Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

Islam-related articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 1 8 9 15 33 FL 1 1 2 FM 22 22 A 1 1 2 GA 7 13 39 79 13 151 B 81 119 241 465 109 1,015 C 112 156 427 1,604 367 2,666 Start 39 87 455 3,750 1 976 5,308 Stub 7 11 197 2,997 804 4,016 List 1 13 116 194 3 47 374 Category 3,564 5 3,569 Disambig 126 126 File 24 24 Portal 318 318 Project 44 44 Redirect 6 15 47 144 402 614 Template 288 288 NA 1 9 22 32 Other 80 80 Assessed 254 423 1,533 9,259 4,894 5 2,316 18,684 Unassessed 7 475 482 Total 254 423 1,533 9,266 4,894 5 2,791 19,166 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 64,649 Ω = 4.90

Typo in names

There is a typo in dates of each Mujaddid. So for example Moinuddin Chishti (1165–1240) and Ibn Arabi (1165–1240) were in sixth century and not the seventh.

Thanks

Hassan

Wikidata

The discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox religious text#Wikidata is relevant for this wikiproject. Please give your comments. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:1870 in Islam has been nominated for discussion

Category:1870 in Islam has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Rashidun Caliphate

On their both talk pages I have suggested that Rashidun and Rashidun Caliphate may be merged. Please join the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Islam.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Islam, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Abu Eesa Niamatullah

Hello! I am notifying interested projects and editors that I've listed Abu Eesa Niamatullah for discussion at AfD.

I invite you all to contribute to the discussion. Mujaddouda (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

List of expeditions of Muhammad

This article requires some more attention due to recent and on-going disruption, discussion is at Talk:List of expeditions of Muhammad#Consensus version. Capitals00 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Rashidun review

Project Members and experts welcome!

I was going to post this request to Wikipedia:Peer Review then figured it involves non-experts on the subject so might end up not working out.

Hasan ibn Ali / Rashidun Caliphate

I would like to bring to attention of the project's members (I am not a member) a certain user Leo1pard (talk) has been editing several articles, which from what I have seen involves changing the "four" Rashidun to the "five" by including Hasan ibn Ali, and effectively editing all related articles to reflect the same. In addition to various minor (but extensive) edits such as use of punctuation, namely the unconventional insert of apostrophe before everyone's name (Ali to 'Ali, and Uthman to 'Uthman). I think it constitutes WP:DIS and furthermore makes consistency harder to maintain among editors (WP:TRANSLITERATE), in addition to making it harder to search-find (for users who make the mistake of not inserting the 'apostrophe while searching the name). DA1 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

From View History for a better understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hasan_ibn_Ali&type=revision&diff=781184705&oldid=732780086

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rashidun_Caliphate&type=revision&diff=770913523&oldid=766436803

These are two articles I personally came across while making the rounds, and I have not bothered to look into any other articles where similar edits have been made. I'm surprised tho that nobody reverted the blatant change from 'four' to "five" Rashidun, the insertion of a Hasan insignia, as well as the unnecessary punctuation changes. It seems tedious to cross-check every edit, you may have to just revert back to the initial point before the whole slew was made.

@DA1: Firstly, the quotations which are not straight are meant to reflect the fact that the Arabic names, such as 'علي' and 'عثمان', have letters that do not usually have equivalents in the English language, the letter 'ع' in the case of these 2 names, which is pronounced from the throat, and they do not necessarily make it harder for users to search for those names, since links for these 2 men exist without the apostrophe, so it doesn't matter if you insert the apostrophe or not, it should still return the same result when searching.

Secondly, Hasan ibn Ali's role in the end of the Rashidun Caliphate and rise of the Umayyad Dynasty, that is, that he was the Caliph who negotiated the transfer of power to Muawiyah I, to end the First Fitna, is too important to ignore, from a historical POV. Leo1pard (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

One can never accurately transliterate words from one language to another, nonetheless, there are some standardizations (this is Wikipedia English afterall) that are used or have been used on Wikipedia for years, and that includes not including 'apostrophe punctuation in every single instance where a name such as Ali or Uthman is mentioned.

