Talk:Islam/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

Dear Concern,

           Hi, I'm Ali. I want to suggest an edit in following article. In short, in this article a word used that is Muhammad, Actually this word is not Muhammad but Muhammad(صَلَّىٰ ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ). Not only I but all Muslims will appreciate this edit if done.

Best Regards,

Ali Raza Virk AliRaxaVirk (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

AliRaxaVirk: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia's policy is not to use honorific titles like this. For example, we don't refer to Elizabeth II, the queen of the United Kingdom, as "Her Majesty". We simply call her "Elizabeth". Overall, we aim to describe things in a plain and neutral rather than respectful way, and we try to apply that rule equally to everyone. Best regards to you as well!—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I delete the picture?

Hi,

I would like to delete the picture about Prophet Muhammad and Angel Gabriel, because drawing pictures goes against our religion as we are taught not to draw any Prophet and Messenger whether is Jesus, Moses, Abraham or Muhammad, or anyone.

Thanx Alex Abood (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint but this has been asked before, and simply will not happen. Wikipedia is not bound by your (or anyone else's) religious views, and is dedicated to sharing sourced information. See Help:Options to hide an image and WP:Content disclaimer. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but how did you made that picture? Because, I find it frustrating that others can do pictures and I cannot.... Alex Abood (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Alex Abood: if you are referring to this picture, it was scanned from a 14th-century copy of the Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid al-Din Hamadani. You do have the same right to participate in this discussion as others, but that doesn't mean your position will win. In this case, as IdreamofJeanie said, the issue has been discussed many times and the consensus has always been that this image is an important part of the article.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer, I appreciate. Alex Abood (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Please delete the image of the Prophet Muhammad and the Angel Gabriel. It is disrespectful to Muslims and is considered haram. In an article on the Muslim faith of Islam, their ideals should be followed. Thank you, and I hope you will consider this edit. Bartholeneua (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No. See answers above. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Uns expert criticism.

The sections on the pages about religions should be removed because it is uns expert and may cause people to hate Wikipedia. Mehran Raeessi Fard (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

UNS? In general, content that is well-sourced to WP:RS is unlikely to be removed, see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Outdated information

The statistics regarding the number of followers and the percentage of the world's population is from a source written in April 2015; almost 6 years old. This should be updated, especially given the article's mention of it being the fastest growing religion. FaultPicker (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Added citation, supporting fastest growing religion. Emdad Tafsir (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove images

Pls remove the images of prophet. This is not good, it hurts our sentiments. Zia emran (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

See Help:Options to hide an image and WP:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I confirm his words, I have never seen a picture of the Prophet published in Islamic regions, I don't know where you got this picture from?! If these images are not deleted and popularIf these images are not deleted and Wikipedia's popularity decreases. Mehran Raeessi Fard (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I realise this is fruitless but I'd actually like to add my voice in support of this as a non muslim. Why do we NEED the image? Its clearly upsetting to muslims, and the sheer volume of complaint over years and years of comments tells me that we're doing something fundamentally unnecessary. What exact informational content is gained by it? Can't we at least move them to a page like islamic art or something? I'm not a muslim, but I'd be annoyed if an article on catholicism featured an image of the "piss christ" or other images considered upsetting to catholics. Muslims already cop a hard time in the western world, and this sort of thing makes Wikipedia off-limits to billions of people for no gain. Why do it at all? Duckmonster (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Images often say more than written texts. It is part of research to view and analyzse images. Also although we might not gain much, we lose something by allowing censoring images. Additionally, just because there is a trend within Islamic reform-movements to regard everything that is not going according to their plan as "offensive", we do not have to play along. I am pretty sure there are many common Muslims, who appreciate art and their own culture as every other person does. If there feel attacked by the sight of an image, Wikipedia has the option to hide images (HELP:NOIMAGE).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism on a basic religion?

I’m not an expert of Wikipedia, but I want to discuss this after I’ve seen this. I have checked any basic religions, majority and minority, in English Wikipedia, none of them had criticism content, and had several articles to explain that. And this article is the only basic religion that have criticism. Similarly, Al Quran is the only primary religious text that have criticism, after comparing the other Abrahamic religion (Bible, both Old and New Testament, and other)—higher criticism is something else—even in other reilgion's such as Vedas. I think we should talk about a religion as whole, which has varying opinions and perspectives depending on sect/denomination. Or, each one must have its own criticism, to be fair. I hope this will be considered, thank you. Abdul Harits Ritonga (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Abdul Harits Ritonga From the looks of it, Islamic articles are hijacked by missionaries and people with an agenda to push a narrative that is anti-Islam. Editors claim to be secular yet are not equitable in their actions. One example is the Qiraat article, where it is slowly being asserted to a narrative where the Quran is not preserved, not to mention that the article itself is highly different than the one written in Arabic. I hope the Islamic community becomes aware of this issue going on wikipedia and will do something about it.

Also, to add on to the criticisms part, English language Wikipedia do seem to be bordering on eurocentrism. They add criticism on Islam, but do they not realize there are criticisms about Christianity too? In the Islamic World (Yes they are the almost the same amount of christians in this world), Christianity is viewed as a form of idolatory. Not just with Islamic apologists but Jewish critics too. Also, white supremacy terrorists attacks, kkk and more are based on the bible and are criticized in muslim majority countries. Because of this, should we add a critics page in Christianity where people view the Bible as violent and corrupted? Note: I am aware of Wikipedia editors coming from all facets of faith, from christianity, judaism, muslims, other religions and atheism. Personally I do not believe in said paragraphs above in the critic to Christianity, but it is a thing within communities that are not eurocentric and should be discussed.

-Anon 7 August 2020— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.242.122 (talk • contribs)

Christianity article has a criticism section in it. If you want to add these sections to other articles, you are more than welcome to do so! Regards Epelerenon (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm that Christianity does have a criticism sectionRayyanislam (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The criticism section has generic, mostly west-centric, criticisms of Islam, none of which are specific to Shi’ism. Since there is already a dedicated ‘Criticism of Islam’ article, is this section not rendundant? User2346 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox religion

There's something weird about this infobox: Template:Infobox religion redirects to Template:Infobox Christian denomination. Why? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That is, indeed, weird. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at Template talk:Infobox Christian denomination#Template:Infobox religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The template:infobox Christian denomination may be sufficient for other religions, and is used by some religion articles using the template:infobox religion redirect. GOLDIEM J (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering to infobox is added to this article by sockpuppet user Eliko007 who is blocked(and who spammed all of main religions pages with infobox in the same day). And without any previous discussion. I will remove infobox and will start discussion here. I am against adding infobox. Sometimes especially for complex topic's infobox is not needed and it can make even greater confusion, also synthesis of published material and it is often under attacks and vandalism. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I see some potencial upcoming troubles with an Infobox: While it works fine with Judaism, a religion in which we have a clear defined structure (and in Christianity a hierarchy of clerics) Islam does not have one. It more than often spread by syncretism as the main message is the belief in "one true God", often assimilated to other cultures, many groups which accept one or the other (even within the Main-Branch of Sunnism), too much disputed content. It is often even hard to overview basic beliefs here on Wikipedia, due to unclearness and, to be honest, bias about Islamic history itself among main-stream Islamic discourse. I already imagine the upcomming edit wars about small things like, if for example "Qisas al anbiya" should be considered part of Islam or a mere cultural work. Or the languages: Are Aramaic and Hebrew also included? Many words within the Quran are not genuinly Arabic: Does Persian count? Many works, which influenced the Muslim belief are stored in Farsi, not Arabic (Arabic was usualy used for Fiqh, Tafsir and science, while Persian was used for poetry and art. The latter more significant to understand the Muslim religious perceptions). Since even some really basic (despite the evidence) claims are often challanged (especially by Muslims, when it goes against their personal views) like images, depictions of angels/jinn/devils, Muslim sects, Islamic history, I would not dare to make a clear fixed infobox for Islam. I would strongly recommand not to create such an infobox for Islam, without an elaborated discussion after taking several points of views with appropriate references to Islamic studies (and not just some youtube videos, Islamic blogs from some sheikhs or self-published books).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Islam is pretty complex and really, all religions should be examined case to case if adding of a infobox is useful or not. In this case, I think not. It can make more troubles than benefits. As I mentioned, can cause even greater confusion, synthesis of published material, original research, cherrypicking sources and it is often under attacks and vandalism. So to stay out. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

"Angels Muhammad receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel. From the manuscript Jami' al-Tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, 1307."

"Prophets and sunnah A Persian miniature depicts Muhammad leading Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets in prayer."

"Scholars Crimean Tatar Muslim students (1856)"

"Pre-Modern era (1258–18th century) Ghazan Khan, 7th Ilkhanate ruler of the Mongol Empire, converts to Islam"

"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Medieval_Persian_manuscript_Muhammad_leads_Abraham_Moses_Jesus.jpg/330px-Medieval_Persian_manuscript_Muhammad_leads_Abraham_Moses_Jesus.jpg"

"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg/330px-Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg"

"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8._%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9_%28cropped%29.jpg/348px-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8._%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9_%28cropped%29.jpg"

"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/GhazanConversionToIslam.JPG/330px-GhazanConversionToIslam.JPG"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This following images under those sub headings should be removed or be replaced by some other image that doesn't show Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) as according to our religion Islam what that wiki article is about. It doesn't permit showing pictures showing Prophets or angels or any people associated to them. Anonyuser2113 (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No article on WP is according to your religion, see WP:RNPOV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

Ttshameer (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add the below additional references to learn islam. Also, please provide me access to update more dawa related info to this page.

https://www.islamreligion.com/ebooks/islam-guide.pdf https://www.islamreligion.com/ebooks/True-Religion-of-God.pdf https://www.islamreligion.com/ebooks/Did-God-Become-Man.pdf https://www.islamreligion.com/ebooks/Islam-Is.pdf https://www.islamreligion.com/ebooks/The-True-Message-of-Jesus-Christ.pdf https://www.islamreligion.com/category/1033/evidence-islam-is-truth/ https://www.islamreligion.com/ http://www.peacetv.tv/ https://www.whyislam.org/prophet-muhammad/tenthings/

