Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

→

Islam-related articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 8 9 15 33 FL 1 1 2 FM 17 17 A 1 1 GA 6 13 39 79 13 150 B 78 103 233 417 93 924 C 110 144 418 1,540 297 2,509 Start 41 88 449 3,550 1 911 5,040 Stub 8 11 204 2,961 777 3,961 List 1 12 114 181 3 36 347 Category 1 1 5,454 5,456 Disambig 1 3 122 1 127 File 2 43 45 Portal 330 330 Project 113 113 Redirect 6 15 46 149 648 864 Template 1 478 479 NA 3 8 11 Other 1 108 109 Assessed 252 396 1,517 8,900 7,325 2,128 20,518 Unassessed 1 21 596 618 Total 252 397 1,517 8,921 7,325 2,724 21,136 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 62,075 Ω = 4.92

Hi Khanbangash0909 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Created new page for Nasheed singer Ismail Hussain

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

Linking non-Muslim to Kafir

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

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

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

Articles on Islam in Wikiquote

• This is not about WP but about Wikiquote (well in some way it is because WQ is linked in most WP articles on the subject), however comments by neutral users that are familiar with Islam in a current discussion in Wikimedia are needed, and I don't know a better place to found them that here. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Who wants to be contributor of IslamWiki?

Hello everyone,

I have found as Sunni Muslim our own Islamic Wikipedia and it currently have 8 articles and it is not active. That wiki requires knowledgable Muslims and we have a section "counter arguments" so we can refute wikiislam.

Is anyone interested to be contributor of this wiki? By the way, I am contributor of this wiki and my username is Nitro Zeus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Abood (talk • contribs) 09:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Another round of discussion about Template:Islam's logo

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

Update to peer review page

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rashidun princes and princesses

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

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

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

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

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

Inconsistency in the naming of madhhab articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JorgeLaArdilla's edits on Quran suras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several problems with these summaries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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