorned 5:17 am, 24 October 2006, Tuesday (4 years, 5 months, 3 days ago) (UTC−7)

23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)~This passage can be easily contended, there are hundreds of English translations of the Quran and Dawood is the only translator to make these references. He also worked strictly as a translator, not a student of the Quran, publishing several translations of books in 1955; meaning that his scholarly abilities in translating a Quran weren't super academic and therefore not as trustworthy. He also mixed all the chapters up in his 1955 translation, something that had to be changed upon the 2nd edition because of major concerns from the Muslim community. The references to his translations don't actually show valid citations either. So, I'm in favor of deleting the whole sentence, or at least posting citation as questionable. Yeah?

  In the seventh verse, the words "those who have earned your Anger/Wrath" refer to the Jews (also translated as "those who have incurred your wrath," Dawood, 1955.) and the words "those who have lost their way" refer to Christians (also translated as "those who have gone astray," N. J. Dawood, 1955.)

23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneAhmad (talk • contribs)

Virtues of this Sura

I was thinking about making a table "Virtues of Sura" in this way below. But whether certain Hadiths are authentic or not may vary from scholar to scholar within the same school. Also the branches are quite misleading. It needs to be done by an Alim/Ulema, else it will certainly do more harm than good. (Also added some details about Bismillah)

Authentic Hadith according to various branches

Hadith	Maliki	Shafi	Hambali	Hanafi	Salafi /Ahle Hadith	Sufi	Shia
ABCD	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
EFGH	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes

I divided Virtues into several parts. The part "Uncategorized Collection" can have things which we generally know about but cannot yet classify into truthful/argumentative/weak. It can be removed if the other parts are filled. Verycuriousboy (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Assalaamu Alaikum. I am making table-form of the Virtues of Sura al-Nas. Pray for me. Jazakallah Khair. - Verycuriousboy (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

17 times Al-Fatiha in mandatory prayers

This is not exactly true. If u pray all the mandatory prayers behind an Imam then count is 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.156.120 (talk) 3:05 am, 28 April 2008, Monday (2 years, 10 months, 29 days ago) (UTC−7)

=================================

Thats funny, even if you pray behind an Imam, you still have to recite it AFTER him as far as I know, in all of the rakaah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.134.213.192 (talk) 5:28 am, 8 August 2009, Saturday (1 year, 7 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−7)

If someone else would expand the lead I would make this a good article

However if I have to expand the lead then someone else will have to make it a good article. Which could mean all sorts of things being demanded. I could see some reviewer wanting to make this article about how much they dislike Islam and the Quran.--Hfarmer (talk) 4:50 am, 18 December 2008, Thursday (2 years, 3 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−8)

Regarding the audio file

what kind is wanted? Just reading it or reading it with the classic melody? (as is done on the site IslamWay If it's just reading it, then I know arabic and I wouldn't mind.

--User:SuperJew (talk) 8:26 am, 30 April 2009, Thursday (1 year, 10 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−7)

Multiple Issues tag

This has the potential to be a good article, as of right now, however, it is in desperate need of reorganization, and wikification as well as some issues need to be cited or commentary removed. Particularly difficult is the Interpretation section that does not cite sources in the wiki format (cites via Qur'an). It also borders and occasionally goes over the limits of WP:ENC. Finally it has some formatting problems that make it hard to read and are also not conforming to WP:MOS. I would fix those bits myself but I would rather someone with a better knowledge of the Qur'an do so as the formatting is the smaller issue at stake here.

I'd like to be clear that I find this article important and that the interpretation section has some very interesting points in it. It simply needs to conform to Wikipedia standards and make sure to cite its sources correctly so that it reads more like an encyclopedia rather than an opinion seasoned exegesis of the surah. I also think some standardization in the system of romanization of the Arabic in the article would be helpful but I can't tell if Wikipedia has a set transliteration system.

