From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Every Health benefit and Health concern needs to be from primary source such as medical journal based on true medical studies, trial and experiments or claims must be deleted[edit]

In medicine, we have to use primary source such as medical journal based on true medical studies, trials or experiments to make a health claim. If it is not backed by true medical studies, it should be deleted. Most of the medical benefit claims are from this Yahpp article: This is not a reliable source. I could not find some of the studies this article talked about. Tarikur (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Signalling a link to an unreliable external website[edit]

The currently uppermost external link Ramadan Dates Till 2022 claims to give dates for the begin of Ramadan from 2013 up to 2022. However, from 2016 onwards the same dates Wednesday 10 June or Thursday 11 July are given which is obviously wrong. Both dates should be a day apart, not a whole month, and they should also fall 10 or 11 days earlier in each successive year. The dates for 2013 are also clearly wrong.

I flagged this error yesterday but this note was removed by someone who obviously did not bother to check the facts. As this link will confuse readers who are not familiar with the Islamic lunar calendar I would strongly recommend its deletion or least flag it as unreliable. AstroLynx (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Debresser, you reverted an IP. However the information is not in the source cited. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it as an unexplained removal. I never said it was in that source. That source is for the sentence after that. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I do see at least the first half of the sentence in this source: Rodney Stark. One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism. 
I propose that the Origins section be removed. The section has had multiple issues including failed verification of sources, inappropriate sources for content, and neutrality problems. At this point, the section has but two brief paragraphs.
  • The first sentence says, "Ramadan is observed by Muslims to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief, and the fast rules were set to sunrise to sundown." The sentence is redundant with statements in previous section that are accurate, referenced and better worded. Ramadan is a month not a religious festival. What is observed during the month of Ramadan is the revelation of the Quran, that's adequately stated in In the Quran section.
  • The next sentence is an observation about the evolution of the Islamic calendar. However, this "article is about religious observances during the month of Ramadan," not the calendar month. "In the pre-Islamic calendar, the name of the month was Nātiq, and prior to Islam's prohibition of nasi', it always occurred in the warm season," is off-topic and contributes nothing to explain the origin of the religious observances during the month of Ramadan. NB: This off-topic statement was not removed from the article, rather discussion was called for by any editors who may wish to retain it. If the tag for discussion is to be removed, discussion is called for and some level of consensus must be established before removing the tag or the disputed sentence.
  • The statement relating Lent and Syrian churches," is imprecise and untrue on its surface. Ramadan, the month, does not come "from the strict Lenten discipline of the Syrian churches." Ramadan "comes" from the evolution of the Islamic calendar. Regardless of the reference, this statement as it stands has a fatal factual problem.
If the article is to have an Origins section, it must be on-topic, i.e., the evolution of and the rational behind the religious observances during the month of Ramadan, and from a neutral point-of-view. Mtd2006 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. The statement that according to Islam the Quran was given in the month of Ramadan is indeed in the previous section, but the connection between that event and the fast is not.
  2. The extra information about the calendar month gives some background, and I would not consider that off-topic.
  3. The statement about lent is well sourced and can not be removed, however dubious you may think it is. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
re 1: True, the previous section does not mention fasting, but the entire article is about religious practices, including fasting, during the month of Ramadan. Fasting does not explain or help to understand the "origin" of the month Ramadan, nor does simply stating the fact, here in a section that's supposed to explain the origin of the topic of the article, help to understand why Ramadan is observed by fasting. The sentence merely restates what the article is about which is covered extensively. Yes, there is a source, from the Quran, that supports the statement. However, the article lead alone mentions fasting no less than six times. This single statement in an Origins section adds nothing that a reader would not have clearly understood from the very beginning of the article.
re 2: But why do you feel a remark about the Islamic calendar is relevant? It's not. Here's an example. In an article about Christmas, one could state that the month of December was the tenth month of the old Roman calendar, and let's assume there's a reliable source that says so. An irrelevant statement about the Roman calendar adds nothing to the understating of Christmas unless there's context to make it relevant. The reference is an annotated verse from the Quran. The reason that there's a statement about the Islamic calendar in the annotation is to clarify and improve the reader's understanding of the Quran. The calendar footnote is not about fasting, nor does it explain the reason for fasting. There's nothing in the Origins section paragraph, that relates to the Islamic calendar. The calendar remark adds no context other than what it is — a footnote to a annotated verse of the Quran. This article is not about a verse from the Quran, so there's no relevance to explaining the verse by repeating a footnote from the reference.
re 3: I did not tag the third statement as dubious; another editor did. I stated that the third statement is factually incorrect, despite the reference. We have here one sentence, supported by a single source, that asserts a cause-and-effect relationship between religious practices during Lent (a winter event) by Syrian churches, and the practice of fasting during Ramadan, during a summer month by Muslims. Therefore, yes, I agree with the other editor. The connection is dubious in the extreme. This is a another example of the problem of context. The reference may be accurately quoted when it says "from the strict Lenten discipline of the Syrian churches." But an editor wrote, "Ramadan comes 'from the strict Lenten discipline of the Syrian churches.'" Ramadan does not. Ramadan is a month. The statement makes no logical sense. Something about what the editor wrote (in a single sentence) is out of context. Mtd2006 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. The article is about fasting, but the connection between the month and the fasting needs to be made explicit. By the way, for this same reason I think this sentence and its source should be moved to the lead.
  2. You have convinced me. Not that I think it is not good to have it, but at least in so far as to not oppose its removal.
  3. The source is good, and even though already 2 editors think it is dubious, that is precisely why there are policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, ruling that good sources can not be removed.
One of the reasons I am a bit more alert on this article, is because this article is constantly prone to attempts by Islamic people to add statements with a religious POV or, remove anything that goes against such religious POV. One of the aspects of this article that is under regular attack are alleged non-Islamic origins of the Ramadan, which, according to such POV editors would diminuate Islam. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the sentence about fasting during Ramadan: The Al Islam citation is an annotated verse from the Quran. The verse and its various translations were discussed about three years ago. The translation from the Al Islam web site reads:
The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was revealed as a guidance for mankind with clear proofs of guidance and discrimination. Therefore, whosoever of you is at home in this month let him fast therein. But whoso is temporarily sick or on a journey, shall fast the same number of days.
In the Ramadan#In the Quran section, there is this quote from the Quran from the University of Southern California (USC), Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement web site:
The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days.
The sentence from the Origins section says, "Ramadan is observed by Muslims to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief, and the fast rules were set to sunrise to sundown." The sentence is supported either citation up to word "belief." Neither citation supports the statement "the fast rules were set to sunrise to sundown." I don't have a problem including the "fast rules" remark because it's commonly accepted as fact, but it's not in either citation.
Which is the better reference, Al Islam or USC? The Al Islam citation and the USC citation would seem to be alternative translations of the same verse of the Quran. Al Islam is academic in that it includes annotations that clarify the verse; however, it is non-secular, and moreover, especially considering note 207B, the Al Islam version is not balanced. It favors a strong, non-neutral point of view specific to Islam. The USC citation is academic, sectarian, and neutral about the religious significance of the verse. I suggest the USC citation is preferable.
What should be done with the sentence? To me, the translated verse says everything that's needed to establish that fasting during Ramadan is a Islamic religious practice. The sentence expands the reference, but adds a comment that neither reference supports. If the article is to retain the sentence, it belongs with the verse in the "In the Quran" section.
The citation in the "In the Quran" section should be converted from an in-line link to a proper citation to the University of Southern California, Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement web site. This adds credibility to the article by highlighting information from a secular academic source. I've looked briefly at the USC site. It's mission is "... to promote dialogue, understanding and grassroots, congregational and academic partnerships among the oldest and the newest of the Abrahamic faiths while generating a contemporary understanding in this understudied area and creating new tools for interfaith communities locally, nationally and beyond." It's supported by the Center for Religion and Civic Culture at the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. Mtd2006 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This [1] revision that moves a sentence to the lead and renames the Origins section does not resolve the problems we're discussing. See New pre-Islamic section lacks consensus below. Two editors agree to remove the section in its entirety. The revision should be removed until the Origins sections problems are fully discussed, which I will do unless someone objects. Mtd2006 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the Origins section and its contents[edit]

