Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

→

Islam-related articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 8 9 15 33 FL 1 1 2 FM 17 17 A 1 1 GA 6 13 38 79 13 149 B 70 94 234 410 89 897 C 110 140 414 1,535 1 274 2,474 Start 42 92 449 3,526 1 885 4,995 Stub 8 11 204 2,959 771 3,953 List 1 12 114 180 3 35 345 Category 1 1 5,448 5,450 Disambig 1 3 122 1 127 File 2 43 45 Portal 330 330 Project 113 113 Redirect 6 16 46 149 649 866 Template 1 478 479 NA 1 4 5 Other 1 106 107 Assessed 245 388 1,513 8,859 7,315 2,068 20,388 Unassessed 1 1 28 637 667 Total 245 389 1,514 8,887 7,315 2,705 21,055 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 61,579 Ω = 4.93

Created new page for Nasheed singer Ismail Hussain

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rashidun princes and princesses

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

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

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

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

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

Inconsistency in the naming of madhhab articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Amrahlawymasry:The Oxford article [1] you cite is interesting, but one thing I would note is that it explicitly states "Those Shiʿite Muslims (Ithnā ʿAshariy(y)a, Twelvers) who follow the codes of religious law associated with Jaʿfar al-Sādiq" in other words this doesn't make the term synonymous with Ithna Ashariyya i.e. Twelver shia, rather this definition indicates Ja'fari as a term refers to those following the religious laws and codes, i.e. the fiqh. This is the primary usage. KJS ml343x (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@KJS ml343x: ok there is no different, "Jaʿfarī Shiʿites. Those Shiʿite Muslims (Ithnā ʿAshariy(y)a, Twelvers) who follow the codes of religious law associated with Jaʿfar al-Sādiq.", this definition mean Twelvers. It is just an illustrative phrase, to distinguish between Twelvers and Alevism and Alawites because sometimes when it refers to the term of Twelver, it is inserted into the term both of Alevism and Alawites, so he put an extra phrase to distinguish between them, this is also done in another way in Wikipedia, at the beginning of the article of Twelvers a phrase is written: "This article is about the predominant sect of Ithnā‘ashari Shia Islam. For other denominations which believe in The Twelve Imams, see Alevism and Alawites.". and the article of Jaʽfari jurisprudence is about jurisprudence and not about Twelver or Jaʽfari Sect, and in article of Jaʽfari jurisprudence you will see in it that defination: "is the school of jurisprudence (fiqh) in Twelver and Nizari[1] Shia Islam", and as [2] that i cite and you read it Previously, you will note this phrase in definition of Jaʿfarī Shiʿites : "Jaʿfarī Shiʿites. Those Shiʿite Muslims (Ithnā ʿAshariy(y)a, Twelvers)" and Nizari[1] Shia Islam is not Ithnā ʿAshariy(y)a, Twelvers .and there is also article in wikipedia under name of Al-Ja'fari. Amrahlawymasry (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

JorgeLaArdilla's edits on Quran suras

JorgeLaArdilla has been making edits to the articles on the Suras of the Quran (example: [3], but there are many similar edits in his recent contribution in other sura articles), that I'd like the community's opinion on. I think adding a list-style content when there is already an existing prose that covers the same purpose is discouraged per MOS:PROSE, plus the list that was added was attributed to one interpreter only (George Sale from the 18th century) which seems inappropriate per WP:WEIGHT. Other than these I don't think the edits were an improvements to the article, but wondering what others here think. I tried to revert but the author restored them saying "Dont remove referenced content" without addressing the reasoning in my edit summary. This kind of interaction has happened before with this editor too. HaEr48 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Right, the problem I'd like to discuss is not the redirect, but the list-style "Summary" section that JorgeLaArdilla has been adding to a lot of sura articles, e.g. [4] and [5] . HaEr48 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There are several problems with these summaries:

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

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

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

Numbering differences It may not be amiss here to acquaint the reader, that there are seven principal editions, if I may so call them, or ancient copies of that book; two of which were published and used at Medina, a third at Mecca, a fourth at Cufa, a fifth at Basra, a sixth in Syria, and a seventh called the common or vulgar edition. Of these editions, the first of Medina makes the whole number of the verses 6,000; the second and fifth, 6,214; the third, 6,219; the fourth, 6,236; the sixth, 6,226; and the last, 6,225. But they are all said to contain the same number of words, namely, 77,639; and the same number of letters, viz., 323,015 (Sale Preliminary discourse 3) This is not controversial. A boilerplate warning may be more appropriate "This page uses the Hafs System" - should we get that sorted I will commit to renumbering Wherry's comments to suit.

If this is not theological topic then I really do not know what is but to elucidate a little. This site was (sort of) chosen at random. I fully intended to link back the first Quranic reference (Qur’an 21:30) but accidently chose the second Qur'an 51:47 and apologise for that element of confusion. Having now updated the summary at Q51 this links back to cogent prose to support that authors claim - Wikipedia is doing its job.

