Talk:Basmala

message: Ok, so I read through this page, and I checked the archived page, however I have been unable to see where those in favor of "basmala" provided an origin for their word. It seems like someone baisically made up this word, and by saying that it refers to the whole phrase and not the first word(bismillah) tried to justify it. Can you please give an link or something to the definition or origin of the word "basmala" other than your own. If you can't I vote that the title should be changed to "Bismillah" as it is an actual word, it refers to the first word, and more importantly when muslims say "bismillah", other muslims around them actually know what that person is referrring to. So yeah, either give a concrete reason for having this word as the title, or change it to bismillah, because your reasons thus far have not been good enough. --Mistarojaz 14:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I have provided a reference (repeatedly) -- to the relevant dictionary entry in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic.  If you're unable to use an Arabic-English dictionary, then it's unlikely that you'll be able to make a very constructive or fruitful contribution to this particular topic at this time.  The word "Basmala" was coined (in exactly and precisely the same manner as the word Hamdala(h) discussed on the Hamdulillah page) in order to have a single convenient term to refer to the WHOLE PHRASE بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم , and NOT just the single word بسم الله .  As for the rest, I've already said several times that "Basmala is not an 'alternative pronunciation' of Bismillah, nor was it ever intended to be such, but is rather the name of the entire phrase whose first word is Bismillah". AnonMoos 16:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New sub-discussion

message: Googling basmala yields about 20,300 results vs. the 544,000 results for Bismillah (as of Sept. 18, 2005). The article must be re-named Bismillah. Once I get a handle of WP editing, I will do the said without asking, in line with the be bold way of WP. TheProphetess 18:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you feel it is correct read Wikipedia:Requested moves and do what it says, there will be a vote on this.  I personally don't know and will have to read about it.  Google tests are not always the most sound.  For instance Bismillah would be used more under both arguments but that does not make it correct.  Since the phrase is "Bismillah Ar-Rahman..." when the phrase is used Bismallah would show up.  However, when there is discussion of the phrase Basmala would show up according to An-Moos (I forget his username).  I have seen both ways and I will have to read more to figure out which I believe to be correct. gren グレン 20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your googlestats really don't mean too much until you first understand the most basic and essential point:  Namely, that Basmala is NOT an "alternative pronunciation" to the SINGLE WORD Bismillah, but is instead a collective NAME of the WHOLE PHRASE bismillaah ir-raHman ir-raHiim.  Anyway, the 35,000 hits for Google search basmala OR basmalah OR basmalat is actually quite a bit more than would be found for many other words of Islamic technical terminology. AnonMoos 03:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the apology trap! I am not ready yet. The article, rather than this talk page, is what's really worth my time. TheProphetess 12:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I ain't asking for any apology -- I'm basically telling you to refrain from taking drastic actions until you start to understand the main issue involved. AnonMoos 18:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google test of validity/ popular term 

message: <P ALIGN=RIGHT>
</P>
I've just done the donkey work of copying the two PNGs on the w:de article over to commons. They can now be used in this article, if anyone would care to place one or both. –Hajor 22:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  (Though the second one seems kind of ugly from my purely subjective and idiosyncratic personal aesthetic point of view...)  AnonMoos 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  :). I can't wait until I get a handle of the frequent wiki operations, and bring over some more images. Thanks. TheProphetess 12:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. You should probably check out Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. But please also take a glance at Wikipedia:Image use policy first. While neither of these two pics is particularly spectacular (and yes, the second one is decidedly funky), they are policy-compliant. –Hajor 13:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to them?  Was there a copyright tag problem?  The image also disappeared from German wikipedia, so it seems it's gone.  Will remove image link from page.  AnonMoos 17:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know why they're not displaying; they're both still there on commons: :commons:Image:Basmala.png & :commons:Image:Basmala kufi.png. And they were  tagged as both GFDL and cc.by.sa, so there shouldn't be any © issues. –Hajor 18:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Until they're actually diplaying again, I'll leave the code commented out... AnonMoos 20:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here]'s the answer, I think. Just too big; they need to be resized. –Hajor 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, no problem -- I'll do a resizing for Basmala.png shortly... AnonMoos 22:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm having problems making out the text in the "leaves", and also I can't figure out what the letters sad-dal at the top of the pear mean...  But thanks. AnonMoos 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S.  The colorful borders were pretty, but not very useful for the purposes of Wikipedia, so I losslessly cropped and grayscaled the image. AnonMoos 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right leave: "Qāla allāh ta'ālā" ("The sublime God said"). Left: "Wa innahu min Sulaymān" ("And it is from Salomo" as the Basmala first apears in a letter from Salomo in the Qur'an). Below the pear: "katabahu al-shaykh Azīz al-Rufā'ī 1343" ("Shaykh Aziz al-Rufai wrote it 1924/1925"). The "sad-dal" is simply a wasla (you actually see s-l-ta marbuta) on top of the alif of Allah ;-) Aziz Efendi died 1934 so the image is in the public domain (did anyone of you think about that?) --89.51.56.136 (probably :de:Benutzer:Baba66) 06:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks... AnonMoos 08:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calligraphy