My remarks here apply to this discussion but also to the intertwined Ramadans Alleged Pagan Origins section which has wandered off-topic into wider problems that belong here.

I joined this discussion for one reason. I reviewed the Origins section and found serious problems with every statement relating to neutrality, fringe theory (undue weight and insufficient context), and relevance. Each simple statement supported by a single reference should ring alarm bells — especially when they contradict broadly supported scholarship in an article. I found Fauzan's remark, "I think that section should be removed," and I agreed. Fauzan convinced me that the Origins section has serious problems (not just the name, everything in it), and that it should be removed.

As I interpret Frazan's comments, he is focused on the overall disconnects between the topic of the article and the statements that have accumulated in the section. When he said a single sentence can convey undue weight, I tried to support him by citing fringe theory and the lack of proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints. The same rationale is the essence of the troublesome statements that have already been edited out of the section, sentence-by-sentence, reference-by-reference. The discussion has been spirited, but may have been less involved if we'd discussed Frazan's initial suggestion.

Other than my knowledge the Islamic calendar, and calendars in general, I know almost nothing about this topic. I must do significant outside research in order to contribute meaningfully (I suspect the same applies to others as well). It takes a while to understand the issues involved, so please allow time for contributors to come up to speed.

I will add this additional point as something I've noticed. The topics that have appeared in the Origins section seem be related in that they introduce issues normally connected to comparative religion. Comparative religion involves intricate theological, ethical, religious and philosophical scholarship that cannot be fully justified with a simple statement and a reference. There's a unreferenced sentence in the In the Quran section that summarizes the disconnect between various fasting traditions such as the origins mentioned in the Origins section.

According to the Quran, fasting was also obligatory for prior nations of Islamic prophets and it should be noted that even the pagans of Arabia used to observe fasting prior to Islamic tradition.

NB: I have a problem with that sentence as well, (I suspect that the pagans of Arabian continued to observe fasting even after Islamic tradition; they didn't suddenly stop), but one problem at a time. I'd like to settle the Origins issue before moving on to lead clutter (which is the basis of my objection to extending the lead), etc. Mtd2006 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that sentence can not stay without a source. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ramadans Alleged Pagan Origins.[edit]

