Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Talk page sub-sections:



Citing standards:




Forcing people to use the ritualistic, religious dictates such as PBUH, SAW, etc. is basically enforcing others to follow Islam, and is a FLAGRANT violation of NPOV. A neutral site should fail to see why anyone should have to follow someone else's religion. It's also a form of censorship, basically saying that only certain people can write about their own subject, and people MUST adhere to the way they wish it portrayed. "Let there be no compulsion in religion". If someone wishes to mention "Mohammed" and he is non-Muslim, he should be at liberty to do so without someone tacking some religious devotion to his words.

It bites me, but I agree. From the pov that this is not an Islamic site (I say it in my mind anyways). And, from the pov that the seeker of Islamic knowledge should not necessarily take knowledge from WP; but then from npov standpoint, one can argue that the 'Venerable' should be removed from Pope_John_Paul_II, and others... it's a difficult thing to be completely neutral one way or another. -MinorFixes (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We should definately allow PBUH to be used. It is respectful and shows that we accept others' religions --Danny 17 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Secularist and Athiestic policy on terminology:

I am rather surprised at the secularist and athiestic view in dealing with the term of PBUH, an honarary term required by Islam when mentioning the name of the prophet. Instead of taking a neutral stance and leaving the term in place, as is found in thousands of Islamic encyclopedic texts, and many Islamic libraries throughout the world, there is a call to delete this term. It is clearly not a neutral stance, but a stance following secularist and athiestic views that call for the removal of any reference to God.

It is the personal belief in secularism that causes you to think that it is not appropriate. One should keep in line with the many Islamic encyclopedic texts in the past, and leave these articles that deal with the in depth aspect of the Islam alone, instead of deleteing certain required terms from the.

The majority of the readers of these articles, that deal with religous articles diasgree with this athiestic policy, and would disagree with this secularist mentality. One should stop desacrating these articles, and remove these secularist policies. These secularistic policy alienates all muslims, as well as all people of any faith, that would look at wikipedia as a viable place to post topics dealing with religous articles and knowledge.

The purpose of wikipedia, and its articles is to attract people to contribute their knowledge to them, as well as providing them with references where they can learn more information. This is so people would have a good place to learn about a particular topic, contributed by people knowledgeble in that subject. It is clear that this policy makes no contribution to any knowledge, except offending the contributors of the topic, and the vast majority of the readers of this article. To make valuable contributions to the Pedia, one should try to organize and make peace between all the knowledgable contributors, and be understanding of their beliefs, or they will abandon the pedia completely, as well as any donations made to it, and look elsewhere.

That being said, one should leave these articles alone, in accordance to the way that they have been for centuries and not impose a secularist athiestic view on them, by removing the required terminology. Doing so is very offensive to the contributors of these articles, as well as the readers of faith that will view the Pedia as a Secularist-Pedia instead of a neutral Pedia.

Not only does this policy offend and alienate the readers of faith, it also changes and imposes an athiestic view on the referenced scholars works of the past, and alters the knowledge that they convey. It is a change of the words and statements found in the books of Islamic knowledge.

I can tell you personally when I see these articles on Islam with the term PBUH omitted, I found it very offensive, and desacrating, and was about to abandon the pedia completely as an athiest entity, and a very unreliable source of any Islamic knowledge, as well as making any donations to it in the future. The same can be said for all muslims that see this term omitted, as they view it it as athiests imposing their personal opinion by removing the required Islamic terminology.

It is incumbent to remove this atheistic policy immediately; the policy of removing the required terminology of (pbuh), otherwise the pedia would soon die by alienating the vast majority of its muslim readers, as well as the vast majority of readers of faith, who are not going to make any financial contributions to it.

One may claim that removing this term makes it neutral; it in fact does the opposite. It changes the statements made by the author from belief to atheism, and is very offensive to its authors, and readers. It is incumbent to be respectful of peoples religous views, so as not to alienate them, and that the pedia would grow in the future financially as well as scholarly, instead of dying out.

Peaceman57 (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)peaceman57

You keep saying the same thing about 10 times. Saying it 10 times does not make it any more correct than if you had said it once, seeing as how it is incorrect to start with.
You keep saying these policies are "offending Muslims". No, the policies are not intended to offend Muslims. It is the Muslims that choose to take offense.
You talk about the need to respect religion. What you really mean is to respect Islam. How about the other religions? Should Wikipedia respect Scientology? (Do you respect Scientology?) My guess is that you don't give a damn about any of the other religions or whether or not they should be shown respect. So you want Wikipedia to be one-sided, and only respect your desires.
> otherwise the pedia would soon die by alienating the vast majority of its muslim readers, as well as the vast majority of readers of faith, who are not going to make any financial contributions to it
You're joking, I assume. :-)
--RenniePet (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Going through and deleteing terms posted by the authors because of your secularist and athiestic point of view is not at all neutral. You might as well go to the library and blacken out the terms that you disagree with in the books.
Changing authors posts from faith to disbelief is indeed vandalism, and only makes the articles worse, and corrupts the sources and citations of knowledge.
Every person is offended if you alter the scholars original statements into that of your secularist and athiestic pov.
Being an editor you ought to be neutral, not athiestic and secularist.
About the financial contributions, you already lost so much in the past. You ought to be understanding and open and peaceful, so as to attract people, and their support.
As an editor, it is your job to build communication and harmony between the different contributors of the articles, so as to make the article knowledgable and beneficial. Not interject your pov by deleting terms from the authors posts.
You should try to learn and understand how the readers and contributors feel about certain things, and work things out between them, not force your pov on them. This way they will be supportive and donate to the 'pedia, and continue using it. Not be offended and abandon it.
You should try to bring back the support of people that already left in the past.

Peaceman57 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)peaceman57

I'm sure I'm wasting my time - you do not seem to be interested in a discussion, only in reiterating your own opinion again and again. (You make no reference to any of the points I raised, for example whether Wikipedia should also respect other religions, like Scientology or Judaism.) But what the heck...
>You might as well go to the library and blacken out the terms that you disagree with in the books.
Wikipedia can not be compared with books in a library. A book represents what its author(s) decide it should contain, and to "blacken out" bits is censorship. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an attempt to produce an encyclopedia that represents a common knowledge base. No article on Wikipedia belongs to anyone, even if the article is originally entered by one person - that person has no right to prevent others from changing it if the article is not considered to represent a common unbiased and complete view.
>About the financial contributions ...
If you think the West, or Wikipedia, has their principles for sale, you are very mistaken. As a Danish politician said during the first Muhammad cartoons controversy, when most of the Middle East was boycotting Danish dairy products, "Our freedom of speech is not for sale for a few liters of milk!" (By the way, people who think that other's principles are for sale are usually people whose own principles are for sale, so it's not very flattering when you keep raising the idea that Wikipedia will change their principles for economic reasons.)
>As an editor, it is your job to build communication and harmony ...
As far as I can figure out, what you really mean is that Muslims and non-Muslims should all learn the proper Muslim way of looking at things. The idea that Muslims should try to understand non-Muslim principles is apparently not acceptable to you. That's not "communication and harmony", that's just enforcing one point of view, despite the fact that many people have a very different point of view, and strongly disagree with the Muslim point of view.
Enough for now - like I said, I'm sure I'm wasting my time. You should really try to read a good book, like The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. He has you figured out. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious that you are closeminded, and you are not willing to respect the knowledge of other people, besides your own secularist and athiestic views. As another example for Scientology, go there and change the authors terms from Scientology to "Alleged Scientology". See how fast these authors run away from the pedia. Or go to some posts made by the Jewish Scholars, and change "G_D" to "GOD", and see how long they stick around.
When writing articles on Islam, there are protocols that are required when using certain terms. You should respect these protocols, and not impose your athiestic and secularist views by deleting the terms that are there.
Like I mentioned before, making tehse deletions do not improve the articles, but make them worse, because you are changing what the author, the reputable scholar, says into a secularism and athieism, which is opposite of what he said.
The pedia is a good product when people can come and share there knowledge, so that people learn. Not when editors change this knowledge to their secularist and athiestic views by deleteing terms posted there.
Continuation of your closedmindedness and adamnance not to respect the writing protocols of the writers of religous texts, and only sticking to your own secularist and athiestic views will lead to the extinction of the wikipedia and funding for it, and the developement of new places that are impartial and respectful of the contributors of knowledge. An example of one of these developements is the google scholar.
I don't know why I am spending all this time trying to get this message through. You are vandalizing these scholars posts when you remove these honorofics that are required and obligatory in Islamic writing. It is not improving the article at all in knowledge, but imposing your secularist and athiestic povs, and it is very offensive to the authors and readers.

Peaceman57 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)peaceman57[edit]

The website is also acknowleged as a reliable source, as it can seen here [1]. The website is associated with Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic research and publication of this website in print form by notable printing house, makes a realiable source. is available in print form from [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7].

Version 1

Binding: Paperback
Publisher: Authorhouse
Date Published: 2001
ISBN 0759650837

Version 2

TITLE: Understanding Islam: Answers on the Web (Understanding Islam, Answers on the Web)
by Moiz, Amjad
ISBN 07596-5083-7
Publisher: Lightning Source Inc
Publish Date: October, 2001
Binding: Taschenbuch
List Price: USD 26.95

Also, publications, which are written and published with association to Al-Mawrid are also accepted as reliable secondary source. Kindly see here [8].

This most certianly is not a reliable source. The comment that says it is should be removed.--Sefringle 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Adopting Islam[edit]

So, what should we choose as standard?

  • Adopting Islam
  • Became Muslim
  • Embraced Islam
  • Reverted to Islam

Any other alternatives? From a Muslim pov, "Reverted to Islam" is to be prefered. --Striver 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer "Embraced Islam" or "Converted to Islam". But, why are you asking? - Qasamaan 21:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest "Professed Islam", "Professing Islam", etc. While "Adopting Islam" is OK, it does not necessarily indicate dual inward and outward adoption. "Became Muslim" is not accurate to Muslims, because of the belief that one is born Muslim and then may embrace, adopt, accept, convert to or profess another religion. "Embraced Islam" is a weak term in the sense that one may embrace ones enemies. "Reverted to Islam" is fine if one has been something else, and is considered as such, having been born Muslim and then come back, but that does not necessarily communicate with believers of other religions.

