Talk:Ramadan

Front Page?

I think this article should be featured on the front page, since tomorrow is the first day of ramadan (SeanMcG 02:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

Partial Response

Having sexual relations between sunset and sunrise are permissible. With regards to making the ghusl (compulsory bath after such relations), I'm not sure if it is necessary to have it done before fasting begins. However, one should do it before the time for Fajr is over, as prayer is not accepted until one performs the Ghusl.

I think you are mistaken. most Muslim sects (shi'a and sunni) do not allow any sexual contact between men and women during the day until magrib, regardless if you do ghusl or not. (SeanMcG 02:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

I believe you're both right (well, almost). The first poster is referring to between sunset and sunrise, during the nighttime. Sexual intercourse is permissible during the nighttime, but not up until sunrise. Fasting begins at dawn, the start of the fajr prayer time, not sunrise, the end of the fajr prayer time. It is not necessary to have ghusl before the start of fasting; one can even engage in sexual intercourse up until the start of the fajr prayer (and fasting) time, if desired. joturner 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh it's desired. Believe me, it's desired! - Kumar

Far North?

What do Muslims living north of the Arctic Circle do? Surely in places where the sun doesn't set for three or four months straight, they don't all travel south for Ramadan if it falls in the summertime? grendel|khan 03:30, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

They can follow time schedule of the nearest Muslim authority, e.g in Sweden, Canada, etc. DiN 20:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are the dates correct for the 2005 Ramadan?

The dates do not look right for 2005. However, I am not a Muslim so I do not know for sure. Could a Muslim (or someone who knows for sure) check on that and correct it if necessary?

---

Dates for Ramadan - starts around Oct. 4, 2005 AbdurRahman -- http://www.Hilalplaza.com

WTF is backbiting?

roughly the same as backstabbing, if I remember right. --TomaydoDemato 17:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Backbiting might refer to Marv Albert.

Haha, but no to whoever made the last comment. The comment before that isn't quite right either. Backbiting is basically talking bad things about someone behind their back. That's not what backstabbing means. joturner 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to angry/sarcastic retorts.

WikiProject Holidays

You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Error in "Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan" ?

How come there are two days of "22nd" in Ramadan ? I assume it's an error. I don't know how to fix it as I don't understand the codes for the wikitable. Can someone fix it, please ? We need to get this fixed before Ramadan starts in 2 days. People may be searching for this page. Thanks. -- PFHLai 14:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramadan is about getting close to Allah, it is the 9th Islamic month. Muslims fast because to feel how poor people live. Muslims just eat before sunrise and after sunset. It is no harm for muslims to fast if they belive in Allah and his messenger.

fasting & water

I am curious about whether drinking water is permissible during the fasting period. If so, is there a restriction on the amount of water that can be drunk during this time? Thank you.

Drinking even a single drop of water (or any other thing) is not permissible during fasting.--Khalid! 17:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless you really need it. The Sick, elderly and infirm etc can go ahead, likewise children and ladies during that time. Aside from that it's a pure fast - No eating; No Drinking. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Unless you really need it" is not entirely correct. If the sick, elderly, or infirm do eat or drink even a drop of water, it still breaks their fast. It's just not a sin, since there's a valid reason. As now stated in the main article, they are required to make up for each day missed or feed a needy person for each day missed. joturner 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Timing and Moon Sighting controversy

This page has been getting a some reverts concerning whether a moon sighting is required for Muslims to consider the month to have begun. I understand that some Muslims feel it is necessary, but I would like to cite (pun intended) a couple of sources which show that not all Muslims are in accord. Consider: communities in Daytona [1], El Paso [2] and even in Qatar [3] celebrated on the 4th, although the new moon was not sighted until the 5th. On the other hand, some communities in South Asia [4] waited as long as until the 6th for a moon sighting (although politics was partly involved in this case).