No source I've ever seen as a Religious Scholar say Ramadan was originally Pagan. This article had two citations that said it was, and one of them I own, and it doesn't say this at all. It doesn't even discuss Ramadan on its page. I doubt the veracity of the second link. This information needs not be removed unless it can be proven. Why is Wikipedia saying Ramadan was originally Pagan when there's no real evidence for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that section should be removed. The first and fourth paragraph fails to present a NPOV. A search for "pagan origins of Ramadan" returns blogs, forums and hate sites. The second paragraph is out of context. The third doesn't talk about the origins of the month. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The "originally a pagan festival" text and its references was added by NicklasBaran in Revision 615605426 on 4 July 2014 after the Origins section was added on 3 June 2014. I suggest NicklasBaran may help to resolve the confusion about the references he cited.
For a different perspective, there's a discussion of the problem with the claim about pagan origins at Quora: Origins of Ramadan. The discussion asserts that Ramadan is a month, not a festival, and that fasting during a sacred month is an ancient practice, not necessarily pagan in origin. It seems illogical to describe a calendar month as pagan.
I suggest that saying the custom of fasting is pagan in origin is debatable, and therefore stating that the month of Ramadan was "originally a pagan festival" requires powerful evidence. At best one might say that "the practice of fasting during Ramadan was of pagan origin," but that's much different than saying "Ramadan was originally a pagan festival...."
Without a clear reference that ties fasting during Ramadan to a pagan tradition somehow related to Islam, reverting to the 3 June 2014 Origins section or removing it entirely are the most defensible alternatives. Mtd2006 (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I checked the 2nd source and didn't find any positive claims about the origins of Ramadan. There is a brief discussion about the fasts of the Harranians (pp. 166-8), including a month-long fast. But during this fast "only meat is forbidden" (p.168, note 405). The source briefly notes that Ibn Hazm linked this fast with Ramadan, but it describes this claim as "completely wrong." (p.168, note 403) It is worth noting that Ibn Hazm connected the Sabians to Prophet Ibrahim, and spoke of them as praying 5 times a day and facing the Ka'aba, etc. Wiqi(55) 10:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiqi55, could you please be more specific about what it said and not said in the source? I am referring to these edits of your.[2][3] Also, which source did you mean of the 3 mentioned in that edit (Aby Zaand, Ibn Qutaybah, Sinasi Gunduz)? Debresser (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I meant Sinasi Gunduz (1994), The Knowledge of Life. A preview of this book can be found on Amazon. Wiqi(55) 12:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Search results are avaiable only for logged in users who have made a previous purchase. I did see that the claim is there, referenced to both Ibn Hazm and the other 2 that you removed. Even though the source disagrees, that does not mean those 3 don't have that point of view, and it is therefore sourced reliably now. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ibn Hazm considered the Sabians as Hanifs (followers of Prophet Ibrahim), therefore his claim isn't about the pagan or secular origins of Ramadan. The other two names did not mention Ramadan at all. We can't cite random practices of ancient people unless the connection to Ramadan is more explicit in the source (see wp:synth). Wiqi(55) 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding the origin of Ramadan being linked to the lent, most online source only compare but not state the link of Ramadan with the lent. Also, the Day of Ashura is unrelated to Ramadan, so I guess both of the things should be removed. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 11:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
After considering this again, I agree with you regarding the Ashura and will restore your removal of that paragraph. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding lent. If you can show that other sources disagree with the present source, then you can remove it. If you want to add a {{Dubious}} tag to it, with some |reason= parameter, then that is also fine. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessary to find other sources that disagree with the present source. The Lent assertion is a single sentence, which references a single source, that contradicts the rest of the entire article, the citations of the Quran, and other scholarly material cited in the article that states that Muslims are commanded to fast during Ramadan in remembrance of the revelation of the Quran. If a reader is to accept the Lent origin of fasting during Ramadan, there must be a significant number of reliable references to overcome the rest of the article. The lead of the Origins section cites one such Quran verse that states the reason for fasting during Ramadan. If there are sources that disagree, a single sentence and a single source are insufficient to justify an alternative origin. The cause-and-effect assertion that the origin of Muslim fasting during Ramadan is based on Syrian churches' observance of Lent is an extraordinary claim that requires copious explanation and multiple reliable sources. I agree with Fauzan, the sentence should be removed. -Mtd2006 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The main problem with the statement is that it provides undue weight to the theory. Unless we find more sources to back up the claim, it does not belong in the article. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 04:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Mtd2006, there is nothing in the rest of the article that says "Ramadan is not connected to Lent". Nobody denies the Quranic command, but also nobody denies that that command may have been based on earlier traditions.
Fauzan, a short sentence is hardly undue weight.
May I also remind everybody here that Wikipedia is not censored. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The Syrian churches' Lent observances versus Muslim religious practices during Ramadan is not about censoring offensive or objectionable material; that is a non-issue. Mtd2006 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
A statement which is presented as a significant view is undue weight. That complete section (as of now) has two paragraphs. The first one is a bit vague, whether the Mandaean community practiced the Islamic month or was it a pagan month. The date of 747 CE IMO implies it practiced the Islamic month. So no reason to present it as some kind of "origin". That leaves Philip Jenkins, on which the section relevance hangs on. Now this is serious undue weight. It is better to do away with the origin section completely, unless we can find more mainstream sources discussing the topic. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Fauzan. The single-sentence assertion about Lent does give undue weight to the idea it advances. The statement about the Mandaean community is in the same category. The undue weight problem is explained in fringe theories which says:
Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. ...
Single sentences supported by a single reference should ring alarm bells when the sentence contradicts broadly supported scholarship in an article. Let's assume a reference is valid in that it supports the sentence. The single, brief sentence, however, does not adequately represent the viewpoint. The sentence by itself leaves too many unanswered questions about the validity of the viewpoint and does not present a neutral point of view. When a minority viewpoint is presented, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. Including the single vague sentence conveys undue weight because it is not supported by scholarship and does not provide the necessary context.
The Options section is a collection of fringe theories that do not provide the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints. Recently, the "pagan festivals" claim, the "Ashura-Ramadan" connection, and the sentence about the old pre-Islamic name of Ramadan have failed verification or relevance. In each case, minority viewpoints were asserted, but the viewpoints were without proper context, insufficiently developed, or the statement was contradicted by a supposedly good reference. A good reference is one that supports a statement. A perfectly valid reference that does not support a statement is a bad reference, not because it is not a valid reference, but because is improperly cited. I reassert my suggestion that the Origins section be removed. Mtd2006 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
See the section below for my opinion about all this, in as far as it is not general observations and theories, but specific to this article. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Pre-Islamic does not necessarily equate to "pagan". Egyptian religion is commonly called Egyptian religion. Mesopotamian religion is commonly called Mesopotamian religion. The use of "pagan", unless a group has a preference for the use of this term, I suspect either directly or indirectly involves its own, POV. If there is reasonable evidence of a topic such as Ramadan having a pre-Islamic origin then very certainly this is of note. We cannot allow any genuine history to be destroyed or undermined. GregKaye 16:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

