Jump to content

Talk:Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 171.33.200.156 (talk) at 14:16, 17 January 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleIslam is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2007.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 11, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 11, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 22, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
January 9, 2008Featured article reviewKept
July 30, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
May 20, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 18, 2006.
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 28 July 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors


Removal of images

Hi, there has been some controversy before about removal of images - this has been discussed before multiple times (e.g. May 2021, April 2021, November 2020, October 2020, July 2020, June 2020, and many more) - it seems that in all cases the consensus was not to remove the images.

In the end, the 2 images have been removed more than one month ago in this edit, with edit summary "Fixes something". I was surprised no one reverted it, but just kept it like that. But I'm wondering whether this really represents a change in consensus? (cc: @IdreamofJeanie, @VenusFeuerFalle, @Khajidha) Kidburla (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this edit. @Hafim: can you explain why you made that edit? "Fixes something" doesn't tell us much.VR talk 00:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I heard images or PROPHETS AND RELIGIOUS FIGURES IN ISLAM ARE FORBIDDEN FOR INSULT for the majority of the Muslims. But it's your choice if you want to keep them. "Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited[19] and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[20] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry" --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad Hafim (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CODI and Help:Options to hide an image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article Islam vs Muslims

What is the difference in the scope of this article vs the article Muslims? It seems this article covers pretty much everything there is to now about Muslims, including demographics, history, culture etc. If the scope of both articles is the same, we should merge them. Alternatively, we can make this article about Islam the religion (beliefs, worship, law, holy book etc), and move all the demographics and culture stuff to Muslims.VR talk 23:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be in favor of keeping the Muslim article. For the same reason that there has been concern that this Islam article is too long and hard to navigate, having that Muslim article helps take out specifics out of this article. For example, I moved the link for list of muslims and list of converts to Islam to the Muslim article because it seems more relevant and specific over there. The Muslim article can go into depth into demographics, for example it talks about statistics of education among the global Muslim population, which is a level of specificity we can't have here and that info would be lost if that article goes. It might be the Muslim world article that has more concern as to its utility. Sodicadl (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sodicadl: I'm ok with that as long as we clearly split up the scope. Thanks for your input.VR talk 02:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to adding more specific content to Muslims, I've also removed general information already related to the Islam article like the 2nd paragraph in the lead which reiterates the core beliefs in Islam (unless there is any objection to this). AlHazen (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you guys were going to remove demographics paragraph from the lead in Islam article. Notsure why it has not been removed yet. Emailaddressemailaddress (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article size needs reducing

The article prose is currently greater than 80kb, which means that it should most certainly be divided. Wikipedia prefers WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, so I think a lot of content should be moved to sub-articles like History of Islam, Islamic culture, etc. If there're no objections, I will start summarizing some paragraphs and moving them to subarticles.VR talk 00:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, done! To trim the article down, we might look for parts of the article, going too much into political detail rather than treatening Islam as a religion. For example, while in the Pre-Modern era-section, Ibn Tamiyya and the Turks/Mongol's conversation and whose effects are important and shaped Islamic theology and philosophy as well as society, something like "In the Indian Subcontinent, during the rule of Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji in Bengal, the Indian Islamic missionaries achieved their greatest success in terms of dawah and the number of converts to Islam" seems to bit too trivial. First, because Muslim missionaries have been present long before, second, it is (in my opinnion) too much about political strives than about actual Islam (as religion).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this issue up more than once before too but it did not go anywhere, I doubt it will make a difference this time either. Even though there are only suggested sizes and no hard number in Wikipedia:article size, there is nothing stopping this article from continuing to get arbitrarily bigger and harder to read with ever more exhaustively detailed specifics. It is as if everyone with an axe to grind is incorporated to the article, for example I doubt that much space for a Quranism section is due weight. Other articles with as big a topic as Islam have been able to do summary style successfully.
In the history section, there used to be a point on the to do list which I believe was after the review when the article was dropped from being a featured article, that the history section should move away from political history, perhaps minimizing political history to that which shows the spread of Islam for example.
As someone else mentioned about the sections on poetry and music which have been empty for years, I am not sure there even needs a list of sections for each. If there is a society section, it seems more intuitive for culture to a subsection of that. Sodicadl (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks VenusFeuerFalle! I do agree with removing trivial mentions, though I'd leave the part about spread of Islam in Bengal. Bengalis are the probably the 2nd/3rd largest Muslim ethnic group in the world. VR talk 20:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sodicadl I'm motivated to trim this article down and make it GA, FA again. I'll remove the empty sections.VR talk 20:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone considered trying to WP:GA the article? That would probably include shortening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, we tried to restore this article to become a featured article. The issue is just, back then, the article should never have been featured in the first place, since much information were only backed up by Quranic references, primary research and a biased description on history (very much from a Damascene point of view) with some information just plain wrong. The extensive lenght of the article is probably to balance this. At least, I remember adding much information regarding the Turkic/Mongol as well as making the Damascene view explicit, myself. I everyone is fine, I would try to GA the article at least (featuring would probably be too stressful as I have another GA open currently).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'd certainly have my moral support, though probably not any actual help to speak of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down on non-religious content for the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal empire section. I left some political stuff stay in there. What do others think of the balance? Sodicadl (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, moral supported is much needed. Since I am currently busy writing in reallife, I am glad someone else can take this. I will check it from time to time, since I think as Islam is part of my special fields, and I often found some misconceptions over time (especially about Sufism, supernatural and Turkic/Mongol history), I think my qualifications can be beneficial.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC) edit: The trimming seems good to me and covering the relevant points.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Law section