Hasan ibn Ali is significant, and as such should be and have been mentioned in each of these respective articles. That however, does not make him one of the Rashidun. Historically, the Rashidun only include the first four Caliphs. And a significant addition of a "fifth" should only be done after extensive discussion, and sources (and not simply one cite but several that can back up a position where there are "five" Rashidun). DA1 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No, Hasan ibn Ali has been included in that list, if you check the contents of Rashidun Caliphate more carefully, such as Rashidun_Caliphate#Crisis_and_fragmentation. Leo1pard (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That is, the contents or references that were there, before the recent edits blanked them out. Leo1pard (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why 'four' Rashidun was or should be changed to 'five'. Or why not six or seven? (The article should include mention of Hasan, Muawiyah, and any other persons relevant to the topic; that's a given) Up until February 20, 2017, it has said 'four', and did not include a fifth as a "Rashidun". I'm not going to blame you as the source, perhaps there have been sporadic edits at expanding it to five, but nonetheless that is not conventional dogma, which is precisely why I'm hoping other experts of WikiProject Islam can chime in, rather than the one or two of us makes an arbitrary decision. DA1 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Historically speaking, it is 5, because the Rashidun Caliphate only yielded to the Umayyad Caliphate after Hasan made a deal with Muawiyah, it did not end with the assassination of the 4th Caliph, that is Ali. Leo1pard (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So, to exclude Hasan's reign, and thus suggest that the Rashidun Caliphate ended with the death of Ali, is like excluding Muhammad al-Badr's reign, and suggesting that the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen ended with the death of Ahmad bin Yahya. Leo1pard (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Either you're assuming the Rashidun was a single dynasty (therefore trying to bridge the gap with Umayyad; talking about a start or "end"), or you have some other definition of what consists of "Rashidun". From my knowledge, it is a exonym and honorific title given by latter Sunni Muslims. (Hasan not being one of the four, since his reign was brief and did not involve much rule to be considered "Rightly Guided"; he was not 'martyred' nor did he expand 'territory' as the first four.)

If you want to break it down to dynasties than Uthman (3rd caliph) is an Umayyad, and alternatively Hasan (5th) like his father Ali (4th) is a Hashemite or Talibi or in the lineage of his mother a Sayyid or Fatimid. You are conflating separate concepts (and I don't blame you, the articles have done a poor job in discretion/disambiguation; something that should also be taken up by WProject Islam). Its like comparing the Byzantine or Roman Empire with the Ottoman Empire, one is a family name the other is named after a region or culture. DA1 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No, the Rashidun Caliphate is not a dynasty, as a whole, I am not talking about dynasties, apart from the Umayyad Dynasty, and Hasan is regarded as being of the "Rightly Guided" Caliphs, even if his rule was temporary. Leo1pard (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

One cite isn't enough to sway an entire conventional dogma of "four" Rashidun. On top of that the source is not WP:RELIABLE, and is run by one "Shaykh al-Islam Ashrafi Muhaddith al-A'zam" and even then only briefly mentions Hasan as a footnote. There is no qualm to include Hasan's name in the article(s) with something like "who some regard as a fifth Rashidun", but to edit entire headlines, infoboxes and intros to make it 'appear' as if that is convention is nothing more than WP:POV. -DA1 (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Who said that I have only one citation or reference? I also have this one: Leo1pard (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Which page exactly, the relevant passages? There is something on wikipedia called WP:RSUW, which means giving differing opinions proportional weight. If an idea or opinion is fringe or a minority, then it should be reflected in the article in a similar fashion. So that a minority source isn't used to overtake the overwhelming majority of sources/stances. In this case, "Rashidun" conventionally refers to the four.

