Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

Because of their length, previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• /Archive 1 Apr 2005 — June 2006
• /Archive 2 — Sept 2006
• /Archive 3 — Dec 2006

How to become a member?

What should I do in order to become a member of WikiProject Islam? Kkrystian^talk 13:09 (UTC+1) 22 Dec 2006

I think just by adding your name at the bottom of the list on the project page, you could be a member. But important thing is to contribute. -- ALM 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Muslim women

Please take a look at intolerance expressed in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 19#category:Muslim women. Someone deleted this category and now they are refusing to restore it on a laughable pretext that there is no Category:Confucian women. Mukadderat 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslim's Historiography

Salam. I found that we have problems in narration of historical events like life of prophet and companions and also history of caliphate because of weak historiography. I found this article Historiography of early Islam. But it doesn't include all of the issue for example the events of 2nd century. We can move this article to [[Historiography of Islam or make a new article Muslim's historiography. Then we can write about the category of Muslim historians, Muslim's viewpoint of history, the schools of historyhistory amang Muslims like Akhbari school and so on. What's your idea.--Sa.vakilian 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The issues in the historiography of early Islam are quite different from the issues relating to later Islam. The problem with early Islam is that nothing was written down for centuries (trickiness of oral transmission), the paucity of archaelogical evidence, and a relative lack of evidence from non-Arabic sources. With later Islam, there are surviving manuscripts OF the period, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, monuments, artifacts, etc. It's much less like doing a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.

I'm not sure that there would be any point to a historiography of ALL Islam -- there's no such academic specialty, and if it is to include all Muslims anywhere at any time, the scope of the article would be much too wide to be useful.

It might be a good idea to have more articles on, say, the teaching of history in Islamic seminaries, or the development of Western-style departments of history in Muslim-majority countries, that sort of thing. If the literature is available. We can't do original research.

The Akhbaris were a theological tendency within Shi'a Islam, not a school of history. At least according to everything I've read.

Muslim's historiography is a bad idea and an ungrammatical title. Zora 12:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me . We have two schools which have this name. One of them as you said a jurisprudencial tendency within Shi'a Islam [www.Akhbari.org] and the other one is the school of earliest historian from Ibi Mikhnaf and Ibn Eshaq to Tabari.[1]--Sa.vakilian 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We can make Islamic historiography and it's notable issue which has written some books about: Islamic Historiography , A History of Muslim Historiography--Sa.vakilian 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence

This article needs some reviewing and rewriting. It is overburdened with apologetic rhetoric for the Hindu-rioters side. Even the name is wrong- HRW and other major publications refer to the event as the "Gujarat Massacre". The name it is given isn't just politically correct, it is disinformative. Falcon2020 18:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An article name has to be NPOV. Massacre is emotive. Yes, it looks like some WP editors have tried hard to give the article a pro-Hindu slant, mainly by leaning heavily on Indian government statements. However, any attempts to NPOV the article have to be extremely judicious. Trying to turn the article into a diatribe against the BJP and the Hindutvadis would be just as bad as what's there now, and just lead to more wrangling. Zora 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose then that the Holocaust article needs a name change too. "The big anti-jewish violence thing" maybe. I'm kidding, of course. The most notable phrase used to describe the event in question is "The Gujarat Massacre". Even predominantly Hindu sources use that phrase. [2] Sure the word "massacre" is emotive, but even a neutral viewer of the event would be convinced the word is appropriate. I don't particularly care if the current title stays, but the content is unacceptably POV. We can easily find Hindu sources that strongly contradict the right-wing views thrust forward in the article.Falcon2020 19:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on your edits it is clear that you have absolutely zero knowledge here. I suggest some research first. This edit [3] is worthless since UPA govt is not the same as NDA govt and Gujarat govt is not the same as national govt.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits are supported by reputable sources. Your reverts, and that of others are returning to an article which censors the findings of neutral 3rd parties. That the government was complicit in the killing of over 2000 Muslims and the rape of several hundred Muslim women is an allegation put to paper by Amnesty, HRW, and even several Indian publications. I find it EXTREMELY disturbing that so many Indians seem to support that bit of Hindutva genocide that took place in 2002 and are covering for the people who perpetrated it. Falcon2020 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So you have a partisan bias against Hindus.Orgs that inflate these death tolls and have repeatedly exaggerated the actions of the rioters have already had their biases exposed.The fact that YOU regard Indians as lower then them show your racist biases against Indians, and I suggest you keep your views to yourself. I find it extremely disturbing that YOU persist in putting extremist views on wikipedia articles and KEEP JUSTIFYING THEM based on things you know nothing about. Maybe you are just hate Hindus.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My sources include such notable Islamist racist organizations as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Guardian, and the BBC. What did I say that suggests I dislike Indians? On the matter of a massacre perpetrated by elements of the Indian government, I don't presume the Indian government to be a legit source. Baathist accounts of Saddam's atrocities aren't taken seriously, nor are Nazi accounts of the holocaust. What the Indian government has to say about Gujarat Massacre is irrelevant from an academic standpoint, particularly when India actively BARRED foreign investigators representing neutral parties from gathering evidence. So anyone who questions the BJP govt's accounts of the massacre is biased against Hindus? So I'm biased because I dared to cite Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? Bullshit. Your allegations are laughable. Falcon2020 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

India is a democracy, unlike Iraq, so your comparison is like comparing USA with Soviet Union. Incidentally, India is also the only non-Muslim country where Muslims are legally permitted to practice Sharia law.The BJP government is not a reliable source in this context, but they were ousted from election (you know, those things that HRW hates because they happen in democracies). The stats are published by a different Indian government and are completely reliable. besides,there is no basis for the assertion that HRW, which is well known to have sympathizers among radical Islamists, is reliable at all.Nonetheless, their views are in the article and contextualized per NPOV. AI and HRW are, by all criteria on wikipedia, partisan sources. if you read The Guardian, their leftist bias is proven in the wikipedia article only. [personal attack deleted] Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

