Talk:Al-Fatiha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

I don't suppose anyone can explain the discrepancy between my count and Ibn Kathir's? - Mustafaa 12:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Arabic Text 2 Al-Fatiha Foundation 3 arabic font size 4 Allah or God 5 In the Notes 6 17 times Al-Fatiha in mandatory prayers

[edit] Arabic Text

Why was the Arabic text below removed from the page? Its really hard for arabic learners to read the handwritten text shown on the image.

[edit] Al-Fatiha Foundation

I understand that some editors dislike the content of the Al-Fatiha Foundation article, but it is a legitimate article and the disambig is necessary. "Offensiveness" is a POV concern and we cannot hide haram topics from Wikipedia readers. Please do not remove the disambig again. Thanks. Babajobu 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then, why not a nice Disambiguation page? 193.146.45.126 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Because there are only two relevant articles, and a significant majority of people looking for "Al Fatiha" will be looking for this article, not the gay rights org. Babajobu 15:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I removed the link today thinking it was vandalism - and this change was subsequently reverted. However, I think this article should reconsider having a disambiguation page and also contemplate rephrasing the disamb link.

Firstly, it is not at all unusual to have a disambiguition page with just two links (there are many examples - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc....), so this shouldn't be an issue.

Also, it is bound to offend muslims by having a gay and lesbian organisation link at the top of a page likely to have a large muslim audience. I suggest that we rephrase the disamb link at the top to -

"al-Fatiha" redirects here. For other uses, see Al-Fatiha (disambiguation).

[8] and [9] use a similar disamb link phraseology and link to a disamb page having only two links. I assume my suggestions would be popular amongst editors here given the good-intentioned removals of the link. Wikipidian 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? How could a disambig link to another article of similar name count as vandalism? Anyway, if people were deleting the link because they personally dislike the content at the other end, they should be reminded that Wikipedia is not censored for their (or anyone else's) religious beliefs. However, we can explore other ways of presenting the link. The Bokaro model is an option, but you see that the unqualified use of the term "Bokaro" links to the disambig page, not to either of the articles. My guess is that this is how all the binary disambig pages work. It doesn't make much sense to have the main term (here, Al-Fatiha) link to one of the articles, with a note that other uses can be found at Al-Fatiha (disambiguation), which then includes only one other article. That's a lot of steps for just two articles, my guess is that terms with two articles are not handled this way elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the only reason I can see for doing it is as concession to theology. Wikipedia doesn't make editorial decisions based on readers' religious sensibilities (e.g., Muhammad Cartoons and Piss Christ), and I don't think we should start now. Babajobu 17:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu I have already given you an example of such an article where wikipedia handles 2 similarly-named articles by linking to a dismmbiguation page in the way you described: it is reference 8 in my list, the article entitled bilberry. But because it suits your argument you chose instead to talk about about the bokaro article (reference 9).

If you type bilberry in the search box you will get the bilberry article with the disambiguation {{other uses}} model template at the top, this then links to a disamb page with 2 articles.

IN FACT HERE ARE TWENTY MORE EXAMPLES OF WIKIPEDIA HANDLING DISAMBIGUITY BETWEEN TWO SIMILARLY NAMED ARTICLES IN THIS WAY- AARP, Apparatchick, Brett Whiteley, Callisthenes, Daisy Systems, Daniel O'Connell, Dead Man's Switch, Dunedin, Fraser River, Fulke Greville, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Harpers Ferry, Kilsyth, Maradona, Max steiner, Michael Phelps, Schizophrenia, Short Circuit, Trafalgar Square, Zefyri and so on and so forth.

So you see, we would not at all be setting a precedent by following my suggestion. Personally I don't think we should have the link at all, as there is no ambiguity - when you click "go" when searching for al-fatiha you will expect to see the article on surah al-fatiha, if you want to see something else click search[10].

ALSO DON'T THINK I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT YOU CREATED THE AL-FATIHA ORGANISATION PAGE AND HAVE THE MAJORITY OF EDITS FOR THIS ARTICLE - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX Babajobu - "Creating overly abundant links ... to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable." [11]. I reitterate that removal of the link appears popular with editors, in fact you are the only editor who is reverting BUT I want to achieve some compromise so I again point to my original suggestion. Wikipidian 02:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't choose the Bokaro example because it suited my argument, I chose it because I had never encountered the sort of disambig arrangement you described, and because Bokaro was the first of your examples I clicked on and was consistent with how I've usually seen a two-term disambig situation handled. But ignoring your assumption of bad faith, you've satisfied me that the "see disambig page" link to a two-term disambig is in use on Wikipedia. I think it's a clumsy solution, and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly rejected the notion that the protection of religious sensibilities should affect editorial decisions. And, of course, it's certainly plausible that someone interested in GLBT issues would know the name of Al-Fatiha, but not know that it is called a "foundation" rather than a community or an organization or whatever. But if you want arrange the disambig in a way that will protect Muslims from haram information, I won't object, because you've demonstrated to my satisfaction that the alternative disambig arrangement can also be defended on more reasonable grounds. Babajobu 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arabic font size

could this be bigger? It's really hard to read.

[edit] Allah or God

The word 'Allah' is a name while God in english language is a general word. I think Allah should be used in english translation.

God (with an uppercase G) is a proper name in English which can not take a plural, not a general word. The name God is the name of the one and only god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in English. Many people (both English speakers and non-English speakers) confuse it with the word god (with a lowercase g), which is a general word refering to any deity of any religion (and can therefore take a plural). The correct translation into English of the name Allah is God, just as the correct translation of the name Isa is Jesus, Ayyub is Job, Yahya is John, Yunus is Jonah, Talut is Saul, etc. --Drivelhead 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the Notes

Well, quoting "Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody" in an article about Al Qur'an and Surah Al-Fatihah might appear a little bit ... misplaced. No ? TwoHorned 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 17 times Al-Fatiha in mandatory prayers

This is not exactly true. If u pray all the mandatory prayers behind an Imam then count is 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.156.120 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)