Britannica lists it as four: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rashidun ; As does Oxford: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2018 ; This is the case with most books and topics on the subject. You're singlehandedly attempting to change it to "five" and sooner or later it will be changed back to four, because I won't be the last person to notice it. All you're doing is making it difficult to reason with, despite me noting Hasan can and should be listed in the articles in appropriate manner, not WP:POV. -DA1 (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Check the content that you deleted, and here are more references: Leo1pard (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Your second cite is dead/empty; and the first seems to be a single passage, possibly a Hadith or quote, but no scholarly mention of a fifth Rashidun. DA1 (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The first one was a mistake, but as for the second one, I just noticed it doesn't work here, because of the Arabic settings, which I could access, but is not easily viewable here. Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A difference between the Rashidun Caliphate and the Umayyad Caliphate is that whereas all the Rashidun Caliphs were elected by Shuras (and it was noted that Hasan became the Caliph, in a manner which followed the custom established by Abu Bakr), the Umayyad Caliphs were not elected in the same way, rather, the Umayyad Caliphate was a dynasty founded by Muawiyah, who took advantage of a treaty with Caliph Hasan to become the next Caliph, and besides, to exclude Hasan from the list of Rashidun Caliphs would imply that the Rashidun Caliphate was not immediately succeeded by the Umayyad Caliphate, but by the Caliphate of Hasan. However, from what I read, the traditional belief is that the Rashidun Caliphate was replaced by the Umayyad Dynasty, so how would that work out, if Hasan's Caliphate is not treated as a part of the Rashidun Caliphate? Leo1pard (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As of now, you're trying to find additional "reasons" (patterns) to back your edit; you're ignoring WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and are entering WP:OVERKILL to back your point. I've pointed references to both Britannica and Oxford, whose trackrecord goes back hundreds of years who refer to "four" Rashidun. Wikipedia too, has always maintained "four" Rashidun, until suddenly. DA1 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that the view that the Rashidun Caliphate was immediately succeeded by the Umayyad Caliphate is wrong, and that we should instead say that the Rashidun Caliphate was succeeded by the Caliphate of Hasan, even though, as far as I see, no Sunni actually denies that Hasan was Rashid (Template:Lang-ar, "Rightly Guided")? Leo1pard (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Before jumping onto issues like undue weight or overkill, because of those sources that you quoted mentioning only 4 Caliphs, and not because of an outright denial by Sunnis themselves that Hasan was indeed Rashid (which would help to explain why nobody, not even a Sunni, opposed my addition of Hasan to the list, until you did), please answer the question: Was the Rashidun Caliphate succeeded by the Caliphate of Hasan, or was it succeeded by the Umayyad Caliphate? Leo1pard (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't simply succeeded by the Umayyad Caliphate, one of the "Rashid" was an Umayyad (Uthman). Hasan's reign was succeeded by another Umayyad (Muawiyah) which formed a dynasty thus becoming the "Umayyad Calipahte". The term "Rashidun Caliphate" is an honorific exonym. You're mentioning other "Sunnis" here objecting to it or not - when the same could be said for the past several years when the Rashidun stated only the "four", including when I reverted as such. In simpler terms: you were the one (not "other Sunnis") who changed it to "five", so to even bring up that angle is a fallacy. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and WP:RSE. Article edits are based on notability and WP:RSUW, not numbers (WP:OVERKILL). I'm not reverting your edits, but don't expect it won't eventually be reverted by others in the future. You however, went ahead and reverted it despite my attempt at a civil consensus, before other users could even chime in. -DA1 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that "Rashidun" is a label and not an actual dynasty. What happened was there were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and then Ali died and there were rival caliphates by Muawiya and Hasan. Hasan abdicated after a brief rule, and Muawiya and his descendants became caliphs. Historians later looked back and call the first four caliph "Rashidun Caliphate" and the dynasty starting with Muawiya the "Umayyad Caliphate". As far as I know that's the mainstream opinion, supported by Oxford and Britannica above, and that's how Wikipedia should present it. I am aware there are some who consider Hasan the fifth Rashidun caliph. If you can show that this view is supported by some prominent historians, we can say that such an opinion exist and name who support them. Otherwise we should consider it "fringe theory" which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. HaEr48 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what I would like to see as well; as per WP:RSUW, alternative opinions can be mentioned but according to weight. If its a minority stance than should be stated as a minority stance. DA1 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The term Rashidun is applied to four caliphs by standard references, e.g., EI2 [1] and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World ("Sunnī Muslims see the first four successors of the Prophet as caliphs who were “rightly guided”...") [2]. This is standard usage in academic sources and, as HaEr48 writes, we would need strong RSs to show that the alternative usage isn't fringe. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It may be standard for sources like Oxford or Britannica, but if you consider Sunni or Islamic sources, like from Abul A'la Maududi and Muhammad al-Bukhari, who viewed Hasan in a positive light, to the extent that they would decry Muawiyah's enmity to Hasan's Caliphate, it is not as simple as that. Leo1pard (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

