User talk:Enzuru/ConstitutionIslam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Let's get to work!
Be bold, make the changes you think need to be made, and add the things you know need to be added. --Enzuru 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Prophets in Shia Islam
I admit I am not positive of this, but I'm pretty sure mainstream Shia Islam prohibits images of the Prophet as well, though not necessarily images of Imams. I have to admit really my knowledge of Shia Islam is limited to the Twelver school of thought for the most part, I am fairly unfamiliar with most other Shia schools. Can anyone provide sources confirming or denying this? Peter Deer (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, mainstream Shi'a Islam, meaning Usuli Twelver Shi'a Islam, does not prohibit pictures of either Prophets (AS) or Imams (AS). This issue was confusing to me at first too, so don't worry. Please see Ayatollah Sistani's website for example. The next two largest branches, the Alevi and Nizari also allow pictures of the Imams (AS), but I am not sure of the Prophet (AS), but most likely they do, it simply has not be exercised much because of the Sunni taboo. --Enzuru 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reading the Grand Ayatollah Sistani's site, there appears to be some conflict here. Examples from his Q&A: "it is necessary to refrain from drawing a sculptured picture of a living being"; but it also says (in response to the question of whether it is permissible to draw the Prophet) "If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem." I find this is confusing, in what respect is it forbidden to draw, but drawing the Prophets and Imams is allowed? I must be misunderstanding this somehow. Peter Deer (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- 3D images, ie sculptures, are prohibited. 2D images are not. --Enzuru 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was referring to drawing in that particular question. Peter Deer (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it is either a bad translation or referring to drawing something that looks specifically like a sculpture. You could look around other parts of the site. Unfortunately, it'll be a pain to dig around other marja websites, especially Khamenei's. --Enzuru 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly trust your knowledge of Usuli jurisprudence above my cursory conceptions, but I try to be empiricist in my religious investigation, so don't be of the impression that this is doubt of your character. :) Peter Deer (talk)
- Thank you, always better doubt than be mislead. :) --Enzuru 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly trust your knowledge of Usuli jurisprudence above my cursory conceptions, but I try to be empiricist in my religious investigation, so don't be of the impression that this is doubt of your character. :) Peter Deer (talk)
- I believe it is either a bad translation or referring to drawing something that looks specifically like a sculpture. You could look around other parts of the site. Unfortunately, it'll be a pain to dig around other marja websites, especially Khamenei's. --Enzuru 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was referring to drawing in that particular question. Peter Deer (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- 3D images, ie sculptures, are prohibited. 2D images are not. --Enzuru 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reading the Grand Ayatollah Sistani's site, there appears to be some conflict here. Examples from his Q&A: "it is necessary to refrain from drawing a sculptured picture of a living being"; but it also says (in response to the question of whether it is permissible to draw the Prophet) "If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem." I find this is confusing, in what respect is it forbidden to draw, but drawing the Prophets and Imams is allowed? I must be misunderstanding this somehow. Peter Deer (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Shia Islam
I know this has been discussed many times but I am still not seeing a definite conclusion one way or another whether it should be Shia or Shi'a. Peter Deer (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I invited Cunado, the expert on transliteration. I'm hoping he'll work something out with us. --Enzuru 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds great, Cunado's a cool guy. Peter Deer (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Imam capitalization
How are we supposed to capitalize it? I don't think we're following normal English by always capitalizing it? --Enzuru 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- In general in English you would just capitalize it if that specific Shi'a Imam's name immediately follows the word "imam". Like the word doctor, you would write either Doctor Jones or doctor. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is something that should be discussed and eventually addressed in the MOS. Peter Deer (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- For some reason, me and all the other Shi'a editors have always capitalized Imam. I have no idea why. "In Ismailism, the Imam is seen as the face of Allah." Why does that not look right in small case? --Enzuru 04:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note, even in your post MezzoMezzo, shouldn't it be Shi'a imam, like American president? --Enzuru 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- For some reason, me and all the other Shi'a editors have always capitalized Imam. I have no idea why. "In Ismailism, the Imam is seen as the face of Allah." Why does that not look right in small case? --Enzuru 04:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is something that should be discussed and eventually addressed in the MOS. Peter Deer (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding unacceptable sources
I'd like to see this well defined. For example, if we have Shaykh Such-n-Such's web site and he is from Such-n-Such tradition, obviously that site wouldn't really be a neutral source to be writing about other traditions within Islaam or issues in which there is a dispute. But for example, if an article contains something about Such-n-Such tradition's position on an issue, does the source become acceptable then? Or do we still want to avoid using such things? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- When it comes to viewpoints, in general we can stick to notable individuals. For example, I believe saying "there are fatwas" and then linking to the fatwas is original research. Rather, we need a source that says there are fatwas in regards to whatever issues. Now, if we say a certain brand name scholar said this, then of course then we could link. For hate sites that are against whatever your favourite apostate group is, they generally have nothing that can be linked to aside from original research, ie, Muslim Group A hates Muslim Group B, am I correct? --Enzuru 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:ISLAM#Reference_Materials for general guidelines about the sourcing we should use. Everyone agrees that academic material in peer reviewed publications should be used primarily. There is dispute over whether more religious-oriented sources should be used (i.e. whether it is acceptable to use The Sealed Nectar in biographical articles) - so we tend to stay away from such sources as we can build scholarly, comprehensive articles quite easily based upon extensive use of the former. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
