Talk:Mosque: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Striver (talk | contribs)
→‎Featured: + reply
Line 61: Line 61:
I think this article can be made into a featured article with a few improvements. Any comments on how to improve it? --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this article can be made into a featured article with a few improvements. Any comments on how to improve it? --[[user:Anonymous editor|<font color="green">'''a.n.o.n.y.m'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Anonymous editor| ''t'']]</sup> 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


: It seems to me like the article has too much original research. I know that the article is correct, but it may not be sourced enough. In addition, I think it also needs to use footnotes for the references rather than the self-numbering style. Maybe we could say more about the evolution of mosques as well. I'm going to take a break for about an hour and then later get back to work on the [[Prophers of Islam]] (I've had to deal with the [[Adam and Eve]] article as well as a couple of other things in the process). Hopefully, someone will convert the references to the footnote style. But if I can complete the [[Prophets of Islam]] stuff soon and that's not done, I'll do that. Not a very lengthy task. [[User:Joturner|joturner]] 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


==pics==
==pics==

Revision as of 02:09, 15 March 2006

Adding the Islam template

Other topics in this area have the "Islam" template applied (such as Mihrab). When I tried inserting the template here the preview screen showed the picture layout being messed up. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to add the sidebar and keep the picture layout the same. Can someone do this? RishiAggarwal

Small mosques' influence

I am not sure where but I think this article could use something about how typical mosques are in the modern world. I know in DE where I live it is not even as ornate as the little ones I will show below from East Ham, it just looks like a little house. Here goes:

The Mosque of the left is London Central Mosque, the mosque by Edgware Road in London by regents park. It has the typical mosque look and has been relatively well funded I am sure. The other three are all little mosques I found while walking through East Ham. They are small and just find any place they can fit. I think if someone could help contribute to this article a section about how the difference in % of Muslims and therefore size and how the mosque looks in terms of its surroundings. Masjid al Haram shows the power of religion... those three mosques do not. What is the influence of this very quaint style of mosque. gren 04:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Keep this IP 217.17.132.42 on this page for future reference; ban the user at this IP if he/she vandalizes this page again. --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM (talk) 16:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


Looks: masjid do not need to look most appealing/modern/beautiful- remember how masjid al nabwih (Madina) was initially constructed. - it was most simple in design. The decorations and adornments seen now in the masjid were not present from day one, these have come about from the different architects etc after the time of our Prophet - PEACE BE UPON HIM. This is a kind of innovation, and disliked by many muslim scholars- Because it is a place for offering prayer- not to get pleased just by looking at it! So much money is spent on such expensive projects, this money could be used to spread islam, and given to the charities- could help children etc. -- If I am wrong in this, please edit/delete-- Jazakallah (naeem- London)

Shoes?

Isn't it customary to remove one's shoes before entering a Mosque? I'm not sure on the protoco, but a lot of places that you visit in the world seem to require removing ones shoes.

It is obligatory.

Recent Major Changes

I made some changes to this article, making extensive additions. The original mosque article certainly was not worthy. Post your comments and make changes if you must. joturner 02:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Men and women in the mosque

In India, most mosques(I will say majority of them) do not allow women to worship there. I know some muslim groups which argue that women are actually forbidden from worshiping in mosque. When hadiths which refer to women in mosques is pointed out to them, they say it was prior to the reveletion of Ayat of Hijab, after that it was banned. I think this point is nowhere mentioned in this article. In Kerala(state in india), it was Islahi Movement that first allowed women in mosques. --Soft coderTalk 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move

Talk:MosqueMosqueMasjid – Masjid is the correct term to use to refer to the Muslim's place of worship. The main article should be Masjid and we should redirect it from Mosque (Mystic 06:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Vote

  • Oppose as "mosque" is the correct English word. joturner 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose as "mosque" is derived from the wrong spanish word..(Mystic 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Opppose why is there a vote. This isn't going to go anywhere. The only people who seem to be for moving to masjid as of yet is an anonymous user with one edit and Mystic, who despite not being a sysop, placed a protected tag on this article. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose doesn't make much difference, since there is already a redirect from masjid to mosque. Mosque is the English language word for Masjid, try changing English language rather than name of this article. --Soft coderTalk 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think that is not necessary, this is english wikipedia and mosque is more popular word in english than masjid. Anyway there is a redirect already from masjid to mosque. --Soft coderTalk 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with soft coder. Masjid has not been assimilated into English. Mosque is what is used, Masjid al-Haram is the Sacred Mosque, Masjid an-Nabawi is the Prophet's Mosque, etc. Pepsidrinka 05:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; masjid is only used in English (by non-Muslims) when referring to specific mosques in the Arab-speaking world, such as the two mentioned above. joturner 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "mosque" is offensive to muslims, agreeing with user Mystic it should be Masjid and we should redirect it from Mosque. Heres proof: "Mosquito is a Spanish word meaning "little fly", with its use dates back to about 1583. Before then, they were called "biting flies" in English, but the term "mosquito" was adopted to prevent confusion with the house fly. The word derives from Sanskrit maksh (fly) via the Latin word musca (fly) and the Italian moschetta or Spanish mosquito (little fly). The French word is moustique." "Mosquito." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Mar 2006, 20:50 UTC. 8 Mar 2006, 16:32 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mosquito&oldid=41948834>.
Furthermore, as this article states, "In the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, variations of the word began to be used. Moseak, muskey, moschy, and mos'keh were just some of the variations that came into use until it was decided that mosquee, imitating Middle French, Italian, and Old Spanish, would become the standard," that the word is derived from the same languages that spell mosquito in a similar conspiracy. This correlation with respect to time, since "mosquito" was adherred to just prior to the term "mosque" was established, is offensive to muslims.72.139.239.123 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Fayez[reply]
The word "mosque" offensive to Muslims? Speak for yourself; it's the English word despite the origins of the word. joturner 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To see this in a different light, I will provide an analogy. "Pizza" is an Italian word, but instead of it being called such, it was termed "Puke"; now, when anyone from the English world would want to eat this "Puke" do you not agree they would be disgusted?72.139.239.123 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Fayez[reply]
  • Comment I agree with what the user fayez has said here.. Now is the time to correct the English word. Just Because its used in English doesn't have to be the correct thing. Lets correct this mistake. At least in wikipedia. (Mystic 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Featured

I think this article can be made into a featured article with a few improvements. Any comments on how to improve it? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like the article has too much original research. I know that the article is correct, but it may not be sourced enough. In addition, I think it also needs to use footnotes for the references rather than the self-numbering style. Maybe we could say more about the evolution of mosques as well. I'm going to take a break for about an hour and then later get back to work on the Prophers of Islam (I've had to deal with the Adam and Eve article as well as a couple of other things in the process). Hopefully, someone will convert the references to the footnote style. But if I can complete the Prophets of Islam stuff soon and that's not done, I'll do that. Not a very lengthy task. joturner 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pics

China and Japan mosques: http://www.answering-christianity.com/shia_mosques_response1.htm

--Striver 21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]