 Not done. Wikipedia prefers to use as little external links as possible, and is not a means of promotion; see WP:EL. This is also not the place for requesting user permissions. Try editing on other Wikipedia pages first and come back later. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman Template

After reading throught he article again, I still wonder, if we should add the "History of Ottoman Empire" Template. The early stage of Islam also contains the "Muhammad" Template. We have a template for Sunnis and Shias in their respective sections. We also have two sections much about the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Empire strongly influenced the entire Muslim world. Therefore, isn't the Ottoman Template appropriate?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Need correction in above article RabiaYounus (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete the blasphemous sketches on this page because these sketches are hurting all Muslims. It is spreading Islamophobia through informational websites like Wikipedia

Delete the blasphemous sketches on this page because these sketches are hurting all Muslims. It is spreading Islamophobia through informational websites like Wikipedia Wadlerboy (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Er, no, actually, following your restrictions would be promoting Islam. Wikipedia is strictly neutral. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

The page contains images which depict the Holy Prophet (PBUH). This is offensive for Muslims and has caused much debate in the past. As a result, these images should be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medieval_Persian_manuscript_Muhammad_leads_Abraham_Moses_Jesus.jpg 121.200.4.11 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

as per FAQs, no they will not be removed. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This images have been made by Muslims themselves. You arguement does not make any sense to me.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Venus , you need have sense to make sense of the argument

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

182.65.202.152 (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Mughal, Mogul or Moghul Empire, was an early modern empire in South Asia.[9] For some two centuries, the empire stretched from the outer fringes of the Indus basin in the west, northern Afghanistan in the northwest, and Kashmir in the north, to the highlands of present-day Assam and Bangladesh in the east, and the uplands of the Deccan plateau in south India.[10] The Mughal empire is conventionally said to have been founded in 1526 by Babur, a warrior chieftain from what today is Uzbekistan, who employed aid from the neighbouring Safavid and Ottoman empires,[11] to defeat the Sultan of Delhi, Ibrahim Lodhi, in the First Battle of Panipat, and to sweep down the plains of Upper India. The Mughal imperial structure, however, is sometimes dated to 1600, to the rule of Babur's grandson, Akbar,[12] This imperial structure lasted until 1720, until shortly after the death of the last major emperor, Aurangzeb,[13][14] during whose reign the empire also achieved its maximum geographical extent. Reduced subsequently, especially during the East India Company rule in India, to the region in and around Old Delhi, the empire was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Although the Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare,[15][16][17] it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule, but balanced them by establishing new administrative practices,[18][19] and incorporating diverse ruling elites, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standarized rule.[20] The base of the empire's collective wealth was agricultural taxes, instituted by the third Mughal emperor, Akbar.[21][22] These taxes, which amounted to well over half the output of a peasant cultivator,[23] were paid in the well-regulated silver currency,[20] and caused peasants and artisans to enter larger markets.[24] The relative peace maintained by the empire during much of the 17th century was a factor in India's economic expansion.[25] Burgeoning European presence in the Indian ocean, and its increasing demand for Indian raw and finished products, created still greater wealth in the Mughal courts.[26] There was more conspicuous consumption among the Mughal elite,[27] resulting in greater patronage of painting, literary forms, textiles, and architecture, especially during the reign of Shah Jahan.[28] Among the Mughal UNESCO World Heritage Sites in South Asia are: Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri, Red Fort, Humayun's Tomb, Lahore Fort and the Taj Mahal, which is described as the "jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage."[29]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 05:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight on Kharjites' POV

VenusFeuerFalle I don't agree with this edit as it places undue weight on the Kharjites' POV. Sunnis and Shi'ites are the two main Islamic groups. Maybe we can move this content to the article on Kharjites?VR _talk 23:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

How does this place undue weight on the Kharjites? I am currently using Khaled Blankinships work about early Islamic Creed to track the development of early Islam. It seems the Kharijites played an important role in early Islam. They should be mentioned. Also it would explain (this is the edit I am not about to do), how Sunnis developed their mitagated views on sin. Yes, the Kharijites are not important today anymore, but they still played an important role in early Islamic history. The paper I use, gives them a entire section (and the section is even longer than the Sunni section.).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

Wadlerboy (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete the blasphemous sketches on this page because these sketches are hurting all Muslims. It is spreading Islamophobia through informational websites like Wikipedia Wadlerboy (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

no, see FAQs on Muhammed's article IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The Muslims who created these images sure didn’t have a problem with them.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:D802:E7D5:E11F:7BE6 (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Wadlerboy Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. You can suppress the display of images, see WP:NOSEE. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't think by constantly stating this demand which has been rejected over and over again and will be again that you aren't spreading more islamophobia? --76.67.98.117 (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"are hurting all Muslims" You should not speak in the name of other or even all Muslims in public. This is getting impudent.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I was talking to User:Wadlerboy. I'm strongly opposed to deleting the Muhammad pictures on the basis of this idiotic concept of "blasphemy." I'm trying to make a point to him and any other Muslim that may see this in the future. --76.67.98.117 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC) EDIT: I think you're also trying to talk to User:Wadlerboy. Might want to reduce by one colon. It looks like you're addressing me. --76.67.98.117 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it hurts Muslims, and Muslims are forbidden to imagine prophets' faces and Allah's face. At least put those drawings which censor Muhammad's faces and other prophets.WikiSilky (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Change all pictures that depict Muhammad (PBUH) and other prophets as having a face to censored faces as it is against Islam to try and draw what the prophets looked like.

Source: Narrated Sa`id bin Abu Al-Hasan:

While I was with Ibn `Abbas a man came and said, "O father of `Abbas! My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures." Ibn `Abbas said, "I will tell you only what I heard from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) . I heard him saying, 'Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.' " Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned pale. Ibn `Abbas said to him, "What a pity! If you insist on making pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other unanimated objects."

-Sahih al-Bukhari 2225 108.51.206.91 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Good article nomination

It is stated here that there are plans to bring the article to GAN. If so, the article needs trimming to meet GA criteria 3b on appropriate use of summary style. Compare the version that passed FAC back in 2007[1] with the current version and you can see it's gotten bloated over time, more than doubling in length. This article should only cover the most important points. (t · c) buidhe 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

change "for which he get" to "for which he got" Richardlandes (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done   melecie   t 08:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

There is missing of Adhan which is done for calling to prayer 2402:3A80:B19:78E4:60EE:E260:6FEE:60DE (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Snippets

Can you add snippets for Poetry and Music?

Could there be more explanation for this? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of images

Hi, there has been some controversy before about removal of images - this has been discussed before multiple times (e.g. May 2021, April 2021, November 2020, October 2020, July 2020, June 2020, and many more) - it seems that in all cases the consensus was not to remove the images.

In the end, the 2 images have been removed more than one month ago in this edit, with edit summary "Fixes something". I was surprised no one reverted it, but just kept it like that. But I'm wondering whether this really represents a change in consensus? (cc: @IdreamofJeanie, @VenusFeuerFalle, @Khajidha) Kidburla (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I've undone this edit. @Hafim: can you explain why you made that edit? "Fixes something" doesn't tell us much.VR _talk 00:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I heard images or PROPHETS AND RELIGIOUS FIGURES IN ISLAM ARE FORBIDDEN FOR INSULT for the majority of the Muslims. But it's your choice if you want to keep them. "Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited[19] and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[20] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry" --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad Hafim (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CODI and Help:Options to hide an image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Article size needs reducing

The article prose is currently greater than 80kb, which means that it should most certainly be divided. Wikipedia prefers WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, so I think a lot of content should be moved to sub-articles like History of Islam, Islamic culture, etc. If there're no objections, I will start summarizing some paragraphs and moving them to subarticles.VR _talk 00:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @VenusFeuerFalle: as I see you're adding a lot of material to this article. For example, you added a large paragraph about the Nur movement to Islam. Yet there is almost nothing about the movement at the actual article about the movement. Please consider moving this material to Nur movement leaving only a sentence summary here. Given that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of Islamic movements, we shouldn't have more coverage of this than probably a sentence per WP:DUE.VR _talk 01:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

All right, done! To trim the article down, we might look for parts of the article, going too much into political detail rather than treatening Islam as a religion. For example, while in the Pre-Modern era-section, Ibn Tamiyya and the Turks/Mongol's conversation and whose effects are important and shaped Islamic theology and philosophy as well as society, something like "In the Indian Subcontinent, during the rule of Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji in Bengal, the Indian Islamic missionaries achieved their greatest success in terms of dawah and the number of converts to Islam" seems to bit too trivial. First, because Muslim missionaries have been present long before, second, it is (in my opinnion) too much about political strives than about actual Islam (as religion).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've brought this issue up more than once before too but it did not go anywhere, I doubt it will make a difference this time either. Even though there are only suggested sizes and no hard number in Wikipedia:article size, there is nothing stopping this article from continuing to get arbitrarily bigger and harder to read with ever more exhaustively detailed specifics. It is as if everyone with an axe to grind is incorporated to the article, for example I doubt that much space for a Quranism section is due weight. Other articles with as big a topic as Islam have been able to do summary style successfully.

In the history section, there used to be a point on the to do list which I believe was after the review when the article was dropped from being a featured article, that the history section should move away from political history, perhaps minimizing political history to that which shows the spread of Islam for example.