message: The sentence in "Significance of Bismillah" could be the beginning of a great article section, but as it stands it's rather enigmatic and unsatisfactory.  What tasks?  What is "Tauz", how is it spelled in Arabic script, and is there any explanation of it elsewhere on Wikipedia? Etc. etc.  AnonMoos 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented this section out, because it was really a marker for future expansion, rather than adding anything very meaningful to the page in its current form. AnonMoos 13:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Significance of Bismillah"

message: I took this out
However, the Qur'an itself indicates (in chapter 15, verse 87) that the basmala should be counted as a verse in the first Sura and it is universally acknowledged to be a distinct verse elsewhere, so simple logic would seem to contradict Al-Tabari and suggest that the basmala should be numbered as a verse in all the chapters that it begins.
Here is the problem. Here is a commentary on 15:87 :
15:87 And truly We have given you seven oft-repeated, and the Grand Qur’ān.
15:87 According to Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, Ad-Dhahhāk and others, all quoted by Tabai, sab‘a min al-mathāni refers to seven long sūrah beginning with al-Baqarah. The same authorities also stated the seven of the mathāni (lit. often recited) refers to the seven verses of sūrah Fatihah (1:1-7), the first chapter of the Qur’ān. The prophet himself described the seven verses as the essence of the entire Qur’ān (umm al-Kitāb, lit. mother of the Qur’ān) and prescribed the Muslims to recite the verses in every rakah of their daily prayer. The verses can also be called as the Grand Qur’ān inasmuch as they contain the gist of the basic principles enumerated in the entire Qur’ān (cf. 39:23).
From this we see that the mention of seven verses is *interpreted* by some as referring to seven verses of the Basmalah. However, *what* seven verses? All versions of the Qur'an of which I am aware, and which number verses, do have seven verses in the Basmalah, and in common Hafs printings, the Basmalah is numbered as verse 1. However, in common Warsh numberings, the Basmalah is not numbered as a verse of the first chapter, but another verse of it, considered single in Hafs, is split, leaving, again, seven verses.
This whole thing becomes an issue when claims are made regarding the numerological significance of word and phrase occurrences in the Qur'an. Otherwise it would be a mere pedantic detail. Those with an axe to grind on one side or another want to define it as suits their purpose. But there is no "simple logic" here. I can find no ab initio reasoning that requires a conclusion either way. The original texts apparently did not number verses and they did not even divide the verses, except when it was necessary for meaning. There was no punctuation. That all came later. As to the Basmalah being or not being part of the other Suras, it is always written at the beginning of every Sura except for the ninth, for which reason some consider the ninth sura to be a continuation of the eighth. Whether or not it is recited, when a reciter is proceeding from one Sura to another, seems to vary with the school of recitation.
--Abd 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of argument re number of first verse 

message: I am hoping to eventually include the Bismillah Al-Bahi Al-Abha in here, provided I can find some fair-use images particularly from Mishkin Qalam for the article, but I would love it if someone slightly more veteran at this than I am would include it, as I still find myself stumbling somewhat over wiki formatting on occasion. Peter Deer (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article Baha'i symbols... AnonMoos 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baha'i usage 

message: Why does 'in the name of god' redirect here? I was looking for something completely different, there are at least 2 songs with this name. And if i understand correctly, 'Basmala' means more than that. ClamsonJ (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is redirected here because the phrase "In the name of God," translated into Arabic, has a name, basmala. That's what this article is about. If there is some other article appropriate for a redirect, the redirection should be changed to point to a disambiguation page. --Abd (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In The Name Of God 

