Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Sources to cite

it's mentioned in Quran {بِلِسَانٍ عَرَبِيٍّ مُبِينٍ} meaning { In the perspicuous Arabic tongue.} (Quran V26:195)

I noticed that the [WP:Islam] have this paragraph

The Qur'an and hadith are considered primary sources but they shouldn't be quoted in support of a particular argument unless also backed up by a cite to a reliable secondary source.

what does this supposed to mean? I read it like this: "don't cite Quran, we don't accept Quran, please cite an ignorant nobody saying something about Quran which is not in Quran because the wikipedians thinks that Quran is like the bible ie. ambiguous and can be tweaked and interpreted in any way to mean any thing" bring me a Muslim that believes in this and I'll bring you all the Muslims in the world (Sunnies and shiies) to tell you that by doing so he announced his Kufr

قال تعالى: وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُدَّكِرٍ

الر كِتَابٌ أُحْكِمَتْ آَيَاتُهُ ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ مِنْ لَدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ

وقال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم): من قال في القرآن برأيه فأصاب فقد أخطأ (أي أخطأ في فعله بقيله فيه برأيه وإن وافق قيله ذلك عين الصواب)

this policy (citing a secondary source where a clear verse of Quran can be used) makes wikipeida pages about Islam a farm for nobodies to talk about Islam.

because we Muslims have one Quran, and all of us believes that it decides for us what is Islam so when there is a clear verse that literary and apparently talk about an Issue and some one says a different thing then this one is not a Muslim.

the Policy of Wikipeida says a cite a verifiable source and we all Muslims consider Quran to be it so when it's about what Muslims believes. I know that Quran is not considered to be a valid source for non-Muslims, but when the article talks about Islam and what do we believe than it's the source.

I think we should do a campaign to tell wikipedians that in a statements like "and Muslims believes" or "according to Islamic sources" ... or a like statement no secondary source counts if there is a clear verse from Quran about it.

Mydalsadi (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC) alsadi

Ali COTW

Ali is the current biography collaboration of the week. Feel free to help out; the help is needed! Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam ref

Hi, I was going through some Islam-related GAs and noticed a line in the Five Pillars of Islam article that has a citation needed tag. This is the line: "These practices are essential to Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims subscribe to eight ritual practices which substantially overlap with the Pillars."

Could someone find the source for this so the article maintains its status. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead of the article is wrong and contradicts with the body. I revert it to the version which was there during GA and Peer reviews. There isn't any discussion in the talk age of the article about the new lead. I think the article has been changed and become worse. I tried to improve it on the basis of the article which was there in November 2007 and removed clean up tag.--Seyyed(t-c) 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New change in WP:MOSISLAM

Salam Alaykum

Two weeks ago I put a comment in the talk page of MOSISLAM and proposed using "The Prophet" in especial cases and about one weeks ago I changed WP:MOSISLAM [1]. Nobody protest or change my proposal. Thus I want to insert it in the related articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Relics of Muhammad

Would appreciate help with the Relics of Muhammad article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Scholars of Qur'an

Can someone from the project look at Scholars of Qur'an. The page is in dire need of context and the title is not really meaningful. It may actually be redundant with Qur'an-related pages I'm not aware of. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pichpich. Scholars of the Qur'an would basically be "Islamic exegetes", who are listed in the Tafsir article here: Tafsir#Major Mufassireen. Hope that helps. ITAQALLAH 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamic view of Enoch

I find the title of this article misleading and decidedly slanted in favor of the Bible. Other users have expressed similar views on the TalkPage. Apparently, it was once named Idris (prophet), which seems to be the most appropriate title, as that is the name as it appears in the Qur'an and the writings of Bahá'u'lláh. There seems to have been some move-battle over the title a few months ago, but without any kind of lucid commentary as to why the change was made. Could someone from the Islam project with admin status look into this and make the appropriate change? Thanks. Aryaman (Enlist!) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Akhtar Hameed Khan for WP:FAC