State of Muslims in India

I have created State of Muslims in India to present the current state (social, economic, & political etc.) of Muslims in India. Like any wikipedia article that is big in size and include subsections, it was natural to include a new one, different in scope to Islam in India and involving important statistics about Muslims in India. It was sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Muslims in India without any clear justification, rather trying to show it as POV fork or giving rise to new articles like State of Hindus in Bangladesh, which seems perfectly ok to present the current state of some community (not religion in general) anywhere. Please have a look at it and contribut to it and check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Muslims in India. Thanks --Shacs 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps removing Hizb ut-Tahrir from the POV disputes section or why?

Could somebody explain? Aaliyah Stevens 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

not sure... i have restored it though. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles tagged as needing expert attention

Hisbah (business accountability), Islam in Denmark, Sai Baba of Shirdi and Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Pages Require Some Care

• I see that the article Quran and miracles has been recently deleted for a rewrite. However, no apparent progress has been achieved, except so many (recent) reverts. I also find the "low-importance" rating of the page quite unfair, but do not know how to rate it -I am new to wiki-.
• A related page Islamic view of miracles is subject to much more reverts, and its sources are argued by the member Sefringle as "a clear bias and certianly does have a goal: to further the goals/conversions of Islam through the internet". So maybe it is better to delete this page (or rewrite it).
• Also, the article Criticism of Islam seems to experience a methodical change of neutral words with the biased ones. For example, I think there is a difference in the meaning of "Critics point to the quran ..., for containing attacks, and for advocating hate against people of other religions" and "They claim/argue..." in terms of neutrality (Durdane 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

From whom you can ask

Sometime we(Wikipedians) have a question in a field which related to Islam and we don't know from whom we can ask it. I think most of us are experts in some issues and we can make a page and write there in which issues we are knowledgeable. So I propose making this page:From whom you can ask . --Sa.vakilian 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by User:Proabivouac

User:Proabivouac has repeatedly vandalised the Islam in China page, constantly reverting the sourced and referenced demographic figures from the bbc website and the 1938 china year book.

He has been warned 6 times of his repeated violation, and has a track record of antimuslim posting, repeatedly destroying muslim articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Proabivouac

see

• 10.46 14th January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history
• 00:22 14th January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history
• 16:47 13th January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history
• 00:55 13th January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history
• 09:15 12th January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history
• 01:25 11th January http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history

He has suggested various dates were innacurate, yet instead of asking for a correction he has deleted on no less that 6 occasions the sourced and referenced dates of

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/china_4.shtml
• There are in China 48,104,241 Mohammedan followers and 42,371 mosques, largely in Sinkiang, Chinghai, Manchuria, Kansu, Yunnan, Shensi, Hopei, and Honan. "Ferm, Vergilius (ed.). An Encyclopedia of Religion; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (1976), pg. 145. [1st pub. in 1945 by Philosophical Library. 1976 reprint is unrevised.]

In addition, he has reverted the article more than 3 times engaging in revert war. I understand this is against wikipedia policy

• 19:35, 14 January 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history 81.179.112.201 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for additional help

I have just created Al-Nizamiyya of Baghdad, branching off the older Nizamiyya article - but since Western/English sources have little to say on Baghdad's "Golden Age" university, I thought I might for some help from the WProject. Much thanks, Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

I recently found out that the above page is the first page which appears on a google search of the name Jesus. It is currently only a good article, and has been somewhat criticized for being possibly NPOV. I don't think that's good for an article which is, in a sense, this important to both wikipedia and internet reference users as well. That is why I nominated it for the Article Improvement Drive. If any of you would like to assist in improving this article please indicate your support at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there a list of new Islam-related articles? Khoikhoi 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Unknown-importance Islam-related articles and Category:Unassessed Islam-related articles. When the {{WikiProject Islam}} templete is added to an artilce, it automaticly is added to these lists.--Sefringle 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

i don't think there is a generated list of the latest Islam-related articles, unfortunately.. ITAQALLAH 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone here can take care of this

Someone nominated Good loan for speedy deletion and I declined to delete it and placed it on PROD instead. If someone can write a decent, sourced article at Qard al Hassan (or is it Qard el Hassan?) I think this could be redirected instead of deleted. I don't care if it is a stub, it just needs to have a source and be at the correct namespace. I'd do it myself but other than the name, the fact that it is interest free, and it is allowable under Sharia I know nothing about this.--Isotope23 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

or redirect to Islamic banking? there's also a subsect in that article on good loans, though i don't know if it mentions everything requiring mention. i'll look into finding some more sources though.. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that at least would be a good placeholder redirect for the time being. I'll go ahead and do that and if someone wants to write a better article to redirect to (or expand at Islamic banking that works too.--Isotope23 01:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal RFC

I've filed an RFC relating to the Taj Mahal at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waqfuna

Waqfuna.com is a website in Arabic that discusses the Islamic concept of Waqf. The short WP article on it is currently up for deletion; however, neither the nominator or I have the language abilities to evalutate whether it should have an article. Could someone stop by and offer an opinion on this? JChap2007 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

a quick ghit scan suggests it isn't notable enough, there doesn't seem to be much diversity in independant referrals. you'd imagine that foreign language websites would have to be 'extra-notable' (or extra-important) to feature on en, whereas usually it'd be better placed on ar.wiki. from what i could gauge (and my arabic really isn't the best), it seems like an Islamic financing website, concentrating on helping develop grassroots businesses. it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB atm. ITAQALLAH 01:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)