Sodicadl, I think the law section should only be about what is Islamic law, its branches, and how it is determined. It should not be about the actual contents of Islamic law, which are way too numerous and overlap with pretty much every section under "Society". For example, "Society" contains sections like "Family life", "Diet", "Economics" and these are all topics in Islamic law too.VR talk 02:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a pragmatic approach to avoid unnecessary duplication. I agree that the law overview should be an overview, and any parts of the article on specific aspects of Islamic law should ideally, where possible, redirect to a main page for the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vice regent, I agree and that was my point in making the edit. Years back, when I used the same reasoning that there would be overlap between the sections and tried moving applications of law to the society section, I got push back. The reason economics is in the society section now is because I moved it there from the law section two days ago. What I moved to the law section was only the one on the state because that actually would be more relevant to law. Sodicadl (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with putting economics under society. What I'll do is merge the relevant parts of the "Politics" section into "Law" and move the rest down into society, like stuff on jihad.VR talk 02:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change of section name

I think the Acts of Worship section name should be changed to The Five pillars of Islam. Mission Mao (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, and I agree. But that section has a subsection on Quranic recitation. Where should that go? Maybe we can have "Five pillars of Islam" and "Other worship" or something.VR talk 15:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe dhikr, Quran recitation and mysticism can be combined into a single section.VR talk 16:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section used to be called Five Pillars and I can agree with the changing to 'acts of worship'. Different religions would have different ways to describe themselves and those are useful but does not necessarily have to be the template Wikipedia has to follow. For example, the recitation subsection is worth being mentioned as an act of worship but that it is not officially a pillar does not mean we are required to break up the section, it is more intuitive for the reader to have them in one section. Having an explanation of the five pillars in the lede of that section as it has now does justice to the fact that Islam elevates certain acts of worship as 'pillars'. For another thing, the five pillars may not be universally agreed on among denominations. Sodicadl (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That said, dhikr or remembrance, as mentioned before, would be an important addition to the Acts of Worship section. I think it better that mysticism would then be incorporated into that dhikr subsection because right now an entire section rather than subsection for mysticism does seem a bit undue. Sodicadl (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with VR by keeping "Acts of worship" as a generally descriptive header, but I disagree with Sodicadl on the inclusion of Sufism and Dhikr as a header. A sentence of mention for Dhikr in the "prayer" sub-header as is done post-prayers and a sentence that its a more specific practice in Sufism would suffice in my opinion. Sufism should be its own section because mysticism has a broader purpose than other acts of worship, such as being consciously one with or experiencing God and spiritual elevation. Quranic recitation/memorisation on the other hand is an act of worship yet at the same time practically connected to the five prayers; it is at very least a partly obligatory act for any practicing Muslim. AlHazen (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Quranic recitation and dhikr happen quite frequently outside of prayers, for example see tasbih. In fact, dhikr is more of a philosophy, to remember God in everything a Muslim does and it consists of various duas for everyday life (for eating, waking up, etc). I would incline towards giving dhikr its own section. I'll hunt down more secondary sources soon on that.VR talk
I basically join the opinnion of AlHazen. The acts of worship here, are mostly the five pilars of Islam. These are essential and obligatory for any Muslim (some deviant mystics might have their own unerstanding about it, yet they include them) and one of the view constant pracitses through the entire (known) history of Islam. Sufism is not a practise but a term to denote certain interpretations of Islam, especially during the Medieval Ages in contrast to the "buerocratic" interpretation by the ulama. There are Sufi Orders, but not every Sufi necessarily belongs to an order (like Ghazali) nor is everyone who belongs to an order classified as a Sufi (like ibn Taimiyya). When we change the header to "Five pillars of Islam" we should remove "Quran recitation" and assign it to the "book" header, since this is not an act of worship on the same level like the Hajj. Muslims do this to receive blessings, while Hajj, Shahada, Fastig are obligatory. They are not on the same level. Dirkh on the other hand, is on the same level as Quran recitation, which is done for blessings and optional reward or the voluntary acts of worship.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:14, 1 December
Like I said I'd be open to moving Quranic recitation out of "Acts of Worship" and changing it to "Five pillars of Islam". We can move Quranic recitation to "Society" (lets rename that to "Practices") and move that section up (and move the history section down).VR talk 15:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Alhazen that the section name should be a generic "Acts of worship", because the five pillars are special for being obligatory but there is no benefit restricting the section to types that are obligatory. The lede to the section can explain the concept about 'five pillars' and that is what the lede has right now. I want to add sections on dhikr and dua seeing they're quite notable in Islam but that would be difficult to incorporate if it was a 'five pillars' section. Additionally, I think everyone seems to agree the quran recitation subsection does not need its own subsection and I can incorporate that elsewhere like in the 'books' subsection.
I believe the best place for the mysticism content is still the denomination section. Even though it is strictly not a denomination, that section also has a subsection which is not denominations in 'derived religions', which it should have. Just like sufism would not get its own section outside of the denomination section, it is still a variation in practice and distinct approach to the religion.
