Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

PBUH

For previous discussions about PBUH, please review the archives.

Sub-sections

Talk page sub-sections:

Epithets:

• prophet
• martyr
• fundamentalist
• terrorist
• clergy
• Ma malakat aymanukum

Translations:

• names
• God vs Allah

Citing standards:

• Citing Quran
• Citing hadith
• Citing scholars
• Partisan and extremist websites

Other:

• Point of view
• miscellaneous
• family tree
• Formatting articles
• Dates

RfC about additional paragraph

The consensus is against adding the paragraph to MOS:ISLAM.

Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following paragraph be added to MOS:ISLAM? Eperoton (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

For things pertaining to Islam, the more correct adjective is "Islamic" (from Arabic: الإسلامية, romanized: Islamiyye, in turn from the triconsonant Semitic root s-l-m, meaning "submission"). "Islamic" is an entity-oriented, ideologically referring adjective for anything not directly linked to an individual person, as opposed to the noun "Muslim" ("mu-" connotes someone who does something, in this case submitting). Yet, regrettably, "Muslim" is sometimes misused as a noun-turned-adjective-synonym. However, using this noun as an adjective is due to linguistic confusion in non-Arabic academia and media, bordering etymological fallacy. Wikipedia should be careful not to reproduce this misconception. Instead, we assent to the more impersonally nuanced "Islamic", since it should be clear that a subject discussed is primarly pertaining to ideological-religious perspective(s) and not individual(s), wherever this distinction is applicable. Example: Timeline of Islamic history instead of Timeline of Muslim history.

Survey

• Oppose Our review of reference works above (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Adjective) indicated that RSs do not support the proposed generalizations. Also, the style of the proposed addition would be more appropriate for an essay than for MOS. Eperoton (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As one who is coming to this topic cold, I note that in the similar way in which one refers to a history of "Christianity", not to a history of Christians, it seems to me more proper to speak of a history of Islamic faith and not to a history of Muslim faith, if indeed it is the belief system and not idiosyncratic manifestations of it that is being discussed. I agree, though, that the paragraph given above would best be reworked for the Manual of Style. A shorter statement would seem sufficient: the religion is ordinarily referred to as Islamic and its practitioners as Muslim, if such is true. Jzsj (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Good remark. Yet, perhaps a little extension would do, further clarifying why "Islamic" would be preferred where possible as opposed to "Muslim"? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose in present form but support clarifying: (1) believers should be referred to as "Muslims" (2) though "Islamic" and "Muslim" are frequently used as synonyms, and both are viable options, "Islamic" is {sometimes/often/increasingly} considered the preferred adjective when referring to culture, institutions, etc. Clean Copy^talk 19:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Also coming to this cold, via Legobot, but I think oppose per Clean Copy, above. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say it: the proposed text is condescending and a poor fit for the tone of a style manual. But in substance, I don't find anything wrong with the suggestions. "Muslim" isn't necessarily incorrect as an adjective—for example, describing a mosque as a "Muslim place of worship" is technically accurate, because it's a place of worship for Muslims. But I'd prefer "Islamic" as the adjective in almost all cases. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in present form but support clarification of a kind suggested by Jzsj or the longer mod suggested by Clean Copy. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Allah" meaning: pre-RfC discussion

Hi, so I noticed that there is something really wrong here. Allah doesn't mean "God". I repeat, it does not mean "God". Ilah Arabic: إلاه means "God" but not Allah. Allah is similar to Yahwah in Judaism, it is the name of the Muslim God not the Arabic translation of God. These terms don't mean God! They are the name of the God.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The God in Islam is, as a tenet of Islam, the same God as the God in Judaism and the God in Christianity. They aren't different gods. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also call God "Allah" when speaking Arabic. In English, "God" with a capital G refers to that god, though the Latinized form of the Arabic name for him, "Allah", is often used in Islamic contexts. Ilah means "god", little "g", any god. Zeus is an ilah. Thor is an ilah. The being God, whether called "God" or "Allah", is one god, one ilah. Largoplazo (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To be consistent in English, with "the King", "the President" and the like, we really should say "the God", just as in Arabic. I don't know why we don't. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about the capitalization? Largoplazo (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of Allama in the name in lead section etc?