Ilkelma (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge with https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Al-hamdu_lillahi_rabbil_%27alamin - Verycuriousboy (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a POV tag and an OR tag to the article. I don't think any explanation of the tags is necessary, so obvious are the problems, but if anyone disagrees with the tags, let me know and I'll explain their justification in more detail. As a placeholder: This article is in sorry shape, and very little of it seems to be sourced. Much of the article is also extremely difficult to understand (nigh on unreadable) due to bad prose and formatting. My opinion (at this moment) is that entire sections of it are so plagued by POV, OR, and citation needed problems that they should be deleted and restarted from scratch. Someone please convince me otherwise, or make some dramatic changes to fix these problems. Otherwise I'll take it upon myself to tame this mess in a few days time.--Grapplequip (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization & God concept

I have made edits before capitalizing the name of God in the translations. In the Jewish articles God is capital. Why not here? I am doing it again and will continue as Islam is also an Abrahamic religion. If you want it not capital, then remove it EVERYWHERE don't just pick on us Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.20.141 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I find your tone confrontational and defensive, but your point is well taken. Capital G God should be the word used here as shown by previous discussions on this talk page. I have also changed a reference to "their god-concept" as I think it is not NPOV in that it appears to cast doubt on the accuracy of using the word God as well as adopting a superior tone that is wholly unnecessary and potentially very offensive. Ilkelma (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:001 abdulbaset fatiha.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:001 abdulbaset fatiha.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

It appears that most, if not all, of the sources cited in this article do not conform to WP:SOURCES, as they appear to be self-published websites. Please let me know if I'm wrong in this assessment.--Grapplequip (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Salam all,

Please consider integrating this infomation to this section.

Please see how the additive prime numbers of surat Al-Fatiha (7 verses, 29 words, 139 letters) point to a new numerology system called Primalogy in which the Arabic letters are ordered alphabetically from elf to yaa and given prime values from 2 to 107 [with hamza = 1].

Additive prime number (AP) is a prime number whose digit sum is also prime. All 7 (7), 29 (2+9=11), and 139 (1+3+9=13) are all additive prime numbers (AP).

The primalogy value (PV) of surat Al-Fatiha is 8317 (additive prime number).

The PV of surat Al-Ikhlaas with bismAllah is 4201 (additive prime number).

The PV of surat Al-Ikhlaas without bismAllah is 3167 (additive prime number).

The PV of Ayatul-Kursi is 11261 (additive prime number).

The PV of most repeated verse in the Quran "Fabiayee aalaaei Rabbikumaa tukathibaan" is 683 (additive prime number). The aya has 4 words and is repeated 31 times in surat Ar-Rahmaan. The PV of this aya (683) is the 124th prime number, where 124 = 4 x 31.

And the PV of the word "Allah" is 269 (additive prime number).

Moreover, Quran 15:87: "We have given you seven of the Methaani and the Grand Quran" implies: The Book = The Key + The Message 114 sura = 1 (Al-Fatiha) + 113 sura (AP) 6236 aya = 7 (Al-Fatiha) + 6229 aya (AP)

Even the word Al-Quran means The Readable (despite being encoded which no one can produce at chapter-level).

Glory to Allah The Creator and Sustainer of all seen and unseen worlds in real-time.

Thank you,

Ali Adams God > infinity www.heliwave.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.58.154 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical Structure in Sura 1 (Al-Fatehah) based on number 19 (Over it is Nineteen 74:30)

Peace to all,

God Willing I intend starting a new section as follows,

The Quran is characterized by a unique phenomenon never found in any human authored book, one that is based on number 19, it can be seen as a common denominator of the Quran.

(1). The first verse of this Sura referred as Basmalah بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ has 19 Arabic Letters.

(2) The sura number, followed by the numbers of verses, next to each other, give 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. This number is a multiple of 19.

(3) If we substitute the number of letters per verse in place of the verse numbers, we get 1 19 17 12 11 19 18 43. This number is also a multiple of 19.

(4) If we insert the total gematrical value of every verse, we get 1 19 786 17 581 12 618 11 241 19 836 18 1072 43 6009. This number is a multiple of 19.

Verse #	No. of Letters	Gematrical Value
1	19	786
2	17	581
3	12	618
4	11	241
5	19	836
6	18	1072
7	43	6009
Totals	139	10143

(5) The number shown above includes all parameters of Sura 1 and consists of 38 digits (19x2).

(6) It is noteworthy that this 38-digit number is still divisible by 19 when we write its components backward, from right to left, as practiced by the Arabs. Thus, 6009 43 1072 18 836 19 241 11 618 12 581 17 786 19 1 is also a multiple of 19.

If there are any concerns do let me know, else I God Willing intend to upload this on the main page in another 36 hours time.

Peace

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC))