Talk:Ramadan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Ramadan as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian or Telugu language Wikipedias.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

To discuss the proposed split of this article, see the New Approach section.

Contents

[edit] Grammar issue...

"Muslims believe that the Qur'an started sent down to the earth during this month." is clearly not correct English and is confusing. Is this sentence saying that during this month, the Qur'an was sent to the earth (presumably by God, Allah)? Then why the word "started"? Someone knowledgable, please fix this.

Unclear: "...it is the ninth month of the Islamic (Hijri) calendar, established in the year 638." Does this mean that the Ramadan fast itself was estabished in this year or if that is when the Muslim calendar was established? Someone needs to revise the wording here for better clarity. (Did the fast exist prior to the founding of Islam?)

  • edited to remove profanity

[edit] Front Page?

I think this article should be featured on the front page, since tomorrow is the first day of ramadan (SeanMcG 02:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Kaffarra

I'm removing the section on kaffarra if no one will cite a source. A google search for (Kaffara Ramadan) which found some hits that had different penalties listed.--24.15.9.228 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Response

Having sexual relations between sunset and sunrise are permissible. With regards to making the ghusl (compulsory bath after such relations), I'm not sure if it is necessary to have it done before fasting begins. However, one should do it before the time for Fajr is over, as prayer is not accepted until one performs the Ghusl.

I think you are mistaken. most Muslim sects (shi'a and sunni) do not allow any sexual contact between men and women during the day until magrib, regardless if you do ghusl or not. (SeanMcG 02:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC))
I believe you're both right (well, almost). The first poster is referring to between sunset and sunrise, during the nighttime. Sexual intercourse is permissible during the nighttime, but not up until sunrise. Fasting begins at dawn, the start of the fajr prayer time, not sunrise, the end of the fajr prayer time. It is not necessary to have ghusl before the start of fasting; one can even engage in sexual intercourse up until the start of the fajr prayer (and fasting) time, if desired. joturner 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Ghusl is required prior to the start of fasting every day of Ramadan. Muslims may engage in sex during the night, but must perform ghusl before they start fasting the next morning. - Dunner99 24 September 2006
Oh it's desired. Believe me, it's desired! - Kumar
For Shi'a Muslims, ghusl is obligatory for fasting (in addition to prayer).Lestat 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far North?

What do Muslims living north of the Arctic Circle do? Surely in places where the sun doesn't set for three or four months straight, they don't all travel south for Ramadan if it falls in the summertime? grendel|khan 03:30, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

They can follow time schedule of the nearest Muslim authority, e.g in Sweden, Canada, etc. DiN 20:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are the dates correct for the 2005 Ramadan?

The dates do not look right for 2005. However, I am not a Muslim so I do not know for sure. Could a Muslim (or someone who knows for sure) check on that and correct it if necessary?

Dates for Ramadan - starts around Oct. 4, 2005 AbdurRahman -- http://www.Hilalplaza.com

WTF is backbiting?

roughly the same as backstabbing, if I remember right. --TomaydoDemato 17:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Backbiting might refer to Marv Albert.

Haha, but no to whoever made the last comment. The comment before that isn't quite right either. Backbiting is basically talking bad things about someone behind their back. That's not what backstabbing means. joturner 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to angry/sarcastic retorts.

[edit] WikiProject Holidays

You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error in "Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan" ?

How come there are two days of "22nd" in Ramadan ? I assume it's an error. I don't know how to fix it as I don't understand the codes for the wikitable. Can someone fix it, please ? We need to get this fixed before Ramadan starts in 2 days. People may be searching for this page. Thanks. -- PFHLai 14:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramadan is about getting close to Allah, it is the 9th Islamic month. Muslims fast because to feel how poor people live. Muslims just eat before sunrise and after sunset. It is no harm for muslims to fast if they belive in Allah and his messenger.

[edit] fasting & water

I am curious about whether drinking water is permissible during the fasting period. If so, is there a restriction on the amount of water that can be drunk during this time? Thank you.


Drinking even a single drop of water (or any other thing) is not permissible during fasting.--Khalid! 17:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless you really need it. The Sick, elderly and infirm etc can go ahead, likewise children and ladies during that time. Aside from that it's a pure fast - No eating; No Drinking. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
"Unless you really need it" is not entirely correct. If the sick, elderly, or infirm do eat or drink even a drop of water, it still breaks their fast. It's just not a sin, since there's a valid reason. As now stated in the main article, they are required to make up for each day missed or feed a needy person for each day missed. joturner 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
the sick and elderly are not required to fast anyway, therefore, water consuption is ok. Same for travellers. Jackpot Den 07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timing and Moon Sighting controversy

This page has been getting a some reverts concerning whether a moon sighting is required for Muslims to consider the month to have begun. I understand that some Muslims feel it is necessary, but I would like to cite (pun intended) a couple of sources which show that not all Muslims are in accord. Consider: communities in Daytona [1], El Paso [2] and even in Qatar [3] celebrated on the 4th, although the new moon was not sighted until the 5th. On the other hand, some communities in South Asia [4] waited as long as until the 6th for a moon sighting (although politics was partly involved in this case).

