Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Referencing Issues 2 How do I join? 3 Mashad Ali 4 Islam stub 5 Theology-centrism? 6 Wikiportal 7 Sharia oversimplification 8 Islam related topic on VfD 9 Transliteration of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, et al. 10 Mecca/Makkah? 11 Muslim Calendar 12 the Prophet 13 notice 14 Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles) 15 Strategy 15.1 NPOV policy 15.2 The meaning of the term "fundamentalism" 16 Entry Naming 17 Formatting 17.1 Stubs 18 Misinterpretations 19 Defining 20 Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion 21 Comparative Religions Template 22 Abd Allah vs. Abdullah 23 Battle of Badr 24 Calling all mystics! 25 Prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) Page 26 Wikiproject Award 27 Proposed mergers 28 Jamiat Islami 29 Problems in Shi'a articles 30 different kind of censorship?

Referencing Issues

Hello. I am currently taking my AS levels and one of them is on Islam. Unfortunately Wikipedia is proving absolutely useless in researching Islam because the Islam articles are rubbish! The Qur'an article has nothing on what it actually says, or what it means to Muslims, just how its formatted. How is this useful?

The articles on the afterlife are not linked (Barzakh in particular I only discovered existed at all because I found it on Google), and NOTHING is referenced. Look at the Barzakh article. Where has this information come from? The Qur'an? The Hadith? Something who randomly decided to make stuff up? Who knows?! Here, Azrael separates the soul of a righteous believer "like a 'drop of water dripping from glass'." Where on Earth is this quote from? I can't find it anywhere else on the Internet.

The problems I have highlighted is on page after page after page. I can't fix them, because, as a non-Muslim, I can't reference anything, nor know whether it is true or not (not to mention my exams in seven days). Please could this project, or the Muslim Guild, PLEASE do something about this. The Islam pages are the first time I've had to rely more on Google then Wikipedia. They NEED cleanup. Please could you do oblige me? Thanks. Dev920 09:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I join?

Hi I am interested in joining the WikiProject Islam team, if thats at all possible? I joined wikipedia after I saw too many biases in many articles. I would like to help edit and expand many articles. Thank you. DivineIntervention 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mashad Ali

Please take a look at Mashad Ali. An anonymous user created this, and it needs some work. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

Islam stub

There is now an Islam stub (see Template:Islam-stub) that can be used for very short Islam-related articles. There is also the corresponding Category:Islam-related stubs for the Islam stub. In taking a quick look at Category:Religion stubs, it looks like a large percentage of them could be moved to the Islam stub. Also, if you do a Google site search for Islam+stub, there are a fair number of plain stubs that could also be converted into Islam stubs. It also looks like a good percentage of Category:Substubs may also be Islam stubs. In fact, my guess is that a fully populated Islam stub category might be rather large, so it might be a good idea to create a few subcategories now. I was thinking that an Islam-bio-stub (biographies) would be a very good one to create, and possibly an Islam-geo-stub (geography) (to be filled with articles like Islam in Canada). If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please contact me or Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. gK ¿? 09:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are currently 439 articles in Category:Islam-related stubs. Many of the articles look like they are biographical, so the Islam WikiProject should think about creating an Islam-bio-stub. To propose a new stub, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Proposing new stubs - procedure.

The participants in the Islam WikiProject should also take a look at Category:People stubs (associated with {{bio-stub}}), which has numerous obviously Arabic names in it, with many of those probably associated with Islam and who could also go into the new Islam-bio-stub. BlankVerse ∅ 6 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)

Theology-centrism?

Sorry for coining that phrase up there.

I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks#Islam, Muslims, and the Muslim World. Was considering creating Wikipedia:Islam and Muslim World-regional notice board when I found this page. Problem is, with policies like "Arabic Wikipedia should be relied on for definitions and new articles written ...", this page seems like it is not the right community for things like the page I recently created at: Muslim educational institutions or even Muslim architecture and so on.

