Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Referencing Issues

message: 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)
thread_title:  How do I join? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sharia oversimplification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islam related topic on VfD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the Prophet 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28Islam-related_articles%29]] 

message: Please comment: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#interreligious --Striver 05:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Comparative Religions Template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Abd Allah vs. Abdullah 

message: I just finished a rough draft of this article and would love some feedback. Palm_Dogg 01:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Badr]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Calling all mystics! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) Page 

message: 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.
left|frame|I award this Award to Wikipedian for their great efforts on Wikipoject. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Wikiproject Award

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed mergers

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Jamiat Islami]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems in Shi'a articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  different kind of censorship?