Do we allow use of honorofic Allama with the names? Policy Islam-related_articles#Other_persons doesn't specifically deals with things like Allama, Maulana, etc. The question is right now specifically being asked in relation to article Syed Jawad Naqvi where it keeps getting added despite constantlbeing removed.--Fz^tc_s 17:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

'Comment': First sentence in WP:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related articles#Other personsseems a clear hint enough. At Talk:Syed Jawad Naqvi#Content change/addition dispute resolution 2020 I had given third opinion of sort. But some how it didn't get sorted out and edit war seems to be still on. So in my personal opinion let it go for formal WP:RFC process so it may help in building a proper consensus.

Best wishes and greetings

Bookku (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but as you mentioned, despite giving that argument, the addition doesn't stops. Before going for WP:RFC, I posted here, to be sure I have not misread the policy.--Fz^tc_s 05:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right.

Thanks & greetings Bookku (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: @Dawnseeker2000: @Innocent Paki: @HistoryofIran:

Almost a month discussion is not moved much ahead, so pinging in users came in related recent changes of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Islam and requesting their inputs. Thanks Bookku (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about whether to allow use of honorofic 'Allama' with the names or not?

Policy Islam-related_articles#Other_persons doesn't specifically deals with honorofics like Allama, Maulana, etc. Do we allow use of honorofic Allama with the names or not? So policy can be updated @ relevant section of this policy page

Recently the question has been arisen specifically at an article Syed Jawad Naqvi where it keeps getting added despite constantly being removed.

For those who want to know more about term Allama, Wikipedia has an article about term Allamah

For information @Faizhaider: & @Sharief123: being first ones to discuss the issue at the article Syed Jawad Naqvi.

Thanks for your opinions.

Bookku (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove: seems to be analogous to those other honorifics, and to titles and honorifics in general. We don't even put "Queen" in front of Elizabeth II in her lede, so why would we use "Allama" here? --tronvillain (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• And, even more relevantly, we don't refer to Muhammad (or Jesus for that matter) by anything more than his name. Are those who want to add honorifics putting these people above Muhammad? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, if, as a involved party, I should vote or not, but, definitely my opinion is to remove it.--Fz^tc_s 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove. MOS:ISLAMHON states In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations. and WP:HON, In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article.. Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove - per MOS:ISLAMHON -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per reasons above. Doremo (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Its more nuanced In this case the information is retained in the Infobox. So no information is lost...but we should remember that half our stakeholders are below average intelligence. Whoever removes it really should ensure that the fact that he is know, outside of Wikipedia, as Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi is given high prominence. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove with the normal exceptions per MOS:HONORIFIC, such as when it "is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it". If someone is often known by a name that includes the title, but this doesn't rise to the level of being seldom referred to by anything else, this should probably be mentioned once in the lead as an alternative name, per MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. In both cases, a distinction should be made between simply adding a title to a name, such that it remains recognisable with the title taken away (e.g. Dr Albert Einstein can become Albert Einstein without losing the identity of the person being referred to, and when the title is an essential part of the identity (e.g. Mother Teresa as an example of the first case – "Teresa" alone does not identify the person – or Phil McGraw, with "also known as Dr. Phil" in the lead, as an example of the second – "Phil" alone would not identify the person. Robminchin (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Add I would like to say with full enthusiasm and Unctuousness that if his official website and other means of social media or channeling have given them Allama or any other title is given. Or outside of social media, official websites or channels, many famous and renowned scholars and philanthropists Addressed him as Allama or Ayatollah and so on but as per MOS:ISLAMHON, this should be emphasized that other prominents with titles and honorifics should be removed. If not then should abide with the name... Sharief123ᗙ Sharief123 (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per consistency with other articles, any Unctuousness notwithstanding. ——Serial ^# 13:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include in lede As mentioned above by JorgeLaArdilla, prominently mention this in lede when it can be demonstrated that the honorific title is extensively used in publications - similar to how it's done for Muhammad Iqbal.