What do we do? Go ahead and create that page above, or change the name of this project, or create a parallel WP:WikiProject Muslims and Muslim World?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:40, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal

I have put in a request for Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Muslim World at Wikipedia:Wikiportal—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sharia oversimplification

I saw in the hajj article something about "Islamic law says that non-Muslims enter Mecca under penalty of death". That is bad and wrong and only serves to keep prejudice alive through ignorance. Sharia is not codified law like canon law that every Muslim accepts. There are attempts through fiqh to try to make human law match God's law, but there is not one sharia that all Muslims follow, it's an abstract concept that peopel try to realize through written law. Surely all attempts at writing Islamic law do not state enter Mecca = death so.... let's fix that problem gren 21:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Islam related topic on VfD

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunbul Effendi was posted 4 May 2005. Perhaps participants of this WikiProject might be more able to comment on the notability or otherwise of the article and/or review the article's content and the transcription of the name and other terms used. --AYArktos 22:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, et al.

Wikipedia would greatly benefit from a standard romanization (or at least a greatly narrowed field of possibilities) for Arabic, Farsi, and other languages important to Islamic history. This would help in finding and linking to articles, creating new articles that people can find, and so on. Editing the timelines of Islamic history, for example, would be made much easier if we had such a system to go by. For Arabic at least, I tentatively propose adopting a modified form of the Library of Congress romanization system (PDF), simplified to get around the difficulties of special characters. It's mostly phonetically transparent to your average English-speaker, I think, very similar to the UN system (avoiding any perceived US bias) and not too difficult to learn. Obviously, I am open to suggestions. --Skoosh 01:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that standardizing on something would be good. I'd also like to point out that there are certainly commonly used words that we may want to settle on a standard spelling for, regardless of the standard. The "Mecca/Makkah" issue is one of those. Some words are so common that we even want to settle on a bad transliteration, just so people will understand. For example, "Masjid" redirects to "Mosque". I think that is a good idea, despite the fact that "Mosque" is a lousy way to spell (and pronounce) the word.

Now, what about the four books: "Taurat", "Zabur", "Injil", and "Koran" are the most common spellings according to Google. Currently, "Koran" redirects to "Qur'an". Is that good? I don't know. On People of the Book we see the spelling "Injeel". Should that be changed? In the Zabur article it is spelled "Injil", but we see "Tawrat".

Any thoughts? Any suggestions for other words we may want to standardize? (Also point me to any previous versions of this same discussion, in case I missed it.)

— Nowhither 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Mecca/Makkah?

There is a straw poll on the naming of the Mecca/Makkah article at talk:Mecca. 6 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)

Muslim Calendar

Can somebody please complete the Islamic Calendar of 2005? It only goes up to Rabi`-ul-Akhir. --Munchkinguy 7 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

the Prophet

As you might have noted there has been a crusade to change all references of Muhammad as the prophet to just Muhammad. Now, sometimes this is useful because of ambiguity or various honorifics being place. However, the editors doing this have little sense of context. Sometimes the emphasis is meant to be on the prophethood which is why prophet is mentioned. His importance is in being a prophet so there are times when it should be mentioned. The basis for these changes are that it is POV. That is not so, he is the prophet of Islam because when put that way we are by no means asserting that he is the bearer of God's message but that he was during his time the spokesman for his religion. Please have some concept of this before you do mass edits all over the board that change the meanings of what was written. gren グレン 13:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Gren has my vote.

--Striver 17:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

notice

There are related VFDs - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Opposition to Islam and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Klonimus/AINB ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)

Much of what is found on the WikiProject Islam article should be incorporated into the article mentioned above. --Juan Muslim 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the following from the article with hope that the information will be incorporated into the Manual of Style in the near future. --Juan Muslim 05:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Strategy

The definition of Islam must, first and foremost, come from the faith itself. List of Islamic terms in Arabic must be expanded to include every such term that is presently used in any article. Then, edits to the other articles can use the most specific and correct term with less translation problems.