I agree with VR about renaming the 'society' section, it could 'practice' or 'way of life' to better reflect its content. Sodicadl (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why there cannot be a "Five pillars of Islam" subsection under "Acts of Worship", thus mollifying all positions. Quranic recitation seems fine under a general header about acts of worship. I would not nix this though. Quranic recitation has a historically very important role in Islam, particularly within mysticism, where it forms the bedrock of Sufi practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a broader level, many of the "other practices" are mystic practices (any exceptions?), so one alternative is to have a section on the Five pillars and then a second section not on "Other practices", but on "Mystic practices"? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I had meant was we have sections called "Five pillars of Islam" and "[Other] practices". Or we have sections called "Acts of worship" and "Society". But having a section called "Acts of worship" and then "Practices" sounds redundant as acts of worship are practices.VR talk 03:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the subsections on dua and dhikr since that was not what was objected to.
I wasn't proposing to "nix" the content on Quranic recitation, I thought it more appropriate moved elsewhere. Sodicadl (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did object to Dhikr being a whole sub-section; the fact there is not enough substance to expound on it, proves a point. Also, every religion has its own form of supplication (Dua); to give a section to a basic aspect of a religion seems unnecessary and overly elaborate. AlHazen (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the concept of remembrance and the offering up of praises to God for thinks like food, fortuitous events, ahead of trials, etc. is a pretty common feature of most deistic faiths, and not really a level of minutiae that needs to be engaged in in an encyclopedic setting - and certainly not to the point of listing out the phrases used. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the article doesn't mention dhikr anywhere and I think it really should. Dhikr is an important aspect of Islamic worship, and not just for Sufis.VR talk 06:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That "every religion has its own form of supplication" is not a valid justification to delete. To the same extent as supplication, every religion has prayer and pilgrimage too, but those are included as they should be, because they are vital to Islam. When was the rule about excluding that which is common to "most deistic faiths"? The other objection is that there is not enough information. Of course, there can certainly be articles worth of information out there, but I thought we were making a big noise of doing summary style!? and I agreed and went along. I thought of being a team player and did not move Quranic recitation out to other sections because of objections but at the same time dua and dhikr are not meeeting some inclusion criteria that reciting scripture somehow does. Sodicadl (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The model I am going by in terms of WP:CONSISTENCY is the Christianity page. There we do not have whole paragraphs devoted to the various phrases that devout Christians might repeat throughout the day, like "Thanks be to God" and "Praise the Lord". Islam has a very coherent set of five pillars that are incumbent upon worshippers. Outside of this, things get much more fluid. Remembrance, while perhaps loosely defined as a form of worship, is ultimately a social convention enshrined in the lives of individuals, not a core practice instituted by the religion. Much like the use of honorifics, it is instead a form of etiquette. Qur'anic recitation is notable within Islam because "Qur'an" itself means "recitation", because the practice of recitation is central to other acts of worship, such as Ramadan, and, more generally, because Quran'ic recitation is the closest thing Islam has to a liturgical music repertoire. In Sufism, it is also used to enter a trance-like state. All of this is much more faith-specific than whether people thank God for their carrots before meals. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind keeping Quran recitation in the acts of worship section, it is an instrumental part of Islamic worship but I thought it better in the books section. But if you are judging dua and dhikr to not be mentioned as they are "not a core practice instituted by the religion" but quran recitation is, then I don't think your subjective splitting of hairs is what should be the determining factor. Right now, there is no place in the article of Islam to mention dua or its related topics like Islam's concept of tawbah,...since this is too subjective to go anywhere, can we get the other users to opine to break the tie, User:VenusFeuerFalle or User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
As for the new edit adding sufism in the Acts of Worship section, I had done that last month and it was reverted with reasoning given in this very section above, with User:AlHazen objecting "because mysticism has a broader purpose than other acts of worship" and similarly User:VenusFeuerFalle objecting that "Sufism is not a practise but a term to denote certain interpretations of Islam", and I instead countered that the section containing schools and denominations should include it then (where it had been in for years) because it is a particular approach to the religion. For the edit sectioning off five pillars, I think the explanation in the section lede about five pillars should suffice. The section on charity contains Zakat, a pillar, and Sadaqah, so it is best to be named "charity" in general as having one section about Zakat and another section outside of the five pillar subsection about Sadaqah is cumbersome for the reader. Sodicadl (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have an informed opinion on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sodicadl: Don't get me wrong, you're welcome to re-include dua and dhikr wherever you like, though I would still say these are more religious concepts than specific practices. It is also possible that the Qur'anic recitation material could be further reduced, so long as it continues to be at least mentioned and linked somewhere. I noticed that material about this also appears to be duplicated to a certain extent in the tasawwuf section. I also noted that on the Christianity pages, there are certain sections where whole sets of concepts and practices are simply summarised in listed sentences. It is possible that some further aggressive summarization could be enacted on the Islam page. Zakat and other charity should probably be kept separate, as Zakat is an obligatory/incumbent act, while other charity is optional. We shouldn't really be confusing five pillar material with general practice purely for the sake of simplicity. I also agree with VenusFeuerFalle that Sufism is inappropriate to list alongside denominations and schools. In the Islamic Golden Age, the basic setup was that every Muslim had a denomination, theological school, fiqh school and could also be a Sufi/have a Sufi lodge affiliation or not. So, with the example of Al-Ghazali (d. 1111 AD), who arguably did the most to systemize Sufi beliefs and practices within mainstream Islam, the man was a Sunni muslim of the Asharite theological school, Shafi'i fiqh school, as well as, separately, a prominent promotor of Sufism. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in that case, I added dua and dhikr but to incorporate some of the criticism I made them one subsection since it was felt that they don't warrant subsections by themselves. I do appreciate the summarizing, we can still keep doing that while figuring out the format. Sodicadl (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other denominations