The article has been put as Featured Article Candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akhtar Hameed Khan for opinions and comments. --Isles Cape^Talk 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kazi Nazrul Islam

Kazi Nazrul Islam has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland

Hey again. There's a bit of an edit war going on over at Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland. One editor believes that the page is POV, and has been removing content. I'm sort of on the fence about the page, so I was hoping someone that's part of this project could go over and take a look. Discussion is on Talk:Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hajj Article

Can anyone here please help clean up the anti-Muslim POV Hajj article? I was looking at the Hajj article, and I found many unsourced statements in the article that appear to have an anti-Muslim point-of-view. I have removed some of the statements that were obviously anti-Muslim, for example:

"Yet no Muslim has protested or has tried to reverse the shameful apartheid practiced in Mecca and Medina. No one is suggesting that a church or a synagogue or temple be built inside th kabbah. But Mecca and Medina are big cities and there is enough space for building churches. Also why are Muslims not protesting against the apartheid by boycotting the hajj. Any decent Muslim would publicly boycott the hajj by publicly condemning and refusing to do the hajj."

and I think it would be better if we had some people from here, WikiProject Islam, who are more knowledgeable about the subject to help clean up the article and make it neutral and informative rather than defamatory and anti-Muslim. Thanks. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's urgent for someone to review the lead. It's awfully POV. Read yourself in the lead:

Muhammad ruled that " two deens(religions) shall not exist in Arabia" or any other Muslim land. Muslim land is defined by Muslims as any country or part of a country where the percentage of Muslims exceeds 50%. Thus parts of Dearborn in Michigan are claimed as Muslim lands by Muslims. Muhammad very efficiently ethnically cleansed Arabia of all Jews.
Today in Arabia, aka Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims may not:
1) Practice their faith in public 2)build a place of worship 3) enter Mecca or Medina. The kabbah is located in Mecca. 4) May not try to propagate their faith to Muslims 5) even wear symbols such as the Cross
On the other hand Muslims demand freedom of worship in non-Muslims countries and get it. They have even built mosques in Rome which has the same significance for Christians as Mecca has for Muslims.

Eklipse (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I felt the same way, that the statements above were POV, but wasn't sure what to remove. Also, much of the article is unsourced. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed:

Thus parts of Dearborn in Michigan are claimed as Muslim lands by Muslims. Muhammad very efficiently ethnically cleansed Arabia of all Jews.

Today in Arabia, aka Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims may not:

1) Practice their faith in public 2)build a place of worship 3) enter Mecca or Medina. The kabbah is located in Mecca. 4) May not try to propagate their faith to Muslims 5) even wear symbols such as the Cross

On the other hand Muslims demand freedom of worship in non-Muslims countries and get it. They have even built mosques in Rome which has the same significance for Christians as Mecca has for Muslims.

due to unsourced POV. Also see the article's talk page. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tendentious and irrelevant material from the lead and have made a few other changes mentioned in the edit summary. I'll check through the rest of the article later. Hope that helps. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding Talk:Wahhabism to WikiProject Islam

I think that the WikiProject Islam template ( {{WikiProject Islam}} ) should be added to Talk:Wahhabism but I have a couple of questions.

Some other Wikiprojects use the language "Subject X is within the scope of Wikiproject Y", while WikiProject Islam uses "Subject X is is part of the WikiProject Islam". Is there likely to be any disagreement or controversy about whether a given subject is actually "part of" WikiProject Islam? (I.e., who decides this?)
I tried adding the template to Talk:Wahhabism, but the first paragraph or two of text on that page winds up included in the template box. I don't see any obvious cause or correction for this.
- Thanks -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be added--so no problem there. What is happening is that {{WikiProject Islam}} calls upon Talk:Wahhabism/Comments so it is transcluding that. I will try and fix the problem. gren グレン 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for your help. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Project banner and task force questions

I've made a revised version of the project banner at User:John Carter/Islam, which can be seen in use at User talk:John Carter/Islam. I can't be sure, but I think it might help the various subprojects if they were to be given separate assessment information, which is why I included it in the new draft banner. I was also wondering if there might be any interest in perhaps setting up a group for Sufism, and possibly Ibadism. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Onion Juice Therapy

Onion Juice Therapy is nominanted for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onion Juice Therapy. It is an WP:Orphan article that makes claims for use of onion extract to treat established cancers (which is quite different from that article also talking tangentally about whether onions help prevent the devlopment of cancers in the first place).