Regarding the Syed Jawad Naqvi article, most of the "remove" commenters above appear to not have a Pakistani background, therefore are unlikely to appreciate how often the honorific gets used - as Robminchin pointed out above, extremely widely used honorifics should be included in title. However, this does not appear to be the case here, for starters a YouTube search on my end, gives more results for "Agha Syed Jawad Naqvi" than with the "Allama" honorific. Furthermore, in terms of being widely used, the Muhammad Iqbal article would deserve the Allama honorific significantly more than the Naqvi article. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove per HON; allow it in the body, once, as an explanation for those who "are below average intelligence" (really? Is that how we think of our readers?). We don't use PBUH for Muhammad (we simply explain, once, in the body, what it is and when it's used), and that's used (in the culture/context) far more often than these people are referred to as Allama; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I recently noticed that in over enthusiasm of removing honorifics editors have been removing Syed & it's variants from the names and have even moved articles to reflect that. It should be understood that Syed & it's variants are part of the official names, at least in South Asia, they appear in all the official documents as such from certificates to passports.--Fz^tc_s 19:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

While the work on this Rfc is underway here, on the article, the title Allama to Syed Jawad Naqvi which was removed by user-editor Alivardi has been added back by ip-editor 110.224.242.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). May be, this what JorgeLaArdilla was trying to convey above.--Fz^tc_s 08:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I like how IP (not me) has styled it. I was just noting Pope Francis, Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks, Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet - there does seem alot of tolerance for titles and honorifics. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pope Francis is that way because Francis alone is insufficient to identify the subject (it goes to a DAB page); Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks is a redirect to Jonathan Sacks, which is how he is referred to in the article; and while Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet is the article title, within the article he is consistently referred to as "John Arbuthnot" or "Arbuthnot" ~ solely the name; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And, not only that, i notice that Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks didn't even exist until you created it fifteen minutes prior to your comment, so i don't think it's a very good example at all of OTHERSTUFF; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Unless it is the most common way they are referred to in reliable sources (as per WP:UCRN, e.g., Pope Francis), such titles should not be included with names. To use a non-Islamic equivalent, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, does not have "Reverend" placed before his name in the lead.
  Alivardi (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Most British publications don't refer to him as Reverend Justin Welby or Reverend Welby, for example, this BBC article. By contrast, "Allama" can be part of the WP:COMMONNAME in many Muslim countries.VR _talk 16:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep in lede per AhmadF.Cheema. Obviously we shouldn't have "Allama" or "Maulana" everytime the name is mentioned. But, in many cases "Allama" is part of the WP:COMMONNAME. For example, "Allama Iqbal" has nearly twice as many google results as "Muhammad Iqbal".VR _talk 16:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

conflating ayin and hamza

I'm in favor of keeping the English spellings of assimilated words such as Mecca, Koran and Shiite. But if we're going to give the Arabic form, shouldn't it be correct?

Hamza and ayin are different consonants in Arabic, and dismissing them implies contempt for the language. If we made similar "I can't tell the difference so who cares" changes to European languages, people would be upset at the anglocentrism.

Take the articles in List of cities and towns in the Czech Republic. Would it be appropriate to move them all to ASCII forms, just because many English speakers don't know the difference between ř and r or ě and e? Or consider Hawaiian personal and place names, where we're careful to maintain the ʻokina and macron.

If there's some technical reason that we shouldn't use proper transcription of Arabic names in titles, then perhaps we can display them correctly using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. In the text of the article, I don't see why we should make ASCII substitutions that would not be acceptable for almost any other language.

We do make the same conflation for Hebrew, but Modern Hebrew no longer distinguishes the two sounds. Many Arabs, on the other hand, maintain that ayin is one of the most beautiful sounds in the language, and is one of the primary elements that gives Arabic its characteristic sound. It seems inappropriate to say, in effect, "Eh, who cares what a bunch of ferners think. If our readers don't already know the difference, it can't be important."

— kwami (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ghazwatul Hind

Your expert help/comments/advice are needed to make a page on Wikipedia on Ghazwatul Hind that meets the requirements of Wikipedia. It's getting deleted repeatedly, even in draft stage or mere title stage. For a quick overview, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Draft:Hadith_of_Ghazwae_Hind. Thanks Abi Hanzala (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)