It certainly is true that some places didn't rely on a physical sighting, but that doesn't make it right. However, starting a day early is not as bad as starting a day late. But, Ramadan officially starts for a locality when it sees the new moon, regardless of whether it really did occur the day before. If we were to rely on calculations to determine when a month started, the whole purpose of having a simple, universalized lunar calendar would be defeated. The hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) states "Fast when you see [the new moon] and break your fast when you see it." In addition, when Muhammad's son Ibrahim died under a solar eclipse (27-Jan-632 CE), it was noted that two days later (29-Jan-632 CE) would be the first of the following month. Given solar eclipses can only occur on the day of a new moon, that would provide evidence that new months only begin when the new, waxing crescent is physically sighted. joturner 21:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Some1 keeps deleting "disputed, see below". The reason i wrote in the 1st place was that it is disputed, almost half of the muslims dont even accept 4th Oct as the 1st day of ramadan. Im adding it again.--Khalid! 14:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the North American mosques that started on 4-October either, but the point is that the previous sentence says that those days are "estimated" and therefore it is implied that the dates are not exact. As for whether to put 4-October or 5-October, 4-October is more appropriate because there was indeed a new moon the night of 3-October. Although the calculated time of the new moon is irrelevant in deciding the first day of Ramadan, because some places, including Saudi Arabia, started Ramadan on 4-October and because a new moon did occur the night before, we should leave the disputed comment next to 4-October out and let the word 'estimated' speak for itself. I removed the word 'disputed', but comprimised with a general statement about disputes involving the start date of Ramadan. Instead of singling out 2005, it would probably be better to mention why disputes about the start of the month occur. joturner 16:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

: Regardless of the religious debate, Ramadan was celebrated as if it began on the 4th for many people who could not have seen the new moon. As an encyclopedia, I think it is important that we recognize the fact that both interpretations are actual definitions of the start of Ramadan for many people. I think that there should maybe be a sub-sub-section to the timing section which explains this, mentioning both the relevent hadith(s) and how things are done in different communities. I think, saying disputed, however, is unnecessary, as this is likely to re-occur often somewhere, and saying that the dates given are astronomical estimates should be sufficient. Smmurphy 16:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Calendar Table

I just deleted the "calendar" on the Ramadan page. Since I know some people are going to wonder why, I'll explain. The table looked like this:

Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan
01.	02.	03.	04.	05.	06.	07.
08.	09.	10.	11.	12.	13.	14.
15.	16.	17.	18.	19.	20.	21.
22.	23.	24.	25.	26.	27.	28.
29.	30.	Last Month		Next Month

In case you don't realize, this table provides very little information. It simply shows the integers from one to thirty in a table with seven columns; there is no correspondence between column and day of the week. "Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan" is an unnecessary descriptor. A title similar to "The Month of Ramadan" would have sufficed. And even then, that would have been redundant considering the article is entitled Ramadan. So "Calendar" would have been even better.

There are four links in the table. One is for 21 Ramadan, which actually has no significance in Islam. The second link is for Laylat al-Qadr, which is linked to in the first paragraph and several other places. In addition, by created a link from '27' to Laylat al-Qadr, it is implied that that is the definite date of that event. As explained in the first paragraph of the article (and in the Laylat al-Qadr article), that date is not fixed or certain. The remaining two links go to the next and previous month of the calendar. Those too are unnecessary considering there is a separate, more informative table later in the document that shows all twelve months of the Islamic calendar.

So, if anyone has a reason to put back the "Islamic Calendar" table, please post here. If someone could concur with me that would also be great. The table that used to be on the Ramadan page certainly had some potential, but as it was, it had no information to bring to the table. joturner 20:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the Muslim templates are pretty mediocre in general, and either do not give much information or are unsightly (or both). OTOH, it may be nice to include links to holidays and months together in one template (ie merge muslimholidays and muslim months templates) so that you quickly can see which days of the month are special enough to merit an article when you are in that month's page, and similar information when you are at a holiday. Smmurphy 21:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Ramadan or Ramadhan"

Ramadhan ... "dh" is ordinarily transliteration for the letter ذ, not ض, no?