How exactly are Ibadi significant to have their own section? Alevis and Ahmadiyya have more adherence and probably even more significant in the history of Islam than the Ibadites. I am not that familar with Ibadites, only checked their stand on spiritual creatures by Valerie J. Hoffman (2012). Here, they look pretty similar to Hanbalites. I checked the German Wiki about differences, and these are merely minor differences, like additional rules on fasating or prostrations during ritual prayer. Such differences can even appear within different Sunni schools of law. Also, I do not see it grounded on that Ibadi form their own sect besides Sunnis and Shias, since same is true for Quranites and Ahmadiyya, arguably to Alevism, but they are at least merged with the Shia due to venerating Ali. Due to lack of significance compared to Shia and Sunni and lack of adherences, I would argue we should add it to "other denominations" again.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merging that section to "Other denominations" mainly in the interest of reducing article size. But one reason they're more significant is because there is at least one Ibadi-majority country (Oman), but there are no Alevi or Ahmadi majority countries. Hence maps on Islam will more often show Ibadis than other Alevis. But again, I'm ok to merge that.VR talk 03:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should remain separate really. It has its origins in a 7th-century theological split, so it is very much like a third branch and not simply like one of the many 18th, 19th or 20th-century revivalist movements, and as VR notes, it is practically (though I do no believe formally) the state religion of Oman. Under Shia, there should also probably actually be more of an outline of the twelver, sevener and fiver variants.
Incidentally, Alevism and Ahmadiyya are both controversial (above and beyond the run of the mill Sunni-Shia controversy) in the sense that some mainstream Sunni interpretations view these, in the case of Alevism, as obvious blasphemy (and shirk: worship of another other than God), and, in the case of Ahmadiyya, ambiguously, as it's a bit like an Islamic Mormonism, with a cleric claiming to be the Mahdi (or next prophet equivalent) in the 19th century. I do not think we should be including variants whose status as mainstream denominations are disputed (see: Persecution of Ahmadis), though we could also have a separate section on "Disputed denominations" for such examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the ALevism controvery only started in the late Ottoman-EMpire when leading classes tried to establish an orthodox normativity. Sunnism is not a a movement rooting in the begining of Islam either, rather it became an identity after diverse political discense which claims to be following the sunnah. The idea that Sunnis are all whose who favor Abu Bakr and Shia all whose who favor Ali is rather a retroperspective identity, whose lines are much more blurred than clear. But that Oman is an Ibadi country while Alevis, Quranists and Ahmadiyya are not, is a good point I think. Otherwise, there will be this tiny section with one or two sentences, about a denomination, without much to say about it. This also reminds me of a similar question: How do we classify the Mutazilites? As branch of Sunni Islam or will we assign it to "other denominations"?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've convinced me on the Alevism front, and on "other" being a more neutral section title. Quranists are fine too. The Ahmadiyya, however, are definitely not in the same basket as these other denominations though - it is an extremely discrete variant launched by a 19th-century self-proclaimed messiah, which is a claim that doesn't leave much room for tolerance and compromise. Either their Messiah is correct, they are the true Islam, and everyone else is wrong, or their Messiah is incorrect, and they are accidental heretics - which they have been called quite a lot in other parts of the Muslim world. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has also gone out of its way to specifically disavow any link between the Ahmadiyya community and Islam. In essence, only the Ahmaddiyya believe they are Muslims, and as a "denomination" they should be handled separate from others, much in the same way that Bahaism or Yazidism can be seen as being Islam-linked, but well outside the purview of mainstream Islam. Finally, Mutazilism was never a denomination: it was a intellectual position with respect to theology that stood in opposition to Ash'arism, which won out in the end, largely thanks to the intellectual personality of Al-Ghazali. It was never a branch or school (like Hanafi, etc.); it was more like an intellectual movement. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I want to point out is that all these denominations are relatively tiny. For example, the Sunni Barelvi movement has 200 million followers, and Deobandi have about 100 million followers. Each of these Sunni denominations alone have more members than all the following smaller denominations combined: Alevis (15-25 million), Ibadis (3 million), Quranist (Izgi Amal has less than 0.1 million members), Ahmadiya (20-25 million), Ismailis (15 million), non-denominational (10 million). But we absolutely should not have a section for Barelvi and Deobani, but very briefly mention them under Sunni. Likewise all the other denominations should be folded into one of "Sunni", "Shia", "Other" and "Derived religions". Islamic schools and branches is the proper place to expand all of these out.VR talk 17:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish there were just more revivalist movements aimed at reviving the Abbasid golden age of Islam, instead of revivalist being short-hand for going back to the stone-age, which is what most of the "revivalist" movements appear to have in common. We need a special Wikipedia bin where we throw all of the over-enthusiastic and endlessly replicating revivalist movements together. They're basically like the denominational equivalent of hotheaded teenagers - give them a couple of centuries and they'll cool off and potentially find some meaningful employment. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    However, more seriously, we do need to be distinguishing between denominations and schools - mixing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. A denominational branch involves a fundamental split in the system of belief or practice - a theological school is more like a minor difference in interpretation. Denominations should be one page on Wikipedia, schools should be another. This needs sorting out. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you, except about the Abbadis golden age revical, since I can not recall any significant movement doing this right now. I do not disagree, I just abstain from an opinion regarding this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allah's (or Alllah's) L's