For me, "Profess Islam" is an accurate term for use by both believers and non-believers. It relates to the utterance of the Shahadah which is the simple and profound declaration of faith, the core of which is the kalima "There is no God but God, and Mohammad is the messenger of God." (retrieved from "")18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Profess Islam", etc. is a good term. It agrees with both the Muslim view (you are practicing the religion you were created as following) and the non-Muslim view (you are practicing Islam). Armyrifle 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why 'reverted to Islam' would be most accurate for the Muslim pov. In Islam the Arabic language is considered holy, and If I'm not wrong, the root for 'to become Muslim or convert to Islam' is /s-l-m/, which would best be described with a verb like 'he converted to Islam' 'he confessed Islam', 'he surrendered or submitted to Islam'...right? Til Eulenspiegel 03:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslims believe everyone is born a Muslim at birth, so therefore one who converts to Islam is really "reverting". Or so I've read. - Merzbow 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shi'a Islam[edit]

People may want to comment here about the transliteration of Shi'a Islam. Cuñado Bahai star.svg - Talk 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[edit]

This is not a reliable source. It should only be allowed under the conditions of Partisan and religious sources and Extremist sources. It should not be consitered scholarly. --Sefringle 03:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Scholars of Islam[edit]

The bit saying "Wikipedia can only quote renowned scholars of Islam" should be removed. Firstly it doesn't seem to have been added with any discussion, but rather at the initiative of one editor Aminz"[9]. I believe it is inappropriate for two reasons: 1) The phrase "renowned scholar" is contentious. An well known academic or writer may very well have something valid to say about Islam, but not be considered a "renowned scholar of Islam" by some. 2) This sets a special standard for Wiki articles on Islam, different from standards for other Wiki articles. To the best of my knowledge there is no "renowned scholar" requirement in Wiki policy. I believe that MOS should be in conformity with Wiki policy, correct me if I am wrong. There are numerous other problems with the addition by Aminz, but I only wish to address one issue at a time. NN 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam-related articles on Wikipedia should employ whomsoever is qualified to speak with authority on matters pertaining to Islam, and that means possessing the relevant education and qualifications, and preferably using well known publishers. ITAQALLAH 02:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"with authority" is a extra-Wiki standard, besides being contentious and hard to define. Also Wik has no requirements for "education" and "qualifications". These extra-Wiki ideas have no place here. NN 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, it should be obvious that there are no special standards in Wiki for Islam. The appropriateness of sources is determined by Wiki policies of WP:RS and WP:ATT. There is no special requirement of "renowned", "education" and "qualification" for Islam. I am surprised we are even having this discussion. NN 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

it goes without saying that a reliable source on a topic is in the form of a scholar whose field of expertise is that particular subject. examples include Wensinck, Watt, Esposito, who are experts on Islam. we can verify that they are experts, as they have the relevant qualifications in this field and are professors of the subject, and thus possess the pedigree to be cited as authorities. such academics typically have their works endorsed by reputed publishing houses known for extensive fact-checking. these are the indicators as to what makes a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
indeed, this is exactly as stipulated in WP:ATT:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

-- ITAQALLAH 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"what is reliable in one topic may not be in another" Possibly, however what is reliable is still to be determined by WP:ATT and WP:RS rather than coming up with some editors' preferred requirements of "renowned", "education", "qualification", etc. etc. Rather than these the proper requirements are "trustworthy", "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", "universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses" as given by WP:ATT and WP:RS. Anything besides these should be scrapped from the MOS. Note that these requirements do not exclude those who are not academics, etc. While academics and scholars can be RS, so can be others. For example Sean Hannity is published by a known publishing house, though he is not an academic and doesn't have degrees. But as per Wiki policy he is a RS. NN 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS and WP:ATT are general policies. the purpose of this MOS is to be more specific. a measure of expertise, "trustworthiness" and authority in relation to the subject of Islam, is by observing the author's credibility and pedigree- which can only be verified by identifying relevant qualifications. these are extremely basic points. if you want to be employing reliable sources, then for history-related topics, you use qualified historians. for human anatomy, you cite the works and textbooks developed by qualified anatomists. with every field, you use those who are the experts and exude authority on their subject matter. with Islam-related topics, it is no different. an author can only be "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" if he has some sort of basis for that authority- and that typically means a degree in Islamic studies. if a person isn't an academic, there is very little reason to believe why he is "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". this is the standard that has been set across Islam-related articles, and so there is no justification for lowering the bar. these stipulations on what makes a reliable source in Islam-related topics are basic derivations from policy, and are not extraneous to or in contradiction with it. ITAQALLAH 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"WP:RS and WP:ATT are general policies." Wrong! They are the applicable policies, even for Islam related articles. To be specific, you cannot remove material from an article saying that it violates the MOS, you have to show it violates WP:RS or WP:ATT etc. There are no special standards or requirements for Islam-related articles on Wiki. This page is the height of absurdity. It starts of by saying "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here" whereas in reality individual editors choose to come and make whatever changes they wish, for example [10]. Suddenly now the sources have to be "qualified" rather than "renowned", just because one editor decided that is to be the standard. NN 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
""WP:RS and WP:ATT are general policies." Wrong! They are the applicable policies" - i don't see a contradiction between the two statements, and neither a contradiction between the stipulation of scholarship and what can be found in policy concerning RS. this MOS helps to specify in explicit terms what is an RS in Islam-related articles, which we would not necessarily define as explicitly in RS or ATT due to its broad general coverage. you are banging on about "no special standards", yet you have not responded to my arguments. the relevant passages as quoted above directly facilitate the specifications mentioned in the MOS. these are standards that have generally been agreed upon across Islam-related articles. ITAQALLAH 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"relevant passages as quoted above directly facilitate the specifications mentioned in the MOS." That is your opinion. My opinion is that standards such as "renowned", "qualified", "education" etc. etc. are extra-Wiki as I have already mentioned. It would help if you read what the earlier posts said, so I wouldn't have to keep "banging". If you put standards in the MOS (as you have been doing) that are not the same (not 'directly facilitate' but the same) then you have to explain why they are the same. Phrases like 'directly facilitate' are weasel words. NN 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Phrases like 'directly facilitate' are weasel words." - of course not. re-read this: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." this clearly shows that reliable sources are those where the authors are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. as i said above: "if you want to be employing reliable sources, then for history-related topics, you use qualified historians. for human anatomy, you cite the works and textbooks developed by qualified anatomists. with every field, you use those who are the experts and exude authority on their subject matter. with Islam-related topics, it is no different. an author can only be "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" if he has some sort of basis for that authority- and that typically means a degree in Islamic studies. if a person isn't an academic, there is very little reason to believe why he is "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"." - you have not responded to this argument. ITAQALLAH 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. For every branch of knowledge there are experts. It's just that, silly analogies with anatomy notwithstanding, you don't get to decide what constitutes expertise, Wiki policy gets to decide that. Hence all junk for the article needs to be removed. NN 09:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
you won't get very far by not responding to the arguments. ITAQALLAH 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Mind WP:NPA--Sefringle 07:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This debate/argument seems to have fizzled out, but for what it's worth, it is clear that Wikipedia has obvious problems when it comes to proposing guidelines on which sources (and their quality, in the sense of them containing true or false information) should be included. Let us all employ a little common sense and - on the whole - only include sources that we know are reliable (in the sense of containing true information and being attributable to the correct author(s)); this should be the priority. If there are minority views (whether true or false), these should be included insofar as they shed some light on the topic concerned. This latter is obviously a vague and tricky thing to do, which is why I deem it to be of secondary importance. I agree with Itaqallah that academic sources tend to be the most reliable. MP (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wiki policy does not get into comparative reliability. While it may or may not be true that academic sources are "most reliable", however sources are judged on their individual merits, rather than in comparison to other sources. NN 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Break indent) NN, I noticed you mentioned Sean Hannity. Yes, he is a reliable source, as a political commentator. We couldn't use him for something like, say,

Thermodynamics (from the Greek θερμη, therme, meaning "heat" and δυναμις, dunamis, meaning "power") is a branch of physics that studies the effects of changes in temperature, pressure, and volume on physical systems at the macroscopic scale by analyzing the collective motion of their particles using statistics.<ref="Sean Hannity">Sean Hannity</ref>

Someone can be a reliable source in one subject, while a complete crackpot in another.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not knon why you got the idea that I was proposing something as absurd as using Hannity as a source for thermodynamics. The point I was making about Hannity was that he does not have a PhD and is not a "renowned scholar" but by Wiki criteria is a RS in matters political etc. If Hannity writes a book about Islam (and he may have written something about Islam in "Deliver Us from Evil") it is RS because of notability and wide circulation. If you find he is factually wrong, you can cite material contradicting what he says and delete. If you believe his interpretations (not facts) are wrong, and cannot prove him wrong factually, then you can cite other material contradicting him, but cannot delete. NN 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Matters political. Not religious. If Sean Hannity when out tomorrow and published a book about Muhammad, it couldn't be used as a source in the Muhammad article.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 23:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
see WP:RS#Scholarship, which thoroughly justifies the requirements as highlighted on the MOS. ITAQALLAH 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Nayan Nev, You are the only user here who disputes that we should not use experts in writing Islam related articles. --Aminz 03:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Right now we have not reached the point of counting votes in favor or against a particular position, so whether I am the only one is not relevant. And even if one disagrees it is not consensus, in which case the next steps should be RfC or mediation or arb com. NN 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is relevant. We are writing here a encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soap box. --Aminz 04:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Saying that I using Wiki as a soapbox is a silly and unsubstantiated allegation. This is now down to the level of name calling. NN 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that we should use experts of the field, those who have degrees in these fields, to write our encyclopedia. It is a complete waste of time to argue over it. --Aminz 04:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you believe that it is so obvious, you should have no problem changing Wiki policy. Please do so and come back, then I won't have any objections. NN 05:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Policies already say that. Please don't play games. --Aminz 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"play games"??? A bit more civility would do no harm here. Where exactly do the Wiki policies say that RS should be "those who have degrees in these fields"? NN 09:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this line should be removed. Its effectively restricting sources to Muslims or people who are favourable of Islam: "Wikipedia can only quote qualified scholars of Islam". This line should be removed, OR define who a scholar is and ALSO list several scholars of Islam who are critical of Islam. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