As someone else mentioned about the sections on poetry and music which have been empty for years, I am not sure there even needs a list of sections for each. If there is a society section, it seems more intuitive for culture to a subsection of that. Sodicadl (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks VenusFeuerFalle! I do agree with removing trivial mentions, though I'd leave the part about spread of Islam in Bengal. Bengalis are the probably the 2nd/3rd largest Muslim ethnic group in the world. VR _talk 20:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sodicadl I'm motivated to trim this article down and make it GA, FA again. I'll remove the empty sections.VR _talk 20:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone considered trying to WP:GA the article? That would probably include shortening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, we tried to restore this article to become a featured article. The issue is just, back then, the article should never have been featured in the first place, since much information were only backed up by Quranic references, primary research and a biased description on history (very much from a Damascene point of view) with some information just plain wrong. The extensive lenght of the article is probably to balance this. At least, I remember adding much information regarding the Turkic/Mongol as well as making the Damascene view explicit, myself. I everyone is fine, I would try to GA the article at least (featuring would probably be too stressful as I have another GA open currently).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You'd certainly have my moral support, though probably not any actual help to speak of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I cut down on non-religious content for the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal empire section. I left some political stuff stay in there. What do others think of the balance? Sodicadl (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, moral supported is much needed. Since I am currently busy writing in reallife, I am glad someone else can take this. I will check it from time to time, since I think as Islam is part of my special fields, and I often found some misconceptions over time (especially about Sufism, supernatural and Turkic/Mongol history), I think my qualifications can be beneficial.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC) edit: The trimming seems good to me and covering the relevant points.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• @VenusFeuerFalle: and @Sodicadl: thanks for the trimming efforts. I would recommend trying to summarize the material without removing any facts - so basically saying the same thing but in much fewer words. If that is not possible and certain facts have to be removed, and those facts are well sourced, then I'd recommend moving them to the appropriate article (eg History of Islam) rather than removing them completely from wikipedia.VR _talk 02:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ditto what Vice regent is saying here - much better to move well-sourced stuff onto another page or page of its own. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Woah ho ho, 240,000kB - this article is a true monster: clearly some serious splitting (WP:SPLIT) is required. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Law section

Sodicadl, I think the law section should only be about what is Islamic law, its branches, and how it is determined. It should not be about the actual contents of Islamic law, which are way too numerous and overlap with pretty much every section under "Society". For example, "Society" contains sections like "Family life", "Diet", "Economics" and these are all topics in Islamic law too.VR _talk 02:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a pragmatic approach to avoid unnecessary duplication. I agree that the law overview should be an overview, and any parts of the article on specific aspects of Islamic law should ideally, where possible, redirect to a main page for the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vice regent, I agree and that was my point in making the edit. Years back, when I used the same reasoning that there would be overlap between the sections and tried moving applications of law to the society section, I got push back. The reason economics is in the society section now is because I moved it there from the law section two days ago. What I moved to the law section was only the one on the state because that actually would be more relevant to law. Sodicadl (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with putting economics under society. What I'll do is merge the relevant parts of the "Politics" section into "Law" and move the rest down into society, like stuff on jihad.VR _talk 02:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Allah's (or Alllah's) L's

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.

---

The only god in Islam is called الله, so it should have three L's in the name because it has a shadda. Egon20 (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

I'm pretty sure "Allah" is the spelling mostly used in English language sources, so that is the spelling en-WP should use, possibly excluding some quotes and such. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not referring to what spelling is used, I'm referring as the correct transcription of the Arabic word. Egon20 (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No one has ever spelt this with three L's in English. Also, a shadda indicates emphasis or lengthening - it is not an explicit instruction to double consonants when transliterating. Furthermore, Wikipedia's style guide prefers "God", where possible MOS:ALLAH. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Just look at the name of Muhammad in Arabic. A shaddah doubles the M. Egon20 (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Allah has a standard spelling and there is absolutely zero reason to go about changing this. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's the correct transcription of the Arabic writing. Egon20 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

According to who? Provide a source. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is ever transcribed as three of the same consonant in a row in the Latin alphabet, because it would be illegible and pointless, when the purpose of transcription is to render a foreign script into something legible in English. Two of any consonant indicates emphasis or lengthening. Three L's would mean nothing - not even Welsh or Polish try this on. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not about sources, it's about proper knowledge of the writing system. Would you spell English words differently just because it is legible? Egon20 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If editors can't agree about something on a commonsense basis then it does become about sources, and I think you will struggle to find any academic who has ever transliterated the Muslim deity as "Alllah". Transliteration is about rendering something from a foreign script into a legible format in the script of the audience. Three L's in a row is not legible. It just looks like a typo of two L's. Incidentally, Muhammad is alternately transcribed as Mohamed - so, as we can see, exactly what you do with a shadda becomes rather subjective. In any case, your opening premise is incorrect - an absolutely pedantic letter by letter approach would in fact yield the totally illegible Alllaah - because the dagger alif for the A is also lengthened. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

There are 6666 verses in Quran. 110.224.3.79 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See Āyah Cannolis (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Other denominations

How exactly are Ibadi significant to have their own section? Alevis and Ahmadiyya have more adherence and probably even more significant in the history of Islam than the Ibadites. I am not that familar with Ibadites, only checked their stand on spiritual creatures by Valerie J. Hoffman (2012). Here, they look pretty similar to Hanbalites. I checked the German Wiki about differences, and these are merely minor differences, like additional rules on fasating or prostrations during ritual prayer. Such differences can even appear within different Sunni schools of law. Also, I do not see it grounded on that Ibadi form their own sect besides Sunnis and Shias, since same is true for Quranites and Ahmadiyya, arguably to Alevism, but they are at least merged with the Shia due to venerating Ali. Due to lack of significance compared to Shia and Sunni and lack of adherences, I would argue we should add it to "other denominations" again.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with merging that section to "Other denominations" mainly in the interest of reducing article size. But one reason they're more significant is because there is at least one Ibadi-majority country (Oman), but there are no Alevi or Ahmadi majority countries. Hence maps on Islam will more often show Ibadis than other Alevis. But again, I'm ok to merge that.VR _talk 03:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it should remain separate really. It has its origins in a 7th-century theological split, so it is very much like a third branch and not simply like one of the many 18th, 19th or 20th-century revivalist movements, and as VR notes, it is practically (though I do no believe formally) the state religion of Oman. Under Shia, there should also probably actually be more of an outline of the twelver, sevener and fiver variants.

Incidentally, Alevism and Ahmadiyya are both controversial (above and beyond the run of the mill Sunni-Shia controversy) in the sense that some mainstream Sunni interpretations view these, in the case of Alevism, as obvious blasphemy (and shirk: worship of another other than God), and, in the case of Ahmadiyya, ambiguously, as it's a bit like an Islamic Mormonism, with a cleric claiming to be the Mahdi (or next prophet equivalent) in the 19th century. I do not think we should be including variants whose status as mainstream denominations are disputed (see: Persecution of Ahmadis), though we could also have a separate section on "Disputed denominations" for such examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

But the ALevism controvery only started in the late Ottoman-EMpire when leading classes tried to establish an orthodox normativity. Sunnism is not a a movement rooting in the begining of Islam either, rather it became an identity after diverse political discense which claims to be following the sunnah. The idea that Sunnis are all whose who favor Abu Bakr and Shia all whose who favor Ali is rather a retroperspective identity, whose lines are much more blurred than clear. But that Oman is an Ibadi country while Alevis, Quranists and Ahmadiyya are not, is a good point I think. Otherwise, there will be this tiny section with one or two sentences, about a denomination, without much to say about it. This also reminds me of a similar question: How do we classify the Mutazilites? As branch of Sunni Islam or will we assign it to "other denominations"?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me on the Alevism front, and on "other" being a more neutral section title. Quranists are fine too. The Ahmadiyya, however, are definitely not in the same basket as these other denominations though - it is an extremely discrete variant launched by a 19th-century self-proclaimed messiah, which is a claim that doesn't leave much room for tolerance and compromise. Either their Messiah is correct, they are the true Islam, and everyone else is wrong, or their Messiah is incorrect, and they are accidental heretics - which they have been called quite a lot in other parts of the Muslim world. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has also gone out of its way to specifically disavow any link between the Ahmadiyya community and Islam. In essence, only the Ahmaddiyya believe they are Muslims, and as a "denomination" they should be handled separate from others, much in the same way that Bahaism or Yazidism can be seen as being Islam-linked, but well outside the purview of mainstream Islam. Finally, Mutazilism was never a denomination: it was a intellectual position with respect to theology that stood in opposition to Ash'arism, which won out in the end, largely thanks to the intellectual personality of Al-Ghazali. It was never a branch or school (like Hanafi, etc.); it was more like an intellectual movement. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• One thing I want to point out is that all these denominations are relatively tiny. For example, the Sunni Barelvi movement has 200 million followers, and Deobandi have about 100 million followers. Each of these Sunni denominations alone have more members than all the following smaller denominations combined: Alevis (15-25 million), Ibadis (3 million), Quranist (Izgi Amal has less than 0.1 million members), Ahmadiya (20-25 million), Ismailis (15 million), non-denominational (10 million). But we absolutely should not have a section for Barelvi and Deobani, but very briefly mention them under Sunni. Likewise all the other denominations should be folded into one of "Sunni", "Shia", "Other" and "Derived religions". Islamic schools and branches is the proper place to expand all of these out.VR _talk 17:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  I wish there were just more revivalist movements aimed at reviving the Abbasid golden age of Islam, instead of revivalist being short-hand for going back to the stone-age, which is what most of the "revivalist" movements appear to have in common. We need a special Wikipedia bin where we throw all of the over-enthusiastic and endlessly replicating revivalist movements together. They're basically like the denominational equivalent of hotheaded teenagers - give them a couple of centuries and they'll cool off and potentially find some meaningful employment. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  However, more seriously, we do need to be distinguishing between denominations and schools - mixing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. A denominational branch involves a fundamental split in the system of belief or practice - a theological school is more like a minor difference in interpretation. Denominations should be one page on Wikipedia, schools should be another. This needs sorting out. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, except about the Abbadis golden age revical, since I can not recall any significant movement doing this right now. I do not disagree, I just abstain from an opinion regarding this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Shia Subsections