It certainly is true that some places didn't rely on a physical sighting, but that doesn't make it right. However, starting a day early is not as bad as starting a day late. But, Ramadan officially starts for a locality when it sees the new moon, regardless of whether it really did occur the day before. If we were to rely on calculations to determine when a month started, the whole purpose of having a simple, universalized lunar calendar would be defeated. The hadeeth of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) states "Fast when you see [the new moon] and break your fast when you see it." In addition, when Muhammad's son Ibrahim died under a solar eclipse (27-Jan-632 CE), it was noted that two days later (29-Jan-632 CE) would be the first of the following month. Given solar eclipses can only occur on the day of a new moon, that would provide evidence that new months only begin when the new, waxing crescent is physically sighted. joturner 21:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Some1 keeps deleting "disputed, see below". The reason i wrote in the 1st place was that it is disputed, almost half of the muslims dont even accept 4th Oct as the 1st day of ramadan. Im adding it again.--Khalid! 14:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the North American mosques that started on 4-October either, but the point is that the previous sentence says that those days are "estimated" and therefore it is implied that the dates are not exact. As for whether to put 4-October or 5-October, 4-October is more appropriate because there was indeed a new moon the night of 3-October. Although the calculated time of the new moon is irrelevant in deciding the first day of Ramadan, because some places, including Saudi Arabia, started Ramadan on 4-October and because a new moon did occur the night before, we should leave the disputed comment next to 4-October out and let the word 'estimated' speak for itself. I removed the word 'disputed', but comprimised with a general statement about disputes involving the start date of Ramadan. Instead of singling out 2005, it would probably be better to mention why disputes about the start of the month occur. joturner 16:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 : Regardless of the religious debate, Ramadan was celebrated as if it began on the 4th for many people who could not have seen the new moon. As an encyclopedia, I think it is important that we recognize the fact that both interpretations are actual definitions of the start of Ramadan for many people. I think that there should maybe be a sub-sub-section to the timing section which explains this, mentioning both the relevent hadith(s) and how things are done in different communities. I think, saying disputed, however, is unnecessary, as this is likely to re-occur often somewhere, and saying that the dates given are astronomical estimates should be sufficient. Smmurphy 16:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Calendar Table

I just deleted the "calendar" on the Ramadan page. Since I know some people are going to wonder why, I'll explain. The table looked like this:

Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan
01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07.
08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
29. 30. Last Month Next Month


In case you don't realize, this table provides very little information. It simply shows the integers from one to thirty in a table with seven columns; there is no correspondence between column and day of the week. "Islamic Calendar for the month of Ramadan" is an unnecessary descriptor. A title similar to "The Month of Ramadan" would have sufficed. And even then, that would have been redundant considering the article is entitled Ramadan. So "Calendar" would have been even better.

There are four links in the table. One is for 21 Ramadan, which actually has no significance in Islam. The second link is for Laylat al-Qadr, which is linked to in the first paragraph and several other places. In addition, by created a link from '27' to Laylat al-Qadr, it is implied that that is the definite date of that event. As explained in the first paragraph of the article (and in the Laylat al-Qadr article), that date is not fixed or certain. The remaining two links go to the next and previous month of the calendar. Those too are unnecessary considering there is a separate, more informative table later in the document that shows all twelve months of the Islamic calendar.

So, if anyone has a reason to put back the "Islamic Calendar" table, please post here. If someone could concur with me that would also be great. The table that used to be on the Ramadan page certainly had some potential, but as it was, it had no information to bring to the table. joturner 20:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the Muslim templates are pretty mediocre in general, and either do not give much information or are unsightly (or both). OTOH, it may be nice to include links to holidays and months together in one template (ie merge muslimholidays and muslim months templates) so that you quickly can see which days of the month are special enough to merit an article when you are in that month's page, and similar information when you are at a holiday. Smmurphy 21:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Ramadan or Ramadhan"

Ramadhan ... "dh" is ordinarily transliteration for the letter ذ, not ض, no?

The month is more commonly known as "Ramadan" in English, and that is why it is so named. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Err, I think the question is about whether the alternate spelling offered meets transliteration norms, i.e., "dh" is usually used to represent a letter which sounds like "th" in the word "the," also sometimes transliterated as a "z," hence the spelling "Ramadhan" -- with a "dh" transliteration rather than a "d" -- being the root of the frequency of use of the spelling/pronunciation "Ramazan." Or, "are we shooting for accuracy or just common usage." Unless, of course, I have that all backwards.  ;) --M. Landers 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). The strict transliteration should be used here. A local, colloquial pronunciation should never be used as a standard, particularly for sandard (fuṣ'ḥá) Arabic expressions. The translieration used here is even incorrect for its pronunciation in this dialect of Arabic (a more appropriate transliteration being Ramaẓān). The strict transliteration, which should be used in this case is Ramaḍān . Madeinsane 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibitions

Masturbation is not permitted between dawn and dusk. I thought it was haraam period, and is never actually permitted. Yes? Marskell 13:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the masturbation reference upon consideration. It seemed to equate it with eating, drinking and sexual intercourse in general--i.e., acceptable when not fasting, only not acceptable when fasting. Marskell 00:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
You might want to have sexuality in Islam reflect that. --Striver 12:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The sexuality page says disliked but not haraam. I've seen other sources with the opposite: [5]. I think the trouble is the Qur'an never explicitly mentions it, and the idea that it is haraam is inferred from general comments on keeping oneself chaste. Now (while admitting no special expertise whatsoever) I understand that inferences of this sort are discouraged and thus some scholars could be led to conclude masturbation is neither lawful nor unlawful. The following line I thought interesting: the lesser evil is to be suffered in order to fend off the major one, i.e., if it's a choice between masturbation and adultery the former is allowed [6]. I'll think over it some more and perhaps others have comments. Marskell 12:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two in one

This article is in essence two articles in one, the month of Ramadan and its practices, and a article about Islamic fasting. This is not correct. In the same way as Laylat al-Qadr has its own article, so needs Islamic fasting/Sawm have its own article. A muslim is prescribed to fast during several other events such as breaking an oath or certain dates. Im going to fix that. --Striver 20:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So, done. I have not deleted any material, only re-organized and moved. Hope nobody objects. --Striver 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... The fasting section takes a unproportional big space in a article about a Islamic Month. I will set upp a separate article for it Islamic Fasting on the Islamic month of Ramadan, in the same way that we have Night of Destiny, Eid ul-Fitr and tarawih, all three only related to the month of Ramadan. --Striver 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I object, strongly, and have reverted the page to the pre-Striver version. Striver, you can't just post on the talk page, say "Any objections?", wait five minutes, and then proceed to a major reorganization. Zora 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what is the objection, the strong one? I hope you didnt revert just out of spite. --Striver 19:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
No answer? So, you reverted for fun? Good job!--Striver 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fourth atempt of geting a argument from your side... im talkin, but not you... --Striver 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gorramit, Striver, not everyone can spend ten hours a day on Wikipedia. You have to wait several DAYS before assuming that someone is not going to reply to you. You have a tendency to post something and if you don't get an answer immediately, assume that no one cares and you can go ahead. NO YOU CAN'T. SLOW DOWN.

The article on Ramadan seems to be somewhat compressed and confused, but your edits did not help. Ask someone who can write to work on the article, don't just blow it to smithereens. Zora 05:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So, you said that the previous version was no good? Ok, we agree on that.
But you have still not given any motivation for opposing my version. If you have a problem, then raise it so we can understand eachother, dont give sweeping condemnations.
Wikipedia is not a byrocracy, and you are not a wiki byrocrat, if you have a genuine complaint, i invite you to air it. --Striver 14:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is an undue imposition on readers to expect them to go to your "Islamic fasting" article to find out about Ramadan. When Muslims refer to Ramadan, they aren't refering to the month per se, they are referring to the whole cycle of fasting and festivities. So you get websites that say things like, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." That is, they conflate the month and the event. Yes, there's a logical difference, but the two things should be treated together. So you start with a section saying that "Ramadan is one of the months of the Islamic lunar calendar" and then you say, "All during Ramadan, Muslims fast during the day and feast at night ... etc. This special month-long fast is also called Ramadan". THEN you have a note saying that Ramadan is not the only occasion on which Muslims fast, just the main one ... and then you have the link to the Sawm article. That article can then have a more minute treatment of fasting, and a list of the special days and occasions upon which fasts are observed.

To get shapely articles, you are going to have to WRITE something. You can't just cut the Ramadan article up into chunks and spread it around. If you can't write -- which you can't, and you know it, Striver -- then you should leave the article alone and just put up your observations on the talk page, or ask another editor to help. Zora 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for a long answer! I appreciate it, since now i can respond to your objections.


It is an undue imposition on readers to expect them to go to your "Islamic fasting" article to find out about Ramadan.

No its not. Its one click away. And they will get educated when learning the distinction between the two things.


When Muslims refer to Ramadan, they aren't refering to the month per se, they are referring to the whole cycle of fasting and festivities.

Yes, as you said: "whole cycle of fasting and festivities". They refer to the month and what it contains. You are repeating a missunderstanding that i try to enlight.

So you get websites that say things like, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." That is, they conflate the month and the event.

No Zora, first of all, web sites are not "scholarly", to use your favorite word when i bring forth web sites.

Secondly, "Ramadan is a special month and we should be very careful in observing Ramadan." does say nothing more than one should "be very careful" when "observing (the month of) Ramadan" that includs "the whole cycle of fasting and festivities" and activities. There is nothing in your quote that implies that it referes to only the fasting bit of the month and not to other things like the Night of Destiniy.

Thrid, they do not conflate the month and the event. As you said yourself, there is no single event, there are multiple events.

Fourth: Now that we are quoting websites, lets see. I made a google search on "Ramadan" and got this page as #1: [7]. It starts by saying:

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar. It is during this month that Muslims observe the Fast of Ramadan.

You see it? The article clearly distincts between "Ramadan" and "the Fast of Ramadan" That is exaclty what i have done, i have created Islamic fasting during Ramadan, which is going to explain what the site i quoted referes to as "the Fast of Ramadan". That article is from a Muslim pov, so i added "Islamic fasting during Ramadan" to disambiguite between random fasting and Islamic fasting.


Yes, there's a logical difference, but the two things should be treated together.

Christmass is alway in december, but you dont explain it on the december article. They should not be treated together. See december to understand how a month is supposed to be treated.

So you start with a section saying that "Ramadan is one of the months of the Islamic lunar calendar" and then you say, "All during Ramadan, Muslims fast during the day and feast at night ... etc. This special month-long fast is also called Ramadan".

Give me a source for that. That is false, as far as i know.

THEN you have a note saying that Ramadan is not the only occasion on which Muslims fast, just the main one ... and then you have the link to the Sawm article. That article can then have a more minute treatment of fasting, and a list of the special days and occasions upon which fasts are observed.

That would be like having the december article go "December is used to prepare for the "Christman holiday", This special preparation is aslo called December. Christians have other holidays, but this one is the main holiday".