a scholar can be one who has been educated in his field, publishes material in reputed academic press and receives academic review of his works (see WP:V and WP:RS). you are making quite clear in your comments that you simply wish to pick certain personalities to push their POVs. if no such personalities exist, you will attempt to lower the bar so that they are considered such (as you attempted with Arlandson). you must understand that Wikipedia aims to represent academic scholarship, for that is the mainstream of informed opinion as opposed to rehashed polemic. you must also understand that academics aren't soapboxers, they have varying conclusions derived from objective analysis which are not usually considered disparaging, because they understand the flaws of presentism and do not make presentist or strongly opinionated judgements, they attempt to analyse the topic in the light of objective academic research. for example, Crone at one point adopted the theory of Hagarism, though she wasn't criticising the Qur'an by holding that opinion - she just held an alternate view of the Qur'an's synthesis. in any case, your prime concern should be to represent academic scholarship as per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:UNDUE et al. and not edit solely to forward a POV, which is currently the impression you are giving. ITAQALLAH 08:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked you to name some scholars of Islam who are critical of Islam. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
and i answered, in short, that such was a naive question and reveals a good deal about the motivations behind your editing, as others are starting to note. ITAQALLAH 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah, your motivations are also clear - to put Islam in a positive light. So what? Everyone has different points of view and interests. Why does it bother you that I am critical of Islam? Naturally that will reflect in my editing as well. That is not an issue that should be of concern to you or anyone - please dont mention that again. Now I will ask you again: Name some "scholars" who are critical of Islam. Lets see if this defination means that you are trying to exclude people who are critical of Islam from Islam related articles or not. Its your motivations that you should worry about, not mine. I never said we should try to exclude people who are favourable of Islam. Why are you finding it impossible to name scholars who are critical of Islam?--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
your attempted tu quoque is incorrect, my interest is in providing encyclopedic, scholarly information, whether or not i agree with it. your prime interest, as you continually imply here and with much of your other contributions, and as you are now conceding, is to engage in tendentious editing. i would recommend you reform this behaviour, as your search for scholars of a particular POV is an obvious derivative of this. you have not addressed my points (which i explained as reasonably as possible) which expose the fallacious nature of such questions. if you're just going to repeatedly ask the same inherently flawed questions again, then you'll probably find that such is just an obstacle for productive discussion. ITAQALLAH 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It says "connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. " - I've not done so so please dont accuse me falsely. Now respond below to why we need a "Source" section for this "style" article. You have still not named any scholars of Islam who are critical of Islam. Why are you not able to do this? I dont understand. Is this a difficult question?--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think you are both stretching the definition of a scholar a little too far. A scholar is someone who is educated in his field, true. Where they are published is a little bit of an exagguration, and are a little too restrictive in my opinion. My personal opinion about Islam-related articles to balance the often favorable view of Islam given by apologetic scholars would be to quote muslim scholars who preach evil, and to quote so-called "radical" imams, who definently meet the requirements for scholarship. Yusuf al-Qaradawi seems to fit that description; he tried to justify suicide bombing, and he is an influencial Islamic scholar. As wikipedia is an encyclopedia that presents scholarly opinions and not just criticism, I think this would be better to keep the critics to the criticism articles and the scholars to the other articles, while filtering out bias and opinions. The articles about morality and factual accuracy of Islam are different, and for those, I think it would be better to quote both the scholars who are heavily used here and the imams who preach evil.--Sefringle 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

some interesting comments Sefringle. for Islam-related articles, i think that academic scholarship, such as University professors, people with qualifications in Islamic studies, people who get their works peer-reviewed and recognised in scholarly publications/journals, people who themselves may publish through such mediums also: these are the expert sources which we should ideally grant primacy. Muslim scholars whom you mentioned such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi are also reasonable sources for they too have an education and standing in Islamic studies, many of whom are also jurists. as for 'preaching evil', then i am sure you will agree that this is a subjective conclusion - what you may have meant is balancing of POVs in a manner prescribed by WP:NPOV. ITAQALLAH 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the section which says that opinions should be included only from scholars of Islam. There is no similiar requirement in any other subject on Wikipedia. Do we have people saying that Astrology should have people who are scholars of Astrology? The only requirement is WP:RS. Also note that such manuals of style dont even exist for Christianity and Judaism. Here is a classic case because these people know that, anyone who is called a "scholar" of Islam is usually a muslim or someone who has favourable of Islam. FURTHER and the most important point is: the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style does not exist for dictating which sources to use. Its only for aesthetics and Style Issues. The issue of SOURCES is already covered in WP:RS. This is no special requirement for Islam related articles to only have opinions from Scholars of Islam. As I said, this is only an attempt to censor information and make sure that only people who like Islam will have opinions included in Wikipedia. This is the reason why ItaqAllah couldnt name a single scholar of Islam, who he thinks is critical of Islam. I have went ahead and deleted this irrational requirement of "quotes should only be from scholars of Islam". FIRST, there is no agreement on what makes a scholar. SECOND, if people were really honest in their approach and transparent in their motivations, they would be able to name some "scholars" who are critical of Islam. Thats not the case as we can see. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"This is the reason why ItaqAllah couldnt name a single scholar of Islam, who he thinks is critical of Islam." -- rubbish... if you ask fallacious questions, you're not going to get much of a response. "Here is a classic case because these people know that, anyone who is called a "scholar" of Islam is usually a muslim or someone who has favourable of Islam." -- your understanding of scholarship appears to be superficial. first, your assertion is incorrect. second, you seem to believe that an academic can only be for or against Islam (instead of, oh, reporting about it objectively, which is what they do), which is where the basis for these disruptive accusations of censorship fall apart. ITAQALLAH 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Address my valid arguments for - this is a Style guidelines. It has nothing to do with SOURCES. See the main Style guideline article. Do you see any discussion on Sources? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 15:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's mot that blanket. Some scholars do try to write neutrally not taking sides on whether Islam is good or bad, true or false, etc. I generally have alevel of respect for those scholars who do and their works. However you can't deny that there are also those scholars of Islam who present a pro-Islam bias of Islam in their works. They are not all muslim scholars either. There are a few non-muslim scholars who also present a pro-Islam bias in their work. But to get to the guideline, I think we need to categorize the Islam-related articles to better determine what sources are to be used where. On articles related to the history and the fundamentals of Islam, we should present what the scholars present as facts, but not the opinions and bias of the scholar if they have one to the best of our ability. On articles related to ethics and Islamic jurisprudence, that is not going to be so easy, and may result in there being no content if we don't present the opinions of the scholars. Contravercies will have the same problem.--Sefringle 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Should we add the {{style-guideline}} template to the top of this page?--Sefringle 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets wait before we can get consensus: "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here," --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Sources[edit]

Discussion of Sources does not belong in this article. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says clearly: "This Manual of Style makes the encyclopedia easy to read by establishing principles for its format. ". Specifying what kind of sources to use in Islam related articles is not related in anyway to an article's format or how easy it is to read. I have therefore deleted this unneeded section, not to mention it is a source of unnecessary contention. There is no need of any special guidelines for Sources on Islam related articles, when we already have WP:RS to tell us what makes a reliable source and what doesnt. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 15:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. - Merzbow 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
With the exception of very general points about some sources that everyone can agree on, like the Qur'an/hadith. I see no need to discuss any individual sources beyond that. - Merzbow 22:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also, if there are any specified sources, they must be agreed upon by everyone (which is impossible in the light of the subject, as we can see above in some discussions). If there are any sources which are not agreed upon, it depends on a case by case basis and we have to go by WP:RS. But because there are countless number of sources to list, verify and agree on so that will be an impossible venture in itself. Basically we have to go by RS, which is the best solution. If anyone wants to list some sources that are agreed upon by everyone, you can do so on the project page, but not in this manual as its for formatting purposes only. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 23:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing the Quran[edit]

Please add your comments on this topic in the Citing Quran sub-project discussion page. → Aktar (talkcontribs) — 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The location of Quran citations, not quoting the verse directly[edit]

In general it is considered good practice to place all the references (e.g the source where one got the information from) between "ref" and "/ref". In this case all references ae shown at the bottom of the page in a section called "references" or "notes".

However, on the articles related to religions (e.g. Islam) many scholars cite verses from the religion's holy scriptures, or sayings of an important figure in that religion. Thus wikipedians, quite correctly, have begin to either add references to the Quran, or even provide the verse of the Quran.

My question is: should these references to the Quran be put in a "ref""/ref" markup? Please note that the citations to the Quran are actual links using a template. Also, I'm talking about only when an author refers to the Quran, and we in wikipedia don't actually quote the verse. Thus a reference would look like this.

The Quran ([Quran 1:151]) teaches Muslims to deal kindly with their parents.

Or the sentence could look like this:

The Quran teaches Muslims to deal kindly with their parents.[1]

One thing to be noted is that, often there are many verses in the Quran that are cited. Thus something could look like this.

The Quran ([Quran 3:63], [Quran 4:64], [Quran 13:36], [Quran 39:67], [Quran 52:43], [Quran 60:12], [Quran 72:2] and [Quran 72:20] ) commands Muslims not commit polytheism.

Putting the verses as references would make the sentece look like this.

The Quran commands Muslims not commit polytheism.[2]

What do you guys think? Bless sins 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is preferable to use the inline citation method using the {{cite quran}} template. e.g.

The Quran teaches Muslims to deal kindly with their parents.[Quran 1:151]


The Quran teaches Muslims to deal kindly with their parents.[1:151]

The second example would look better as:

The Quran commands Muslims not to commit polytheism.[3]

  1. ^ [Quran 1:151]
  2. ^ [Quran 3:63], [Quran 4:64], [Quran 13:36], [Quran 39:67], [Quran 52:43], [Quran 60:12], [Quran 72:2] and [Quran 72:20]
  3. ^ Verses on Polytheism. Quran 3:63, 4:64, 13:36, 39:67, 52:43, 60:12, 72:2, 72:20
AA (talkcontribs) — 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Qur'an verses should not be in the <ref></ref> system. They are not references. They are part of the content.--Sefringle 04:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Wikipedia should not contain any direct references to the Koran in order to support arguments. So a statement such as "the Quran permits men to take female prisoners of war as slaves and engage in sexual intercourse with them [Qur'an 19:34, Qur'an 2:666]" would not be allowed on Wikipedia even if it is true. Citing the Koran itself as the reference will lead people to argue that the Quran means something else or that it can only be understood in Arabic (by Arabs) or that the Quran is just being symbolic ... So you have to cite a secondary source, such as a book about Islam by a recognized scholar (Muslim or otherwise). -- Koranimal Control

Images essay[edit]

Can we establish consensus for the essay before adding it into the MoS. Even then it will only be an essay and not policy (or even a guideline). → AA (talkcontribs) — 08:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What essay are we talking about here?Vice regent 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I discussed this issue on Talk:List_of_notable_people_who_converted_to_Christianity#.22Martyr.22 and Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#.22Martyr.22 (no one responded here). The concensus was vague, and seemed to agree that labelling "terrorists" as "martyrs" is unacceptable. But this is not our issue here.

I think the "martyr" issue should be moved to a more general article, as "martyrdom" is not unique to Islam, possibly to WP:WTA.Vice regent 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, the word "terrorism" should also be dealt by a more general article, to deal with all terrorism, and not just focusing on Muslim terrorists.Vice regent 16:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the article:

"Description of Muslims as "martyrs" is in most cases inappropriate, as it ascribes a meaning to the martyr's death which non-Muslims might consider an unacceptable POV. Terms like "martyrdom" are also best avoided."

A better guideline would be:

"Claims of martyrdom of some deaths of Muslims, must be made carefully. In all cases they must be sourced to a reliable source, and it must be made clear that this is the perspective of Muslims (not necessarily shared by non-Muslims)."