Could we please stop making new section based on ahistorical knowledge? Although it is true for the Islami narrative that a sect traces their origin back to a specific point in time, this is merely to justify their existence. This was necessariy to access political significance and power back when, but they are often not really rooting in the claimed spiritual leader. Ismailism is not "shia Islam but with fewer Imams", it is an entirely new religious system. And their adherence to Islam also disputed not much unlike Alevism and Alawism (both not the same). When we create these subsections, we also need to elaborate them properly (for example the Assasins are an important aspect of Ismailism.) And since we try to trim the article, I do not think we should make these sections. We already mentioned the Ismailites briefly in the history section, we do ot ommit them. But we can not trim down their beliefs to a degree of falsehood and misleading, for the sake of including all sort of branches.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trimming major denominations; we should be trimming history and unsourced content. Ismailism is the second-largest Shia Muslim denomination, historically very significant in connection with the Assassins, yes, and also very much live and kicking in the form of its organisation around the figurehead of the Aga Khan. I agree these sections need elaborating - I was just splitting out the material that was already under Shia, and from the Shia material I imported into appropriate sub-sections. A huge problem on all the Islam pages is the treatment of both Sunnism and Shi'ism as collectives, when within Sunnism, there are significant variations between schools, and within Shi'ism, there are huge variations between the principle denominations. The end result of "trimming" should not be oversimplification. In what basis are you calling the brief sentences about Ismailism ahistorical? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess I was referring to the sentence "Ismaili Shi'ites recognized Isma'il ibn Jafar as the successor to Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam, in contrast to Twelver Shi'a, which followed his other son Musa al-Kadhim as the seventh Imam.", because I suspected it of implying an ahistorical clear lineage to one Imam on the sense of religious framework. Ismailism were often much more Neo-Platonic or even Docetic, than other Shia interpretations. I guess I expressed my worries in a bad way. Let me try it again. I do not think, we should Ismailism define by adhering to Ismail ibn Jafar instead of Musa al Kadhim. Some of their thoughts seem to be too foreign to assume they are merely a dispute about a successor. Their religions/cosmological framework is different from Twelver Shia (but surprisingly similar to Alawism). I am worried, this might indicate a clear lineage from Jafar ibn Sadiq, which might not be historically accurate. I think however, when we point out some of the major characteristics of their beliefs, this would be no issue at all, because the difference is apparent then.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

hi

hi 197.185.118.108 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Pictures

PLZ REMOVE THE PICTURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMED S.A.W . IT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN IN ISLAM TO SHOW THE FACES OF THE PROPHETS. THIS IS DISRESPECTING MUSLIMS, WHO SEE THE PAGE 86.58.79.212 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and Help:Options to hide an image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You are not special, you stupid Terrorist. You don't get to control Wikipedia for your agenda. Go back to your ramadan, you leftist snowflake. 107.0.17.203 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Change of section name

I think the Acts of Worship section name should be changed to The Five pillars of Islam. Mission Mao (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I agree. But that section has a subsection on Quranic recitation. Where should that go? Maybe we can have "Five pillars of Islam" and "Other worship" or something.VR _talk 15:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe dhikr, Quran recitation and mysticism can be combined into a single section.VR _talk 16:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The section used to be called Five Pillars and I can agree with the changing to 'acts of worship'. Different religions would have different ways to describe themselves and those are useful but does not necessarily have to be the template Wikipedia has to follow. For example, the recitation subsection is worth being mentioned as an act of worship but that it is not officially a pillar does not mean we are required to break up the section, it is more intuitive for the reader to have them in one section. Having an explanation of the five pillars in the lede of that section as it has now does justice to the fact that Islam elevates certain acts of worship as 'pillars'. For another thing, the five pillars may not be universally agreed on among denominations. Sodicadl (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That said, dhikr or remembrance, as mentioned before, would be an important addition to the Acts of Worship section. I think it better that mysticism would then be incorporated into that dhikr subsection because right now an entire section rather than subsection for mysticism does seem a bit undue. Sodicadl (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with VR by keeping "Acts of worship" as a generally descriptive header, but I disagree with Sodicadl on the inclusion of Sufism and Dhikr as a header. A sentence of mention for Dhikr in the "prayer" sub-header as is done post-prayers and a sentence that its a more specific practice in Sufism would suffice in my opinion. Sufism should be its own section because mysticism has a broader purpose than other acts of worship, such as being consciously one with or experiencing God and spiritual elevation. Quranic recitation/memorisation on the other hand is an act of worship yet at the same time practically connected to the five prayers; it is at very least a partly obligatory act for any practicing Muslim. AlHazen (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Both Quranic recitation and dhikr happen quite frequently outside of prayers, for example see tasbih. In fact, dhikr is more of a philosophy, to remember God in everything a Muslim does and it consists of various duas for everyday life (for eating, waking up, etc). I would incline towards giving dhikr its own section. I'll hunt down more secondary sources soon on that.VR _talk

I basically join the opinnion of AlHazen. The acts of worship here, are mostly the five pilars of Islam. These are essential and obligatory for any Muslim (some deviant mystics might have their own unerstanding about it, yet they include them) and one of the view constant pracitses through the entire (known) history of Islam. Sufism is not a practise but a term to denote certain interpretations of Islam, especially during the Medieval Ages in contrast to the "buerocratic" interpretation by the ulama. There are Sufi Orders, but not every Sufi necessarily belongs to an order (like Ghazali) nor is everyone who belongs to an order classified as a Sufi (like ibn Taimiyya). When we change the header to "Five pillars of Islam" we should remove "Quran recitation" and assign it to the "book" header, since this is not an act of worship on the same level like the Hajj. Muslims do this to receive blessings, while Hajj, Shahada, Fastig are obligatory. They are not on the same level. Dirkh on the other hand, is on the same level as Quran recitation, which is done for blessings and optional reward or the voluntary acts of worship.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:14, 1 December

Like I said I'd be open to moving Quranic recitation out of "Acts of Worship" and changing it to "Five pillars of Islam". We can move Quranic recitation to "Society" (lets rename that to "Practices") and move that section up (and move the history section down).VR _talk 15:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Alhazen that the section name should be a generic "Acts of worship", because the five pillars are special for being obligatory but there is no benefit restricting the section to types that are obligatory. The lede to the section can explain the concept about 'five pillars' and that is what the lede has right now. I want to add sections on dhikr and dua seeing they're quite notable in Islam but that would be difficult to incorporate if it was a 'five pillars' section. Additionally, I think everyone seems to agree the quran recitation subsection does not need its own subsection and I can incorporate that elsewhere like in the 'books' subsection.

I believe the best place for the mysticism content is still the denomination section. Even though it is strictly not a denomination, that section also has a subsection which is not denominations in 'derived religions', which it should have. Just like sufism would not get its own section outside of the denomination section, it is still a variation in practice and distinct approach to the religion.

I agree with VR about renaming the 'society' section, it could 'practice' or 'way of life' to better reflect its content. Sodicadl (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason why there cannot be a "Five pillars of Islam" subsection under "Acts of Worship", thus mollifying all positions. Quranic recitation seems fine under a general header about acts of worship. I would not nix this though. Quranic recitation has a historically very important role in Islam, particularly within mysticism, where it forms the bedrock of Sufi practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

On a broader level, many of the "other practices" are mystic practices (any exceptions?), so one alternative is to have a section on the Five pillars and then a second section not on "Other practices", but on "Mystic practices"? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What I had meant was we have sections called "Five pillars of Islam" and "[Other] practices". Or we have sections called "Acts of worship" and "Society". But having a section called "Acts of worship" and then "Practices" sounds redundant as acts of worship are practices.VR _talk 03:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I added the subsections on dua and dhikr since that was not what was objected to.

I wasn't proposing to "nix" the content on Quranic recitation, I thought it more appropriate moved elsewhere. Sodicadl (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I did object to Dhikr being a whole sub-section; the fact there is not enough substance to expound on it, proves a point. Also, every religion has its own form of supplication (Dua); to give a section to a basic aspect of a religion seems unnecessary and overly elaborate. AlHazen (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of remembrance and the offering up of praises to God for thinks like food, fortuitous events, ahead of trials, etc. is a pretty common feature of most deistic faiths, and not really a level of minutiae that needs to be engaged in in an encyclopedic setting - and certainly not to the point of listing out the phrases used. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently the article doesn't mention dhikr anywhere and I think it really should. Dhikr is an important aspect of Islamic worship, and not just for Sufis.VR _talk 06:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That "every religion has its own form of supplication" is not a valid justification to delete. To the same extent as supplication, every religion has prayer and pilgrimage too, but those are included as they should be, because they are vital to Islam. When was the rule about excluding that which is common to "most deistic faiths"? The other objection is that there is not enough information. Of course, there can certainly be articles worth of information out there, but I thought we were making a big noise of doing summary style!? and I agreed and went along. I thought of being a team player and did not move Quranic recitation out to other sections because of objections but at the same time dua and dhikr are not meeeting some inclusion criteria that reciting scripture somehow does. Sodicadl (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The model I am going by in terms of WP:CONSISTENCY is the Christianity page. There we do not have whole paragraphs devoted to the various phrases that devout Christians might repeat throughout the day, like "Thanks be to God" and "Praise the Lord". Islam has a very coherent set of five pillars that are incumbent upon worshippers. Outside of this, things get much more fluid. Remembrance, while perhaps loosely defined as a form of worship, is ultimately a social convention enshrined in the lives of individuals, not a core practice instituted by the religion. Much like the use of honorifics, it is instead a form of etiquette. Qur'anic recitation is notable within Islam because "Qur'an" itself means "recitation", because the practice of recitation is central to other acts of worship, such as Ramadan, and, more generally, because Quran'ic recitation is the closest thing Islam has to a liturgical music repertoire. In Sufism, it is also used to enter a trance-like state. All of this is much more faith-specific than whether people thank God for their carrots before meals. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping Quran recitation in the acts of worship section, it is an instrumental part of Islamic worship but I thought it better in the books section. But if you are judging dua and dhikr to not be mentioned as they are "not a core practice instituted by the religion" but quran recitation is, then I don't think your subjective splitting of hairs is what should be the determining factor. Right now, there is no place in the article of Islam to mention dua or its related topics like Islam's concept of tawbah,...since this is too subjective to go anywhere, can we get the other users to opine to break the tie, User:VenusFeuerFalle or User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång

As for the new edit adding sufism in the Acts of Worship section, I had done that last month and it was reverted with reasoning given in this very section above, with User:AlHazen objecting "because mysticism has a broader purpose than other acts of worship" and similarly User:VenusFeuerFalle objecting that "Sufism is not a practise but a term to denote certain interpretations of Islam", and I instead countered that the section containing schools and denominations should include it then (where it had been in for years) because it is a particular approach to the religion. For the edit sectioning off five pillars, I think the explanation in the section lede about five pillars should suffice. The section on charity contains Zakat, a pillar, and Sadaqah, so it is best to be named "charity" in general as having one section about Zakat and another section outside of the five pillar subsection about Sadaqah is cumbersome for the reader. Sodicadl (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an informed opinion on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sodicadl: Don't get me wrong, you're welcome to re-include dua and dhikr wherever you like, though I would still say these are more religious concepts than specific practices. It is also possible that the Qur'anic recitation material could be further reduced, so long as it continues to be at least mentioned and linked somewhere. I noticed that material about this also appears to be duplicated to a certain extent in the tasawwuf section. I also noted that on the Christianity pages, there are certain sections where whole sets of concepts and practices are simply summarised in listed sentences. It is possible that some further aggressive summarization could be enacted on the Islam page. Zakat and other charity should probably be kept separate, as Zakat is an obligatory/incumbent act, while other charity is optional. We shouldn't really be confusing five pillar material with general practice purely for the sake of simplicity. I also agree with VenusFeuerFalle that Sufism is inappropriate to list alongside denominations and schools. In the Islamic Golden Age, the basic setup was that every Muslim had a denomination, theological school, fiqh school and could also be a Sufi/have a Sufi lodge affiliation or not. So, with the example of Al-Ghazali (d. 1111 AD), who arguably did the most to systemize Sufi beliefs and practices within mainstream Islam, the man was a Sunni muslim of the Asharite theological school, Shafi'i fiqh school, as well as, separately, a prominent promotor of Sufism. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, I added dua and dhikr but to incorporate some of the criticism I made them one subsection since it was felt that they don't warrant subsections by themselves. I do appreciate the summarizing, we can still keep doing that while figuring out the format. Sodicadl (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Scope of the article Islam vs Muslims

What is the difference in the scope of this article vs the article Muslims? It seems this article covers pretty much everything there is to now about Muslims, including demographics, history, culture etc. If the scope of both articles is the same, we should merge them. Alternatively, we can make this article about Islam the religion (beliefs, worship, law, holy book etc), and move all the demographics and culture stuff to Muslims.VR _talk 23:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, @VenusFeuerFalle:, @Sodicadl:, @AlHazen:. Should the article Muslims exist? If so, how should it be different from Islam? VR _talk 23:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hm, I don't have an informed opinion. Hindus and Christians exists, Buddhists doesn't. Jews do, but that's more complicated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Sodicadl: since you recently moved some stuff from here to Muslims, do you have any comment on the question above? How should the articles Islam and Muslims differ? VR _talk 00:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly be in favor of keeping the Muslim article. For the same reason that there has been concern that this Islam article is too long and hard to navigate, having that Muslim article helps take out specifics out of this article. For example, I moved the link for list of muslims and list of converts to Islam to the Muslim article because it seems more relevant and specific over there. The Muslim article can go into depth into demographics, for example it talks about statistics of education among the global Muslim population, which is a level of specificity we can't have here and that info would be lost if that article goes. It might be the Muslim world article that has more concern as to its utility. Sodicadl (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sodicadl: I'm ok with that as long as we clearly split up the scope. Thanks for your input.VR _talk 02:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition to adding more specific content to Muslims, I've also removed general information already related to the Islam article like the 2nd paragraph in the lead which reiterates the core beliefs in Islam (unless there is any objection to this). AlHazen (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought you guys were going to remove demographics paragraph from the lead in Islam article. Notsure why it has not been removed yet. Emailaddressemailaddress (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@ Emailaddressemailaddress Major religion articles make a mention of demographic break down as a mere reflection of the religion's global presence - but all the rest of the information/details around this are in their own respective articles as in Muslims. There's no problem with this.AlHazen (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sentence that does not make sense in English

An editor changed:

• Muslims believe that the verses of the Quran were revealed to Muhammad by God through the archangel Gabriel (Jibrīl) on many occasions between 610 CE until his death in 632.

to

• Muhammad is believed to have been revelaed the Quran by God through the archangel Gabriel (Jibrīl) on many occasions between 610 CE until 632.

Before the change, the sentence made sense. Now it does not.

In the first version, the Quran is revealed by God. In the second version Muhammad is revelaed [sic] by God. "The Quran" in the second sentence does not really fit in. @Sodicadl:, why did you change the sentence? What difference in meaning are you trying to get across?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the change to the sentence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1, I tried a tweak: [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It now reads:

• Muslims believe that the verses of the Quran were revealed to Muhammad by God, through the archangel Gabriel (Jibrīl), on multiple occasions between 610 CE and 632, the year Muhammad died.

That makes it clear that it was Muhammad who died, not Gabriel -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Or God. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Saints in Islam

Regarding the recent edit about removing the saints from the prophet section, it was done with the comment that saints are not universal in Islam, whereupon I argued that saints are (almost). An exception are the Salafis and although they worked their way up to become (seemingly) a dominant strant (in Western, especially English speaking world, i would say even the dominant) strant of Islam, they only emerged in the last century and don't reflect most of Islamic history. Instead of edit warring or having long debates about this topic, I would suggest to have a look at Saint (Islam section), which covers up exactly this issue. I further think that it is appropriate to put it to the "prophet" section, because the figures overlap. Both give blessings, both are "religious authorities" (to some degree), both have a connection to God, both can perform miracles. But, while prophets rank higher and can bring new laws and revelations, saints can only interpret the already revealed message of prophets. Even ibn Taimiyya, a rather disputed scholar until the 19th Century, but one of he main-sources for Salafism and Wahhabism, although critical about sain veneration, regards disbelief in saints (and their miracles) as "reformation" (bida). The overwhelming presence of Salafis (especially active on the internet) might indicate they represent a form of gloval mainstream or a vast tradition in the past, but they are not. It is a new, although present form of Islam. As an encyclopedia, we should cover human history in regards of religious and cultural matters and not emphasize a current opinnion on that matter. Thus, I tend and recommand to keep the saints in this section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that majority of Muslims believe in saints, but I think this can be summarized in a sentence, given how big this article is and that belief in saints is not a major cornerstone of Sunnis. In fact, currently the article talks more about saints then it does about (Shia) imams, even though the concept of Imamate has been covered more in RS than saints, hence deserves more weight.VR _talk 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I almost agree. But I think, we need at least 2 or three sentences: Mention saints, clarifying they are not equal to prophets, relation to religious practise by mentioning the Ziyarat. I think Shia Islam is still kind of underrepresented in the article as a whole, but I am not sure, since Shia Islam isn't really my field of expertise. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would politely disagree, I would rather argue the theory of a recent Salafi takeover radically changing Islam from what it actually is is a little revisionist and not exactly a mainstream idea. But, what I think doesn't matter. There seems to be enough reliable sources on saints and maybe it was a mistake for me to remove it. However, I think I can see VR's point about undue weight. I think a better compromise is to be in a section called clergy without shrinking it so much. I don't think any sources that explain Islam would exactly fit in saints in the articles of faith either. Even by the content of the sentences itself, it states saints are chosen by people and do not bring messages from God, if anything they would be more similar to clergy like how saints are within clergy of other religions. Sodicadl (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

By "clergy" do you mean ulema?VR _talk 03:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the overall conclusion is that no generalisations can be made about saints in Islam. There is obviously less emphasis on them in Sunni Islam and vehement opposition from the likes of the vociferous and increasingly homogenous Wahhabi/Salafi vocal minority - but Wikipedia should not get drawn in by those who simply shout the loudest. We should simply follow, verbatim, what is written about them in the most unimpeachable reliable sources. @Sodicadl we should also be avoiding attempting to couch Islam in what is essentially the terminology of Christianity. Wikipedia is Angolophone, not Christian, and, as @Vice regent notes, terms like "ulama" are commonly used, as is, in English. In the case of saints, using the word "saints" is only likely to add to the confusion by drawing false anaology. If we are talking about "wali", we should use that term. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, we have a section title of "Clergy" that is a immediately contradicted by a sentence going "Islam has no clergy...", so needless shoehorning and backpedaling. There is also nothing on the Ulama itself, which seems a little remiss. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the reorganization by User:Iskandar323, it used to be that the society section and the law section were one section before it was split in two, one being about the law and the other included specific jurisprudence. From this talk page above titled "Law section", it was brought up again that the sections be separate and Iskandar323 pushed that point as well. So, I am not sure what the rationale is in changing the law section title to 'jurisprudence' and bringing in one item, military jurisprudence, to that section. I changed it back to the old format, unless you would like to explain the new rationale.

Concerning the terminology, I don't think I mind too much a contrived term like "religious personages" but if, as you say, "We should simply follow, verbatim, what is written about them in the most unimpeachable reliable sources", which source calls them religious personages? I would have preferred such a section be part of the law section since such "religious personages" are more academic in Islam, but I can play along. Sodicadl (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

When I mentioned using terms verbatim, that was in instances where specific terms apply - in this instance, unless we want to use "ulama", the best we can do for the collection of imams, muftis and legal scholars is some sort of umbrella term, and I thought "religious personages" was a suitably all-encompassing proposition, bridging the gap between scholar and saint. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with the claim that Saints don't play a major role in Sunni Islam and are opposed by Salafism. Salafism is not "strict Sunnism". Saints are pretty much canon, to stay humble, in Sunnism. They are mentioned frequently in almost every Sunni Medieval work prior to Salafism/Wahhabism. They even have their own place in hierarchy (below the prophets and angels, but above average believers), part of "God's plan to create the universe" and are included in many practises among Muslims. I often have the impression that "saints" are understood, at least in the English speaking world, as something "deviant from mainstream Islam, only important by some weird Sufi Orders". This is not the case, at least when we look up sources prior to Salafism. There is just no official clergy in Sunni Islam (the majority) to acknowledge saints, but Sunni Islam doesn't have a clergy in other matters too. Ulama, were also often not more than an opinnion on a matter rather than binding judges.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I see there are many sources missing. I think the source I provided once was part of the Rabbia-sentence. I should have added more footnotes. I wonna try to find more sources for the role of saints. I am not very much into the Ulama hierarchy, this should be done by someone else. However, I personally still think it is better to add the saints to the prophets section, since both concepts are pretty similar and saints often only distinguished by that the prophets usually lived in the past and rank higher and saints come after Muhammad and rank lower. I am a little bit stressed currently, please do not take my silence for agreement. We want this article to be GA, it should reflect Islam as accurate asposibble then.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that saints are canon. It's just that Salafis, who maintains opposition to saints as one of their principle differences with mainstream Sunnism, have made enough noise on the issue to obfuscate the past. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeh, let me look up sources (hopefully on the weekend), I don't remember which of the ones I read all include saints, and look what to edit then.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Edit: probably need more time. Sorry for the delay.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, took muuuuch longer than expected. And my results are rather marginal. First there is "Islam Literature and Society in Mongol Anatolia" (as already reviewed), when there is "Introduction to Sufism" stating "Tirmidhi fostered a certain confusion regarding the relationship between prophecy and sanctity. Later Sufis therefore strove to clarify their poistion on this point: a saint (wali) who is not also a prophet will never be able to be the equal of a prophet (nabi); this is the case for all Muslim saints since the closing of the cycle of prophecy by Muhammad." (p. 48), the second one "the Roles of Humanity and Jesus" stating "The Prophet's journey and ascension were not unique to him. The saints too share these experiences. Ibn Arabi's claimed himself to have experienced these." (p. 135) Since, as it seems to me after looking for good sources on that matter, this topic is just to be understood within an broader understanding of Islam's udnerlying histprical and metaphysical narratives, it might be better, not to investigate this any further. I withdraw my proposal by that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Christianity v. Catholicism