The month is more commonly known as "Ramadan" in English, and that is why it is so named. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Err, I think the question is about whether the alternate spelling offered meets transliteration norms, i.e., "dh" is usually used to represent a letter which sounds like "th" in the word "the," also sometimes transliterated as a "z," hence the spelling "Ramadhan" -- with a "dh" transliteration rather than a "d" -- being the root of the frequency of use of the spelling/pronunciation "Ramazan." Or, "are we shooting for accuracy or just common usage." Unless, of course, I have that all backwards.  ;) --M. Landers 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Prohibitions

Masturbation is not permitted between dawn and dusk. I thought it was haraam period, and is never actually permitted. Yes? Marskell 13:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the masturbation reference upon consideration. It seemed to equate it with eating, drinking and sexual intercourse in general--i.e., acceptable when not fasting, only not acceptable when fasting. Marskell 00:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to have sexuality in Islam reflect that. --Striver 12:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The sexuality page says disliked but not haraam. I've seen other sources with the opposite: [5]. I think the trouble is the Qu'ran never explicitly mentions it, and the idea that it is haraam is inferred from general comments on keeping oneself chaste. Now (while admitting no special expertise whatsoever) I understand that inferences of this sort are discouraged and thus some scholars could be led to conclude masturbation is neither lawful nor unlawful. The following line I thought interesting: the lesser evil is to be suffered in order to fend off the major one, i.e., if it's a choice between masturbation and adultery the former is allowed [6]. I'll think over it some more and perhaps others have comments. Marskell 12:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Two in one

This article is in essence two articles in one, the month of Ramadan and its practices, and a article about Islamic fasting. This is not correct. In the same way as Laylat al-Qadr has its own article, so needs Islamic fasting/Sawm have its own article. A muslim is prescribed to fast during several other events such as breaking an oath or certain dates. Im going to fix that. --Striver 20:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So, done. I have not deleted any material, only re-organized and moved. Hope nobody objects. --Striver 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... The fasting section takes a unproportional big space in a article about a Islamic Month. I will set upp a separate article for it Islamic Fasting on the Islamic month of Ramadan, in the same way that we have Night of Destiny, Eid ul-Fitr and tarawih, all three only related to the month of Ramadan. --Striver 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I object, strongly, and have reverted the page to the pre-Striver version. Striver, you can't just post on the talk page, say "Any objections?", wait five minutes, and then proceed to a major reorganization. Zora 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what is the objection, the strong one? I hope you didnt revert just out of spite. --Striver 19:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No answer? So, you reverted for fun? Good job!--Striver 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fourth atempt of geting a argument from your side... im talkin, but not you... --Striver 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Gorramit, Striver, not everyone can spend ten hours a day on Wikipedia. You have to wait several DAYS before assuming that someone is not going to reply to you. You have a tendency to post something and if you don't get an answer immediately, assume that no one cares and you can go ahead. NO YOU CAN'T. SLOW DOWN.

The article on Ramadan seems to be somewhat compressed and confused, but your edits did not help. Ask someone who can write to work on the article, don't just blow it to smithereens. Zora 05:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So, you said that the previous version was no good? Ok, we agree on that.

But you have still not given any motivation for opposing my version. If you have a problem, then raise it so we can understand eachother, dont give sweeping condemnations.

Wikipedia is not a byrocracy, and you are not a wiki byrocrat, if you have a genuine complaint, i invite you to air it. --Striver 14:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is an undue imposition on readers to expect them to go to your "Islamic fasting" article to find out about Ramadan. When Muslims refer to Ramadan, they aren't refering to the month per se, they are referring to the whole cycle of fasting and festivities. So you get websites that say things like, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." That is, they conflate the month and the event. Yes, there's a logical difference, but the two things should be treated together. So you start with a section saying that "Ramadan is one of the months of the Islamic lunar calendar" and then you say, "All during Ramadan, Muslims fast during the day and feast at night ... etc. This special month-long fast is also called Ramadan". THEN you have a note saying that Ramadan is not the only occasion on which Muslims fast, just the main one ... and then you have the link to the Sawm article. That article can then have a more minute treatment of fasting, and a list of the special days and occasions upon which fasts are observed.