New pre-Islamic section lacks consensus[edit]

I strongly disagree with the changes made at [4]. The problems with the Origins section are under active discussion. Several editors have commented. Before we accept a change that an editor hopes correctly represents the suggestions and consensus on the talkpage, the change should be proposed on the talkpage, and other editors should be allowed time to accept or reject the proposal. The reference that now supports the added lead statement, "and is observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief" is dead and it is not an authoritative citation. One authoritative reference (Chapter 2, Revelation 185, of the Quran) to establish the connection between fasting during Ramadan is in the Ramadan#In the Quran section. If this statement is to be retained, it belongs with its authoritative reference, not with a dead link to a fluff news story that observes Muslims worldwide start to observe Ramadan. Renaming the Origins section is premature because it disconnects the Origins discussion on the talkpage from the article before the problems with the Origins section are resolved. This revision should be removed. Mtd2006 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the editor who made these changes, I'd like to say the following.
  1. I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the sentence "and is observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad according to Islamic belief" is incorrect. If the only objection is the source, please add a better one.
  2. The "Origins" section was renamed "Pre-Islamic origins" because that is what the section is indeed about, since the Islamic origins are already specified in the lead. Moreover, the "problems with the Origins section" are not related to the section title, rather to the question whether we should have this section at all. That is another issue. If you have any objections to the present changed section title, please let me hear them. I think it was a good edit, and are surprised to hear you disagree. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The revision you made attempts to have it your way before the Origins discussion is complete. The revision distributes the problem in one section under discussion to the lead and to a renamed section. Moving the disputed statements around doesn't solve the problem, it only makes a bigger mess!
  • I do object to the sentence you've moved to the lead and I've said so.
  • Two editors want to remove the Origins section entirely. Renaming the section only shuffles the deck chairs, but does not address the issue, and you are right, problems with the Origins section are not related to the section title, rather to the question whether we should have this section at all, but equally importantly whether the contents of the Origins section should be removed in their entirety. Let's follow policy. As you've told another editor, this is not the way to do it. Quoting,
If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives.
Would prefer that I do a good faith revert, or will you allow that there's more work to be done. I strongly suggest that if you have specific suggestions, propose them on the talkpage, allow others to comment and when we have something that's agreeable, then revise the article. Mtd2006 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I am on the talkpage, and the issues were discussed extensively before my edit, and I still think my edit reflects consensus, even though after the fact you deny such. In any case, please do not try to make it look as though I suddenly made a disputable edit out of the blue.
Well, it is a good think you suddenly remember about WP:STATUSQUO. When I invoked WP:BRD, which is essentially the same idea, you started to edit war...
As to the claim that I disturbed the status quo: I think my edit did not change any status quo, since all it does is merge a sentence from one section into another, and an obvious rename of a section which you do not oppose at all apart from procedural objections.
You can't remove a section with a sourced statement just because you and another editor doubt it or don't like it. The source is reliable, and the statement is not contradicted by anything else in this article. Obviously, Islam will not bring pre-Islamic customs as such, from which you infer that the statement in case "contradicts" the rest of the article, as you put it. However, this "contradiction" is 1. only implied 2. to be expected and has therefore no value as proof for anything.
I'd like to ask you to stop hammering on my good-faith attempt to improve this article according to what I perceive as the consensus on this page, as though I am trying to own this article or to push through my opinion, because I can say the same about you, but that will not get us anywhere. Likewise please stop using peacock terms like claims that my edit made a "bigger mess". As a matter of fact, by removing a sentence from the Origins section, I brought us a step closer to emptying that section, which is after all your stated goal, so you should thank me for helping you. It would also be helpful if you'd write to the point, instead of discussing Wikipedia guidelines in general. It seems you are trying to fisguise the fact that you have no arguments, or no new arguments in any case. In short, please stop wasting ink on wikilawering. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for pre-Islamic Ramadan[edit]

I did a search in scholar on "pre-Islamic" Ramadan (other search phrasings may be used).