To get shapely articles, you are going to have to WRITE something. You can't just cut the Ramadan article up into chunks and spread it around. If you can't write -- which you can't, and you know it, Striver -- then you should leave the article alone and just put up your observations on the talk page, or ask another editor to help. Zora 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, see December. "spread it around" is exaclty what you do. --Striver 23:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article did need to be split up, but you clearly have overdone it Striver. If I knew nothing about Ramadan (this is hypothetical of course), I would think Ramadan was just an ordinary month in the Islamic calendar. Clearly, it is far from ordinary. Although, as you have, Ramadan and fasting are not one and the same, they are very closely related. Would you suggest Striver simplifying the Mardi Gras article into one that simply states it's a celebratory day that happens the day before Ash Wednesday? Would you suggest cutting down the United States of America article in one that simply states its location, but links to pages about it's history, politics, etc? Clearly, both those propositions would be absurd. The reader should not have to go to a seperate page to learn about Islamic fasting. Despite not being synonymous, most people come to the Ramadan page not to learn where it occurs in the year but to learn about the Islamic practices during the month.
The article right now is inconsistent on provided that information. You have an section that explains the "chaining of the devils" concept. I'm sorry, but as important as that info may be (and it is), as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be providing information the readers are looking for. Again I'll reiterate; that's information about Islamic fasting during Ramadan. Christmas and December are not nearly as closely related as Ramadan and fasting. Mentioning Christmas on December 25 would be appropriate (as it is already). However, it is not explained extensively on that page because it is highly unlikely someone looking to learn about Christmas will look at the December 25 article; they will instead search for Christmas, a name known to nearly every person on the planet regardless of whether he or she celebrates it. Sawm is not as familiar a name. And so, if a good number agree, the Islamic fasting article should be merged with the Ramadan article. The statement about the distinction between Ramadan and sawm should be left, but it would be a crime to talk about Ramadan without mentioning it's most prevalent feature - the fasting. joturner 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

You might be right in me cutting to much, but im glad you agree that there was to much there to begin with.

Lets examine your december 25 article. It, among lots of things, says:

The Christmas holiday is celebrated on this day. It is a national holiday in many countries including the United States, Canada, most European Nations, New Zealand and Australia. It celebrates the nativity of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, as well as secular aspects which include the decoration of Christmas trees, and the exchanging of gifts. It is celebrated by many non-Christians (including atheists) that celebrate the holiday focusing only on secular aspects.

That is all it says about "The Christmas holiday". compare it to the actual article, it contains the following sections.

   * 1 The origins of Christmas
   * 2 The Christian story of Christmas
   * 3 Dates of celebration
   * 4 Customs and celebrations
         o 4.1 Secular customs
               + 4.1.1 Santa Claus and other bringers of gifts
               + 4.1.2 Timing of gifts
               + 4.1.3 Christmas cards
               + 4.1.4 Decorations
               + 4.1.5 Social aspects and entertainment
         o 4.2 Religious customs and celebrations
         o 4.3 Regional customs and celebrations
   * 5 Christmas in the arts and media
   * 6 Economics of Christmas
   * 7 Social impact of Christmas
   * 8 Theories regarding the origin of the date of Christmas
   * 9 See also
   * 10 Notes
   * 11 References
   * 12 External links


There is no way of merging that into "december 25", and in the same way, Islamic Fasting of Ramdan is not supposed to be merged into "Ramadan". But giving a little more information, like saying that the entire month is coloured by its practises and the like is justified. Ill give it a shot, feel free to copyedit me. --Striver 23:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: You said that the article is supposed to give the reader the information they are searching for. That is true, and it does that right now, by informing a link to the inforamation. A encyclopedia is also supposed to be accurate and educating. Having all information about the "Islamic Fasting of Ramadan" in the "Ramadan" article is nether accurate nor educating, in the contrary, it adds to the missconception about them being the same thing. No information is witheld, all its provided in its appropriate article.

A searcher might type "hitler" when searching information about the "Nazi party", that does not mean that the articles should be merged, only that the "Nazi party" article should be prominently linkt to in the "Hitler" article. --Striver 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested merging the December 25 and Christmas article. Like I said before, it is highly unlikely someone will go to the December 25 article when looking for Christmas. But is very likely someone looking for info about the fasting during Ramadan will look in the Ramadan article. There is a great amount of information on the Nazi party in the Hitler article and a great amount of information about Hitler in the Nazi Party article. Again, I agree that Ramadan and sawm are different, but a comment denoting the difference should be sufficient.
As a perfect example, take a look at the Big Ben article. Big Ben is not the name of the tower, but the name of the bell that resides in the tower. However, the Big Ben article discusses in great detail the clock tower (which it is not), but points out the difference between the bell and the tower, named St. Stephen's Tower. In fact, if you search for St. Stephen's Tower, you won't find a separate article. Instead, you will be redirected to the Big Ben article. This does not fuel misconceptions as it is stated several times at the beginning that Big Ben is the bell. It still continues to discuss the tower as that is what most "Big Ben" searchers are interested in learning about.
I'll see how your edits affect things and what everyone else thinks. I won't make the change on my own although it seems necessary to me. joturner 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


You do have a good point with the Big Ben article.
I would also like to remind you that there are three different articles we are talking about, not two: Islamic fasting, Islamic fasting of Ramadan, and Ramadan.
I belive that merging the two latter is incorrect by it self but also that it dominates the article, giving to little atention to other aspects of the month. The Ramdan article should clerly give the impresion of representing a month, a regular one for Non-Muslims, and not include a Muslim practice in a regular month.
You will not find any article about a date or period in the Christian Julian Calendar being dominated by a religious practice, and in the same way i argue that a period in the Islamic Hijri calendar should not be dominated by a religious practice. --Striver 15:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted section

I was encouraged to stress the relious nature of the Month for Muslims, so i did so. But someone else removed that as a "unnecessary generalization". [8]. I did my best of representing the Muslim view of the month in a prominent way, but it got deleted. I sugest someone else to represent that in a un-unnecessary un-generalizating way... --Striver 15:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed your unnecessary generalization. I was most referring to the statement that all Muslims fast during Ramadan. Even if I were to presume you meant that all Muslims in good shape fast during Ramadan, we all know this to be false. Some Muslims do not fast. Some don't pray or pay their zakat or believe performing hajj is a priority. That is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Whether you consider those who violate one of the pillars of Islam Muslims is another story. But a more appropriate way of stating that that without generalizing is saying "observant Muslims." About the "religious nature" of the month, in good faith, I will replace that statement. joturner 22:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you :) --Striver 23:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laylat al-Qadr or Night of Destiny?