What do you guys think?Vice regent 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam cat. update[edit]

I've partially rewritten the criteria part of the Islam cat. subsection. I couldn't quite write the first criterion in the way that I wanted to, but I think readers will know what I mean. Feel free to change it. MP (talkcontribs) 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Page format[edit]

I went ahead and tweaked the page, to say that External links should go below the "References" section. I'm assuming that this was just a typo? If we need further backup, please check WP:LAYOUT. --Elonka 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Muhammad[edit]

It seems Muhammad cannot be referred to as "the Prophet" because some people doubt whether he is a prophet. What's next, not being allowed to refer to Jesus as "the Christ" because someone people doubt whether He is the Messiah? If so, take a look at Summa Theologica.--Mostargue 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For a start wikipedia does not refer to Jesus as "the Christ", and second using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not actually an argument. It has been well and truly resolved that it is NPOV to include honorifics or qualifiers to Muhammad in an encyclopedia. Would you be happy if I add my own POV of "Pedophile Muhammad"? Since you have not brought anything new to the table I am going to remove your drive by tagging of the MOS article. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that even in secular scholarship he is referred to as the Prophet Muhammad. I've never heard of "Pedophile Muhammad". WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, and it only applies to articles. Good grief can you WP:AGF? What exactly is a "drive by tagging". Judging by the current actions on WP:ANI against you, I'd recommend that you cease your incivility.--Mostargue 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether Prester John is correct or incorrect, I won't say, but he must stop his incivility. Your phrase "Pedophile Muhammad" is very, very uncivil and disgusts a lot of wikipedians. You should know that attacks on any race, religion, culture (or other group) are not tolerated on wikipedia.
Finally, Mostargue is correct that secular scholarship use the term "prophet". Whether we should emulate this scholarship is to be resolved here.Bless sins 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter whether people believe or not he is prophet. "Prophet Muhammad" is a unique identifier of the person in question, to distinguish him (pbuh) from millions of other Munammads, Mohammeds, Mexmets, etc. Recommandation to unconditionaly remove is plain ridiculous.

"Capitalization of Companions of Muhammad (Sahaba) when referring to those who knew Muhammad — corrective action is to write in lower case" is just as ridiculous as ignorant. This is the tradition and traditions do not adhere to grammatical rules.

While I agree that writing pbuh 33 times on a page looks somewhat awkward, the remaining rules are just overkill that closely smacks Islamophobia. For an experiment just go and try and suggest a guideline to replace King Solomom by Solomon (in all 880 occurrences of the king) or replace Rabbi by rabbi everywhere. I am sure, Jewish editors kick shit out of you. Mukadderat 04:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion, based on the (many) Islam-related historical texts in my possession, is that the most common usage is simply "Muhammad" (or Mohammed, Mohammad, etc.), though once context is established, I also see him referred to as "the Prophet". I can provide specific examples if they're helpful. --Elonka 04:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"once context is established" is a reasonable clarification, absent in the "style". Please also keep in mind that "once context is established", according to the psychology of perception it must be periodically re-established. Mukadderat 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's probably not helpful for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia striving to make a truly "Neutral Point Of View" body of text. The fact remains calling Muhammad a "prophet" is a point of view, a POV I might add the vast majority of the worlds population does not share. Current wiki policy is result of these arguments being hashed over again and again. I believe the current policy is adequate and follows the guiding principles which Jimbo laid down. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to speak for the "vast majority"? Even this "guideline" says that "Islamic prophet Muhammad" is very OK. If you really strive for neutrality, why don't you go and apply equal treatment and write Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Judaism-related articles) and see how your "vast majority" will fail before "vast minority". Mukadderat 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The second issue, who are you to invent these out-of the-blue guidelines? Please cite precedents, from academic traditions, then we shall compare and talk. Mukadderat 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Finally, arguments "ad Jimbonem" is outright arms twisting and distasteful. Mukadderat 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Arguments such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't productive either. We are not talking about Judaism related articles in this thread. Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims make up the majority of the worlds population? What does the fo mean in your above comment "why don't you go and apply"? This should probably get you blocked. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 05:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
First Jimbo, now threats with big stick. Now distasteful turns into appalling. I am no longer discussing anything with you. May be someone else will explain faults in your logic. If not, it is Allah's will. Mukadderat 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with just Muhammad? I think everyone just about knows who Muhammad is. Why bother going through the detials of enthesizing that he is a "prothet?" What benefit is it to any article o wikipedia to add this minor detial? Yahel Guhan 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. It is your job to explain what's wrong with "prophet Muhammad". And why John the Baptist is OK and prophet Muhammad is not and must be erased everywhere. Just the same I may say that "vast majority of people on the earth" just giggles hearing all these fairy tales about water-dipping. Mukadderat 05:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not asking the wrong question. If I recall correctly, it is you who is arguing it is OK to include "prothet," so I am asking why? What is right with it? Why should it be included at all? Yahel Guhan 05:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry colleague, we are discussing whether is it OK to require deleting the word everywhere. Please don't turn tables. But I already answered above: to identify Prophet Muhammed among millsion of other peoples called Muhammed, just as it is written "King Solomon" to distinguish him from Solomon ben-Abban. Mukadderat 05:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In all of those cases, we would be (and have been) including the persons last name as well. If there is just Muhammad, with a wikilink to the article Muhammad, it is pretty obvious which Muhammad we are talking about. Likewise, with the Solomon article and links, we should just call him Solomon. It should be pretty obvious who we are talking about. No need to specify by giving titles; that just makes articles POV, and adds nothing encyclopediac. Yahel Guhan 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't wikilink each and every occurrence of the name. Now let me repeat for the third time. Please don't try to introduce or justify a certain style for English language texts. If there are such well-known recommendations which say what you say, bring them in and done with it. Mukadderat 05:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In Karen Armstrong's Jerusalem: One City Three Faiths, Chapter #11 starts off: "Muhammad Ibn Abdallah, the new prophet of Mecca in the Hijaz, did not believe that he was about to found a new religion when he received his first revelation in 610." Another useful "style" sentence is later in that chapter: "Over and over again the Qur'an insists that the revelation to Muhammad did not cancel out the teaching of previous prophets: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Job, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus." Another useful sentence might be from Malcolm Barber's The New Knighthood (p. 100): "The most fundamental of these divisions was that between the Sunnites, who recognised Abu Bakr, one of Muhammed's earliest converts, as the Prophet's true successor, and the Shi'ites, who adhered to a line descended from Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law." In other words, both of these highly-respected historians seem to have no trouble with using "prophet" or "Prophet" once context is established. I can provide quotes from other sources if they are helpful. --Elonka 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Colleague, I believe you are experienced enough and have tounderstand that making rules basing on 2-3 ezamples is original research. There are plenty of manuals of style in the world. Please provide me one which recommends to unconditionally delete "prophet" everywhere from the side of "Muhammad". Mukadderat 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Folks, let's please stick with WP:CIVIL. We're here to write an encyclopedia, let's try and act like it. --Elonka 05:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What exaclty made you feel insulted? Mukadderat 05:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing in your most recent comment, it just came out that way because of an edit conflict. I was just making a general point about the tone of the above threads. I recommend that for best results, we all focus on discussing the topic in a professional manner. --Elonka 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a pretty much professional discusison with one colleague, with whom we don't share positions right now in more than one article, but I dont have any problems with him (I hope he doesn't either). While another one started exercise adminisatrative arguments and outright threat of force, and I am not going to tolerate this. I am not going to quarrel either. Mukadderat 05:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Miss Dunin, do you think the current wording is appropriate?--Mostargue 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

When should Muhammad be described with the word "prophet"?

  1. It should not be done simply to express esteem for Muhammad. In some, but not all, cases, the name Muhammad will suffice to identify Muhammad ibn Adbullah, the prophet of Islam. It would be intrusive and confusing to most readers, for example, to follow Islamic etiquette and invoke the blessings of Allah upon Muhammad whenever his name is mentioned in Wikipedia. (We already agree on that.) Similarly, Muslim editors should not take offense when others question whether adding the title "Prophet" is helpful to readers in a specific case. (We probably agree on that too.)
  2. It is appropriate in some cases to refer to Muhammad as "the Prophet," and to the "prophethood" of Muhammad, without qualifying phrases to guard the sensibilities of those who do not consider him a prophet. An example would be when discussing Islamic beliefs or Islamic theology. The comparison above with use of "the Christ" in Summa Theologica is very apt here.
  3. An important point: We are writing in the English Wikipedia, in which the word "prophet" does not correspond precisely with the Arabic words nabi and rasul that define Muhammad as a prophet and messenger of God. If context is not provided, English readers who are not familiar with Islam may mistake the term "prophet" as signifying that Muhammad was primarily a holy man who predicted future events -- by analogy with Isaiah, Jeremiah, et al. In English a "prophet" is often someone who makes "prophesies" that supposedly foretell the future. It can refer to someone like Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus as well as to Nathan. While Muhammad is credited by Muslims with accurately predicting future events, I don't believe it would be accurate to say this is his primary significance. So in an absence of context, "prophet" may give most readers the wrong idea about Muhammad.