Then, the various factions and groups, starting with Sunni, Shia, Khawarij and Sufi branches, and all the Islamic parties and militant Islamic groups and historical tarika need to be catalogued. Interpretations of jihad and khalifa and the role of ijtihad might need to be clarified for each specific group. Such categorical terms as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism need to be set only *after* groups are defined.

Islam as a political movement, related History of Islam, biographical material of major figures, Islamic philosophy, etc., can then be updated to refer to the more exact concepts.

The Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts#Islam list also can usefully be used as a source of topics for new articles related to Islam. Note that some of the Arabic terms requested may simply be different transliterations of an existing article; in which case, please create a redirect.

NPOV policy

In line with Wikipedia NPOV policy each religious denomination should have its POV (point of view) represented as they see it, without the article speaking ex cathedra.

Wikipedia articles attempt to treat issues in light of their historical development. We do not merely describe the way that Judaism's beliefs and practices exist now. We certainly do describe these, but we also describe their historical origins as known from the best evidence.

Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts, in this case including the Quran and the Hadith literature. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources

Wikipedia articles describe changing social, religious and political conditions, and how Islam's beliefs and practices may have developed over time.

Many traditional Muslims will strenuously object to a critical historical treatments, claiming that this discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is from an ahistorical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) This point of view can also be mentioned; there is no necessary contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say that Group A says one thing for somesuch reasons, while group B says another thing for other reasons.

The meaning of the term "fundamentalism"

See the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is used in articles on religion, but only in one its technical senses, and not as a pejorative phrase.

Entry Naming

• There is a straw poll on the naming of the Mecca/Makkah article at talk:Mecca. 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

Formatting

There's probably no example that can really serve as the template for every other one of these articles. It's more of a perspective than format question.

Stubs

There is now an Islam stub (see Template:Islam-stub) that can be used for very short Islam-related articles. There is also the corresponding Category:Islam stubs for the Islam stub.

==Hierarchy definition== Religion/Islam/etc.

Misinterpretations

Can we start ( If its not against any Wiki policy )an article on different misinterpretated aspects of Islam & Sira & always taken out of Context verses from Quran ( Like Sura Tauba ). I have been to different forums & found out that people always ask the very same questions that have been spread in the west by Islamophobes . Wiki would be a good place to explain those questions Farhansher 20:35 19-4-2005

Defining

• Arabic Wikipedia should be relied on for definitions and new articles written on all of the above.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

Please comment: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#interreligious --Striver 05:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparative Religions Template

Please visit this template I'm working on to go at the bottom of all of the major religious pages as a way to facilitate comparative religion research. Leave your comments on its talk page. Thanks! --Mareino 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Abd Allah vs. Abdullah

Is there any standard in using either. Many times, names are derived from Arabic so there transliteration is used, and there really isn't any set standard that I'm aware of. For example, both Abd-Allah ibn Masud or Abdullah ibn Masud both work fine and both are often used. But I think for consistency sake, there should be one agreed upon usage. I for one favor Abdullah. Its easier to read in English as opposed to Abd, which may trouble some English speaking readers. Pepsidrinka 04:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Abd al-Rahman, Abd al-Nasir, etc? I like Abd Allah because it's more consistent with the Arabic and more consistent with the ususal transliteration of other similar names. Palmiro | Talk 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it spelt Abdualrahman. And Abdel Nasir would also work. Just playing devil's advocate, as I really wouldn't mind one way or the other, just trying to figure out in English which is the most prevalent. Pepsidrinka 04:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah is more common in English, and also preseves the nominative i`rab vowel of Classical Arabic. Abd Allah preserves the fact that there are two words in Arabic, but I don't know that this is a general goal -- "Omdurman" and "Ramallah" are two words in Arabic, but one-word names in English. Overall, I'd say that Abdullah is generally preferred, unless there's a special reason for favoring Abd Allah in a particular special case. AnonMoos 01:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Badr

I just finished a rough draft of this article and would love some feedback. Palm_Dogg 01:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that you've been working away at it and just not had the time to check. As soon as I finish copyediting one article for my RL job, I'll try to get to it. Zora 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling all mystics!