I believe Laylat al-Qadr should be the primary reference to the date as opposed to the Night of Destiny. Although this is an English version of Wikipedia, it would probably be more appropriate to refer to the holiday by its original Arabic name, much in the same way the Eid ul-Fitr, Cinco de Mayo, and Rosh Hashanah articles maintain their Arabic, Spanish, and Hebrew names, respectively. joturner 04:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. It's the usual academic practice to use the most common name, even if it's in a foreign language, and then add an English gloss. Zora 05:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The article currently says that of the odd-nights of Ramadan, the 23rd is the most likely to be Laylat al-Qadr. I was always taught that the 27th night was the most probable. At my local mosque, the 27th night always attracts the most people for prayer and this is ussually when the Hafiz seeks to finish reciting the entire Qur'an. I'd like someone to confirm this before I change it.

[edit] Merge Completed

I know, Striver, you're not going to be very happy. However, you were the only objector (although there apparently have only been three votes). I take back the statement that the original Ramadan article (from 6-Dec) was too long after seeing how much long the merged article is. The only section that could possibly be cut down is the one that titled "Prohibitions during the fast". However, since the info that would be cut out would not be very substantial, I just left it in. joturner 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

joturner, there is not a single date article in the entire wikipedia that uses over half of its space to explain a religous practice. It is not correct to do so in this date article. --Striver 03:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Striver, I have tried to explain the rationale for making the change, but you just don't seem to understand. So let me be a little more assertive. When you changed the page from the 6-December version, here is what you said:
This article is in essence two articles in one, the month of Ramadan and its practices, and a article about Islamic fasting. This is not correct. In the same way as Laylat al-Qadr has its own article, so needs Islamic fasting/Sawm have its own article. A muslim is prescribed to fast during several other events such as breaking an oath or certain dates. Im going to fix that. --Striver 20:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
So, done. I have not deleted any material, only re-organized and moved. Hope nobody objects. --Striver 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You said what you were going to do and then 59 minutes later completed it. As Zora explained, you can't just suddenly make a major change like that without consulting other editors. You have gotten only two replies to that and both have been objections. On the other hand, I put up the merge proposal several days ago. Although I never got anyone in support of the merge, I never got anyone against it. And so, as a result, I went on the basis that there has only been one person in the history of this article that has complained about the layout of this article, you. You alone cannot decide that major change. As a result, I am going to revert the page back to my version, which is essentially the version it has been for a very long time and then post a message referencing the proposed split. joturner 17:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As an attachment to my last reply and in reply to your statement, you are wrong. There are articles where over half its space it devoted to explaining a practice. See Cinco de Mayo. See Fourth of July. For both of those, the entire article is devoted to the holiday, not to the calendar date. That is because they are the holidays. It's understandable that January 1 doesn't spend half the article talking about New Year's Day; no one says "Happy January 1". However people say "Happy Cinco de Mayo" and "Happy Fourth of July" as those are the nicknames for those holidays. Likewise, people say "Ramadan Mubarak" because Ramadan is the holiday, a month-long holiday (also know as a holy month). joturner 18:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
You just proved me right. See:
--Striver 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm just confused as to how you can't possibly see the difference between Ramadan and just any other month or date. Ramadan is a holiday. Like I tried to explain with Cinco de Mayo and the Fourth of July, it is possible for a holiday to share a name with a calendar month or calendar date. Either way, I am happy you have not changed the article. We shall see who everyone agrees with. I just wish someone else would provide some input on the matter. joturner 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I do understand that "it is possible for a holiday to share a name with a calendar month", you need to understand that that does not justifie merging the holiday into the calendar date!

Look:

  1. DATE: May 5
  2. Holiday:Cinco de Mayo

See? They are not merged, even while "Cinco de Mayo" means literaly "May 5", they are given different articles. You understand me now? Same name, different articles fot the "date" and "holiday".

Again:

  1. DATE: July 4
  2. Holiday:Fourth of July

Exactly the same name AND date, but still different articles. See the patern?

Now, just follow the patern:

  1. DATE: Ramadan
  2. Holiday: Islamic fasting during Ramadan

Or is that not logical? Peace! --Striver 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramdan is not first and foremost a holiday, it existed long before it became "holy", further, Arabic Jews and Christians see nothing holy about it. The holy part of it deserves its own article. --Striver 02:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Islamic fasting during Ramadan" is not the name of a holiday; Ramadan is. However, I see your point. Instead, what I think needs to be done here is that Ramadan be split into Ramadan (month) and Ramadan (holiday). It seems unnecessary to me, but doable. joturner 02:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Brother, Muslims do not call the holiday for "Ramadan". See, make a google search, you ´will find this:

Ramadan (A) is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar. It is during this month that Muslims observe (B) the Fast of Ramadan. Lasting for the entire month

http://www.holidays.net/ramadan/

Ramadan is (A) the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. Islam uses a lunar calendar—that is...
For more than a billion Muslims around the world—including some 8 million in North America—Ramadan is a (B) "month of blessing" marked by prayer, fasting, and charity. This...

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/ramadan1.html

You see? Ther is a clear distinction between the month and the activity. Ill repeat the first link:

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar. It is during this month that Muslims observe the Fast of Ramadan.