This will have to be settled case by case. No simple style rule can replace good judgment among editors who trust one another. Is that too much to ask for? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific example article that's at issue here? Or are we just discussing the guideline in general? --Elonka 06:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this issue was discussed previously in detail. The previous consensus was not using "Prophet Muhammad". Many academic sources do write Prophet Muhammad, Jesus Christ, etc etc but we should not do it here due to the neutral policies of the wikipedia. --Aminz 08:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Based on the sources I've been checking, the general usage is to use either Muhammad, or once context is established, occasionally "the prophet" or "the Prophet" is used as a synonym. I'm also seeing that some will use "Prophet Muhammad" for the initial reference, and then just "Muhammad" after that. If we want to have a guideline that says "Use 'Muhammad'", that's a good idea, though I probably wouldn't personally make a big deal about an article that occasionally used the word "Prophet" in place of the name. I'd be against using "Prophet Muhammad" in all locations though. --Elonka 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you Elonka. Of course, nobody will think Muhammad was a prophet if we sometimes use the term "Prophet" in place of his name :) It wouldn't make a big deal to me either but if somebody replaces it with Muhammad, I wouldn't object either. Cheers, --Aminz 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict completing my comment) One can find the discussion here [11]. I myself compiled this evidence list [12] to show that using "Prophet" is fine. But as far as I remember, the final consensus was that we should not use the title "Prophet" even though many scholarly works do. Because the language of the scholarly works is not necessarily neutral. We should get the content and express it in our own terms in a neutral way. --Aminz 08:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, reading the discussion again, it seems to me that I should not use the term "consensus". I, myself, was convinced that we should not use the term :P Sorry for generalizing it to everybody. --Aminz 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing seems clear in that (tediously long) discussion: Many supporters of the usage "Prophet Muhammad" were motivated by their reverence for Muhammad, while many opponents were motivated by their antipathy toward him. This division among editors will not go away. It seems that the only way forward is to be honest about our personal opinions -- as several editors were -- and focus in each case on choosing language that will help the reader understand the topic in question, without seeming to choose sides in any controversy. It is much more difficult, and more rewarding, than petty point-scoring against "enemy" editors. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
there was a previously standing consensus to just use "Islamic prophet Muhammad" when introducing Muhammad and then to use Muhammad thereafter. "Islamic prophet" is appropriately descriptive (i.e. prophet in Islam, just as you would say Jewish/Christian prophet to refer to a prophey in Judaism or Christianity). i think we should defer to that solution which was previously accepted. ITAQALLAH 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not read the previous discussions, but Itaqallah's description of the consensus is acceptable to me. --Elonka 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether to refer to Muhammad as "the prophet" in subsequent usages, the same way Jesus is referred to as "the Christ" in the example article I gave above .--Mostargue 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a Muhammad-related article where it's an issue? --Elonka 20:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is important to distinguish between two different phrases: "the Prophet Muhammad" and "the prophet." I have read many scholarly secular books about Islam, and the standard is to call him "Muhammad," not "the Prophet Muhammad." For example, in a secular work such as Wikipedia, one would say "Muhammad set out on the caravan raid" but one would NOT say "the Prophet Muhammad set out on the caravan raid." Most Muslims have a great deal of difficulty with this concept because they cannot just say "Muhammad" ... that is "insulting" to their religion ... so when they write about Muhammad, they are RELIGIOUSLY BOUND to include their honorific title. A devout Muslims would write "The Prophet Muhammad (May the Peace and Blessing of Allah be Upon him) set out on a caravan raid." Now Wikipedia is not a Muslim religion text and if Muslim writing style contradicts Wikipedia style then it is the Muslim writing style that must yield. Having said that, I will add that secular scholars also occasionally refer to Muhammad as "the prophet," once the context has been established. However, "the prophet" is quite different from "Prophet Muhammad." The use of the phrase "the prophet" is a stylistic choice - an attempt to add variation in language (instead of repeating "Muhammad" over and over) ... of course these authors do not really believe that Muhammad was a prophet in any true sense of the word. This is similar to how we do not say "Godess Aphrodite was born of sea foam" since no sane person believes that Aphrodite is a real Godess but we DO say "Aphrodite, the Greek Godess, born of sea foam." The distinction is that they do not use "prophet" as an honorific title, as in "The Prophet Muhammad" or "Prophet Muhammad" ... in those cases, it is only acceptable to omit the biased/pious honorifics and simply say "Muhammad." Just as we do not accept the annoying Muslim habit of saying "pbuh" (peace be upon him) after ever mention of Muhammad, so too should we reject their insistence of using the title "Prophet" behind every mention of Muhammad's name. No non-Muslim would use this term "the Prophet Muhammad." The only reason we are having this debate is because Muslims are religiously prohibited from referring to Muhammad as simply "Muhammad" ... they HAVE to add honorific titles and suffixes, to do otherwise would be heresy. Perhaps such devout Muslims should just stay away from editing Wikipedia altogether, since it is a fundamentally heretical body of work. -- Koranimal Control


We should definately allow PBUH to be used. It is respectful and shows that we accept others' religions --Danny 17 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. PBUH is something that should be used in religious texts, but not in English-language encyclopedias. If you can show me a modern history book or encyclopedia that uses PBUH, I'll reconsider, but until then, we should avoid its use. --Elonka 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. BUT we should not penalise users who do place PBUH etc in articles - merely explain that whilst we respect their religion it is not the right context. This is usually the case but I saw some cases where editors were verbally abused for inserting PBUH - although this was before I joined so can't recall the links! --Danny 17 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on that. If a user does use it, we should assume good faith and just gently and politely direct them otherwise, per WP:BITE. And no need for examples, I've seen the anti-Islam crowd at work, and I agree that a confrontational attitude is not helpful. The better route is to shower new users with abundant amounts of Wikilove. :) --Elonka 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The best action is to just remove. Yahel Guhan 00:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah[edit]

In 628, the prophet Muhammad agreed to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah on behalf of the Muslim community. While writing the treaty, Ali referred to the prophet as "Muhammad, God's Messenger", to which his enemies naturally objected. However, in order to ensure the treaty was successful, the prophet himself removed the phrase "God's Messenger" from his name. (Source: Ramadan, Tariq. In the footsteps of the Prophet. Oxford University Press. pg. 155)

The moral of the story: it is entirely acceptable to refer to the prophet Muhammad as simply "Muhammad", without any contentious honorifics, so far as he (and Islam) is concerned.Bless sins 04:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bless sins, I think the moral of the story is that Muhammad was willing to compromise on just about anything in his vie for power. But his followers do not have the same ability to compromise the rules of Islam and are bound to attach "The Prophet" and "PBUH" around Muhammad's name wherever they see it. This is bad news for Wikipedia unless we can have bots that go around deleting all the occurrences of PBUH and "Prophet Muhammad." -- Koranimal Control

Broadening "terrorism" section[edit]

I changed the "Terrorism" section to a broader description that is meant to summarize existing guidelines, as so:

Controversial terminology

The use of charged terms such as cult, sect, extremist, terrorist, freedom fighter, fundamentalist, and myth can be contentious. The Wikipedia Manual of Style describes them as "words to avoid", since they can bias an article's point of view. See WP:WTA for further information.

I'm not surprised this was reverted the first try (it is a MOS after all) but I still think it's a positive change. 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Insulting Islamic symbols[edit]

I suggest that there has to be a wikipedia guideline that discourages users from insulting Islamic symbols, examples of insults done by editors are here and here (Imad marie (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Don't worry about it. It is generally picked up on quite quickly by the community as provocative trolling or incivility. The editor behind the second diff you cite was blocked indefinitely for continuing exactly this kind of disruption. ITAQALLAH 12:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

God / Allah in quotes[edit]

The policy (before I boldly edited it) said that Allah inside quotes should be maintained, however, I'm interpreting that to mean only when the original quote is in English. So, if I'm translating some quote out of Arabic and into English, using the word "God" is acceptable, right? Evercat (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proper noun are usually not translated between languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Just like English speakers use El when they refer to the Hebrew God, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As in the theology of Islam there is no such word as god, the correct word would be Allah.I tried to correct is by replacing Allah at the place of god. But some one did not approve it. Please do take the initiative to correct it as it reflects the Millions of Muslim's ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is incorrect. The word for god in Arabic is "ilah". Furthermore this is important because "Allah" is a name, and if it reverts to God, that is fine. I say this simply because otherwise: Jesus should be written as "Easa", Abraham as "Ibrahim", Isaac as "Ishaque", Ishmael as "Ismail" and so on and so forth. Similarly, when refering to the Old Testament, we'd need to start using "El". Whatever the convention is, lets follow it the whole way through. Baalthazaq (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent updating has reduced the amount of verbiage in making initial reference to Muhammad[edit]

First references uniquely identify that person by the single hyperlinked word Muhammad instead of three (ie. 'Islamic Prophet Muhammad'). See [http/] Upheld (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For background information pro/con see here: User talk:MoralVictor
Personally, I don't care much one way or the other, but this user's methods are not very constructive. --RenniePet (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It has long been accepted for the introductory mention to be 'Islamic prophet Muhammad' and the rest to just be 'Muhammad'. ITAQALLAH 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Upheld has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:User:DavidYork71. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad / The Prophet[edit]

Hi, I think in some cases which we want to emphasize on the religious aspect of Muhammad we can use "The Prophet". I think we should use "the Prophet" in two especial cases.

  1. When we want to emphasize on his prophecy. For example, the connotation of the superiority of the Prophet over the rest of the ummah and the superiority of Muhammad over the rest of the ummah are completely different. You see, Muhammad as a person doesn't have any superiority over other people. But when we say Ummah, we speak in Islamic discourse. So we don't want to speak about Muhammad as a member of Ummah, but we want to discuss about him as the Prophet of the Ummah. I hope I could clarify the different meaning and connotation between these two sentences.
  2. When we want to show Muslim viewpoint. For example when we say Muslim believe they should follow the Sunna of Muhammad has less religious meaning and in fact 'Muslim believe they should follow the Sunna of the Prophet because he is the Prophet. Using Muhammad in such cases lead to distortion of Muslim viewpoints.

--Seyyed(t-c) 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I added these issues in the Manual of Style. However, I'm here to discuss about them if you disagree. Feel free to remove them, but put your viewpoint here.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not object. I believe, however, that the standard MOS on religious capitalization stipulates that 'Prophet' is capitalized, but 'the' is not. I think that this is good, maintaining an encyclopedic tone while still showing the proper significance of the term and giving it the due respect, if not the veneration that is entitled to Him. Does that seem amenable to you? May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. You know, I have seen many reliable sources (even reliable and non-reliable critical ones) use the word "prophet" all the time.Bless sins (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't want to use them all the time due to WP:NPOV. But sometimes the meanings depends on it.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I had brought up the issue of using the word prophet on the MOS talk page a long while back if you search through the archives. A lot of academic sources use it without problem, but the issue has always been whether it's a POV to use the descriptor Prophet. I just think the current guidelines save a lot of potential future disputes over the issue. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's inherently and inexcusably POV to designate anybody as "the" prophet, and even referring to Muhammad (or anybody else) as "a" prophet is implying that his particular revelations were, in fact, prophetic. Dicey territory, and not the place for an encyclopedia. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not POV to discuss His claims to Prophethood, but it is POV to assert that His claims are correct. It is not POV to mention that He is referred to as a Prophet, or that in many instances that His name is substituted with "The Prophet" (or, for that matter, any of His other titles: Messenger, God's Apostle, etc.) but it is POV and rather inappropriate to give a value judgement to the legitimacy of such titles. So therefore, making mention of such designations is encyclopedic and neutral, but suggesting that they either are (or aren't) legitimate cannot be said to be so. Does this accurately sum up your objection? May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When we want to show Muslim's POV, the text should represent that POV correctly. When we say Muslims believe in x, it does mean their POV is x So it's not against the WP:NPOV to represent the POV as it is.
Emphasizing on prophecy is a complicated case. I think The Prophet and Muhammad have completely different connotation. Thus using Muhammad instead of The Prophet in some cases lead to misleading.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If the argument against usage is that it affirms the validity or legitimacy or as assertion of the truth of his claim of being a prophet by calling him such, than I think that is an argument unsupported by English language usage. Calling someone a prophet does not confer upon him some global acknowledgment of divine purpose, calling someone a Prophet is merely acknowledging that the person is one who is regarded by some as such. A dictionary definition: capitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will <Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah> [13] In any case I think when used with a qualifier such as Islamic Prophet, or Prophet of Islam/ Allah etc. there should be no issue at all. May be an example can be provided of the circumstances under which this allowance is being sought?--Tigeroo (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I honestly cannot see how adding "the Prophet" is conforming to NPOV at all. Claiming him to be a prophet is in itself a Point of View, hence has no place in the articles. Jmlk17 07:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I admit I myself have difficulty imagining a practical neutral application. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly... my exact same thoughts. Labeling Muhammad as "the Prophet" is a perfect example os violating WP:NPOV. Only one billion people on the planet (I say "only") see him as such, and that in and of itself is the issue. It's not the accepted norm, and Wikipedia is dedicated to presenting the facts and the issues in a neutral, unbiased manner, and a "Prophet" title is a 180 from that. No. Jmlk17 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
When we want to represent Muslim's viewpoint correctly, we should use the same words which they use to describe their idea. How is it possible to describe a Point of View while trying not to use it's discourse. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to here, could you provide me with an example? The image that you're giving me is that if it's representing a Muslim viewpoint it would say something like 'Muslims believe the Prophet was a Messenger from God' as opposed to 'Muslims believe Muhammad was a Messenger from God'. I mean, if you're quoting you're quoting what is said, but I am finding myself a bit confused here as to what you're getting at. Forgive me if I'm staring right at it and not comprehending, I've been known to do things like that. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


