Talk:Sahih Muslim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hadith task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Different people? 2 Notes Section 3 Requested quotation of Style guidelines 4 Structure of the article 5 Edit 6 Controversy 7 This is not an islamic encyclopedia, we use the gregorian calender.

[edit] Different people?

Are these two different people or the same one?--Rayc 01:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sahih Muslim, a book, Imam Muslim the author MeltBanana 01:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes Section

I removed the notes section because it is nothing but a person's point of view not a source. If you want to restore it please provide a fact based soruce and not opinion 4.142.78.191 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)eric

[edit] Requested quotation of Style guidelines

Striver, you said you failed to find anything in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style that deals with the criticisms I have made about excessive subdivision of articles due to insufficient material. You also asked for a quote. I am happy to oblige (bold emphasis added):

[edit] Structure of the article

The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since these can inhibit the flow of the text. By the same token, paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length.

Articles generally comprise prose paragraphs, not bullet points; however, sometimes a bulleted list can break up what would otherwise be an overly large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. Bulleted lists should not be overused in the main text, but are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom.

Headings help to make an article clearer, and comprise the table of contents; see Wikipedia:Section, which users can choose under 'Preferences' to view (the default) or not to view. Headings are hierarchical, so you should start with == Header == and follow it with === Subheader ===, ==== Subsubheader ====, and so forth. The 'second-level' == Header == is overly large in some browsers, but that can be fixed for individual viewers with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed (see help:User style).

Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.

The degree to which subtopics should appear in a single article or be given their own pages is a matter of judgment and of controlling the total length of the article.

Between paragraphs and between sections, there should be only a single blank line. Multiple blank lines unnecessarily lengthen the article and can make it more difficult to read.

Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Structure of the article

I hope you will now please reconsider your fondness for subdivision in articles whose length does not support it. --AladdinSE 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i see it now, you are correct. Thanks for informing me. Peace. --Striver 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

just added an article about him, i know what wiki says about articles and such but it is better than what is there at present, so until a real scholar comes along and directly quotes material from what he has read i dont see anything wrong with this for the time being. to many muslims come to this site and read the fitnah that is present here and believe it as true simply becouse it is a popular site. if i can edit this page so can anyone else and that is saying a lot!--Rami.b 08:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

There should be something in this article about "The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour". Considering it is arguably the most controversial passage in all of the Hadith, and perhaps in all of Islamic literature, I think it should be addressed. Frasor 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not an islamic encyclopedia, we use the gregorian calender.

Why are all the dates in A.H? This needs to be changed immediately. Zazaban 22:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)