See? Fast of Ramadan, with capital "F". Now, compare "Muslims observe the Fast of Ramadan" and "Islamic fasting during Ramadan". --Striver 02:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Islamic fasting of Ramadan? --Striver 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I may have to concede defeat on this one. But the Big Ben precedent contradicts any reason to split this article. If we were to make a change, how about Fast of Ramadan as is mentioned in one of the articles you cited? joturner 02:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


The Big Ben and the tower is not about a holiday and a date. I could live with Fast of Ramadan, but i do like to disambig to "Islamic fasting", since "Fasting" can mean anything from christian to jewish to "loosing fat" fasting. But i guess that the "of Ramadan" part of "Fasting of Ramadan" is a disambig of some sort.
Its up to you, i claim that "Islamic Fasting" is more accurate than "Fasting", "Islamic Fasting" includes no water and no sex, while "Fasting" does not. But i can live with that.--Striver 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to add, however, that "Fast of Ramadan" is similar to "The Fireworks of Independence Day" and "The Dinner of Thanksgiving" (i.e. the practice followed by the holiday). Not good enough yet to split the article. I'd also like to add that two of those sources are the exact same and the third does not distinguish a holiday from the month itself; it simply describes it as a month of blessing. Compare that to Thanksgiving being a day of thanks and Patriot Day being a day of remembrance. So, I completely take back that last statement about me conceding defeat. I don't; those aren't compelling pieces of evidence saying that Ramadan is not a holiday. I'm still up for doing the Ramadan (month) and Ramadan (holiday) split as a comprimise. joturner 02:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New approach

Forget what i wrote, i have thought some more... Thing is, you are accurate in saying that the name of the holiday month is "ramdan". If we keep that in mind, we get:

  1. DATE: July 4
  2. Holiday:Fourth of July
  1. DATE: Ramadan (month)
  2. Holiday:Ramadan (holiday)


Then in Ramadan (holiday), we need to describe the practices of Ramadan (holiday). As we know, there are several. If im not correct, only one of them is included in the Five Pillars of Islam, that being the practice of the Islamic fasting during Ramadan, that is not the same thing as Islamic Fasting, since it is has some additional rules, like being obligatory and all the issues concerned with that.

So, if we are supposed to be strict, we shuold create:

  1. DATE: Ramadan (month)
  2. Holiday:Ramadan (holiday)

and then creat articles for the practices in it like:

  • Islamic fasting during Ramadan
  • Chaining of the devils
  • Laylat al-Qadr
  • Tarawih
  • Eid ul-Fitr

Note that only the first one of them is included in the Five pillars, the rest are not mandatory. So, the holiday in it self is not mandatory, but a practice in the holiday is mandatory.

So, in Ramadan (month) we only say that it is a Muslim holiday, and link to Ramadan (holiday). There we can link to all the other practices, and mention that of all the practises, its only "Islamic fasting during Ramadan" that is mandatory. We can mention that in both Ramadan (holiday) and Islamic fasting during Ramadan. How does that sound? --Striver 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. The Islamic fasting during Ramadan article would be unnecessary since it would be in Ramadan (month). Chaining of the devils during Ramadan does not need to be in a separate article since there isn't a whole lot that needs to be said about the subject. Laylat al-Qadr, Tarawih, and Eid ul-Fitr are already separate articles as they should be. If we were to make this change, I believe the article Ramadan should redirect to Ramadan (holiday) instead of Ramadan (month) since readers will most likely be looking for information about the holiday and because the holiday article will contain more information. Each of the two articles should contain a message at the top saying something along the lines of This article contains information about the holiday called Ramadan. For information about the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, see Ramadan (month). Or, as alternative, it could just go to a disambiguation page. Redirecting Ramadan to Ramadan (month) does not sound like a good idea because most articles on Wikipedia that link to Ramadan are linked to the Ramadan article because they are referencing the holiday.
Another thing I'd like to mention is the potential problem with the word holiday. Holiday equals holy day. As Ramadan is not a day, but a month, it really should be "holy month". Of course using the terms holy month and just month or even holy month and calendar month would be unnecessarily confusion. Therefore, I'm just bringing this up; hopefully readers won't adopt that classic meaning of holiday and understand the distinction that is trying to be made.
If that last paragraph didn't make much sense, just stick to the first paragraph. Some input from other editors would be desired as well as this is a very large decision to make. I hope everything works out in the end. Peace be upon you. joturner 03:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And peace be with you, brother in Islam and humanity!

I think i agree with most. Let Ramadan be a disambig, that directs to Ramadan (holiday) and Ramadan (month). The date relevant text will then be moved to the month article, while the events will in the holiday article. We can put in the first lines that we dont mean holy day, rather "holy period".

I would like to remind that the fasting holds a special distinction, being a part of the five pillars and the branches of religion, making it obligatory. ie, one could ignore the whole holiday issue and live in a cave, not bringing the mobile phone, but still do the Islamic fasting during Ramadan, while totaly ignoring the other events in Ramadan (holiday).

Then we also have the problem like the Islam template and the Five Pillars article. If we link them to Ramadan (holiday), it gives the impresion that whole holiday with everying in it is a part of the pillars, while its not. They should link to Islamic fasting during Ramadan and not Ramadan (holiday).

Since it does not take any extra effort from WP and i am a Inclusionist Eventualist, i support a Chaining of the devils during Ramadan, for consistancy, but i have no problem with not having that. --Striver 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Islam and Five Pillars templates link to the sawm article. That won't be affected by all this. The information from the Islamic fasting during Ramadan article could probably be split among the Ramadan (holiday) and sawm articles, with more emphasis towards putting that information in the sawm article. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the chaining of the devils page; it just seems like there isn't enough information on the current Ramadan page to constitute a new article. Maybe there will be in the future. joturner 04:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The disambig page actually does seem to like a workable idea. I'm at least willing to try it. Instead of Ramadan (holiday) how about Ramadan (religious observances)? I strongly protest against Islamic fasting during Ramadan. That would go under religious observances. If there's a separate article on Islamic fasting, I think it should redirect to Sawm, since I believe the Islamic conception of a "fast" is somewhat different from the usual English meaning of fast. I'm against using a non-English term when there's no necessity for it, but in this case I think it expresses a necessary distinction. There should probably also be some duplication of information between Ramadan and sawm, since sawm is the major part of Ramadan. It should have its separate article ONLY because some Muslims fast at times other than Ramadan. I also think we should wait a bit before making major moves, since not everyone is a wikiholic who spends six hours a day online. Give other editors a chance to weigh in. In fact, INVITE them to weigh in.