I feel the same as many muslim editors above and feel that honorifics, especially PBUH, could have a place in articles about Islam. Im not a muslim, but I also feel it is very damaging to this encyclopedia to chase away editors who are required as part of their beliefs to insert these honorifics, which presents the one sided western or anti-islamic view one can encounter in articles semi-related to islam at the moment (although it has improved), such as articles related to the middle east, where muslim editors are either in the clear minority or non-existent. As one editor mentioned, and I felt made a compelling arguemnt, secularism and atheism are points of view, I believe it would be wrong changing G-D to GOD, just as I believe it is wrong that honorifics are deleted, as these articles are within the clear context of Islam. In essence these honorifics are almost like day to day phrases used in many articles anyway, one has to remeber that Arabic and Islam have fused to the extent that parts of the religion may alter phrases in day to day secular conversation, so not all honorifics are intended to be forwardly religious. (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to impose your point of view on others.
My point of view is that all religion is superstitious nonsense. Would you accept that I demand that because of my belief that all Wikipedia articles about religion include the disclaimer "This is superstitious nonsense!"?
I guess not, i.e., you seem to think your beliefs should be imposed on me, but my beliefs should not be imposed on you. --RenniePet (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tell you again I am no muslim so don't try and strawman me, it is imposing your beliefs to say that muslims cannot add honorifics to articles that are clearly within the scope of Islam as a religion, when using the word God or Lord, Christians are giving God an honorific, yet that does not stop these words being used within the realm of Christian related articles (note I am a Christian), within the realm of Islam I see it as a breach of NPOV to try and remove honorifics, simply in the belief that this person does not deserve that honorific, either because of your low opinion of that person or a secularist point of view. (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting hadith[edit]

There seems to be a dispute on Jizya. I hold that quoting hadith in the article is a good idea, but only if the hadith is quoted by a reliable secondary sources, thus establishing its notability and significance.

Jayjg holds that every hadith out there should be added to the article regardless of whether it is quoted by a reliable secondary source.

I think this approach is detrimental to any article, since there can be hundreds of hadith on a topic (say Allah, or Moses or Salat, or Jihad etc.) I also think that if we use hadith the way they are used in reliable secondary sources, then we won't be quoting them out of context. (Anyone familiar with Islam knows how easy it is to quote verses or hadith out of context.)

What do you guys think?Bless sins (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The article references the reliable hadith that refer to jizya, which is not "every hadith out there", nor even "hundreds of hadith", but actually a fairly small number of hadith. They're not used to make any particular arguments, and are reliably sourced. Bless sins first objected to them on the pretext that the section had too many quotes, then on the pretext that the hadith weren't properly sourced. This is the latest pretext, nothing more. Jayjg (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
He's also trying to force through a related cleansing in Dhimmi. - Merzbow (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that Jayjg has tried to find "every hadith out there" that has the term "jizya" in it. There are no secondary sources that use the hadith, and the use of them in the article is quite arbitrary. Anyways, I'd like to see what other users have to say about such usage.Bless sins (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You're repeating bogus arguments from Talk:Jizya. Your disruptive tactics are tiresome. rudra (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please mind WP:CIVIL, Rudrasharman --Be happy!! (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic to list original sources on some topic; they should be added to wikisource if a secondary source that lists them all could be found (to avoid original research); here we can add a box referring the reader to wikisource.--Be happy!! (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please relate your statement to policy. Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Overquoting of primary sources is not appropriate, and consists of original research. In each contentious case that a primary source is used, it is good practice to indicate which secondary source interprets it as being of importance, representative, and relevant, and whether that secondary source draws implications not obvious to the lay reader. The relevance of the primary source then depends on the reliability of the secondary source. I imagine Jay knows all this. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't "overquote primary sources", it just lists the hadith that mention jizya, providing a summary for each. Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That's overquoting them, unless secondary sources indicate those are relevant hadith, all the relevant hadith and nothing but the relevant hadith - oh, and support our interpretation of them. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles aren't the place to spam a list of primary sources, and this goes for verses from the Qur'an or narratives from the hadith too. If a primary source is directly pertinent to a discussion in the article, then reliable secondary sources should already have cited it themselves - in which case it is appropriate to make mention of the primary source in the body or in a footnote. ITAQALLAH 11:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please relate your statement to policy. Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR. You know this already Jay, this argument has been made to you endless times, and you continue to ask for it to be made again, without responding to its essentials or taking it to the policy talkpage. Don't ask me for diffs, because I'm not hunting them up to derail the discussion. Here's what you do next time: you tell Itaq why his statement doesnt relate to policy, OK? Because you're the only one who claims to be unable to figure out which policy he's talking about. Relata refero (disp.) 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand the point you're making, but am not sure it applies. In this case the hadith are not used to advance any argument - they're just listed and summarized for the reader's convenience. And the fact that they mention jizya would seem to make it trivially obvious that they're relevant. However, I'm open to further argumentation on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether they advance a point or not is irrelevant. It is Original Research and it is unencyclopedic. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is very relevant if you're going to invoke WP:OR. Your best shot is to argue that it's a quote farm of sorts, which is basically an argument by WP:UNDUE to move the material to Jizya in Hadith Collections. rudra (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A section or article under the title of "Hadith" or etc claims to include all the relevant such primary sources. And we do need a secondary source for that to assure us that those are exactly the ones that are directly or indirectly relevant to the topic.
If I have a page on wikipedia, I can not edit it myself without secondary sources even if the information does not advance a point.
Ah! Have you ever seen another Encyclopedia (like Britannica or others) listing primary sources? Common. This is what one can find in random websites, not in encyclopedicas. I don't know why we are even discussing this. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever seen another encyclopedia with lengthy articles on Pokemon characters? This encyclopedia isn't like others, we have our own policies, and so far you've failed miserably at finding a policy that this material violates. Keep trying, though, we're on the fifth pretext now and counting. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I've asked a general question, because I've seen this problem (or atleast I think its a problem) on many article.

Here's my explanation of the issue: the fact that a particular hadith is in the jizya article, or in the Jesus in Islam article, or any other Islam article, is a statement in itself: it says that the hadith is relevant to the topic. If the hadith wasn't relevant to the topic, it wouldn't be in the article. Thus by placing the hadith in the article, one implicitly says "this hadith is talking about xyz". This is an interpretation, and thus disallowed in WP:PSTS "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

There's another problem: taking things out of context. Suppose we quote a verse of the Qur'an on something. Should we include the verses before it and after it? Many would say yes, because that provide the context in which the Qur'an makes those statements. Should we provide 5 verses, before and after? 10 verses? The entire surah? Using secondary sources ensures this problem doesn't come up, because we can rely on the secondary source. Bless sins (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, post-modernist apologetics. I love it! If a hadith has the word "jizya" in it, then it can't be about jizya because a hadith can't possibly mean what it says. And if a hadith doesn't have the word, then again obviously it can't be about jizya, because a hadith can't say what it means. Ergo, jizya is meaningless, because it's all, ah, "interpretation". Wonderful! rudra (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Rudrasharman, I am not sure if you are writing as someone who has a fair amount of knowledge on jizya or as someone who doesn't know anything about the topic at hand. According to Encyclopedia of Islam, for example

the writers who, in the ʿAbbāsid period, tried to collect the available materials relating to the operation of the d̲j̲izya and the k̲h̲arād̲j̲ found themselves confronted by texts in which these words were used with different meanings, at times in a wide sense, at others in a technical way and even then varying, so that in order to be able to complete a reasonable picture they tended to interpret them according to the meaning which had become current and best defined in their own time

--Be happy!! (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue was sources, not their interpretation. rudra (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
He's giving you an interpretation-based reason why we discriminate between categories of sources, specific to this case. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no doubt that the jizya was applied in many different ways during its existence, and to many different groups too; in theory some people were exempt, but in practice those exemptions were sometimes honored and sometimes ignored. As another example, the jizya was only supposed to be imposed on Jews and Christians, but under various regimes it was applied to other groups too. It's not particularly relevant to this specific issue, though. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Aminz's point was that using primary materials alone is often confusing, and as you show above, contradictory. Thus we need a secondary source so they can put the primary source in context.Bless sins (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not looked at the page in questions, just the discussions here. Referring to primary sources to find and list Jizya related hadiths or even Quranic ones is WP:OR. Quoting a list from existing secondary or tertiary sources is a solution. Generally it is already established wikipedia practice due to WP:OR concerns that quoting hadith or quranic verses without secondary or tertiary commentary is not good practice.--Tigeroo (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources[edit]

On the basis of the consensus over using religious sources(here) I added a new section to the manual of style.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. But I'm not sure some agree that centuries-old sources can still be considered secondary; I'd like to see Itsmejudith's opinion on this. - Merzbow (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest discussing about this issue here.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Just a question. Why are Islamic honorifics, such as "pbuh" or "as" not allowed, when other honorifics ("His Royal/Serene Highness" - "His Majesty") allowed in articles mentioning royalty? Ahmedasghar (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that royal honorifics should be disallowed as well. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes
I was wondering if islamic honorifics in quotes should be disallowed as well, replacing them with ellipses. E.g. I don't see how the "(radi Allahu 'anhu)" contributes to the article on Hadith qudsi. Шизомби (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Sayyid and Syed are not mentioned. Should those be excluded as well? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Bump. Sayyid says "is an honorific title"... please see also discussion at Talk:Musa al-Sadr#Sayyid - thanks. (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If you will notice, however, that there are examples such as "Queen Victoria" whereas her Wikipedia article is "Victoria of the United Kingdom", or "Emperor Akihito" as simply "Akihito". Now in some instances, the terms are actually official positions and titles, whereas certain things like "Peace be upon Him" are not official titles, but rather terms of respect. Usually "His Majesty/Highness/Eminence" are only to be included where they are described in an official capacity. In this matter, it is rather ambiguous in terms of most Islamic honorifics, and thus inclusion of them tends to be a neutrality issue. Muslims, for example, would likely be unhappy if, say, Joseph Smith were titled "Prophet Joseph Smith", as it constitutes something contentious to their beliefs.
And on a personal note, the mandatory inclusion of it in informative works really makes little sense, as such a statement as "Peace be upon Him" is expressive of individual respect and desire. To paste it in every article seems to me not only to not be neutral, but belittling to the genuine personal usage. Peter Deer (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Shia or Shi'a[edit]

