Talk:Ahkam

message: Is there any order to this? freestylefrappe 02:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't; I tried to clean it up a little... AnonMoos 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: In January 2007 an editor placed a proposal for the merge of Hukm and Ahkam.  As I have no knowledge in this area, I am seeking the broader opinion of other wikipedians who edit these articles.  Please state if you feel the merge should or should not take place and why you feel this way. Alan.ca (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across the article Takleef from Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles a good faith seatch for references was not succesful in finding anything to supprot the claims of the article Takleef.  The article Ahkam makes similar claims, as Takleef but is referenced and there was a suggestion to merge here.  I all the relevant content was already here so I redirect Takleef without merging in any new info. Jeepday (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Hukm 

message: There is reference in the article that muslims must carry weapons and cites two verses of the Quran, namely Sura 4, verses 71 and 102, yet those verses have nothing to do with weapons, I added a 'not in citation' tag instead of outright deleting. Should that statment be deleted? lalib (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims must carry weapons? 

message: It says in the article that the 5 categories (Ahkam) are commonly referred to as the Five Pillars of Islam. I thought the five pillars were the 5 practices (Arkan) that were obligatory - not the different categories (Ahkam) themselves. In any case, the explanation in the article seems very ambiguous. I don't feel I have enough knowledge on the subject to correct it, but I hope someone else can clarify it. Madeinsane (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Pillars 

message: The citation used on this page leads to a 404. Please update. I don't know how to put a notice of this on the front of the page or i would 149.169.85.184 (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead References Pages 

message: I explored the external link "A Fatwa against the Nation of Islam" and found it to be a purported and non-scholarly emanation from the "Italian Muslim Association", which appears to be a movable feast whose url www.amislam.com redirects to Swagbetter.com—a decidely unscholarly (and un-Italian) place! Even before discovering this, I realised that the "archived" version was little more than a sectarian attack on "Islamism"—an American and/or Saudi Arabian variety of the faith unacceptable to other sects, described as "an extremist ideology" by the author Abdul Hadi Palazzi. Another exposition of his WP:POV can be found in this attack on Wahhabism. Enough grounds for deleting the link, which I have done. Wikipedia is not a forum for unbalanced soapboxing. Bjenks (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link deleted 

message: It suffers a lot from being hard to read if you're not a muslim in the first place. Untranslated and unlinked terms in arabic, etc. If those issues were adressed, this page would be a shining tool for dispelling common misconceptions for outsiders such as there only being halal and haram.
 Queen of Wa, friend of Wei (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is hard to read for laymen