Talk:Islamic calendar

Fixed calendar?

Is it just me but I still don't understand the term "fixed calendar" (in Pre-Islamic calendar). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Anon editor has added explanation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic calendar - overlength for this article, better elsewhere

User:81.139.213.29 has added a lot of valuable material to the "Pre-Islamic calendar" section of this. The problem is that it is now more comprehensive than the main article Pre-Islamic calendar that it is supposed to summarise. So may I suggest that 81.139.213.29 copy the section over (= replace) the main article, write a wp:lead for it that summarises its essential points, That lead can then be used to provide a new short summary section for this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Certain people have made statements which are fabricated and totally untrue, to make me look bad." - Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, Friday 19 April 2019 At [1]'s "Love Calculator" I punched in "Donald Trump" and "Robert S Mueller". Guess what the percentage was. The commentary reads:"This level of love is equivalent to a cat's love of boxes. It may not be immediately evident, but take a look in the box and you might just find something ready to jump out at you."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

All the citation tells you is that the picture appears in the cited manuscript. The manuscript does not claim that the picture is Muhammad. All pictures which are not photographs are necessarily representations. The reason why the picture has yet to be removed is (a) because the page was protected to prevent it and (b) because AstroLynx lied in the RfC. Despite being the author of numerous scholarly books on the history of Islam he chose to tell the participants that, while the location of every other ceremony in the Farewell Pilgrimage is meticulously documented, this one isn't. In fact, since this sermon is the most significant event of the whole Pilgrimage there are more contemporary reports of it than any other. 92.19.168.173 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As Future Perfect points out in his essay, since the painter did not say he was painting Muhammad, this suggestion after 500 years is not evidence but merely a claim. Claims are original research (although in this case not even that). 92.31.137.3 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)