There is no possibility of this happening, for obvious reasons (WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, WP:V, ...). --JBL (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The only god in Islam is called الله, so it should have three L's in the name because it has a shadda.[1] Egon20 (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allah3.svg
I'm pretty sure "Allah" is the spelling mostly used in English language sources, so that is the spelling en-WP should use, possibly excluding some quotes and such. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to what spelling is used, I'm referring as the correct transcription of the Arabic word. Egon20 (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one has ever spelt this with three L's in English. Also, a shadda indicates emphasis or lengthening - it is not an explicit instruction to double consonants when transliterating. Furthermore, Wikipedia's style guide prefers "God", where possible MOS:ALLAH. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the name of Muhammad in Arabic. A shaddah doubles the M. Egon20 (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allah has a standard spelling and there is absolutely zero reason to go about changing this. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the correct transcription of the Arabic writing. Egon20 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to who? Provide a source. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is ever transcribed as three of the same consonant in a row in the Latin alphabet, because it would be illegible and pointless, when the purpose of transcription is to render a foreign script into something legible in English. Two of any consonant indicates emphasis or lengthening. Three L's would mean nothing - not even Welsh or Polish try this on. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about sources, it's about proper knowledge of the writing system. Would you spell English words differently just because it is legible? Egon20 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If editors can't agree about something on a commonsense basis then it does become about sources, and I think you will struggle to find any academic who has ever transliterated the Muslim deity as "Alllah". Transliteration is about rendering something from a foreign script into a legible format in the script of the audience. Three L's in a row is not legible. It just looks like a typo of two L's. Incidentally, Muhammad is alternately transcribed as Mohamed - so, as we can see, exactly what you do with a shadda becomes rather subjective. In any case, your opening premise is incorrect - an absolutely pedantic letter by letter approach would in fact yield the totally illegible Alllaah - because the dagger alif for the A is also lengthened. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shia Subsections