There is a great inconsistency between the use of the these two transliterations: "Shia" and "Shi'a". I believe that this guideline should specify which form should be used in all articles. Eklipse (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Images in articles on Islamic prophets, etc.[edit]

Someone removed the images from Husayn ibn Ali and Ja'far al-Sadiq. Another anonymous editor made [this comment on a talk page. This guideline makes no comment on the legitimacy of excluding images in articles on Islamic prophets or imams, but it seems inconsistent with WP's goal of neutrality to enshrine a particular religious belief in editorial policy. I propose the addition to the Images section of this guideline a comment to that effect. Any thoughts? Bongomatic 09:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think certainly "islamic law" can be disregarded, what might be more of a concern is how representative the pictures really are. If it's uncommon to illustrate these people, does it make sense to have an illustration so prominent? (Look at the article on Muhammad for example, where the illustrations of him are small and further down in the article, not featured in a sidebar at the top.) Questions to consider are how well-known are the illustrations used, and how important are they? I actually think the pictures should probably be deleted, since their licensing explanation "The author may have died 100 years ago." is questionable. The website they appear to be taken from doesn't indicate as far as I can see where the illustrations came from. Шизомби (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Good points. I guess I wasn't so concerned about these particular articles, but making sure that there was appropriate guidance for editors generally. Your point about the prevalence of depiction does seem relevant to that. Bongomatic 00:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


It seems inconsistent that MOS:ISLAM says

Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.) — recommended action is to NPOV to "Qur'an". Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia.

yet there's apparently no explicit policy against "Holy Bible" and Wikipedia articles have hundreds of references to it. —EqualRights (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason it seems there isn't a similar manual of style for Christianity-related articles, but really I don't see anything in official policy that seems to support your complaint. If your argument is that there are Bible pages that call it "Holy Bible" then...well, that's not really neutral. So if you see it, fix it.
Now as to the use of Holy Qur'an, there's really no reason to use it over simply "Qur'an" with the exception of referring to a specific translation titled as such, but to refer to the original version as such is not appropriate, accurate, encyclopedic, or neutral, so I see no reason why this should be an issue.
On that note, if it pleases those involved, I would like to add a note to this reflecting this particular thing to let it be known that particular response is appropriate. Peter Deer (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Hazrat" in title names[edit]

I've been involved with two articles Hazrat Babajan and Hazrat Tajuddin Baba and it has just occurred to me that there may be a standard practice -- perhaps even an MOS guideline -- about using "Hazrat" in the titles of these articles. I've looked at what I think are the appropriate MOS sections and haven't found a specific guideline, however. Can I get an opinion on best practice, please? Thanks. --nemonoman (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that in general honorifics should be removed, moreso in this case as this tends to be a term of specific respect rather than an official title, but even if it were for some reason you'll notice that even kings are not called "King Such-And-Such" but rather "Such-And-Such I". My interpretation is to rename, but undoubtedly there are individuals to whom that would not apply (same with "Aqa" or "Effendi" where it is often considered part of the person's actual name, example Shoghi Effendi.) And apologies for not responding to this sooner! Peter Deer (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of name of Koran[edit]

In a recent vote there was insufficient consensus to change the name of the page about the Koran to have an English spelling. However, what was shown was that there was no support for the use of the transliteration Qurʾān (the characters there are modified letter right half-ring, in place of hamza; and a-macron) or any approximation of it using apostrophes. Instead there was an even split between the British English spelling Koran and the un-adorned version of the transliteration "Quran". Given the results of that vote it seems that the advice here should be to use "Quran" (no apostrophe, hamza, or macron). Note WP:ENGLISH says that a native word should always be used in preference to a transliteration.

I participated in that conversation and while there was no overt support for the inclusion of the apostrophe it was really more a side issue and was not discussed much, the bulk of that argument circulated around whether Koran was more appropriate (the majority found that it was not) I would think that for the time-being unless and until it is decided that Quran is more appropriate than Qur'an (the current form) that the Manual of Style should reflect that. Of course, there's no reason not to seek consensus on that issue as well. Peter Deer (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have seen Qur'an so conventionally used, anytime I see Quran I see it as a typo. I think we should go by what academic sources use.VR talk 09:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

God in Islam[edit]

I am not sure about the linking of the first instance of God in Islam-related articles to God in Islam, for a couple reasons;

  • Firstly, it seems to imply in relation to Islam-related articles that each inferrence of God only refers to it from a strictly Islamic perspective, discounting that several concepts from Islam-related articles also relate to the beliefs of other groups such as Christians, Baha'is, Sikhs, etc. An example is quoting Ghandi: "It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission." Should God in that sentence be linked to the main article of God, or God in Islam, considering Ghandi's perspective on God acknowledged Islam as from God but was not based solely on the teachings of Islam?
  • Secondly, along the same lines it seems to advance a point of view denoting specific separateness from or exclusion from other conceptions of God. There are other things about it that are more difficult to describe properly, but I am not sure if the current policy is best.

I would not be asking about this if it were cut-and-dry and I had a clear idea of what should be done in this regard. The God in Islam article is important and in one sense I also worry that if all instances of "God" were linked to the main God article that the God in Islam article would be severely orphaned. Peter Deer (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style[edit]

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS[edit]

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Religious sources sub section[edit]

This entire sub-section was added on 21 February 2009 (15 months!) in this edit [14]. Seem to have been an arbitrary change by an IP in Beirut [15] with 11 edits (contribs), on one day, that has not edited since. All changes to this page are supposed to be with concensus.
Looks like someone has sneaked their POV into the Manual of Style! -- (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


There seems to be some pages with Ahadith and some with Hadith so which one should be used? (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Ahadith is the plural, Hadith is singular, so we could just use both, but the problem arises from the fact that Arabic turns plural in different grammatical situations. For example in Arabic grammar you'd say "How many apple do you have" with apple being singular. So I can see this being extremely problematic consistency wise, especially if we have many Arabic contributors. Any suggestions for resolutions? Baalthazaq (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of honorific "prophet" can be necessary when an article refers to more than one Muhammad[edit]

This does come up from time to time, for example there are narrators of hadith carrying the name Muhammad.

This is simply a question of readability. There are circumstances under which one might confuse the prophet Muhammad with another Muhammad. In these situations, it could be necessary to add the honorific "prophet" to Muhammad's name.

Further, in these cases, it should not be necessary to specify "the Islamic prophet" after other than the first reference; "prophet" alone should suffice. This is a matter of aesthetics, since overuse of the term "the Islamic prophet" would become stilted and awkward.

Your thoughts please Aquib (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that the phrase can and should be used this way, if there might be confusion about which Muhammad is meant. As you mention, and as the policy already states, this should only be done in the first such usage. In order to help clarify the somewhat vague wording in the second half of the sentence, I added "...may be rendered...if necessary."
Your change seems reasonable. In order to clarify the point about which I am concerned, I would add the following:
  • "...may be rendered...if necessary." There are occasions when "prophet Muhammad" or "Islamic prophet Muhammad" may be used in other places in the article, for the sole purpose of avoiding ambiguity when more than one person with the name "Muhammad" is mentioned.
The name may need to be qualified in some other place inside the article in order to identify which person we are referring to. This situation comes up from time to time.
Aquib (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The best way to go is the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Completely NPOV, since no one can deny that he is a prophet of Islam.VR talk 09:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Islamic Honourifics - Other Persons[edit]

Added a possible new section. Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we have honorifics properly sorted out from invocations of blessings. To ask God to bestow peace, mercy and blessings upon a prophet, for example, is not the same as to refer to a person using an honorific title such as "The honorable scholar ...". -Aquib (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I know its not the same but what exactly do you mean, I'm not getting to what you are trying to imply.Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics in Arabic[edit]

Can we add the Arabic for PBUH, etc? If my search (which I've tried to reconstruct here:)[16]was right, the Arabic form is in many of our articles (not including its use in quotes). I admit to having qualms about using Arabic when English could be used in any case. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My concern is these MOS guidelines are used as a pretext for certain people to methodically purge PBUH and other blessings from quotations as well as prose. Who is qualified to judge such a matter and what will happen to Arabic quotations if these people start going in and editing them? -Aquib (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, your search on Google is missing an alphabet, hehe :p... Actually the Arabic PBUH is not acceptable, as an Arabic language in general. The only inaccurate article in the list is Ibrahim Arabs, which I nominated it for deletion; the rest is all Arabic quotes, I think. ~ AdvertAdam talk 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, as I said, I'd reconstructed it and thought the results were different from my original search. It should be obvious where there are quotations - no qualifications should be required - and of course no one should change quotations. Surely that isn't a good reason not to add the Arabic? Just to make sure it's clear, I don't think 'holy' should be before Bible, that 'Christ' should be used where 'Jesus' is appropriate, etc. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
All the points you made are pretty clear in this MOS, while your concern about Arabic is already under another policy: "foreign language is not allowed". I'm afraid that if you want to add PBUH in Arabic, then you'll need to add Holy Qur'an, AA, Sayda, etc... the list never ends. Maybe we can put a note in the intro of honorifics that the same policy is considered in Arabic, too. I'd appreciate to see an additional user's opinion :). ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and Primary Source[edit]

According to continues POV-pushing and WP:OR in multiple incidents, I suggest mentioning that a tafsir is still a primary source. Especially when it comes to Ibn Kathir, he sometime uses multiple explanations, or incidents, of the same verse and I've seen editors cherry-picking whatever statement they like. Tafsir is a verse-by-verse, or section-by-section, based explanation, so I believe it's still considered a primary source and is misleading (when someone wants to misuse it). Opinions? ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My this has gone unanswered a long time...
A secondary source is something that is "at least one step removed from the event" and, unless it's something like the Prophet's own interpretations, exegesis falls into the category of secondary sources. Obviously, using a quote of a primary source within a secondary source as though that made it secondary is inappropriate, but I don't see that as a regular problem. Peter Deer (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Biography of Muhammad (Sirat Al Rasul)[edit]

The Sirah, biography, of Muhammad has tons of sources and extremely lots of opinions and sources. I've seen incidents where editors take three criticizing scholarly authors and one straight-forward historian and give the first three more weight. No-one is against a criticism section as long as it doesn't violate WP:DUE. I suggest having a group-of-authors to compare to, the most experienced in the field, to be able to shorten multiple dispute incidents in the future.
The most authoritative I've seen is Ibn Ishaq (his work was republished by Oxford University in 2004), Al-Dhahabi, and Ibn Kathir (his tafsir is a primary source, but the sirah is just a biography). I've also seen Safi-ur-Rehman Mubarakpuri widely used in the nation, but I don't think he's scholarly enough to be used here (as a standard). Opinions? ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quote from this RSN on a related topic: "A religious scholar is every bit as much a scholar as a non-religious scholar, and on a subject of religious importance like this, there will be many more religious scholars publishing high-quality reliable sources than non-religious scholars". ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Conversion from Hijri calendar to Gregorian calendar[edit]

According to a previous discussion, the proposal was questioned regarding its location. Therefore, I'd like to raise it again here.
Many articles present Gregorian months for incidents that are over 1000 years-old, where the conversion process is highly controversial and scientifically challenging. I've seen many incidents where readers think those months are our holidays, which are totally inacurate and misleading because they actually change every year. Can we add a section regarding dating recommendations for future user, which might be similar to the following:

According to the controversial conversion process when converting dates from Higri to Gregorian calendar, the following recommended guidelines can be used:

  • Converted dates should be used with care, including 'circa' or 'c.' while avoiding months and/or days when possible (if not relevant to the content).
  • Days of the week, such as "Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc," should be avoided.
  • The use of dates in articles should be based on the most reliable source presented. When multiple reliable sources are used, use a range that contains all sources.