The article says this is an established part of Sufi cultural/traditional-healing practice. Ignoring, for the moment, any issues of WP:PROVEIT requiring WP:Cite from WP:Reliable sources being needed to support claims of whether the approach is effective or not (along with WP:NPOV etc), the immediate issue as far as the AfD is whether or not this is a non-trivial minority viewpoint. However I have no knowledge of Sufism, nor therefore whether there are any reliable third party sources (apart from the http://www.brokenearth.org/NaturalHealing/index.htm link used in the article) Could Islam Portal members help clarify these points at the AfD discussion - thank you David Ruben ^Talk 23:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with Gender and religion

This article doesn't mention Islam at all. Can someone knowledgable about Islam add some information? Thanks, --Alynna (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Salah

Could someone who is well versed in Islam and Islamic terminology have a look at the article Salah? It contains a lot of Islamic terms with very little context, which makes it very hard to read for outsiders. One example: "Witr is performed after the salah of isha'a." The section Salah#Articles of Prayer is a quotefarm, which makes it very hard to understand what the procedure is that is being described. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I added (dusk) after isha'a to clear that up some. You should know the definition of salah from the intro of the article and witr is somewhat difficult to explain. No one uses English terms for most of this and using them would be unwieldly.

I'll try to fix up the "articles of prayer" section some... it needs better context but it will still be quote-farmy since it is using the Arabic from the prayer. It's a good candidate for a table. gren グレン 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Recommended

I would NOT encourage ANY Muslim to participate in this project.

As has already been clearly demonstrated on the page about Resurrection (see the discussion), the bias of Wikipedia is firmly on the side of the Pharisee-Christian interpretation of the resurrection as the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

On the contrary, certain mystical sects within Islam--especially among the Sufis--acknowledge that Mohammed was Elijah and John the Baptist raised from the dead in fulfillment of the Prophecies of Malachi, and of Jesus in the Gospels, which is a view of resurrection which is simply NOT allowed by Wikipedia's Pharisees and Christians.

This view of resurrection is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Codices, some passages of which sound as if they were almost verbatim quotations of the Koran, although written hundreds of years prior to the Revelations received by Mohammed.

Wikipedia is nothing more than the the marketing department or the information warfare department of racist-Pharisee-Christian-Zionist imperialism.

Michael J. Cecil (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the "racists" against whom the above user wrote his comment above, I would welcome seeing the sources for the information he's quoting, as I'd like to see that included in the articles. Unfortunately, one of the biggest weaknesses the Islam project has is a lack of dedicated editors and a comparative lack of sources. I've recently been elected to the post of Lead Coordinator of the Christianity WikiProject, and that is regretably taking up a great deal of my time at present, and I am myself not one of the best writers around in any event. However, I very much would like to see this content develop as well, so that anyone interested in the subject would be able to have as good and verifiable information as possible. On that basis, if there is anyone who would like to assist this project in developing its content, I would encourage them to do so, so that they might help us develop this content. If any of you believe that I would be able to help on any specific matters, please let me know and if my schedule permits, which is always a bit of a question, unfortunatley, and if I remember, often a bigger question, I will do what I can to help. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would personally like to see Wikiproject Islam grow and become more efficient in collaborating on articles - especially ones of importance which really should be of high quality. I think the presence of so many inactive sub-groups makes things a tad too bureaucratic. I don't believe there's a lack of sources, but there is a lack of dedicated editors meaning that the editors currently working on this space get through things much more slowly.