Could we please stop making new section based on ahistorical knowledge? Although it is true for the Islami narrative that a sect traces their origin back to a specific point in time, this is merely to justify their existence. This was necessariy to access political significance and power back when, but they are often not really rooting in the claimed spiritual leader. Ismailism is not "shia Islam but with fewer Imams", it is an entirely new religious system. And their adherence to Islam also disputed not much unlike Alevism and Alawism (both not the same). When we create these subsections, we also need to elaborate them properly (for example the Assasins are an important aspect of Ismailism.) And since we try to trim the article, I do not think we should make these sections. We already mentioned the Ismailites briefly in the history section, we do ot ommit them. But we can not trim down their beliefs to a degree of falsehood and misleading, for the sake of including all sort of branches.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be trimming major denominations; we should be trimming history and unsourced content. Ismailism is the second-largest Shia Muslim denomination, historically very significant in connection with the Assassins, yes, and also very much live and kicking in the form of its organisation around the figurehead of the Aga Khan. I agree these sections need elaborating - I was just splitting out the material that was already under Shia, and from the Shia material I imported into appropriate sub-sections. A huge problem on all the Islam pages is the treatment of both Sunnism and Shi'ism as collectives, when within Sunnism, there are significant variations between schools, and within Shi'ism, there are huge variations between the principle denominations. The end result of "trimming" should not be oversimplification. In what basis are you calling the brief sentences about Ismailism ahistorical? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was referring to the sentence "Ismaili Shi'ites recognized Isma'il ibn Jafar as the successor to Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam, in contrast to Twelver Shi'a, which followed his other son Musa al-Kadhim as the seventh Imam.", because I suspected it of implying an ahistorical clear lineage to one Imam on the sense of religious framework. Ismailism were often much more Neo-Platonic or even Docetic, than other Shia interpretations. I guess I expressed my worries in a bad way. Let me try it again. I do not think, we should Ismailism define by adhering to Ismail ibn Jafar instead of Musa al Kadhim. Some of their thoughts seem to be too foreign to assume they are merely a dispute about a successor. Their religions/cosmological framework is different from Twelver Shia (but surprisingly similar to Alawism). I am worried, this might indicate a clear lineage from Jafar ibn Sadiq, which might not be historically accurate. I think however, when we point out some of the major characteristics of their beliefs, this would be no issue at all, because the difference is apparent then.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

There are 6666 verses in Quran. 110.224.3.79 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See Āyah Cannolis (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

PLZ REMOVE THE PICTURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMED S.A.W . IT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN IN ISLAM TO SHOW THE FACES OF THE PROPHETS. THIS IS DISRESPECTING MUSLIMS, WHO SEE THE PAGE 86.58.79.212 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and Help:Options to hide an image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam&oldid=1066257758"