To get shapely articles, you are going to have to WRITE something. You can't just cut the Ramadan article up into chunks and spread it around. If you can't write -- which you can't, and you know it, Striver -- then you should leave the article alone and just put up your observations on the talk page, or ask another editor to help. Zora 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a long answer! I appreciate it, since now i can respond to your objections.

It is an undue imposition on readers to expect them to go to your "Islamic fasting" article to find out about Ramadan.

No its not. Its one click away. And they will get educated when learning the distinction between the two things.

When Muslims refer to Ramadan, they aren't refering to the month per se, they are referring to the whole cycle of fasting and festivities.

Yes, as you said: "whole cycle of fasting and festivities". They refer to the month and what it contains. You are repeating a missunderstanding that i try to enlight.

So you get websites that say things like, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." That is, they conflate the month and the event.

No Zora, first of all, web sites are not "scholarly", to use your favorite word when i bring forth web sites.

Secondly, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." does say nothing more than one should "be very careful" when "observing (the month of) Ramadan" that includs "the whole cycle of fasting and festivities" and activities. There is nothing in your quote that implies that it referes to only the fasting bit of the month and not to other things like the Night of Destiniy.

Thrid, they do not conflate the month and the event. As you said yourself, there is no single event, there are multiple events.

Fourth: Now that we are quoting websites, lets see. I made a google search on "Ramadan" and got this page as #1: [7]. It starts by saying:

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar. It is during this month that Muslims observe the Fast of Ramadan.

You see it? The article clearly distincts between "Ramadan" and "the Fast of Ramadan" That is exaclty what i have done, i have created Islamic fasting during Ramadan, which is going to explain what the site i quoted referes to as "the Fast of Ramadan". That article is from a Muslim pov, so i added "Islamic fasting during Ramadan" to disambiguite between random fasting and Islamic fasting.

Yes, there's a logical difference, but the two things should be treated together.

Christmass is alway in december, but you dont explain it on the december article. They should not be treated together. See december to understand how a month is supposed to be treated.

So you start with a section saying that "Ramadan is one of the months of the Islamic lunar calendar" and then you say, "All during Ramadan, Muslims fast during the day and feast at night ... etc. This special month-long fast is also called Ramadan".

Give me a source for that. That is false, as far as i know.

THEN you have a note saying that Ramadan is not the only occasion on which Muslims fast, just the main one ... and then you have the link to the Sawm article. That article can then have a more minute treatment of fasting, and a list of the special days and occasions upon which fasts are observed.

That would be like having the december article go "December is used to prepare for the "Christman holiday", This special preparation is aslo called December. Christians have other holidays, but this one is the main holiday".

To get shapely articles, you are going to have to WRITE something. You can't just cut the Ramadan article up into chunks and spread it around. If you can't write -- which you can't, and you know it, Striver -- then you should leave the article alone and just put up your observations on the talk page, or ask another editor to help. Zora 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, see December. "spread it around" is exaclty what you do. --Striver 23:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article did need to be split up, but you clearly have overdone it Striver. If I knew nothing about Ramadan (this is hypothetical of course), I would think Ramadan was just an ordinary month in the Islamic calendar. Clearly, it is far from ordinary. Although, as you have, Ramadan and fasting are not one and the same, they are very closely related. Would you suggest Striver simplifying the Mardi Gras article into one that simply states it's a celebratory day that happens the day before Ash Wednesday? Would you suggest cutting down the United States of America article in one that simply states its location, but links to pages about it's history, politics, etc? Clearly, both those propositions would be absurd. The reader should not have to go to a seperate page to learn about Islamic fasting. Despite not being synonymous, most people come to the Ramadan page not to learn where it occurs in the year but to learn about the Islamic practices during the month.

The article right now is inconsistent on provided that information. You have an section that explains the "chaining of the devils" concept. I'm sorry, but as important as that info may be (and it is), as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be providing information the readers are looking for. Again I'll reiterate; that's information about Islamic fasting during Ramadan. And so, if a good number agree, the Islamic fasting article should be merged with the Ramadan article. The statement about the distinction between Ramadan and sawm should be left, but it would be a crime to talk about Ramadan without mentioning it's most prevalent feature - the fasting. joturner 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)