Q8:20-21, not being a "proper" page, does not trigger WP:Notability. In any case, firstly I checked whether it was already used in Wikipedia - no - then, with very little contrivance, I was able to incorporate it into the main article on Islam. JorgeLaArdilla

Multiple topics If a reader feels a particular comment of Wherry's does not do a verse justice they are free to edit using a suitable reliable source. I suspect I will be doing this myself in the very near future.

Interpretative differences UNDUE should not be presented as the main or the sole authority on the subject. I would love to add A Prominent recitation (Surah Al-Hujurat) to juxtapose the banality of the translation. I get the Arabic poetic. There will be no sole authority, as much as I would love that, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. By all means claim a stake for the main authority. I like defering to the earliest extant Arabic Qurans with : Al Badawi copy in Dutch Church, London & Vatican Quran & whatever other authority you feel is unrepresented (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) with update (3) adding previously missed comments at 00:00 20 December 2020 (UTC)

JorgeLaArdilla I think you're still missing the point. As per your "Numbering differences", no one is arguing about the total number of verses in the Quran in this discussion, I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. As for your redirect like Q51 or Q8:20-21, again no one disputing those. As fer "UNDUE should not be presented as the main or the sole authority on the subject", what you said does not make sense. WP:UNDUE is part of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. In short, Wikipedia articles should reflect the current scholarly consensus on the subject and not aimed at emphasizing the point of view of one or two commentators, unless there is evidence that such views are part of the mainstream today, which I don't think is the case for Sale and Wherry. You haven't addressed other problems re formatting, list vs prose, emphasizing on trivial points, etc. that has been brought above. Since your edits have been disputed and reverted, please defer making more of such edits until you've reached consensus here, that is how collaborative editing in Wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. HaEr48 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I would agree with HaEr48 above, especially in regards to UNDUE wieght being given to Sale. JorgeLaArdilla you seem to be making mass changes across many articles. Can you seek consensus before you go make such a large effort?VR _talk 14:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I will continue the various themes at Talk:Al-Mumtahanah ‎ Talk:As-Sajda Talk:Quran 5 JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Can French speakers translate this article to english?

Salam, greetings, Can French speakers translate this article to english? Thanks. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 18:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Walaikum Assalam, did you write that article yourself? Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wakemeup38: No, I did not write it. If I knew French, I'd translate it myself. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 06:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Use Google Translate JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla: would that be appropiate? Is it allowed within English Wikipedia? If so, I'll try to do it, inshallah. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of hoops to jump through ie there is a "Standardized template" somewhere to inform reader that is what you have done. Also Google translate often does not produce good English. Make the effort to Iron out those glitches and there will be less chance of the article being nuked. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 13:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adigabrek: I'd suggest avoiding machine translation, because they tend to have low quality English and can result in mistranslation, especially if you're not familiar with the origin language. Please see the guideline in WP:MACHINE if you haven't. HaEr48 (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thankfully, the french article put the original Turkish text for almost everything they cited in notes (I speak Turkish), and the rest were really simple sentences, which were sourced in Turkish, where I could find the original statement. It worked out. Signed, ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 15:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Need review of As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Hisham

I have started a draft on As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Hisham. I could use some feedback on improving the article. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@KuroNekoNiyah: Seems ok to me JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Jorge, nice job. Just one remark: the current link to Wikisource leads to Ibn Hisham's author page. I would expect a direct link to the Sirah instead. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: and @JorgeLaArdilla: Thanks for the feedback! Changed the Wikisource as per your suggesion. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@KuroNekoNiyah: I actually meant the page on which you land after clicking the link, but I have fixed that now. Otherwise it looks good to go to mainspace. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Article is now live! KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles with links to DAB pages

I've collected some articles with Islam-related links to DAB pages, where expert attention would be welcome. Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Al-Burooj -  Done, Amrahlawymasry (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Al-Hajj -  Done sort of; I rewrote this machine-translated section (ibn was for example translated as canister/receptacle/container *rolleyes*) to just leave out the ambiguous term, HyperGaruda (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Al-Kahf -  Done, Amrahlawymasry (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) / JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sacred months -  Done, there is no related article to "Islamic traditions" in Islamic tradition, i linked it with the intended word "hadith", Amrahlawymasry (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Iman (Islam) - there is no related article to "Recognition" in Recognition, i think it is better not to be linked Amrahlawymasry (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Arab cuisine
• History of the Quran -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Iman (Islam) -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ishaq ibn Talha -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Saadi Sultanate -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sayyid -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Shaghab -  Done --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Suitable name for "Criticism of Muhammad"

The article Criticism of Muhammad is a WP:POVFORK as it currently only covers the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light. Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_(POV)_forks says,

Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative.

There are sources that praise Muhammad and excluding that point of view violates neutrality. There have been discussions at Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Praises_of_the_Prophet_Muhammad and Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Responses_to_'criticism'. Alternative names proposed include:

• Historical evaluation of Muhammad
• Perception of Muhammad
• Perception of Muhammad by non-Muslims
• A different suggestion is welcome.

Pinging for feedback the editors involved in that article's discussion page: @Anachronist: @A.889: @Wakemeup38: @Sa.vakilian: @Ghazaalch: @Maplecreek1: @Cleopatran Apocalypse: Bless (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)