The second result (the first I looked at) was Biblical Mullahs: Discovering True Islam Behind The Myths with the text "During Ramadan, Pagan Arabs used to abstain from food, water, sexual contact etc. Muslims practice the same Pagan Ramadan rituals." Feel free to check for more references perhaps also in locations such as "books". GregKaye 16:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with having a "pre-Islamic Ramadan" section. Fasting is a practice that is as old as the human species and has been practiced religiously for just as long. non-Islamic fasting belongs in fasting and other articles besides this one. This article should only be able Islamic fasting, but can have see also links at the bottom to others, as appropriate.Scientus (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
We are meant to be presenting an encyclopedia and both origins and contexts matter. There are clearly plenty of sources that cover this issue. Please understand that WP:Wikipedia is not censored. We have to present encyclopedic coverage of the topic. GregKaye 10:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with GregKaye that pre-Islamic origins of the Ramadan are relevant to this article. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the Syrian connection seems dubious to me.Scientus (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is in need of academic sources regarding pre-Islamic Arab fasting practices (though, not necessarily antimuslimist ones). Khestwol (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That source that Greg posted I can't seem to read, and what is the history of the Muslim calender?Scientus (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The description of the book GregKaye cites is "The theme of this book is that the Muslims are embroiled in insanity because they do not obey the literal Koran. The Muslims are far removed from their own Koran. This book will show that there is not one thing the Muslim does everyday in the name of his religion which can be traced back to the Koran. The Muslims have become raving mobs and gargantuan failures in life because they have abandoned the Koran. And in the process the Muslims have also become rejectors. In Arabic the word for ‘rejector’ is ‘kafir’ i.e. one who opposes." How is this scholarship? Ogress smash! 03:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the section currently until we discuss here. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 01:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Uhh, that isnt anywhere close to a reliable source. What is Abu Hurairah Mythmaker Publications? Just being in google books doesnt make something a reliable source. nableezy - 03:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Giving a full section to the pre Islamic thing is not proper due weight. We can merge it with the section above it and rename "In the Quran" to something like "History" which makes more sense given the content of the section. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I found this (p. 127), which is quite useful. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
And I think a small section is the perfect weight for pre-Islamic sources of the Ramadan. You have no argument other than that is the way I fell about it. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Name in the lede sentence[edit]

A single foreign language name is enough. The name comes from Arabic: رمضان‎‎‎ Ramaḍān. As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Foreign_language: If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. In our case Arabic name is enough. The Urdu, Persian, Turkish and Indonesian names use merely close phonetic variation of the same name anyway so I am removing them. Khestwol (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, stop restoring your edit until such time as you establish consensus.
I for one think that we should have all alternatives. The fact that they look more or less alike doesn't mean a thing, because they are still different. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What is it with this article that every editor who is reverted thinks he needs to undo those reverts and start an edit war? Is this the new fashion or something? No respect for consensus any more in this time and age? Debresser (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the reason behind keeping all the names and cluttering up. All are more or less the same, and anyone interested in finding about it in other languages can do so by navigating to the respective language article. If it found necessary to include the names, then per WP:Alternative title, include it under a dedicated section. Still I find it trivial to include it in the lead. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it is only like Ramaḍān or Ramadan I agree, because those are at least the same letters in English (which is the language of this Wikipedia). But Ramazan and even more so Ramzān are already spelled with different letters, so should really be mentioned. Only two alternative forms is not considered "cluttering up" yet. If keeping those two forms would be acceptable to all, then that could be a reasonable compromise. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way, the simple English Wikipedia lists (only) Ramadhan as an alternative spelling, but for some reason that alternative is absent here. Anybody knows why? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The arabic letter "ض" has a particular correct pronunciation, best transliterated as "ḍ". It is heavy "du" sound made by touching the tongue to the molars. (See Romanization of Arabic#Comparison table.) However different cultures pronounce ض as "d", "z", sometimes "dh" and most commonly "ḍ". And then languages like Turkish and Indonesian use the Roman script, which does not have a substitute for "ض". That is the reason behind the different transliterations. My suggestion:

Ramadan (/ˌræməˈdɑːn/; Arabic: رمضان‎ Ramaḍān, IPA: [rɑmɑˈdˤɑːn]; also tanslteraed as Ramadhan, Ramzan and Ramzan) is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar

--Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 22:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make the edit, I'm perfectly happy with your proposal. Debresser (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Health section[edit]

The health section was removed by with the edit summary, "(Removed extremely dubiously sourced claims of health benefits and accompanying lifestyle blog that made vague reference to, "a study conducted by scientists in America".)" However, at least one of those sources was the National Health Service. I agree that most information out there claiming health benefits is dubious, but we can't remove a reliable source like that. Ogress smash! 08:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Hello! These are scientific claims abut serious conditions, and the sourcing for them should be much higher than some lifestyle blogs. Unless there is a scientifically accepted and high quality sources for them, we are at risk of misleading readers and cause serious damage. It is better we err on the side of caution and remove them. Darwinian Ape talk 04:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Darwinian Ape Um... "lifestyle blogs"? It's the National Health Service. That's not a "lifestyle blog". Ogress smash! 04:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes there is that source, but I don't think National health service source quotes any scientific study to prove any of the claims, it's more like a general opinion piece. I examined the claims where NHS cited as a source below:
  • "improved brain function and alertness due to greater brain cell" production": Can't see anything about this in that article.
  • "Weight loss due to the use of fat for energy while preserving muscle;": Okay, it is obvious that if you don't eat you would loose weight, but that's qualified in the article by noting: "With a prolonged fast of many days or weeks, the body starts using protein for energy."
  • better control of diabetes: This claim listed as a result of losing weight,(which by the way I don't think there is any proof of losing weight by fasting, especially Ramadan fasting is so counterproductive about that:) ) if you have diabetes and already thin you don't gain better control, in fact you may die while fasting...
  • reduced blood pressure; Again result of weight loss not fasting.