As for the article in question, the general Islamic view (and indeed one shared by the other Abrahamic faiths as far as I know) is one of physical resurrection. While some mystical groups may interpret it as a 'spiritual' or psychological resurrection, this is largely a minority opinion so I wouldn't expect the article to entertain excessive or undue coverage about it. ITAQALLAH 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to feel confident in the factualness of historical events and dates in Wikipedia's articles pertaining to Islam but the references are sparse and are many times from Islamic scholars who have a purely religious view. These scholars should be scrutinezed. Islam evolves and doctrines can change. According to Islamic text, the most recent prophetic revelations are valid; if Allah can change his mind then it may be valid also to change history to his favor. There seem to be something inherent in Islam about having records favorable in the eyes of Allah. Islamists now claim that Islam is not new but is a correction to Judaism and Christianity whos members changed the Book. It is not stated what is erroneous and why, but only that the Book is changed and replaced by the sayings of Mohamed (some of which seem to be anecdotal stuff from the Book). From one tranlator of the Koran, it seemed that there was negative stuff in the Book that put a bad light on things. I got the impression that something such as the Creator reprimanding and punishing the Israelites who turned to idol worship and other awful things might be not factual. I guess, maybe he thinks it should have been written in their favor instead of that He banished them from the land He put aside for them. I have little faith that there is objectivity from people whose cultural mindset can find a photograph of a building (Kabba)offensive. I understand that images are banned because one might worship it. Altough I thought it would only pertain to human images. But I guess they are joking because what they are doing at the Hajj "is" worshipping a cube containing a stone that is also worshipped. A cube draped in fabric so that it is not really seen. By the way, the Wicki artcle claims the Kabba has not changed much since Mohamed; a building made of marble. Back to graven images, I would think that a picture for the sake of science, academic teaching or reference would be looked at differently than a personal keepsake, and not seen as an image that is for reverence. However, huge pictures of the Ayatolla, other leaders and suicide bombers are somehow OK in the Islamic mindset. Provence Tuscana (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Abrahamic Religions

Hi! I am already a member of this group before any strange questions start getting asked. (I dont know what that was about either but you know I just had a feeling) Anyway I am proposing that a new Wikiproject be formed called WikiProject Abrahamic Religions. Islam is of course one of the three Abrahamic Religions the others being Judaism and Christianity. I don't know what people think about my proposal but for more information and/or to show your support, as the project cant start without consensus please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and view the Abrahamic Religions Section. (that makes me sound like a dodgey TV advert doesn't it?). Once again any comments or support would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. The Quill (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

There are a few active wikipedians in this wikiproject. This wikiproject wouldn't be active, unless these wiipedians co-worked.

This is the list of most active ones:

Please join us to improve the project.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest choosing Sources of Islamic law as WikiProject Collaboration. It's nominated as a Good article and you can find the review in Talk:Sources of Islamic law/GA2. Please help improve the article to good article standard. Thanks!--Seyyed(t-c) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Hezbollah and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article and several other related WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

kafir musta'min / musta'min / Kafir

The article Kafir currently says:

The islamic law (sharia) distinguishes three types of kafirs:

kafir dhimmi

kafir harbi

kafir musta'min

(These are all piped.)

kafir musta'min ( musta'min ) is currently a redlink (WP:REDLINK), and the term is not explained elsewhere in Kafir.
Can anybody start a stub on this or create a redirect to an appropriate article? Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much to those who have created and worked on this new article! -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish Muslims

There is a very interesting discussion taking place about Category:Jewish Muslims, which would benefit from well-informed input (both from this Project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism). The CFD is now in its 5th day, so please don't delay if you wish to add a comment. Cgingold (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Predestination

The articles Predestination and Types of religious predestination have been listed to be merged for over a year. A drive is on to clear out Category:Articles to be merged since April 2007 and this merger could use the attention of someone with expertise in the field, or at least someone who knows more than me. If anyone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated.--Gimme danger (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)