This is a good topic someone put stuff on here we need help!!!!!!!!
I am doing a project for school. No worries. I will post my knowledge on this subject when I'm done with it. There will be a lot to learn.188.8.131.52 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Prof.Dekah
What is the point as it stands?
The article is now just an imprecise almost circular definition of what Islamic Literature might be. There is no history, no categorization, no source, no reference.
The article says "Islamic literature is a field that includes the study of modern and classical Arabic and the literature written in those languages."
1) "is a field that" is padding.
2) "includes" rather than "comprises" suggests there is more which the editor has deliberately or otherwise not revealed to us.
3) "the study of ..." is not an attribute of the literature. Study of some language is a prerequisite for some people for some languages but not, for example, for a native speaker of Egyptian reading or studying current Egyptian Islamic literature.
4) The article ignores that there is also non-Islamic Arab literature.
5) The article says "It also often includes other ..." I should have thought that it always included Islamic literature in any language.
6) "modern, classic or ancient" is padding as is "of any area".
7) Isn't including Hebrew without reference casting one's net upon snaggly rocks?
"Islamic Literature" is deserving of a Wikipedia entry but the present article is not encyclopedic and if anything demeans the subject. In that the first anonymous Talker and I agree, but the note To Wikiedia (sic) gives me to fear that a whole load of proud nonsense will arrive. There must be real scholars, Islamic or otherwise (not the kind who say "seed" for "seen") who could contribute.
8) Don't quibble about "Egyptian" or argue that Arabic has no P, so Wikiedia is OK.--SilasW 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)