Talk:Islamic calendar

Remove illustration of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) under the section "Prohibiting Nasī’"

Under the Prohibiting Nasī’ section, there is an illustration of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that must be removed. As a Muslim, I am very offended by it, and I am sure all Muslims of the world are too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashadon007 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not likely to happen — see the long earlier discussions in the archives linked to this talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As this issue is of great importance to some sects of Islam, there is a full explanation of Wikipedia's policy at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Long term troll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re this comment on another talk page: Future Perfect's stance is in line with an essay he has written on the subject but contrasts strongly with his insistence that a picture in Islamic calendar is one of Muhammad forbidding intercalation in the course of his Farewell Pilgrimage. The only reason he does that is because he knows Muslims find pictures of the Prophet offensive. Nobody involved with the commissioning of this picture suggests that, which is intrinsically unlikely because it depicts the Shia members of the Prophet's extended family in addition to the preacher, who is not Muhammad (who had a long beard) but most likely Ali. We know that when the Prophet delivered the Farewell Sermon he was in the open (he was actually sitting on a camel while he did it). The picture is a mosque setting. There are also no speech bubbles emanating from the Imam's mouth which might justify us in concluding that he was discussing intercalation rather than one of the other matters which the Prophet touched on in his sermon. Five people are listening to the sermon in the mosque, as opposed to the thousands who participated in the Farewell Pilgrimage. - 78.145.17.176 11:17, 18 April 2019 The picture is an artist's impression, not a photograph. It is not surprising that the artist used a style of representation that people of his time expected, as is equally the case in western art of the same period. In any case is it highly unlikely that the artist had access to the kind of research evidence that the author of this remark finds compelling. In any event, it is not for Wikipedia to debate its accuracy or otherwise, but only that a reliable source says that this is what it is. So the only basis for challenge is that other reliable sources disagree, or that the source does not actually say this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC) You can remove or recaption the picture since it fails both WP:RS and WP:V and also Jimbo's "principle of least astonishment" which was devised for exactly this situation and is policy. The "source" is two verses from the Qu'ran, written a millennium before the picture was painted (a writing cannot verify a document which was created subsequently, for obvious reasons). 82.14.255.206 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC) If you can show that the citation From an illustrated manuscript of Al-Biruni's 11th-century Vestiges of the Past (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Arabe 1489 fol. 5v. (Bibliothèque Nationale on-line catalog) described in Robert Hillenbrand, "Images of Muhammad in al-Bīrūnī's Chronology of Ancient Nations", R. Hillenbrand (ed.), "Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars: Studies in Honour of Basil W. Robinson" (London/New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers and the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge, 2000), pp. 129–46. does not actually support the caption (per template:failed verification), then certainly it must be removed. But unless and until you do, the policy set out in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ will continue. Meanwhile, the same FAQ has instructions on how to set your wikipedia preferences so that it is not shown to you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Don't waste your time on Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Vote_(X)_for_Change — this is just another rehash of a discussion that this London-based IP has opened numerous times in the past on these talk pages. AstroLynx (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Islamic Sacred months same like pagan meccas??

I invite NZFC here to come and and tell me why they insist on putting such bullshit information onto the wiki. That one source added was a unreliable website and the 3 website sources added HAS NO RELEVANCE TO ISLAMIC SACRED MONTHS BEING THE SAME AS PAGAN MECCAS CALENDER. READ IT YOURSELF. I wonder if NZFC would mind if I add information about new zealand≤ using this site as a source https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/New_Zealand because this how the edit looks like to be honest. But not surprised that Islamic articles are being terrorized right now. Proof? Check Asma Binti Marwan Wikipedia. No muslim believes in that bullshit yet the some editors assume this is a real event and purposely spreading islamophobia. There is also several proofs that that event is made up. If you want to say "Lets be npov" fine, then i wont delete, but allow me to refute how the sentence is wrong with another sentence after it with such and such proof and sources. I wil give 2 days for NZFC to respond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.99.175 (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Kia ora IP, you seem to be angry, I suggest taking a breath and not taking things so personally. I also won't care if you wanted to edit NZ articles. Trying to make it personal isn't going to worry or upset me. If you can provide reliable sources to what you add/change, then that would be even better. Now as for this article, the paragraph isn't saying it is the same, though it is saying that they both were considered forbidden. From the old and the new references it appears that is the case. Before we delete it, I suggest it be discussed here, so thank you for bring it to the talk page finally.Now, as for what is happening in other articles I can't say as I haven't seen it. I'm not against the religion myself (or any religion for that matter), I am just monitoring pending pages because they have a habit of being either vandalised or censored. Ok now, can you show me and other editors how that paragraph and sources are wrong? NZFC^(talk)(cont) 10:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hijri calendar, not Islamic

Calendar has nothing to do with Islam, it is before Islam. As Muslims do not actually use it, it is a common mistake to regard anything Arab as Islamic. Therefore, he suggested changing the name of the article "Islamic Calendar" to "Arabic Calendar". Sarazxs123 (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain further please? The epoch (starting date) of this calendar is the Hejira, it is founded in Islam. It is used widely outside Arabia. The Arabic calendars that preceded this one may have many similarities but they are not the same. If you had said that "Arabic calendar" is not correct, you would have a case but unfortunately it is a name in widespread use so we have to give it as an alias: Wikipedia records what is, not what should be. Much the same applies to "Islamic calendar" though far less convincingly. "Hijri calendar" is probably the most correct but that term is not widely used in the English-speaking world. Have I misunderstood your point? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean that the calendar is called the Hijri calendar and it is not Islamic. There is no such thing as an Islamic calendar or an Islamic year, just as the Roman calendar is not a Christian calendar. Thats what i mean Sarazxs123 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)