These claims are about health issues and unless we can find reliable scientific sources that confirms them, we must avoid adding them to the article. I know it's idiotic to get health advice from Wikipedia, but there are people who would think these as substantiated claims and we might do harm. Darwinian Ape talk 04:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Darwinian Ape Without taking a stand on the issue itself, do not remove a section without prior and clear consensus. This article is vandalism and edit-warring prone as it is, and prior and clear are necessary requisites to consensus. Debresser (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser:, hi! Excuse my eagerness on the issue, I was following another WP policy, WP:BOLD. And I did explain my reasons for removing that subsection. Similarly, It would be nice not to restore it and discuss it here. Especially since the mentioned change is, as I mentioned, not substantiated with scientific studies. I am not trying to start an edit war, I have no intention of starting an edit war, but since you did not specify why you are against my edit other than telling me to discuss here first(which I kinda did.) you should revert it yourself or explain why do you think this needs to stay in the article. From what I can see those claims are opinions at best and WP:FRINGE at worst.Darwinian Ape talk 17:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: for health section:benefits to be removed | RFC closed[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
RFC was withdrawn by the prosper. Simply archiving it. AlbinoFerret 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has replied to this for a while I assume this article is not on many people's watch list, or they have nothing to say/have no time to say. So I request an RFC to resolve this issue. Do you think unsubstantiated Medical claims should be repeated in Wikipedia with poor sourcing? Furthermore, I checked those claims and so far did not find any scientific source to back them up. Darwinian Ape talk 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Are u the IP that was disruptively blanking the content a while ago? why do you want it removed? Khestwol (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I am not. I explained my reasons for removing the claims in the discussion above. I assume that discussion was opened because of the IP user you mentioned? Darwinian Apetalk 15:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not saying I completely agree with his conclusion, but I do think Darwinian Ape has a point. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, the info has relevance with fasting practices. Though we can add reliable secondary sources and write it as per cited sources. Khestwol (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment, Forgive me, but I couldn't make that connection, would you like to explain how that information has any relevance with fasting practices, and even if it is, how is it helpful for an encyclopedia to repeat scientifically dubious claims about health issues? This is not a question of belief, our article claims there are health benefits of fasting, if those claims are not scientifically proven, we can't say they are true. I would be willing to leave them if the wording suggested it was just a belief of Muslims and didn't claim them as scientifically accurate. Darwinian Ape talk 17:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Users are always welcome to find more sources to add to the content and expand the section, and write it more neutrally and encyclopedically, but section blanking just because you WP:DONTLIKEIT will not likely work as a solution. Khestwol (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I definitely am not saying "I don't like it" as per my comments, you did not really address them by the way. I would be completely OK with the sourcing if these were not medical claims. I did make a research and couldn't find any study to support any of the claims made here. So the burden of proof is on the users who would like to keep them in the article. This section, as it is right now is bordering on WP:FRINGE Darwinian Ape talk 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Khestwol: I came here when DA seemed to blank (see above), then I looked at it and it's all hearsay/nanny suggestions. Literally the only concern I have was NHS as a RS. Then I read the source... it's an anaesthetist talking about things. He's not "blanking", he's removing OR, bad citations. I'm not saying we should ban health sections on Ramadan, but there's not anything there now that is reliably sourced as far as I noticed. It's just the usual things Wide-Eye Auntie sends around in a chain email that makes you facepalm, only this time of year, it's about Ramadan. Ogress smash! 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would like to apologize If my edit came off as "blanking" I thought I explained my reasons for removing that content, and frankly did not expect this to be a controversial edit. I never remove content without looking at the sources, even if I know the sources are not reliable, unless there is a BLP issue. So again, sorry if I didn't quite clarify my edit. Darwinian Ape talk 20:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Effects of Ramadan on health is a well discussed topic. Sources can be definitely improved, and WP:TNT is not a viable alternative. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't argue a complete rewrite, benefits section is poorly sourced and that should be removed or reworded, other parts of the health section I'm not that concerned and sourcing is much better. Darwinian Ape talk 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - with strong comment about current content: The information in that section is terribly sourced and makes extravagant claims about the alleged "health benefits" of not eating for half the day during Ramadan. I only objected to the removal of NHS as a link because, well, they're the NHS. However, upon examination, it's actually not a very reliable source. I would agree that to date, I have not seen any reliable sourcing on this matter at any location I've ever encountered it. (I'm a Muslima, so I've heard this stuff endlessly and it's always "Sheikh Internet" [i.e. some bossy yet clueless dude with {{CN}} floating next to his head] telling us how Ramadan is magic and also usually something sexist about my life to cap it off.) The article is by an anaesthetist, which isn't what we'd like to see. So if we keep it as-is, it might not have any content. Basically, I'm not saying we should ban health sections on Ramadan, but there's not anything there now that is reliably sourced as far as I noticed. Ogress smash! 18:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, Fauzan, Khestwol, Debresser. I have found two possible sources while I was looking for a source for weight loss as a "benefit" of fasting, since that was, what I thought, the only claim that might hold water.(and the claims of our kinda RS was solely depending on) Not surprisingly though, both studies are contradictory with our article, one saying it actually causes weight gain[[5]], and the other article[[6]] reports no significant change(approx 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of weight loss over 4 weeks, quickly regained.) In light of these new reliable sources (one is the "Nutrition Journal" (IF:2.6), and the other is "journal of public health, oxford journals") I believe our only semi reliable Anesthesiologist's claims about loosing weight and helping diabetes is completely baseless. And right now removal of that content is fully justified, in fact necessary.

  • Proposal: Removal of the benefit subsection, and adding a new subsection called Weight change to include material from these two sources.(possibly more) I will work on the wording for this section and post here for review.