As a general observation, we shouldn't bud out new articles until there's a clear need, like a section that's growing so much that it unbalances the article. Setting up a new article that's just a stub, and my never be more than a stub, is pointless. Zora 04:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramadan (religious observances) may work better than Ramadan (holiday). I too agree that other editors should have some say before the change is made; that's why the split template, which begs for editor input, is on the article. I'm normally not on Wikipedia for hours and hours at time either, especially on weekdays. And so, I added a post to the Muslim Guild forum. If we don't get any additional posts by a certain time (maybe a few days or the end of the week), we should probably go ahead and make the change. To be honest, if we have three people that never agree on anything agreeing to make this move, it's improbable that this proposal will get tons of backlash. joturner 04:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] section break

I also agree that Ramadan (religious observances) is better. The only thing i do not agree on is to only have Ramadan (religious observances) and Sawm. I argue that there is a specific need for Islamic fasting during Ramadan.

Zora does not like "Islamic Fasting" and rather wants "Sawm". I dont, but that is not the issue. Ill agree on "Sawm" for the time being so we can focus on the issue. Ill rename Islamic fasting during Ramadan to Sawm of Ramadan. Now, to the Issue:


Ramadan (religious observances) - This article should contain a list of events that happen during the month of Ramadan, and talk about how it makes Muslims feel and other general social and religious implications of the entire religous observance. It should not try to elaborate on the details of each of the multiple obsercances.

Sawm - This article shuold be about the Islamic consept of Fasting, its rules and regulations by the Sharia. This is not one of the five pillars of Islam, it only explains how Islamic Fasting is distinct from fasting in all other religions and the history and phylospy of it. Then it can talk about all the different times Sawm can be used, one of with is the obligatory Sawm of Ramadan.

Sawm of Ramadan - This article should be about one of the five Pillars of Islam, explaing that it is Sawm during the Ramadan (month) and is a part of the Ramadan (religious observances). Then it can continue about the Qur'anic verses that say that Sawm is to be observed during Ramadan, Hadith that do the same, explain that it is obligatory to do Sawm during ramadan, for whom it is obligatory to do so, what hapens if one break tehh sawm of Ramadan and explain that it has consequeses, in contrary to voluntarly Sawm during any other time, reiterate whom are prohibited to do Sawm, tell who are not obligated to do Sawm, but may do so if they want and so on....

There are four distinct topics:

  1. Ramadan (month) about a month
  2. Ramadan (religious observances) about multiple religous observamces during a month
  3. Sawm bout how Muslims fast and the different occations where they can do it
  4. Sawm of Ramadan about one of the pillars of Islam, and its distict rules and regulations and history

--Striver 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The templates have always referred to the current sawm article; there's no need to add a sub-article of sawm and link to that. It is okay to combine two very closely related articles; the sawm article is not very long as it is. joturner 06:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is my very objection, to link a very important issue, so important that Sunnis belive it to be 1/5 of the pillars of Islam to a article that discusses Sawm in general. That is wrong in my view - Like linking the pillar about Hajj to the Kaaba article. It wount be done now, since both articles are evolved, but you get my point. I advocate consistancy, that the topic is relevant in it self and should not be put in a article about the general practice of fasting. Do we really need the article to be evolved to do the right thing?

what do you think about this:

  1. Ramadan about a month
  2. Islamic observances of Ramadan about multiple religous observamces during a month
  3. Sawm bout how Muslims fast and the different occations where they can do it
  4. Sawm of Ramadan about one of the pillars of Islam, and its distict rules and regulations and history

It is that way it will end being, since it is the correct way, but its hard to see it now since each article does not contain the information it should. I belive it is wrong to merge those distinct separate articles giving lack of information as argument. In my view, it would be like having a article about both "general december events" (Ramadan (religious observances)) and christmas (Sawm of Ramadan), only since there is not enough information to fill a article about each. Or like merging "politicians" (sawm) and "presidents" (Sawm of Ramadan) only since there is not enough information to fill a article about each.

peace! --Striver 07:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is completely unnecessary to create multiple articles and levels. That's complication for the sake of complication. Make it as simple as we can and branch out only when necessary. Striver, you keep trying to organize Wikipedia as if it were a computer program, and it's NOT -- it's text, and readability trumps logic. Zora 10:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes Made

The changes mentioned on this talk page have been made. Feel free to edit the divided Ramadan articles; deciding what information should go in each article was very difficult. joturner 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Is there a reason this article is titled "Ramadan (religious observances)" instead of "Ramadan". "Ramadan" redirects here. I am loathe to such titles in the absence of disambiguization. If this is because of the dividing of content, why isnt "Ramadan" a disambiguization page? Savidan 01:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As this talk page chronicles, it was decided that the Ramadan page be split into two articles, one about the calendar month and one about the "holiday". Since most references to Ramadan refer to the "holiday", the Ramadan page was redirected to that page. joturner 01:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest making the page title Fast of Ramadan. It also needs to have Sawm of Ramadan merged in. Cuñado - Talk 00:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Badr

Karen Armstrong says that Muhammad received his verses on fasting shortly after the Battle of Badr, and that fasting was initially begun as a way of commemorating it. Can someone please confirm or refute? In either case, there should probably be a bit of expansion on the origins of Ramadan, i.e. what year did it start, under what circumstances were the Verses received, etc. Palm_Dogg 10:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holidays