Qute:" Unlike saints in Christianity, Muslim saints are usually acknowledged informally by the consensus of common people, not by scholars." Catholics chose saints by scholars, all Christians are Saints. 2600:1014:B028:987C:0:35:C705:4901 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If all Christians are saints, the concept of sainthood doesn't make any sense to Christianity, because it would be used interchangable with a "Christian". I think it is clear, it refers tot he concept of saints in Christianity, not to a a self-identification of believers. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Islamic banking

What do other editors think about "Islamic banking" in the lead? TO me, it seems this is a rather new phenomena, a reaction to Western economics and part of Islamic revival movements. In my opinion, this comes close to pushing an agender (like revivalism), instead of covering the subject over the last 1400 Centuries, in other words, Islam as a whole. I won't objecting to place it in the history section (postmodernism), but the lead seems to be out of place.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly either way, but I don't think it is too problematic. It does not feel like recentism because, in context, it was placed as only one of four different examples to illustrate the breadth of what Islamic jurisprudence talks about, so having one item that is more recent in content might help to illustrate the point further of the reach that jurisprudents have covered. Sodicadl (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Here, the question is also, how representative the jurists are for Muslims. It is not that Muslims necessarily visit Muslim banks or something. Maybe jurists are pushing themselves more into the foreground than necessary? Similar to homosexuality. Jurits disapproved it, but as far as I know, the current consens in research is, most Muslims before the modern period just didn't care what the jurists sayed regarding that matter. The "Islamic Banking" occurence is not problematic, but feels kinda overrated. As stated by @Iskandar323, it kinda distracts from the religous aspects (which should be the ain focus of a religion). I would move it into the history section. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we talking about the phrase "[Islam] touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, from banking and welfare to women and the environment" - if so, that brief mention seems fairly innocuous. I wouldn't go beyond that, as its a slippery slope ... soon it would include halal food, clothing and the whole gamut of faith-specific phenomena. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Halal Food is at least something (almost?) universal among Muslims and existed since Islam's formative stage, unlike banking. I would then substitute "halal food" for banking. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems like it would be a distraction from the topic at hand (the religion's core features) and it would over-expand the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Terminology consistency

The article has the words Sunni Islam and Sunnism, Shia Islam and Shiism, Shiite and Shia. In the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Islam related articles under Arabic transliteration [3], it does not mention what to do when there are difference in how the sources use a term. The options I can think of are a) Use the term that the source of that sentence happen to use b) Use the most commonly used version of the term for the whole article. Anyone can think of other options? Either way, it would be nice to have a consensus to refer to. Sodicadl (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles

• Muslims and
• Muslim world

and provide your inputs @

• Talk:Muslims#Requesting inputs and
• Talk:Muslim world#Requesting inputs

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Islam history

What is it about? 2601:42:180:2420:C904:AEFB:448E:A0C2 (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Medieval Persian manuscript Muhammad leads Abraham Moses Jesus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Jinn

A sentence mentioning Jinn was removed with the reasoning "Since there is no Muslim consens about that jinn exactly are, and often they are simply adapted from local lore, other depictions even contradictionary, I think it is best, not speaking about them." which is more than a little objectionable. I don't think the argument is that Jinns don't exist in Islam for they are mentioned numerous times in the Quran and even have a chapter named after them. If there are disagreements among Muslims about their details, then that is not exactly a reason to not mention something. Muslims hardly agree on much of the rest of the religion but that did not lead to it being best not speaking about it either. I don't see how making sure there are no mentioning of it is supposed to help. Sodicadl (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder how the article benefits from mentioning the jinn. And why should they be included among the angel-section, when they are neither similar nor the same? We also removed the saints from the prophet section, because of it. The Quran acknowledges jinn, but the Quran does neither define nor introduce them. Among Middle Eastern people, you might find Christians, Jews and even atheists who believe in jinn, pretty much like "ghosts" in Western culture. (for an example of jinn belief among Jews in Middle Eastern/North Africa culture: "Bilu, Yoram. “The Moroccan Demon in Israel: The Case of ‘Evil Spirit Disease.’” Ethos, vol. 8, no. 1, [American Anthropological Association, Wiley], 1980, pp. 24–39, http://www.jstor.org/stable/640134.") Jinn usually bear no theological significance apart from "they exist" (and some scholars even denied that, both in Medieval as well as Modern period). Compared to other spirits, they appear rarely, about 22-29 times, while angels and devils appear approximately 85 times. In many instances, the jinn are merely addressees of the Quran without any significant theological role. There are, of course, works in which jinn feature a prominent role such as ibn Arabi's Futuhat al Makkiya, but his angels are closer to the Neo-Platonian daimon. In this case, the jinn barely resemble the more wide-spread notion of jinn and become something close to angels and devils. (for the ambiguity of the term jinn in Neo-Platonic cosmologies within Islam: "Gallorini, Louise. THE SYMBOLIC FUNCTION OF ANGELS IN THE QURʾĀN AND SUFI LITERATURE. Diss. 2021.") In such cosmologies, jinn as a third category of beings who are paralel to humans is completly absent. This just affirms that jinn are not a necessary component of Islam, although the term, as part of Quranic terminology, is. If there is no good reason to explicitly mention the jinn, we should refrain from mentioning or force them into the article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see your perspective. Status quo should be fine for now. Sodicadl (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing ‘separations’ section from the infobox

The recently added ‘separations’ section within the infobox seems to be insignificant, as well as irrelevant - with respect to those faiths - to the purpose for the infobox within this article.

The infobox is to relay important information pertaining to Islam mainly and only. The ‘separations’ section adds other religions which takes away from the reader to focus on the main subject matter; as well, there are other faiths that are not listed, therefore with their addition in the future, it will only get out of hand.

I propose to remove the ‘separations’ section. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Support: per nom. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Trivial edit warring

Creating this section with regards to an edit war. I didn't think that a dispute over something like this would come up, but it is what it is. WatanWatan2020, you need to back down with the constant shifting of content for no reason, which has included you removing formatting and plugging in poorly executed (and repeated) wikilinks, as was the case here. Your edits have also included erroneous grammatical inputs, such as your capitalization of words that didn't need to be capitalized in this edit (as I brought up in my revert summary, "universal religion" and "Muslim world" do not need full capitalization, aside from the obvious "Muslim" part), among other edits. The God of Abraham is mentioned first because that is relevant (doubly so since it is in English) to the context of the sentence for a reader who is on the article to learn about the topic. "Allah" was mentioned shortly afterwards in italics to show that it is the Arabic-language reference used in Islam (and was in context here, since it was mentioned right after "God", so I don't see why you keep feeling the need to shift those parts around when they were perfectly fine as they were (and then accuse me of pushing a "personal desire"?). The word "Allah" is also used by non-Muslims and has been in use since pre-Islamic times, so that was the best spot; "God of Abraham" perfectly describes the entity that the religion is centred around worshipping (yes, Allah is the common word, but a reader on the English-language Wikipedia would want to know what/who the deity is in the context of that sentence). You didn't add or correct any information, and at best, all you were doing was plugging in repeated wikilinks and removing the formatting while you shifted text around. While I respect the edits you have made that aren't simply intended at causing trivial disputes like this, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, so the discussion here should (hopefully) solve any issues. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My friend, adding Allah there is significant and very important. Allah is world renowned to be associated with Islam, even in the English speaking world. Therefore, Allah should be where it was placed. And to reinforce which God, the paranthesis which follows “(the God of Abraham)” would clear up any misconceptions if there were any. Although there isnt going to be; unfortunately you are using it as a reason to create doubt. Along with this, you also fiddled with the ‘Seal of the Prophets’ title, and were reverted back by another user for it. The infobox material in regards to ‘members’ was also perfectly fine; you decided to come in and word it the way you wanted to. I do not see why there is the need or reason for you to implement the words in the way which you desire them. There will not be an edit war. Leave important information where it needs to be. I cannot wrap my head around why an issue would be taken with ‘Allah’ being placed where it is. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

To resolve this matter very simply, the word ‘God’ was generalized and has a link pertaining to ‘God in the abrahamic religions’. It is also similar to the articles in Christianity and Judaism. This is the most neutral position achievable. I placed back Allah where you wanted it with its link as well. This should be the end of this matter with due respect WatanWatan2020 (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC).