To "view Hasan in a positive light" is one thing, to classify his rule as part of the Rashidun Caliphate, is another. The threshold for inclusion here should be a prominent historian classifying Hasan's rule as such, not merely finding Islamic scholars who viewed him in a positive light. HaEr48 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Leo1pard (1) Oxford and Britannica are WP:RELIABLE SOURCES at least more so than footnotes from websites that simply back your WP:POV. (2) Referring to religious intellectuals' respect or admiration for an article subject does not mean you may change the very content of articles to suit your own POV, and that so without consensus. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. See WP:What Wikipedia is not; your preferred minister or cleric is not a valid source in itself, sources should be reputable.

(3) Per WP:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Grammatical standardization, names should not have diacritical marks (apostrophes) except in an etymology section or the first-line of a lead section; names are to be standard (so no more changing to 'Ali and 'Uthman, please!). -DA1 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Like this guy who said that the end of the Rashidun Caliphate was not with the death of Ali, but after Hasan agreed with Muawiyah to abdicate in favor of him? Leo1pard (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't access that source (or read Arabic) but yes you need prominent historians saying things like that. Is that source is reliable and authoritative enough? I can't establish that, but if yes I think we can add something to the effect of: "Historian so-and-so considers Hasan to be the fifth Rashidun caliph because ..." somewhere in the article. But if it's just fringe theory, we should not mention it. HaEr48 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is treated as being reliable in, well, the [Arabic page of Rashidun Caliphate], which even has a [section on Hasan's Caliphate], separate from those of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. As in, Arabs themselves would view Hasan as a Rashid Caliph. Leo1pard (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You're continuing the logical fallacies. Yes, the Arabic Wikipedia has a "section" on Hasan...the article also describes the Rashidun as being four. Stop referring to "other Sunnis" and "Arabs themselves" and accept that Wikipedia relies on WP:RELIABLE SOURCES not analogies. On top of that, foreign-language Wikis are sometimes poorly sourced, but realize that this is English Wikipedia and each Wiki may have its own guidelines. Articles mentioning Hasan as a "fifth caliph", doesn't give you supposition to declare Hasan as a "fifth Rashidun"..only a fifth Caliph. -DA1 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What logical fallacy? According to this guy, the end of al-Khilafah ar-Rashidah (Template:Lang-ar, the Rashidun Caliphate) was not with the assassination of Ali, but after Hasan agreed to step down in favor of Muawiyah, so Hasan is the fifth Rashid Caliph in the view of Arabs, Sunnis or Muslims like him, and how are English sources like Britannica and Oxford supposed to have any more weight than Arab, Sunni or Islamic sources, in a matter like this, considering that this is a concept that originates with the latter, not the former? Leo1pard (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) The fallacy is you taking references to a "fifth caliph" and using it to justify your edit of "fifth Rashidun". (2) Using minority references of a "fifth Rashidun" to edit the article to reflect such, ignoring WP:DUE WEIGHT and WP:RSUW. In other words, for every "Sunni"/"Arab" reference to five Rashids I could easily refer the same to four Rashids many times more, I simply choose not to. (3) Which brings me to the fact that i don't need to post 10 references for every 1 of your reference(s), because there's something called WP:PSTS: primary, secondary and tertiary source(s) and WP:RELIABLE. Talking about Arabs/Sunnis/Shias and "this is a concept that originates with the latter" has little bearing. Once again, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. DA1 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