PS: This was really too much red tape for what I thought was a clear cut removal.:) I would like to fix this section and move on reasonably soon, so I'm hoping for your prompt response. Darwinian Ape talk 22:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Strong Oppose section name change. As for the 2 sources DarwinianApe proposes, I agree with adding the second one, which confirms the weight loss argument. I think though his first source should not be included as its only mentioning Saudis, a nationally who represent merely ~2 % of all the Muslims fasting, and Saudis are known to have extremely disproportionately high obesity rates as compared to the rest of the ~980 million non-Saudi Muslims who normally fast this month. Roughly 70% of Saudis are obese according to studies. So including Saudi population and ignoring all other nationalities explicitly would not hold a WP:DUE weight, let alone claiming Saudis as representative of general fasting Muslim population. The conclusion of the first source begin with In contradiction to what is logically expected after a month of fasting and to what was reported in literature, it is found in this study that weight gain and not weight loss was likely to happen after Ramadan by Saudis living in Jeddah... so its words makes it clear its talking about an extreme trend, not a normality. If that source is to be added then studies about other nationalities must also be added for neutral comparison. Otherwise, just the second source seems enough. Khestwol (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You should not strong oppose to the removal of fringe science though. And The source I cited doesn't confirm a significant weight loss that can have an impact of the magnitude suggested in our article, in fact those extravagant claims have no substantiations in reliable sources. Please do not make your own conclusions, it's becoming WP:OR As for the other source, studies like these are usually not multinational, but I see your point perhaps we can find other studies to balance that, or not include it at all. I believe my first draft is neutral enough about that source though. Darwinian Ape talk 23:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: even if we count the weight loss as a benefit, it would make a short list so it is logical to list all health issues in one section without dividing them as benefits and concerns. Darwinian Ape talk 00:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to change the section name. Health benefits is fine. This isn't about weight loss, it's about a lack of RS. Until we've got RS there's no cause to make a special section on weight loss, which is a subset of health. Ogress smash! 00:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't quite understand that. Do you mean that weight loss is a health benefit that we don't have any RS about? What I am saying is even if we say that the weight loss is a health benefit, it would be the only benefit listed in the section. So, my question is why are we dividing "health issues" section into two: benefits and concerns. It doesn't seem necessary. you should check out how our article lists concerns one by one, we can add weight change as such. What I'm proposing is remove the concern and benefit distinction and list all health issues in one undivided section. you can check it in my sandbox to see what I mean. Darwinian Ape talk 01:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You know, it just occurred to me that we are, probably because we live in an affluent society and obesity is a big problem, assuming weight loss as beneficial on its own. Although there is no study that would suggest that Ramadan fasting causes significant weight loss, we can't claim weight loss itself to be a net benefit. Think of people in Africa where they suffer starvation. The Saudi study is an example of how in an affluent society fasting can be resulted in gaining weight, It would be a nice comparison to find a study in a poor society. It would also eliminate the possible undue problems since both would serve a purpose of showing how fasting effects health in extreme ends. I will look for such a study. Darwinian Ape talk 01:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
comment: Okay, I felt like this talk page was becoming a monologue, so I decided to give it a go to see what happens. 5 minutes later it was reverted by Khestwol. The changes I believe are necessary since they are removing WP:OR and WP:FRINGE information, as well as adding scientifically backed content, I fear some editors are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I am starting to feel like there is a preferred POV here that is being protected. If the editors are so keen to keep the current claims, they should find reliable scientific sources, and they can always add the content if and when they can find them. Darwinian Ape talk 21:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First Draft for Weight change Health section improvement:[edit]

Weight change
There are several studies on the weight change during Ramadan. One study concludes that the observers of Ramadan lose on average about a kilogram of weight over 4 weeks, and the lost weight is quickly regained.[1] Another study, conducted among Saudi families in Western Saudi Arabia, notes a self reported weight gain.[2] This may be a result of a local pattern of increased expenditure on food consumption, dietary habits during Ramadan.[2] Also I think we should add the conclusion of this article to the top of health issues section; [[7]] "Although Ramadan fasting is safe for all healthy individuals, those with various diseases should consult their physicians and follow scientific recommendations." Darwinian Ape talk 23:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

After I asked their assistance, An editor from WikiProject Medicine deleted considerable part of health section and my proposal is now obsolete. I asked the same user's opinion on this change since the health section is now a bit empty, any opinions?

There are some health issues involving Ramadan fasting. It has been suggested that although Ramadan fasting is safe for all healthy individuals, those with various diseases should consult their physicians and follow scientific recommendations.[3] Fasting on Ramadan may cause a change in weight. One study concludes that the observers of Ramadan lose on average about a kilogram of weight over 4 weeks, and the lost weight is quickly regained.[1]

  1. ^ a b Hajek, Peter; Myers, Katie; Dhanji, Al-Rehan; West, Oliver; McRobbie, Hayden (November 13, 2011). "Weight change during and after Ramadan fasting". Oxford Journals: Journal of Public Health. 34 (3): 377–381. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr087. Retrieved 27 June 2015.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Journal_of_Public_health" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Bakhotmah, Balkees Abed (10 August 2011). "The puzzle of self-reported weight gain in a month of fasting (Ramadan) among a cohort of Saudi families in Jeddah, Western Saudi Arabia". Nutrition Journal (A total of 173 Saudi families were interviewed. One out of 5 indicated that their expenditure increases during Ramadan.). Retrieved 27 June 2015. 
  3. ^ Azizi, Fereidoun. "Islamic Fasting and Health". Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 54 (4). doi:10.1159/000295848. Retrieved 28 June 2015. 