Please come help out @ mysticism / Talk:Mysticism. Another editor and I have been butting heads over some minor issues, and the article could really use some outside input. Please come lend a hand! Sam Spade 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) Page

I have been trying to remove the image of Mohammed (PBUH) from this page for several reasons, not the least of which it is not accurate. It keeps being put back up and I have requested a clarification of NPOV on it. The page stood for 3 & 1/2 years without an image but now since summer it has to have one? It doesn't make sense (to me anyway). So I am requesting some mediation and input on the issue there. Thank you. - Autoshade 16:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Autoshade, the image is not disrespectful -- it was created by Muslims who believed that it was OK to depict human beings. So removing it would send the message that Muslims who don't allow human depiction are right and those who allow it are wrong. WP doesn't take sides. The picture is an accurate depiction of Muslim history and should stay. Zora 18:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Award

Has anyone seen the award proposal page? Is there any interest in proposing an award for this wikiproject? There was a previous effort to create an award, but if it was advanced by a wikiproject it might get accepted.

This is a simple sample of what one could look like. If you think it's appropriate, please place a proposal on the page. evrik 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We discussed the star and crescent symbol extensively on the Template talk:Islam page. It was the symbol of the Ottoman empire, not of Islam per se. Some Muslims object strongly to it. That's why we have a stylized mosque on the Islam template. I'd suggest some pretty Arabic calligraphy, perhaps saying something neutral like "Thanks for the work!" If such can be found or obtained. Zora 22:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic Barnstar Award

The original Islamic Barnstar was introduced and designed by Irishpunktom. That version was clearly rejected. The new version was introduced and designed by me. Acceptance for the idea - the Islamic Barnstar Award - as well as the current design has been accepted. --JuanMuslim ^1m 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

One of the problems for articles about islam is lack of context for the unfamiliar reader. Additionally, a lot of the articles are stubs with limited potential for expansion (and a limited number of editors qualified to expand them). I think all fiqh terms (Fard, Mustahabb, Mubah, Makruh, Muharram and Recommended precaution) should be merged with redirects into Fiqh or Ahkam. I think all hadith evaluative and descriptive terms (Ahaad, Da'if, Maudu', Mutawatir and Sahih) should be merged with redirects into Hadith or an article on hadith terms, except Hasan which could be merged and kept as a disambig page. I'd tag them for proposed mergers but wanted to find consensus as to which articles should be the correct mergeinto target. Шизомби 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jamiat Islami

Is there anybody who could help with that article by adding sourced information? There had been a lot of unsourced material and trolling there. I don't know anything about the group myself. Шизомби 14:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems in Shi'a articles

We've always had them. Sigh. This time it is a college student named Salman01 who is intent on filling the articles for people like Ali, Husayn ibn Ali, Hasan ibn Ali, etc., with hagiographic material that seems to be taken directly from all the taziyeh plays that he has seen. For him, this is fact, and it should be described with all the partisanship and emotion with which he's familiar. When I try to tone down his prose, or remove the emotive language, or include material saying that academic historians do not accept that this material is anything but pious legend, he is shocked and angry. He will revert and revert in order to keep his versions in place. I can understand his pain at being told that what he has been taught as truth is doubted, but he can't be allowed to hijack these articles. I should think that Sunni Muslims would be as upset by this as the non-Muslim editors. I would appreciate some help in keeping these articles neutral. Zora 10:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

different kind of censorship?

I am sure many of you remember the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy image dispute. Now it seems the self-proclaimed free speech proponents censor critique on their own blocking habits: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#26_May_2006 Raphael1 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It goes even further: Now administrators even removed [1][2][3] the review of their censorship after only 9 hours of discussion. Raphael1 08:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)