... It looks like you misunderstood the second paragraph of the Arabic page, because it does not merely say four, but that it consists of four of the ten who were promised Paradise by Muhammad, who were joined by Hasan (who is not of the 10 mentioned in that hadith), so according to the Arabic page, it is khamsah (Template:Lang-ar, five), not just four. Leo1pard (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Which still doesn't back up your edits of a "fifth Rashidun". So far we've had three members tell you that its four based on existing WP:RS. I would hope there was more member input either way or the other; but as of now, you're being WP:DISRUPTIVE. After assuming WP:AGF, I'm beginning to reconsider whether these edits are purely WP:Soapbox. DA1 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Correction, the second paragraph of the Arabic page states that the state (the Rashidun Caliphate) consists of 4 of the 10 promised Paradise, who were then joined by Hasan, but anyways, I just noticed that you made an edit on Hasan being the 5th Caliph in Sunni view regardless, which makes sense to me. As in, even if you don't want him to be regarded as the 5th Rashidun Caliph, for the reasons that you mentioned above, I accept your edit on him at least being the 5th Caliph for Sunnis. Leo1pard (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Leo1pard (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

the Fast-a-thon page

Hullo, I looked up fast-a-thon and found the page but it has one of those wikipedia warnings on it which is a bit off-putting. It says it needs citations, could this go on http://events.utk.edu/index.php?eID=2621 to show it really did start in tennessee. It also said it may not have notability but I really can't see why not. Regards, Alison. PS I'm pretty much baffled by the workings of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalisonberry (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead image in Jihad

An editor is insisting on inserting an image into the lead of Jihad. I'm arguing that this lead would better left without an image. Your input would be appreciated in Talk:Jihad#Lead_image. Eperoton (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was trolled

For those of you who are not familiar with NeilN, when 400,000 people pointed out that his characterisation of an imam leading Friday prayers from a mosque pulpit in front of a congregation of six as

Muhammad sitting on his she - camel on top of a mountain surrounded by thousands of pilgrims explaining how he proposes to reform the calendar

might be a tad erroneous he took no action apart from

• Protecting both the article and the talk page
• Wiping the discussion
• Threatening to block anybody who raised the matter in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.219.64 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the original art work that discusses the context of the image? Granted the quote itself may have better explanation than what is currently offered but that needs to be reviewed and researched. I can do it if there is a link somewhere. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the problem. The picture is not tasteful, it doesn’t depict the source and it is needlessly offensive. Since it purports to be a picture of Muhammad it is offensive to a large proportion of the people who are going to read the article. The only justification for keeping it would be if it were directly relevant to the article, but it’s not. The article in question is not "Muhammad", it’s "Islamic calendar". This discussion cannot take place at the article talk page because protection has been applied to stop it – so the article and its talk page are both protected.

The picture was originally uploaded to Commons and tagged "Muhammad" because a museum cataloguer looked no further than the wording of the passage into which it was inserted. She was well aware that most of the pictures were unrelated to the passages they were inserted into because she catalogued all of them, but she wasn’t aware that Muhammad was not inside a mosque when he preached his farewell sermon because the book does not say that. The people who are expert in both art and Islam have concluded this is not Muhammad.

AstroLynx provided links to two discussions:

• T W Arnold, ‘’Painting in Islam’’ (1928, republished 2002 Gorgias Press, page 89)

• Priscilla P. Soucek, "An Illustrated Manuscript of al-Bīrūnī’s Chronology of Ancient Nations”, in: P.J. Chelkowski (ed.), The Scholar and the Saint: Studies in Commemoration of Abu’l-Rayḥan al-Bīrūnī and Jalal al-Din al-Rūmī (New York: New York University Press, 1975), pp. 103-168.