My edits were not reverted; the whole de-piping of one wikilinking instance is building upon previous edits, not reverting – but whatever works for how you want to push it. I've put down a middle ground for both of us, where the God of Abraham is described and then it is further elaborated showing that he is referred to as Allah. As far as my original charges go (concerning spelling, grammar, and formatting) – which you chose to ignore in your response – you have done it again here as one example. You going out of your way to capitalize "hadith" is also disputable, since the word is not capitalized throughout its own article. You can keep ignoring these charges, as you did with the first response, and continue to accuse me of pursuing a "personal desire" here, but it won't change what's happening. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not know why you continue to make an issue still? ‘God’ is the most neutral position, just like it is in Christianity and Judaism. All of a sudden you seem to add ‘Allah’ up there at the top when that is the very thing you were taking issue with. This is plain hypocrisy on your part. Please, do not start a problem or escalate this matter further. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who came in to unnecessarily shift text around; you also have made a plethora of spelling and grammatical mistakes, a few instances of which I have literally linked in my responses; and you aren't bothering to reach a consensus (unless, of course, you decide among yourself what the solution is). You didn't bother to bring the issue to the talk page; I did, and you're accusing me of vandalism? That's beyond rich. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue would not come to the talk page if you wouldn’t engage in a tug-of-war. You were the one who re-worded the ‘members’ section to your own desires, when nothing was wrong with it. It was you as well who removed the significant ‘Seal of the Prophets’ title and you were reverted for it, my friend. Along with this, you specifically took issue with ‘Allah’ being added at the top from the very beginning. Although now that ‘God’ has been generalized, you want to add it up there. Why? Why push the matter further and further to only then implement what you were disputing what to begin with? I cannot wrap my head around why you are taking issue with any of this. All of this is accurate information, the most neutral. Please do not touch it any further. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And by the way I had only one spelling error - ‘compromising’- and capitalized two letters in the info box which is not inaccurate either. Only you seemed to have taken issue with it my friend.

The article is the most accurate and neutral at this point. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I added a comma and decapitalized "ummah" in the "Members" section, which is not capitalized on its own article. You're trying way too hard to victimize yourself at this point. You are the one who came in to unnecessarily shift text around; you also have made a plethora of spelling and grammatical mistakes, a few instances of which I have literally linked in my responses; and you aren't bothering to reach a consensus (unless, of course, you decide among yourself what the solution is). You didn't bother to bring the issue to the talk page; I did, and you're accusing me of vandalism? That's beyond rich.

Pinging some users who I have seen contribute in some amount recently to weigh in as third parties on what's happening here: VenusFeuerFalle, Iskandar323, and Sodicadl. I encourage you to read my initial post when I opened this section as well as my responses, which contain links to a few of the problematic edits that I have been trying to prevent. I have not disputed every edit made on the article, since its a group effort, but I don't see what's wrong with contesting edits that are so visibly erroneous; doubly so when the response to my charges consists of ignoring what I've said and throwing farcical claims of vandalism in an attempt to dismiss what I've been saying. I've linked more than one time where you have made intentionally made edits that plugged in grammatical or spelling mistakes. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Me "implementing what I was disputing" was a case of me attempting to reach a middle ground with whatever it is you have been doing; which clearly has been not holding an interest in reaching a consensus. If I hadn't opened up this discussion on the talk page, you would be just fine continuing to revert every edit that you didn't like. It's also quite amusing that you are accusing me of pursuing an edit war and vandalism, when your talk page is full of posts concerning your edit warring on other articles. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not reaching a middle ground. You first re edited the page the way you wanted it, and then came here and opened this discussion. If you were really sincere and not trying to make yourself look like the ‘good guy’, you wouldnt have re edited the article. You would have came here for the discussion first. My friend, everything is documented from the beginning until now here on wiki. And the most problematic thing at this point is you not accepting even the neutral position on ‘God’. You keep wanting to push the ‘God of Abraham’ narrative. Neither in Judaism nor Christianity does it have that either. Along with this, ‘Abrahamic’ is already listed at the very beginning as well. You are literally disputing the most neutral and most accurate lead at this point. Let it go. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The "God of Abraham" narrative? That's a first. Not sure how writing God vs. God of Abraham while the words are linked to God in Abrahamic religions ("... are all regarded as Abrahamic religions due to their shared worship of the God (referred to as Yahweh in Hebrew and as Allah in Arabic) that these traditions say revealed himself to Abraham") is definitely pushing an agenda on both sides. This was never an issue about neutrality – it can't be since it's not controversial, unless you want to dispute the fact that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion. If you're so concerned about "neutrality", then why don't you just link the word to God plain and simple? The issue is about presentation, format, and context, which doesn't seem to be getting across to you. The articles for Judaism and Christianity are different because they are (surprise, surprise) different articles covering different religions. Editing the page first, and then coming to the talk page signals any normal reaction; you edit, see a persisting dispute, then come to the talk page. If everyone opened up a talk page for every single edit, then there wouldn't be any progress on any article. You have done nothing other than revert and come to the conclusion that you, and you alone, figured was "neutral", so thanks for the incredibly obvious "everything is documented from the beginning until now here on wiki." ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My friend, ‘God’ is the most neutral term. You took issue with me adding Allah up there. When I made the matter neutral, you went there and added ‘Allah’. This is because you knew that you had lost the plot there. The word ‘Abrahamic’ is already mentioned at the beginning, therefore readers are already led to believe what type of faith they are reading into as they progress. You try to create what ifs? and all sorts of doubts, and within these loopholes, you try and implement what you desire. Again this article is the most neutral and most accurate at this point. I have already made the compromise, while you did not. You implemented what you wanted multiple times, and then one more time before you opened this discussion to make it seem as if you went through the last resort. My friend, I hope that you do not think I was born yesterday. In conclusion, the article is the most neutral and most accurate, simple and to the point. It has links to give readers further information, if needed. Do not make it seem that readers are dumbfounded and handicapped that they cannot click on links, especially on a religion that is arguably the most popular today in the world, the second largest religion in the world. P.S. In the Christianity and Judaism articles, they also have the neutral position by listing ‘God’ simply. We are looking for neutrality here as well. That is my point. WatanWatan2020 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I took issue with you putting Allah in a spot where it didn't need to be put, not sure how many times the whole neutrality issue is going to be brought up; Allah being added there did not violate any neutrality, it was not the best fit for that part (if it was an issue of neutrality, why would I have had it in the article with my edits?). The whole reason for a compromise is because you weren't in the mood for reaching a consensus to begin with. Your "compromise" consisted of you wiping my edits and writing down what you wanted. I suggest you drop your Einstein complex tone and assumption that the world runs off of what you think is happening alone, which includes accusations of vandalism and bad faith, among other questionable charges. As far as wikilinking goes, you clearly weren't sure what was going on there given the fact that I had to fix instances where you added repeat wikilinks. You can surely do better than trying to say I wiped out "God" and didn't give a full explanation inside the braces at the first mentioned part (where YOU wanted it to be), which stated that God is referred to in Islam as "Allah". Sounds like a pretty good mid-point, that is, without you trying to dispute it. You're trying to simplify this down to it being an issue with only the God part, when I've linked multiple of your edits that were problematic. I also don't think your self-righteous blowing out of proportion of what actually happened (such as accusing me of supposedly having made drastic changes to the "Members" part of the infobox when all I did was add a comma and italicize "ummah", which did not contest your edit) are helping. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see how "God of Abraham" violates this whole issue of neutrality (I'd like to see someone try to say that it isn't that God) that you've been banking on when the religion itself literally endorses worship of the God that revealed himself to Abraham (the God in Abrahamic religions); doubly so when it's wikilinked. Specification, when appropriately available, is never a bad thing. By your point, since Islam is described as an Abrahamic religion at the start, then the "God in Abrahamic religions" article shouldn't be linked at all, since the readers are not "dumbfounded" nor "handicapped". ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 06:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sikhism is not a separation of Islam

Kindly change this incorrect statement saying Sikhism is a separation of Islam 81.99.104.210 (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

109.107.227.234 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The basis of Islam is belief in the one God, which is God. And that He is eternal, alive and does not die, and does not neglect, justice does not oppress, has no partner, no equal, no parent or child, Most Merciful, Most Merciful, forgives sins and accepts repentance and does not differentiate between people except by their good deeds. He is the creator of the universe and is aware of everything in it and is in control of it. In the Islamic belief; God is nothing like Him, that is, He is completely different from all His creatures and far from human imaginations, so there is no image or anthropomorphic for Him, but Muslims believe in His existence and worship Him without seeing Him. Just as God in Islam is One, One, that is why Muslims reject the Christian Trinity belief in the existence of God in three persons, as well as rejecting the divinity of Christ, who is a human messenger in the Islamic faith. Say, He is God, the One Aya-1.png God, the Eternal, the Eternal Aya-2.png He was not begotten and was not begotten Aya-3.png And He had no equal. Some researchers say that the Arabic word “Allah”, which is used in Islam to denote the same God, is made up of two parts: “the” and “God”, while others say that it has Aramaic roots that go back to the word “aloha”. And God has several names mentioned in the Qur’an, and there are ninety-nine names that are known to Sunni Muslims as “the Most Beautiful Names of God.” They are names of praise, praise, praise and glorification of God that were mentioned in the Qur’an or on the tongue of one of the messengers according to the Sunni belief, including: the King, the Holy One, Peace, the believer, the dominant, the dear, the mighty, the clutch, the basit, the agent, the first, the merciful, the one with majesty and honor, and others. The truth is that there is a disagreement about the number of the Most Beautiful Names among the Sunni scholars, and a disagreement about the Most Beautiful Names themselves. However, some suggested that their number was ninety-nine, according to a hadith reported by Al-Bukhari on the authority of the Prophet Muhammad that he said: “God has ninety-nine names, a hundred but one, whoever counts them will enter Paradise.”