message: Hey y'all,
The article says: "In the Qur'an, the phrase is usually numbered as the first verse of the first sura, but according to the view adopted by Al-Tabari, it precedes the first verse."
This is incorrect. With the exception of chapter 1 and chapter 9, all chapters have Bismillah in the beginning of each chapter. This is not counted as part of the chapter. In chapter 1, the Bismillah is counted as the first verse. In chapter 9, there is no Bismillah in the beginning.
You can check this in the numbering of a Quran. This is also supported by Muhammad Asad (a scholar who translated the Quran while consulting previous centuries' of scholarly work), who says: "According to most of the authorities, this invocation (which occurs at the beginning of every surah with the exception of surah 9) constitutes an integral part of "The Opening" and is, therefore, numbered as verse 1. In all other instances, the invocation "in the name of God" precedes the surah as such, and is not counted among its verses." (source: http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/koran/koran-asad10.html) 82.15.59.176 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information 

message: I m new here. SO I don't much about editing. This site mathematically & logically proves 786 is wrong ( http://members.tripod.com/maseeh1/advices7/id152.htm ). Could someone improve this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verycuriousboy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not have any deep meaning or significance, but it's the abjad isopsephy of the Basmala phrase following the standard rules of abjad isopsephy (see Abjad numerals).  In any case, I'm not sure how image http://members.tripod.com/maseeh1/advices7/0ccef4a0.gif on that page is supposed to "prove" anything, nor what he's referring to when he talks about counting shadda (non-letter-diacritics don't have any abjad isopsephy value...). AnonMoos (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: With respect to your edits, unfortunately, post-nominal honorifics like "PBUH" generally go against official Wikipedia style rules.  Also, abjad numerals haven't been theologically controversial, but using numbers instead of divine names (which isn't the same thing as abjad numerals at all) has been taken exception to.  For some people, the fact that it's an innovation (بدعة) is sufficient reason for them to dislike it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Number 786

message: There seem to be both those who think it's absolutely un-Islamic and those who think it's absolutely Islamically permissible.  I think that the current wording is reasonably neutral, and that significant revisions to this section should best be discussed here on the talk page first... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lovers and haters

message: According to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/55302/basmalah "Tasmiyah" is an alternative term for "Basmalah". Could this be added in the first sentence? I would also like to add the suggestion to add a footnote after the first bolded occurance of the word Basmala in the lead section, in which a short explanation could be given about the alternate spelling 'Bismillah'. Wiki-uk (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just now saw your comments for the first time.  First of all, Bismillah is not an "alternative spelling"[sic], as has been discussed to death multiple times above.  I found tasmiyah as تسمية in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (derived from the s-m consonantal root which means basically "name'), but I'm not sure whether this synonymy has any great significance. AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasmiya(h) 

message: Salaam,
In the section =occurence= , referring to the paragraph that starts from : "In a commentary on the Basmala in his Tafsir al-Tabari, al-Tabari writes:"..etc
# 1- IMHO, the paragraph is an adectote referring to Jesus and how he 'guessed' about the meaning of the three letters, which is 1.1) far from relevant to the subject of the article, and 1.2) the least expected commentary in that section. There is much to say instead, else it is better not keep this commentary. 
# 2- If the article agrees that Basmala is mainly in the domain of Islam, why should an important explanation be referring to a Baha'i Faith article? Is it the lack of english sources or author choice ? But let us not consider this point to avoid diving into Religious argumentwars. God is one. 
It is advised to enrich this part of the article with more important / relevant information about the occurence of the basmala phrase, namely, that is used almost in any 'Opening' of action (inspired by it being the 'Opening' of the Holy Quran). Most importantly, basmala is a very important requirement to eating specifically killing animals, else the meat is forbidden, in this situation, Basmala is used as a 'permission to kill' ( granted from God .. in order to eat .. in order to work hard.. just FYI)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonsali (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: "Bismillah" is the correct spelling for the title page and it need to be corrected and moved to the proper spelling.--Ibrahim ebi (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been discussed repeatedly above, "Bismillah" is the first two words of the phrase "Bismillah ar-Raħman ar-Raħim", while "Basmala" is the NAME OF THE WHOLE PHRASE "Bismillah ar-Raħman ar-Raħim".  If you have something to new to say which hasn't already been fairly thoroughly gone through, I would be surprised... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title page spelling correction. 