However, pressed to provide the relevant quotations AstroLynx refused, instead challenging editors to locate a copy of the books and "prove me wrong". This is not the only time he has acted in this uncollegial manner – on another occasion he said there was no copy of a book in the university library but quoted from it verbatim a few days later. 78.146.221.12 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

NeilN using his tools to impose his POV against the consensus of Codename Lisa, Wiqi55 and others

She participated in the RfC which discussed the picture of Ali which was falsely labelled Muhammed and resulted in 400,000 people signing a petition against Wikipedia. Her view was that the picture should go. It took Neil N just one hour to start harassing her. After two days of this she modified her view slightly, saying that if the picture was genuinely one of Muhammad she might support it, but otherwise no. The kicker was this comment:

A thought. The picture shows Muhammad in a building. The Farewell Pilgrimage sermon was delivered on Mount Arafat. Therefore the picture does not show Muhammad on Mount Arafat. Therefore it shows him delivering a perfectly ordinary sermon in a perfectly ordinary village. Therefore WP:PERTINENCE#Offensive images kicks in and the picture must go. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Then comes the deliberate lie:

Interesting point - if I recall correctly, Hillenbrand also noted this. However, how sure are we where Muhammad was in Mecca when he delivered this part of the various speeches which he gave during those days? The Quran (sura 9:36-37) certainly doesn't specify the location, nor do the earliest sources on Muhammad's life such as Ibn Ishaq (cf. Guillaume's translation, pp. 650-652) or al-Tabari (cf. Poonawala's translation, pp. 112-114). For other speeches locations are cited such as Muhammad standing on Arafat or seated on a camel or a grey mule but not for this particular speech. AstroLynx (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

43 minutes after 87.81's observation NeilN accuses him/her of lying. Two days later AstroLynx fails the lie detector test on two counts:

• he claims the artist wrote the book (he actually illustrated a book which had been written 500 years earlier)

• he lets slip the admission "according to tradition the event occurred in the open air and Muhammed was seated on his camel."

He goes on to claim that Shia Muslims have no position on the events which predated the schism (presumably that would include an acceptance that the caliphs were Muhammad's rightful successors). This is about as sensible as claiming that Protestants have no views on events which happened before 1517. Wiqi 55 calls him out here:

You actually missed an important argument. The image is found in a book that was illustrated for sectarian and polemical purposes. I would expect the closing party to justify why polemical/sectarian imagery/works should be given space in this article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

al-Biruni was one a relatively small number of Muslim scholars who treated believers of other religions with respect. His book is about the calendars of not only the Muslims but also of the Christians, the Jews and other religions. Therefore you will also find illustrations of Jesus and Abraham. To call his work sectarian only shows how biased you are yourself. AstroLynx (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the sources you're citing then you would have known that this has nothing to do with Biruni. Hillenbrand clearly states that the illustrations have a different agenda compared to the text. He and other reliable sources recognize the sectarian and polemical agenda of the illustrated edition. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This comment from Wiqi55 (who is a distinguished Islamic scholar) could also have been cited:

Well, it was clear enough that you misrepresented Hillenbrand. He actually noticed a "strong sectarian feeling" in an image that was not about the investiture of Ali, contrary to what you wrote above. Then based on how you misrepresented the source you assumed that the RFC image has no sectarian purposes, which is original research (and can be disputed by pointing at Hillenbrand's arguments about the Envoy to Musailama). In any case, I don't see a reason why I should change my !vote. Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well petitions from outside sources don't mean anything on Wikipedia so what exactly is the complaint? Also tasteful pictures that depict the source (though it is true they may be in the wrong spot) aren't guaranteed to leave the article unless they are needlessly offensive. Especially if they simply need a quick change of heading and location. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hanafi school in Algeria