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

Please remove the comment about Sikhism being a derivative of Islam. This is false and highly offensive. Sikhism is NOT an offshoot nor does it have beliefs that align with Islam. This notion is a result of colonialism. 2001:569:FE24:1500:194:4256:9E9C:73B7 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I rewrote that sentence to make it clear it primarily incorporates aspects of Hinduism, and some influence from Islam, matching the source cited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox, again

There was already this topic about infobox with consensus from 6 February 2021 with MOS:INFOBOXUSE after it was added by sock blocked users Eliko007(Jobas) and after by one more sock Adigabrek added it again (kind of sock users like to add it for some reason, maybe just as some extra "fuel" for edit wars or so). There was/is consensus to infobox is not needed for this article and some similar too. It must be noted to it is optional and sometimes especially for complex topic's infobox is not needed at all, it can make even greater confusion, also synthesis of published material. Also it is often under attacks and vandalism. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see anything controversial or confusing in the infobox. It all seems extremely matter of fact. Editors have been ironing out the kinks in it for weeks. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

As per MOS:INFOBOXUSE check talk page archive about infobox use at this article from February 2021. This is not a private blog, and in general I dont see some crucial need for infobox here at all or to it is some improvement, and reasons for that I said in my previous post.AnAnicolaidis (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors have been happily editing this infobox in relative peace before your attempted removal, so there is clearly an informal consensus that the infobox is no bad thing. Consensus can change, and in contrast to your edit note about inconsistency, there are ample examples of religions that do indeed have infoboxes. Take Judaism for example. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I told you February 2021 talk page here and take Christianity and Hinduism for example. And Judaims is pretty simple and can fit ok in infobox. Anyway there is no hurry, let's see about the other editors. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

What is reason for hurry and to try to make edit war? There was talk about this in February 2021 and now this again so? No need to hurry, other editors also can put their opinion. Totally cool and relaxed. Or you should try with personal blog not this. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are talking about this thread, it was barely a discussion, let alone the substance of any sort of firm consensus. And again, note WP:CCC. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Pretty good is, and you seems somehow nervous about it, just relax. Ah, Buddhism also is without infobox so Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. So yeap really there is not any need for it when other major are without. Seems to only your argument is to you think to somehow own this page. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have said, various editors have worked on the information in the infobox, all of whom you have effectively reverted. Anyway, DNFTT. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe by adding it and removing it, as it can be checked in the history of this article. As I wrote more trouble than improvement, and nothing changed since 2021. Anyway wait for other editors, maybe they will join and share their opinions. There is no hurry at all about all this and no reasons to someone is nervous about. Everything is cool and relaxed. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The 'cool and relaxed' thing here would have been to discuss your views BEFORE disrupting the article, and then to follow WP:BRD after being reverted. And you can't cause trouble yourself only to go say: look it causes trouble! No, that means the trouble is you, and the bizarre beef you have with infoboxes. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXUSE says: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. It is not an invitation to individual editors to exterminate infoboxes in whatever article takes their fancy.

• The argument has been made that the articles on Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism do not have infoboxes and therefore the article on Islam must not have one either. But that is the opposite of the policy.
• Another argument for deleting the infobox is the association fallacy. That does not hold water either.

There do not appear to be any policy-compliant reasons for deleting the infobox from the article on Islam.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

When consenus was established here about "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use? Last talk about was in February 2021. Anyway won't remove it now, maybe later. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Not many people participated in Talk:Islam/Archive 31#Infobox_religion. It seems to have been forgotten about when somebody else added the infobox, and various people edited it to make it acceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Abrahamic Religions: Who Are The People Of The Book?

I would like to submit an alternative viewpoint when it comes to saying that Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions. I know this has been a long accepted issue and many may disagree. Nevertheless, I believe another side needs to be heard. The way it is currently presented is a dogmatic viewpoint and not necessarily accepted by all. I can provide documentation that would put this belief/statement into question. This is my first time to submit something through Wikipedia, so please excuse me as I wish to learn the proper format, etc., when adding or editing existing works.

First, I would like to address “Who Are The People Of The Book?” Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, and therefore being a “people of the Book (Bible, Old Testament [OT] and New Testament [NT]). I would like to explain just what it means to be a “people of the Book.” Islam makes this claim making assumptions based on very little evidence, and without any refute from the other two “peoples of the Book.” The other “two,” being Jews and Christians, should have their viewpoint presented as well.

I would next address some of the differences between the Qur’an and the Bible, using these texts to show how and why they are different and do not compliment one another and are not complementary of one another. I will show how/where texts from the Bible lays the framework so that there can be no other text to follow it; I will also demonstrate the impossibility of errancy in the Bible as claimed by Islam.

Next, I will show that the god of Islam is not and cannot be the same God to of the Jews and Christians.

Last, I will show who are the true people of the Book and why.

This will be presented using apologetics, verses from the Bible as well as verses from the Qur’an. Also addressed will be contradictions, why they exist, and what the answers are.

Thank You,

Jay A. Lykins, Ph.D. Islamic Studies University of Oxford 1988 Mrjaykins (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"People of the book" is a piece of terminology defined within and by Islam; it is not really a piece of neutral terminology waiting to be claimed through polemics. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism, persecution, and debates

I think that this section should be added to not only this page but to all pages regarding religion Dajjal616 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not so sure. Criticism section in any article is problematic. For the same reasons they are problematic, I don't see how adding the other items helps and not hurt. Sodicadl (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If drafted well, precise and concise hyperlinked to other wiki pages for detailed info, it would help the reader. Amitized (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There are separate pages for criticisms for Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Voltzz007 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Women rights

The page contains only few phrases describing situation of women. Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Terminology consistency

Hi! I am bringing this up again. The only feedback [4] about consistency is the suggestion that each translated term be translated consistently throughout the article. I think I would add that alternative spellings can be listed when the word is first introduced in the article. So for a start I think Sunni Islam is more used by the sources than Sunnism and Shia Islam over Shiism and the adjective Sunni over Sunnite and Shia over Shiite. I could make those changes in the article, unless there are different opinions. Sodicadl (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a common sense and more recognizable approach (with the use of Sunni over Sunnite and Shia over Shiite having the added benefit of concision), although I would avoid the full "Sunni/Shia Islam" wherever possible and substitute the "Islam" with more specific phrases, such as "in Sunni/Shia thought/theology/jurisprudence", etc., where possible. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

I'd like to request that angels being made of nar or fire be removed as it is inaccurate. According to islamic theology angels are made of light while jinn are made of fire.

https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/search?s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-3&search-go=&s.q=Angels+light Avirtue0 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It looks like both are sourced, and the article is clear that they have been described as both. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

infobox debate

There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

islam

islam is the fastest growing religion, it is a peaceful and religion. Allah is the 1 and only god that muslims (people who believe in the religion) believe in . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.122.43 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Tow (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Everything that you said has been stated in the article, I guess except for the "peaceful" as we accept all religions are peaceful. ZetaFive (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2022

Dear, please remove the image which depicts Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) receiving verses from Angle under the sub-heading “Angels”

Thank you! Alisids1 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see FAQ on Talk:Muhammad for an explanation on why the image is there and why it will not removed, as well as how to hide the images from view when logged into your account. Cannolis (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022

change 2 billion followers to 1.7 billion 204.111.204.171 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"IsIam" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect IsIam and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#IsIam until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Remove any pictures that depicts the prophet , prophets , or angels as this extremely disrespectful to Muslims, and as we’ve seen before in the past can cause out-lash in the community 2603:8000:100:45CD:A836:B8F8:5904:6DC4 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored, and consensus is that such images are helpful for a reader to better understand the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

I urge you to delete the pictures of the Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wa sallam).... THESE PICTURES ARE NOT FROM ISLAM AND SOMETHING STRANGE AND HATED FOR THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY WORLDWIDE. You only cause hatred 178.115.70.129 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done – Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Good article

I am sending a nomination for this article for good article status because it might be worth the try but I thought of hearing any concerns here. Sodicadl (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sodicadl: I'm not familiar enough with the topic to do a proper review, but here are some suggestions. The history section is too long; modern-day practice is much more important to readers. The lead also needs to do a better job summarizing: the key term mosque is unmentioned, and it's important to note somewhere the sheer diversity of Muslim life (beyond the Sunni–Shia divide), often divided by geography. Geographic statistics is unnecessary for the lead, imo, although that's definitely up for debate. In the lead, I'm unconvinced of the relevance of Muslims being the fastest growing religious group, and at least the explanation that it's due to high birth rates. In the body, apostasy is not mentioned, nor is Islamic extremism. On the whole, though, it seems like a nice article. Ovinus (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree the history section is too long and needs tighter use of WP:Summary style.
• Citation format is also inconsistent and there are some ref errors as well as non-RS cited (i.e. history.com) News sources and non-scholarly websites (e.g. renaissance.com) should be avoided as much as possible since they are not high quality sources nor do they show due weight for the content supported.
• Derived religions should be merged with the place where Ahmadiyya is discussed since many Muslims consider Ahmadiyya to be this.
• "body modifications, such as permanent tattoos, are usually forbidden as violating the creation" This is later contradicted by requirement of circumcision, which is a type of body modification.

(t · c) buidhe 23:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I did a little more summarizing of the history section and more does need to be done. As for needing to mention the term Islamic extremism, if you look at that article itself it shows there is no agreement for which divergent phenomenon it should refer to and each of those phenomenon like political Islam, salafism and ISIS have been mentioned in the article. It is a good point about the number of non-scholarly sources and I took out history.com and renaissance.com and replaced with better sources and will work on more. As for Ahmadiyya to be merged with derived religions, I am not sure that is something editors should be making a judgment about it being within the bounds of Islam or not or at the least the article shouldn't fail Good Article Status because of where it draws the line. I don't think the sentence about circumcision is contradicting anything because body modifications are indeed 'usually' forbidden. Sodicadl (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Compromise?

Why not simply add a spoiler for the included depictions of Prophet Muhammad? Wikipedia remains uncensored, and Muslim readers don't have to accidently see Prophet Muhammad's images while they are viewing his Wikipedia page unless they explicitly choose to do so by clicking on the exact image. Win-win. Praxeria (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

On "why", see Wikipedia:No disclaimers, though by "spoiler" you seem to mean that every (objectionable by some standard) image should be collapsed somehow. Which would be censorship. And very hard to argue why WP should employ censorship in regard to Islam and nothing else. Many people are at times surprised by what they find on WP. They learn from it, adapt (like setting their browsers to not showing pics they don't like), or leave for parts of the internet they like better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You can see some related comments here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#Question_1a:_Should_there_be_an_instructional_hatnote?. That was 10 years ago though, and consensus can change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

In the article angels remove "or 'fire' (nār)" because in Islam angels are only made of light and Jinns are made of fire. Idolatry and depictions of the Prophet Mohammed and other prophets are prohibited in Islam as they are ‘’infallible’ and revered figures, and ‘according to the Islamic faith […] should not be presented in any manner that might cause disrespect for them.’ (Dr Azzam Tamimi to the BBC in 2015);https://www.diverseeducators.co.uk/why-are-pictures-of-prophet-muhammed-forbidden-in-islam/Ishratm1 (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done – Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Also refer to the FAQ in Talk:Muhammad. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)