Talk:Mosque

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)

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 coder^Talk 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move

Talk:Mosque — Mosque → Masjid – 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))

Vote

• Oppose as "mosque" is the correct English word. joturner 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Propose as "mosque" is derived from the wrong spanish word..(Mystic 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC))
• 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)
• 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 coder^Talk 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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 coder^Talk 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

• 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))

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)

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 Prophets 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)

We can work on it later. Work on the Prophets of Islam article, because we may get that featured too. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

pics

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

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

Minarets

A small factual point here - This page says that some mosques have more than one minaret purely for appearance's sake. I've heard that a mosque's having one or two minarets us largely due to whether it is a sunni or shi'a mosque. Perhpas someone who knows more might like to alter the article if this is true.

I, or someone else, can look into that. joturner 02:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Major Improvements

I have started some major improvements on the article in an attempt to raise the article to featured status. I know they are some major changes, so some input would be appreciated. joturner 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To avoid a probable edit conflict, instead of going ahead and doing so, I'm going to make a recommendation to move the citations to follow the punctuation. As in, instead of prior to a comma and/or period, move the citation to follow the comma or period. This is how most FAs do so and apparently this is how the Chicago Manual of Style does so. Pepsidrinka 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jame'

I don't know if my information are accurate but I know that Mosques are also known by the arabic جامع (Jame'). If it's true, it should be mentioned in the article. Thank you. CG 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes alot of arabs call a mosque jame', which basically means a place where people group. I my self use both masjid and jame'--Kenbei 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the opening paragraph under a different transliteration. joturner 20:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

About.com - Dubious Source?

About.com defintely is not a "dubious source" and especially not in the instance mentioned by User:Tickle me. The article in question is written by About.com writer Huda, who on her own biography page states that she is a "Muslim educator and writer with over a decade of experience researching and writing about Islam." She is also "the author of The Everything Understanding Islam Book", which you can find at almost any major bookstore. As a result, I have removed the reference to About.com in the text as this treatment is only reserved for dubious sources. joturner 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that About.com qualifies as reliable source per WP:RS. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability says: "All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them." Articles in About.com are not peer-reviewed or cross-checked, correct me if I'm wrong, so a minus to it. The article in question is not referenced to anything as is required in academic writing, so its claims are impossible to verify. The author of the article is also not an academic and we don't know much about her, even the real name, I suppose, and what we do know is not inspiring: a B.S. in Child Development and a M.Ed. in Montessori Education have hardly prepared her for study of Islam. Just writing popular books about Islam is not sufficient for an author to qualify as reliable per Wikipedia standards. The problem of sourcing, as I have observed, is not unique to this particular instance, but is characteristic of the article as a whole. Pecher ^Talk 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me as though WP:RS is establishing a scale of reliability, from major newspapers on one end to personal websites on the other. As to where this article fits in to that scale, I'd put it on the higher end. Not every item has to be from a top-notch source and in article of this nature, where Islamic practices that could easily be verified in reality are mentioned, that simple is not feasible nor, in my opinion, necessary. For instance, the Ramadan section is relatively unsourced, but if you were to ask any Muslim (that observes Ramadan), he or she could attest to that, no problem. Now finding a "reliable" source that specifically states what is mentioned in the article... not so easy. joturner 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"About.com writer Huda ... states that she is a "Muslim educator and writer with ...": For good reasons I discourage caring about what people write about themselves to evaluate their expertise.

"She is also "the author of 'The Everything Understanding Islam Book', which you can find at almost any major bookstore": Availability or the assuming allure of a books' title is no argument for its relevancy at all. Checking her qualifications we find that she has none of those required: "[do] not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics".

"Now finding a 'reliable' source that specifically states what is mentioned in the article... not so easy": wikipedia is all about "reliable" sources, which may require some effort: "If you can't find a good source on the web, try a local library or bookstore".

"but if you were to ask any Muslim...": in my understanding we are supposed to rely on sources or authoritative evaluations - the "man on the street" doesn't qualify as such.

An article relying extensivly on sources such as about.com, Enyclopedia of the Orient (run by a Norwegian programmer), IslamOnline or no source at all is not a good article, and it shouldn't be a featured article unless quality sources are provided. Frankly, e.g. the funeral prayer should be an important element of Muslim ritual. Thus, it is highly unlikely that proper sources can't be found. Until then, "edits relying on inappropriate sources, may be challenged at any time" and "edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor" (WP:RS) - which I haven't done so far. I amended according to WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability, suggesting improvements regarding this detail, as the whole article needs it badly. I fail to understand the rationale of not complying. An articles' reader shouldn't need an observant Muslim at his side for clarifications, as articles on socialism shouldn't require a dedicated follower of marxism for explanation - assuming beforehand his advice would be authoritative and impartial. "but if you were to ask any Muslim (that observes Ramadan), he or she could attest to that, no problem": it is a problem and no procedure for writing a good article - or any. --tickle me 00:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very compelling and probably sufficient for the article to be delisted from good articles. Pecher ^Talk 09:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam Template at Top

The template does not need to be at the top. It's unsightly there and not even necessary; the mosque article isn't even specifically linked from the template (although one could make that case that it should be). It should put where there is space for it, right next to the references. Why, Pecher, do you believe the template is essential at the top of the page? joturner 14:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

On all Islam-related articles I've seen the template is on top, so why do you believe this article should be an exception? Few people will notice it at the bottom of the page, I'm afraid. I thought I have found a good place for it: to the right of the contents, so why do you object to it? Pecher ^Talk 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It pushes pictures and other items below the template down. The template, actually, is just too big, period. In a potential featured article, the template at the top seems really intrusive. But yes, I haven't seen it at the bottom of any other Islam-related page, but then again, I haven't seen any Islam-related featured articles with the template. joturner 14:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and activity in mosques

The article as it now stands describe many postive aspects of what takes place in mosques around the world.

• But that is not all. There is incitment in the name of religion. Should we ignore that ?

Zeq 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, we can't ignore it. That's one more point where the article must be expanded. Pecher ^Talk 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs to be expanded in this area. The article doesn't talk about mosques serving as places where imams denounce terrorist attacks and there is no need to talk about imams promoting them. The incitement in the name of religion occurs in a very small number of mosques. Mentioning it in this article gives undue weight. It's the same reason the Islam article does not talk about Osama bin Laden and terrorism and the Christianity article does not talk about Eric Rudolph; they're not particularly relevant. joturner 21:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tahara link

I've added a link to the article on tahara in the cleanliness section. Tahara is not terribly good at the moment, but the link certainly belongs to the article. The preferred solution must be to expand and improve Tahara. Pecher ^Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tahara goes to a disambiguation page and neither of them apply to Islam and/or mosques? "Tahara is not terribly good at the moment"; did you even look at the article? Pepsidrinka 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I meant Taharah. Pecher ^Talk 20:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)