I have recently been writing a section on the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam in Algeria, which was introduced during the Ottoman era (my final edit was here). However, there is a Wiki user who has consistently removed everything I have written. I have included full citations as well as quotations to the article; however, they have deleted everything. Can someone here please take a look? If I am in the wrong, I would appreciate any constructive criticism. However, this user is literally removing anything I write on every single article I contribute to. Thanks in advance to anyone who may be of assistance. O.celebi (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" in 2017 under discussion

Hello. The inclusion of "Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" is debated at Talk:2017#Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul, where I invite you to join in. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

About the use of images/ pictures in articles about Islam which I am quite shocked about

Hello,

Obviously I'm a Muslim and I've been visiting some pages in the Islam portal and some pages (like the page about Prophet Muhammad صلّى الله عليه و سلّم) contain pictures and drawings of the Prophet himself, his companions (رضي الله عنهم) and angels (like Gabriel) عليهم السلام, but that's forbidden (actually blasphemy) in Islam. It's absolutely not permitted to have or see pictures of any Prophets (among whom Muhammad) عليهم الصلاة و السلام, or their families or companions (رضي الله عنهم)or angels; while people of other religions won't be concerned, these illustrations are insulting to muslims who can and do come across these articles.

While the pages are made to be as global/ neutral as possible and open to as many people as possible, at least respect our religious figures and don't include any pictures or drawings of them. It's really disrespectful to us even if that's not your intention, regardless of whether you want to make the articles neutral. The articles can still be neutral without including any illustrations or pictures of our religious figures.

Therefore I request that such pictures be please removed, like on the page about the Prophet Muhammad which I came across and which contained lots of illustrations of the Prophet صلّى الله عليه و سلّم.

Minnin (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You should read out WP:NOTCENSORED. Capitals00 (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You can also learn how to suppress the display of images on this page, though that only works for you personally. Many images about many subjects are offensive to someone; removing them would leave little behind. You aren't the first person to ask that and won't be the last, but removing them outright isn't going to happen. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why can't images or won't images be removed? They can totally be removed: the articles don't lose any value if the picture of our religious figures are removed as the text won't budge. It's not an issue of me removing pictures for my own use, those pictures are offensive and shouldn' t even be there, period. Same for pictures used in the portal about Muhammad صلّى الله عليه و سلّم and about Islam. They're not even adding anything, and nothing could remotely be lost by their removal, at all.

So I still request any pictures of any religious figure (angels عليهم السلام, Prophets عليهم الصلاة و السلام, companions رضي الله عنهم ...) to be removed in the articles/ portals about our religion.

Minnin (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Minnin: I'm sorry, but it is not going to happen. I will copy what the FAQ section of Talk:Muhammad says to here:

There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam.

Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.)

Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible.

While you state that the article would not lose value, many people would disagree with that. While you and your religion finds images of Muhammad to be blasphemy, that is not universal among all people. If we removed every image that was offensive to someone, there would be no images here and this would be a dull encyclopedia. I am truly sorry that the presence of these images offends you, but they cannot be removed. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

While I want everyone to participate, if this website is not compatible with your religious views, I would understand if you did not wish to visit. There very well may be other online encyclopedias that are more compatible with your views(or you could start one). 331dot (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy Eid, everyone. Minnin, the key word in 331dot's summary is "relevant". Jimbo has enunciated the "principle of least astonishment" to cover this situation. Peripheral relevance isn't good enough - offensive pictures have to be directly relevant to the article they illustrate. The picture which caused most upset, currently illustrating a discussion of intercalation in the Islamic calendar, is nothing to do with either intercalation or the Prophet. The fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that if you find something that's wrong you can correct it yourself. So you can either remove it or replace it with this:

Prohibiting Nasī’

Further information: Nasi'

Muslims at Friday prayer. Found in an illustrated copy of Al-Bīrūnī's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (17th-century copy of an early 14th-century Ilkhanid manuscript).

References