message: During the discussion it has been established in archive that the word used as title in the article is invented by a regional group of people. Therefore the rest of the world is un-familiar with this invented terminology. Henceforth, it has created confusion among the readers around the world.
Do not forget that BISMILLAH is also a noun used as a collective name for the whole of the recurring Islamic phrase "Bismillah ir Rahmanir Raheem". See dictionaries of different Languages. Therefore it has no use to promote any unfamiliar word against BISMILLAH.
* Google search is another simple scientific way to verify that how many people used to of the phrase BISMILLAH rather than un-familiar phrase that has been forcefully used here to modify the actual title. For keen people other studies can also be conducted.
* The disambiguation page itself narrates all the other articles have the phrase BISMILLAH like ‘Bismillah Airlines’ etc. and all are derived from BISMILLAH; not with this unfamiliar word used here in the title. 
The most important aspect of changing the title back to BISMILLAH is due to, to let it remain intact the historic perspective of BISMILLAH. BISMILLAH will make it easier for everyone around the world to relate it with history and other subject of interest. There is no reason for the people with other interest to promote any unfamiliar word. Better to see the scholarly discussion of those who hold some prominent offices for general public rather than those who are trying to forcefully convince the people by anonymous self promoted puppet accounts.
Due to this confusion in title some of the material has been compiled as per the scope of the title rather than the BISMILLSH. This is another reason that the title should be modified to preserve its original essence.
Again, do not forget that BISMILLAH is also a noun used as a collective name for the whole of the recurring Islamic phrase "Bismillah ir Rahmanir Raheem". See dictionaries of different Languages. No need to promote any unfamiliar word for rest of the world.
Waqar
--125.209.101.206 (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2013

message: Hi AnonMoos,
I dont know why you guys are not changing the spelling , title to Bismillah. because Bismillah is the correct word/Spelling. Yes I know it has been discussed deeply in previuos discussion but nothing athentic nothing prove that word Basmala exist... almost all islamic english books spell Bismillah, all most all english dictionary spell Bismillah, all most all Islamic scholor prounonce Bismillah for whole BISMILLAH HIR REHMAAN NIR RAHEEM. I can give you thousands links. Please change the title to Bismillah. If you say that Basmala represent all sentence while Bismillah represent just two world then please give some athentic reffrence and reffrence should be Islamic scholor because It is belong to Islam
Regards
Ramiz  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summations (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia of Islam - Page 94 "The basmala, also known as the tasmiya, is an Arabic word for the phrase bi-smillah ir-rahman ir-rahim" and see . Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Summations -- The word "Basmala" certainly exists in my Arabic dictionary, and if you have an adequate Arabic dictionary and know how to use it, I bet that it exists in your dictionary as well, so I don't know what "this invented terminology"[sic] is supposed to mean...  As has been explained many, many times before, "Basmala" is not an alternative pronunciation to "Bismillah", and was never intended to be such, but rather is a collective term for the entire phrase bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be Bismillah 

message: I added 2 words to this section, for scholarly purposes, but someone seems intent on removing this. It's a scholarly addition, and increases accuracy in the article, and was cited. While a longer discussion of the difference would be appropriate elsewhere, there is no reason not to give an alternate reading – from the Greek – for the "formula" given here. It was only 2 words added plus a citation. There is no good reason to remove it. It does not take anyone on a tangent, unless they wish to review and study the citation. It's pertinent, scholarly, cited, substantive, notable, and important, as whole Christian denominations are split over this very thing (not mentioned in the article here). Please leave it in. Thank you. Misty MH (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Misty MH: Perhaps it'd be more convincing if you cited to something other than just the Bible itself. The footnote you reference gives no indication why it's important that the preposition might also be translated as "into." Either way, it doesn't seem all that important to add here, since people aren't likely to come to the Basmala article to read about the nuances of Christian Trinitarian theology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmvjjvmd (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Misty MH, I'm afraid I agree with the editor who reverted you and Dmvjjvmd. It doesn't belong here, and if it belongs anywhere it needs better sourcing. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to "Alternative Christian meaning" section: into 

message: This does not seem very encyclopedic... These debates should be held on the talk page or cited. Designate (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just added by an IP a little while ago, I've reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic 