Darwinian Ape talk 23:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes the issue seems resolved. With regards to expansion of the section, other than the Saudi source I have no problems with adding the rest of the two sources quoted here. Khestwol (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I left out the Saudi study in my revised proposal. The sources are from respected scientific journals so I believe we met the WP:HEALTHRS but I asked that editor for his opinion on his talk page to be on the safe side.(He removed much more than I expected, I guess medical RSs need more care than I previously thought.) Anyway I will add them now, he/she can remove if he/she deems necessary. Darwinian Ape talk 00:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support changes proposed above. The article currently contains a claim about increased alertness, which should be removed. The section will necessarily be short because the standard for information that can be included is high and research on the topic involves many factors that can't be separated from each other. (Ramadan fasting and halal diet go together, for example.) If there is a need to expand it, it would be acceptable to add information about what happens to the body during fasting for periods of time similar to the Ramadan fast — lower triglycerides in the evening, for example. However, no speculation should be made on what effects those changes might have. Roches (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


I've made some changes. The NHS-sourced stuff about "alertness" should probably come out since it appears to be the opinion of one guy. While in general there is a lot of medical material published on Ramadan fasting, most of it is of poor quality and fails WP:MEDRS. What we need are secondary sources (e.g. reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses in reputable journals): at a minimum I suggest any journal source should be MEDLINE indexed as a mark of quality. WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information, not just health end-results. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the rfc. I am concerned about the removal of the kidney material. It's common in practice to have questions about this area from patients, plus there's a lot of ignorance, so what appears to be a well balanced reference is valuable, and I've restored it, though happy to discuss. Sorry if I've trodden on toes in doing so. This article is on medline - full text here. Cpsoper (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It's fine by me. The statements I objected were really poorly sourced, Alexbrn removed considerably more per medRS Darwinian Ape talk 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ramadan, the pagan holiday[edit]

@ The section that you keep adding in cites two primary texts: ibn al-Nadim's Fihrist and ibn Qutaybah. I know it's the second one is also a primary source because it's ibn Qutaybah.

I cannot, however, locate any book using the cite "Abdel Allah ibn Zakwan Abi al-Zanad. See Ibn Qutaybah, 204, The Knowledge of Life, Oxford University, 1994, page 25".

  1. I find a popular Christian missionary tract, The Knowledge of Life, by someone calling themself "Witness Lee", that is definitely not printed by Oxford University Press.
  2. I also found Knowledge of Life, a book on French philosophy by Georges Canguilhem
  3. I find nothing by anyone named "Abdel Allah ibn Zakwan Abi al-Zanad".

So yes, I could tell it was a primary source, but no, I could not locate the specific cite.

That is not reliable sourcing. Ogress smash! 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN, you make want to protect the page again, as you see fit. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 20:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the alert, Fauzan. I have semi-protected the page, and issued 3RR warnings to the IP and to Ogress. As the warning says: it is still edit warring even if you are convinced you are right. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for getting to three reverts. It is uncharacteristic of me. Ogress smash! 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The IP copy & pasted(ie. plagiarized) said information from here, including the citation. Dr Rafat Amari, the author of the site, appears to be a physician. The book in question, "The Knowledge of Life: The Origins and Early History of the Mandaeans and Their Relation to the Sabians of of the Qur'ān and to the Harranians,[8] is by the historian of religion, Şinasi Gündüz. I can not, however, access the book online and thus can not verify what it states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hm it's a Christian evangelical ministry doing that Allah as Moon-god stuff. It does not say what Gündüz says on the topic, it just quotes ibn an-Nadim as it appears in Gündüz. That's primary source stuff, as I understand it. I cannot locate access to Gündüz either. Ogress smash! 21:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is non-verifiable information plagiarized from a website written by a physician, giving his opinion on religions. Sounds like the definition of an unreliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Without a doubt. We don't even know what Gündüz said about ibn al-Nadim because they omit it. Ogress smash! 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No fluids at all?[edit]

"While fasting from dawn until sunset, Muslims refrain from consuming food, drinking liquids, smoking, and engaging in sexual relations." No fluids at all from dawn until sunset? And this was started by a desert people? That seems suspect on the surface. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspect? What are you talking about? By the way, same is true for Jewish fasts, another desert people. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It's no wonder in practice that strict fasting for fluid and food (per ref) is often privately violated, given that the fast is compulsory.[9] Cpsoper (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean "often"? Does it exist? Of course. "Often" is am unclear term, and the article you link to does not mention statistics. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I write from extensive personal observation, as a physician, but perhaps you'd like to commission an opinion poll in Tower Hamlets, or better still in Medina or Mecca? I'd suggest taking a few precautions ... Cpsoper (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hm. As a physician, you are likely to be visited by those who have good medical reason not to fast. Also, there may be differences between Muslims in the States, for example, or Middle Eastern countries. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
True, I was in the Middle East at the time, and I have every sympathy with Muslims in this position, it's highly unenviable in the height of summer. Anyway, we digress... Cpsoper (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, please notice that Muslim fasts move all over the Gregorian calendar, with a 34 year cycle, as opposed to Jewish fasts, which always fall more or less during the same period of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016[edit]

The name of Prophet Muhammad is without prefix Prophet and suffix (SAW) Faisal Ghalib (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see honorifics in English WP. AstroLynx (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not use religious honorifics, as explained in the link given by AstroLynx. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)