The word "holiday" came from "holy day" and a religious event and its associated festivities, e.g. feasts of saints, easter, christmas. I think Ramadan is not fundamentally different from such dates: it is a deeply religious event, but has celebratory festivities associated with it. --Sumple (Talk) 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that English-speaking people understand "holidays" in that way any longer. For me, "holiday" just means no work, relaxation, fun, good food. There are many completely secular holidays.
I'm a Buddhist -- I'd regard Buddhist celebrations as "holidays" only if there's some aspect of no work, etc., associated with them.
I did put in some material re the common observances of Ramadan (feasts, shopping, movies ... perhaps should have added TV specials) and said that devout Muslims disapproved of turning a month of self-mortification into a month of jollity. Perhaps that should be moved up? Zora 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK in ordinary holidays, people don't work at all. In fasting month, except during Eid Ul-Fitr celebration (2 days), most moslem continue to work from 0900 AM to 0500 PM.Therefore I propose to change fasting month into "religious month", and not a month long holidays. The only holidays are 2 days of Eid Ul-Fitr celebration.

[edit] Some deletions

I have deleted some of the text from this article. It doesn't explain what Ramadan is before it goes comparing it to other religions. Reading some of the external links I don't think this article mentions that much of the Muslim viewpoint. In regard of its notablity: we can discuse it when the article gets up to standard. eeemess 14:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I think that is an understatement. There appears excellent evidence that Ramadan was a pagan observance, taken over into Islam just as Easter and Christmas were adaptations by Christians. This whole article is very PC, but not very interesting scholarship. --djenner 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] rename

Lets rename this to Islamic observances of Ramadan, but keep Ramadan as a redirect to here. --Striver 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roaming Article ...

I'm not sure why this article has moved, but I'd like to remind there are guidelines for naming articles. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?".. I bet it's not "Rash hasana". Equendil Talk 16:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's provided that "Rash hasana" even means something or is not trolling. Equendil Talk 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem "Rash Hashana" is a jewish holiday, haha, how very drôle. Requested move on Wikipedia:Requested moves since it needs an admin to be done properly. Equendil Talk 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support. Whoever did this move did not give any rationale for doing so. Five months ago (s)he moved Salve Regina to Salve amicus for no reason either. I say watch out for new vandalism around late February. :) --SigPig 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This is definitely vandalism. 65.43.150.232 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Someone please move this page back from Rash hasana to Ramadan, and deal with the vandal who did it. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 17:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has been moved back by an admin, so all is settled. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 17:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the article was renamed again--can we get it fixed? 66.16.75.24 22:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

Article wasn't renamed again. No idea what makes you think so. Equendil Talk 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Was definitely when I checked earlier--Rash hasana was what it said, and this was after all of the updates. However, it was fixed within a few minutes, so by the time you saw this I think it was reverted.66.16.75.24 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

[edit] Use of 'Allah'

Query as to whether this is the unecessary use of a non-English word?

  • Argument 1: If 'Allah' translates directly to 'God' then the latter should be used for an English-language article; or
  • Argument 2: That 'Allah' actually translates as 'the one and only God' or similar in which case the translation in parentheses at the top should be made clearer; or
  • Argument 3: That 'Allah' is now so oft-used so as to be accepted as an English word, in which case there should be no translation at all.

Just a logical conundrum. Danlibbo 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction of Ridwan Ruslan

Really doesn't belong in this article does it? at least not where it is Danlibbo 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This does have relevance, but if you think that it shouldnt be included in "Ramadan" then we should create a new article. Do you agree?

yep - it was in 'practices of ramadan' but it's more about disagreements or controversies - anywho - new art sounds good


[edit] Ramadan Presentation...

I have added an external link to a powerpoint on Ramadan (Ramadan For Body and Soul) which I have found very useful. Please review it and see if you agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: the user refers to this link, which has not yet been added: Ramadan For Body and Soul -Patstuart 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No history?

Why do Muslims practice Ramadan? There's no history here anymore Danlibbo 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, there's nothing here about its (pagan) origins. Tuncrypt 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing of the beginning... and end of Ramadan

It seems there is some debate about when Ramadan begins and ends, as discussed in this article. It is easy to predict from astronomic data the cycle of the moon. The dating should be sourced better. Also, from astronomic data, it should be possible to predict the dates for Ramadan in future years-- it would be useful to present that data. 204.187.34.100 17:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] six days of shawwal

I think someone mention something about the six days of shawwal, that happens after ramadan Bazel 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 parts

thre are 3 parts in ramadhan:http://www.netpakistani.com/articles/?9946068


[edit] So when is it??

Apart from a note saying when Ramadan was last year - this article doesn't say when it actually falls in the western calendar. If it's from roughly the last week to September till roughly the last week of October, then can someone confirm and add it in? raining girl 10:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I added it in, its on the ramadan month page. might not be entirely correct though, needs verification. Jackpot Den 09:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article does not say when Ramadan is in 2007. That's not very helpful. 69.85.176.69 04:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See the sub-article on Ramadan (calendar month). → AA (talk) — 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

the link to the external webpage giving a printable calendar includes some "sexy" links. perhaps another site might replace this Sciencegeekb6b3 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it since these are non-encyclopedic. → AA (talk) — 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observing Ramadan in Space

What may sound an abstract issue has become reality: The muslim Muszaphar Shukor is on board the international space station ISS and Malaysian religious authorities have prepared guidelines for him. --80.171.9.125 08:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a hadith(saying by the prophet) that there was once a man who asked the prophet how they should know salat times in a place with shorter days and longer nights. The prophet replied "Go by normal days." So I belive that Muszaphar Shukor should use Malaysian times for his fasting. Starting a little before Fajir and ending on Magrib. --66.182.204.202 12:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)