message: I see there is a sluggish revert war about the numerologic section. Since it is unreferenced, I am inclined to support deletion. Please do not restore without references. - Altenmann >t 05:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's been on the article for the great majority of the last five years or more, and there's no legitimate dispute about its existence or notability (or at least none that's been presented so far).  It doesn't date back to the time of Muhammad, and some Salafist or back-to-the-origins type Muslims hate it for that reason, but on the other hand it's quite culturally prominent in parts of South Asia among people who also think of themselves as being good Muslims.  Since there's a high probability that it's being deleted for reasons of ideological purity in an intra-Muslim dispute, and not in furtherance of legitimate Wikipedia article improvement, it should stay. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is common, then there should be a separate article on Arabic numerology, where 90% of the discussed paragraph belong, and in this article a single sentence would suffice. - Altenmann >t 00:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article on Arabic numerology. It's called Abjad numerals; however, it's about the numeric aspect, and not the cultural customs connected with the Basmala phrase.  There's also an article on 786 (number)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed that (and that too :-) (and even edited a minute ago). Did you read and understand my post? Your text does not answer my suggestion. BTW, the topic in question is tagged unref for quite a while in the abjad numerals page.  - Altenmann >t 00:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit was somewhat pointless, since "numerology" is a vague and broad cover term, while isopsephy is the particular aspect of numerology which is specifically relevant in that case. AnonMoos (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  My edit was removal of an easter egg wikilink. If you think isosephy is a correct word in this context, write it in plain sight. (I believe there is a guideline to this end, too). - Altenmann >t 01:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever -- sometimes people are much more likely to know word A ("numerology") than they are to know word B with very closely-related meaning ("isopsephy"), but a link to the word A article is less useful in a particular context than a link to the word B article.  In such cases, I really don't see the harm in an A link (i.e.  numerology). AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerology 

message: A user has been changing 'basmala' to ' bismillahirrohmanirrohiim'. Please note that: (a) there has already been quite a bit of discussion about the title and the name of this concept and (b) ' bismillahirrohmanirrohiim' is not even a standard or correct transcription of بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ. --Macrakis (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus title

message: Nothing is said about the possible jewish origin of the expression.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:ED95:3AA1:68D3:19A4 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A jewish expression? 

message: In this section, it uses the translation "in" regarding the so-called Trinitarian formula. First of all, Matthew 28:19 in Greek says "into" (or other) vs. the Greek word "en" which means "in". This error has been perpetuated in doctrines and translations around the word. So, it could say, "... baptizing them into the name...". Because of the interpretation of "in", people have thought there is a contradiction in the Bible, comparing baptisms in the book of Acts (e.g. Acts 2) where in Greek it does "en", which in English is "in" (as it relates to the name of Isa/Yahshua/Y'shua/"Jesus"). This is also mentioned in the ESV's footnote: https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/mat/28/19/s_957019 Secondly, there are groups that call themselves Christian who believe in the formula but do not believe it indicates a Trinity. I tried to add a simple note that this could mean "into" but someone reverted it. Since the Trinity and the meaning of the passage is debatable, it seems that including the controversial translation, at least as a note, is wise. This is what I tried to add: "Matthew 28:19.* ... *Or, into." Again, a major English version includes this in its footnote, and the Greek – often used as a source of translation for the "New Testament" – supports it. The word "into" (or other) vs. "in" is a major insight into understanding the intent of the passage, and is perhaps closer to correct than the word "in". Misty MH (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't we already discuss this on your user talk page over two years ago? AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Christian meaning section, Matthew 28:19 "into" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Basmala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212051234/http://www.arabicbible.com:80/bible/nt/mat/28.htm to http://www.arabicbible.com/bible/nt/mat/28.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319232106/http://www.renaissance.com.pk:80/aprqur96.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/aprqur96.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This text was on the article for a number of years; not sure why it was removed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen's "Bohemian Rahpsody"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Basmala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161128152712/http://www.iraqinationality.gov.iq/attach/iraqi_constitution.pdf to http://www.iraqinationality.gov.iq/attach/iraqi_constitution.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: use harakat, its very important بَسمَلَةۡ فاتح باشر (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  hello help pls 

message: In the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody a 1975 song by the British rock band Queen, bismila is used which is the same thing. Can we have a popular culture section to mention it? Aminabzz (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See the comment of "00:33, 8 May 2017" above for sourced text which was previously on the article.  Not sure why it was deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohemian Rhapsody 

message: pls change it Makingislam (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been explained many times on this page since 2005(!):  Basmala is the NAME of the ENTIRE PHRASE "Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim", while Bismillah is the first two words of the phrase.  AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is Bismillah not basmallah