Sorry for the scrambled thought, but please consider it a brainstorming and suggest your-own. ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lang template[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Other languages, this part of the MoS should advise editors to wrap non-English text in {{Lang}}. How should we word that, in this case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's more-likely to be related to WP:MOSAR, instead of MOS:ISLAM. I'm not sure though, as that is mostly about alphabetical transliteration. ~ AdvertAdam talk 00:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia biased towards christianity[edit]

I couldn't find MOS for Christianity-related articles. in such Christian Articles they are allowed to use the word Holy for their beliefs while Muslims are not. you can see for example holy trinity, holy Father, Holy Son. I tried to make it fair for both but Christian Admins will not let you touch the articles. user: Shame Shame Shame. (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What you in fact did, instead of adding the word 'Holy' or 'Qudos' to the articles about Islam where appropriate, was to remove the word 'Holy' from articles about Christian concepts. If Holy or Qudus is part of the name of something, it should be added wherever appropriate. So you seem to be making a WP:POINT here, which in wikipedia lingo is a very bad thing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


I think we should remove the sentence that says Allah should be replaced with God. Some of the most popular English Quran translations use Allah. And among Muslim English speakers Allah remains the preferred usage. This is because Allah has a unique noun system which does not alow for pluralisation, thus keeping with the oneness tradition in Islam. Pass a Method talk 17:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Allah=God, the only difference is that Allah is Arabic and God is English, besides, I am not absolutely certain that we can change guidelines without seeking consensus first.Kiatdd (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thats partially true. God, translated in Arabic becomes "al-ilah". Allah according to some translates more closely to "The God" [17], while others sources give a more expansive meaning or pronoun [18]. Pass a Method talk 20:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The sources support the view that Allah does not mean anything other than God (capital 'G' in God does the work of 'the' as opposed to 'god'). The first source tells us that the word in Arabic for God is Allah and your second source says Allah was never applied to any being other than God. Another helpful page is [19].Kiatdd (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
using transliteration is acceptable if a word has already entered English literature, for example the word Quran has entered English literature but I doubt that the word Allah has reached that level. Almost all serious writers of Islamic and religious books such as for example Karen Armstrong and seyyed Hussein Nasr use the translation.Kiatdd (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Terrorism Section[edit]

There is no need for this section in this article since it does not define any specific rules and only tells people to decide on case by case basis which they can do anyway without this section being there.

By keeping a section named "terrorism" in an article which defines rules regarding Islam related articles is equal to associating a religion with terrorism thus this section should be removed citing the reason that it does not define any rules any way.

We can also consider changing the name of the section to something else such as "bias words to watch for" and remove reference to terrorism in the body of the section as well. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not associate the Islam with terrorism. What is does is warn any editor against the indiscriminate use of the word and not to just apply it to all Muslims. The section header got changed I see and that looks good. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Respect of our Religion and our Prophet[edit]

The purpose of my message is to raise support and bring changes to the way Prophet Muhammad is referred to in Wikipedia.
In Wikipedia we are not allowed to refer to our Prophet Muhammad as "Prophet Muhammad" instead they make it say "Muhammad", this is so for all articles and is indeed intolerable!
There are over 1 billion Muslims in this world, Prophet Muhammad being the sense of honor, dignity, and respect for all these Muslims, how can it be not appropriate to refer to him as 'Prophet Muhammad'?
It is unbelievable that this is acceptable on Wikipedia, it is disrespectful to refer to Prophet Muhammad as just "Muhammad", this is a shame that Muslims are allowing such disrespect on the worlds largest encyclopedia!
We will not tolerate this, and Wikipedia must change its policies... providing it doesn't we will defy this policy until it is changed.
I request support from the many Muslim Wikipedia editors and readers to support me in this cause.
Hooperag (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that Hooperag has been engaging in blatant canvassing and any decisions coming out of this discussion should be disregarded. --NeilN talk to me 15:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, I am trying to gain support for respecting the Prophet of Islam in Wikipedia articles and look at how much opposition I face. I am accused of not following a 'neutral' point of view, I am accused of 'canvasing' what next! Why is it that anytime someone tries to make a change on Wikipedia they must face such fierce and hostile opposition?
Neil, I don’t know whether you’re just a normal editor or an administrator; however either way it is very unprofessional of you to say “any decisions coming out of this discussion should be disregarded”.
This discussion is legitimate and any result should be respected and accepted.
Hooperag (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was legitimate until you started blatantly canvassing other editors who you felt would support your views. All sides must be informed in a neutral way or none at all. --NeilN talk to me 16:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you like you can spread my message to anyone you like, if that's what you want.
I would be happy if you did that!
Hooperag (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to advertise this ill-fated proposal anywhere. What I'm saying is if you want more attention given to it, you must do it in a neutral manner. That includes having neutral wording like, "I have made a proposal at x. Please read and comment if you are interested," and not only notifying one side. --NeilN talk to me 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag, you don't seem to realize that Wikipedia has a cornerstone policy WP:NPOV that prohibits us from presenting articles to appease particular religious group. For this reason, we also don't refer to Jesus as "Lord Jesus" the way many Christians would like.

The guideline does allow the phrase "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" when necessary to resolve ambiguity because Muhammad is a common name, or when referenced the first time in an article. But doing this in situations where there is no ambiguity is a violation of WP:NPOV.

I am sure you would object if we called him "the False Prophet Muhammad" which might be more acceptable to some Christian sects. The point is, Wikipedia would be adopting a religious point of view by calling him any kind of prophet, and that is something Wikipedia cannot do.

This proposal is a non-starter. Reviewing the documents linked in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines would be a good way to spend the next few days. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

To chime in, we also don't say "Christ" when referring to Jesus the man as "Christ" means "messiah". We only use it when talking about Christian belief in a Christ. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
EvergreenFir makes a good point here. We do not favor any religious group by making statements that suggest that their religion might be correct. The vast majority of Muslim editors are able to live with this and respect our guidelines and policies. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok calm down... Nothing like having tens of editors telling what you're doing is wrong. I accept this, when it is up to me I use such honorific terms for them. However on Wikipedia such a thing seems to not be possible.
Hooperag (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting development : standard consistent sources to refer to[edit]

Hi, We now have standard consistent sources to refer to , can we add this guideline in MOS:ISLAM 1)SUNNAH.COM 2)QURAN.COM

All primary references should come only from these two sources for consistency . I have seen many hadith in wikipedia which are wrongly quoted with incorrect ref name , this will make it easy to verify. Users approve this:User talk:Mpatel User:LatinoMuslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs) 19:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"The first Imam and the rightful successor of the Prophet of all Shia;"[edit]

This: "The first [[imamah (Shi'a twelver doctrine)|imam]] and the rightful [[Succession to Muhammad|successor of the Prophet]] of all [[Shia Islam|Shia]]" is found in several of our articles in a table that keeps getting copied from one page to another.[20] It doesn't appear to be a quote, so how should it be stated to follow our guideline? I don't want to change it and get it wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the word "rightful" is clearly a religious position that shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. And the guideline already recommends against referring to Muhammad as "the Prophet". I'd change it to something more neutral, like "The first imam and Shia's successor to Muhammad". ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
"The first [[imamah (Shi'a twelver doctrine)|imam]] is considered the [[Succession to Muhammad|successor of Muhammad]] in [[Shia Islam|Shia]] beliefs" would probably be a lot better. Feel free to tweak as it doesn't come off as polished as I prefer. Answering a lot of correspondance right now. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That's better, but since this is a descriptive caption rather than a sentence, it might be better to say "The first imam and successor of Muhammad in Shia Islam". ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That is indeed far more polished. Well done Amatulic. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Now to find time to edit the articles (if no one else has)! Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Descriptive Titles for Muslim Scholars etc.[edit]

Are words like, shaykh, 'alim, and imam acceptable descriptive titles on wikipedia? Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Amerrycan Muslim: In what context? Usage should conform to WP:CREDENTIAL. --NeilN talk to me 13:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

user:NeiIN, well I'm not really sure. While its usage is widespread within Islamic materials, I have also come across in academic literature where individuals are called "Shaykh" so and so. And it seems some of my fellow editors differ regarding its usage on wiki. So we can see on some articles where titles such as those I previously mentioned are constantly and consistently removed, on others pages it is the complete opposite. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Those titles are needed for Muslims. So it is good to be described in Wikipedia. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abdusalambaryun: Wikipedia has its own manual of style, independent of anything else. So while "Ali, an imam from Cairo" would be acceptable (like "Smith, an Anglican reverend from Georgia), Imam Ali would not. --NeilN talk to me 16:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hi, I agree but I would prefer that this MoS for the Wikipedia to become the cover for all styles, so we need a way to link them all together. However, if I want to write Imam Ali could I write "Ali (Imam, MoS ISLAM). Abdusalambaryun (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Abdusalambaryun, this Manual of Style is just part of the larger Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The usage of titles and credentials is already covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Academic titles. The use of honorifics is already covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorifics. We don't make exceptions for Islamic related articles. We have a separate manual of style for Islam-related articles for the purpose of clarifying the primary Manuals of Style in the context of Islam, because many Muslims come here trying to make changes that do not conform to the style guides. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It is true of course that we have a lot of articles edited by people who don't know about our style guides (or disagree with them). I'm not just talking about Muslim related articles here. So it all depends on who is editing or watching a page whether or not our style guides are followed. I don't think that they have enough examples of non-Muslim titles and that will hopefully be improved over time. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)