Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:24, 19 June 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Islam-related articles page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Islam Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Sub-sections

Talk page sub-sections:

Epithets:

• prophet
• martyr
• fundamentalist
• terrorist
• clergy
• Ma malakat aymanukum

Translations:

• names
• God vs Allah

Citing standards:

• Citing Quran
• Citing hadith
• Citing scholars
• Partisan and extremist websites

Other:

• Point of view
• miscellaneous
• family tree
• Formatting articles
• Dates

RfC: images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

From time to time editors remove images identifying Islamic clerics and/or scholars from, or add images to, articles in the field of Islam. An example appears in this discussion which is due to have closed very soon, but the more general principle is important. That discussion was catalysed by this IP editor comment: "Tajjusharia don't wanted to take photo video it's haram so don't put his photo here". The word "haram" is significant.

For this RfC there are three questions:

• Question 1: Should Islamic articles (and Drafts) have images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars?
• Question 2: Should images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars be retained or be deleted insofar as this affects Misplaced Pages, not Commons?
• Question 3: Should the outcome of this RfC be embedded in this segment of the Manual of Style?

Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on question 1

Question 1 asks: "Should Islamic articles (and Drafts) have images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars?"

Support having images in these articles or Drafts

Oppose having images in these articles or Drafts

Other opinions

Speedy close per WP:CONLOCAL, specifically this Rfc cannot overturn WP:NOTCENSORED. FDW777 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I seem to find FDW777's argument valid. (Declaration: I am non-Muslim) Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This RfC is about whether we should censor one area or not. We should not, because we censor no area. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on question 2

Question 2 asks: "Should images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars be retained or be deleted insofar as this affects Misplaced Pages, not Commons?"

Support keeping these images

Oppose deleting these images

Other opinions

Speedy close per WP:CONLOCAL, specifically this Rfc cannot overturn WP:NOTCENSORED. FDW777 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I seem to find FDW777's argument valid. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on question 3

Question 3 asks: "Should the outcome of this RfC be embedded in this segment of the Manual of Style?"

Support embedding the outcome of this RfC in this section of the MOS

• Support regardless of which outcome is determined by consensus. Having it explicitly written is important for the community to be able to reference. Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral On reflection seems covered at MOS:IMAGE#Offensive images / WP:NOTCENSORED and possibly any tweaks perhaps ought to be considered at MOS:IMAGE first, but currently electing to recuse from this section. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose embedding the outcome of this RfC in this section of the MOS

Other opinions

Writing salutation after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM)

I edited a content on wikipedia few months ago and added durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). A few days latter when I visited the page again, I found that another editor had removed the durud after the name of the Prophet, referring Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. When I explored the manual I came to know about Misplaced Pages 's principle of omitting honorifics including Islam-related articles in order to maintain a neutral environment.

I am truly amazed by your concern about maintaining neutrality respecting all nations, race, gender, religion and I really admire that. But in Islam we have a religious obligation of saying durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). A hadith have been mentioned in the book Fazayele Amal by Hazrat Moulana Zakariya (d.1982) (RU) regrading this. In this book from the part Fazayele Ramadan (page 24):

Once the Prophet Muhammad (SM) said to his sahabas to get closer to the mimbar. They got close to the mimber. Then the Prophet Muhammad (SM) stepped on the first stair of the mimber and said "Ameen". He repeated this for the second and third stairs. When he came down from the mimber after finishing khutbah, the sahaba (RA) told him " What we heard today while your stepping on the mimber, we hadn’t heard it before." The Prophet Muhammad (SM) said, "Just now, Jibril (AS) said, 'Destroy he might be who gets (into) the month of Ramadan but his sins are not forgiven.' I said Ameen. When I stepped on the second stair Jibril (AS) said, 'Destroy he might be in front of whom your name is spoken but he doesn't say durud on you.' I said Ameen. Just after stepping on the third stair Jibril (AS) said 'Destroy he might be in front of whom his parents or any one ( mother or father) reach at their consenescence but they couldn’t make him achieve Jannat (the child couldn’t achieve paradise through serving or devotion to his parents).' I said Ameen."

Please note that Fazayele Amal is a renound and authentic book with verified hadiths. According to this hadith there is a religious obligation (wajib) of saying durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). Whenever we see any content saying only 'Muhammad', it pierces our heart! Allah has made this sending of salutation obligatory not even after His name, but after His habib Prophet Muhammad (SM).

I truly respect Wikimedia's conscience of keeping neutrality. But I also hope that Wiki will consider the importance of sending durud after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM) and will be kind enough to allow writing salutation only after his name. Uxorus (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I was looking for details on (SM) in Islamic honorifics - cannot find it? What does it mean? Also I note the comment at the top of the page For previous discussions about PBUH, please review the archives. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla

(SM) is the short form of 'ṣallā 'llahu ʿalayhi (wa-ʾālihi) wa-sallam'. You'll find it on the 'Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles' page, right after PUBH Uxorus (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That is SAW not SM? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Even while appreciating how jarring this is to you, nevertheless:

• Am I correct in my understanding that in some branches of traditional Islamic thought, humans are not to depict God's creatures in art? If so, well, Misplaced Pages is nevertheless rife with photographs and drawings of people, animals, and plants.
• Even if I'm not correct about that, Misplaced Pages includes imagery of women that would offend many Muslims, and that women are depicted at all would offend some Muslims, and also Jews whose beliefs are such that they remove women from group photos published in newspapers (as was reported to have been done when a photo was published of attendees at a meeting that included Hillary Clinton).
• Many Jews are presumably offended to see "God" spelled out as such rather than written as "G-d".
• Many Christians are presumably offended that there's an article on Piss Christ.

The only summary I can give is that Misplaced Pages is a secular publication. When it comes to the question of tailoring the guidelines, and especially the question of making exceptions to them, there's a choice between accommodating every faith's sense of what must or must not be included or accommodating none of them. The former seems unmanageable and fraught. Largoplazo (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo

Brother/sister, along with the points that you've mentioned, there are thousands of other disputations. I was talking about adding honorific only after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM).

The honorific 'PUBH' after the name of the Prophet Muhammad (SM) is so commonly seen in all types of publications that everyone (including non-muslims) is familiar with it. So adding PUBH (if not SM) wouldn’t seem anything unfamiliar to the readers or hurt anyone's feelings. Uxorus (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"I was talking about adding honorific only after ...": I'd understood that's what you were asking when I responded that neutrality requires that we make exceptions to accommodate the sensitivities of every sect of every faith or that we make exceptions to accommodate none of them. What you're asking falls into neither category. Largoplazo (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, don't you mean "PBUH" rather than "PUBH"? "Peace Be Upon Him"? Largoplazo (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uxorus I am not familiar with it. Thus everyone is not. Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As a non-Muslim, I can tell you that it would be quite offensive for Mohammed to be singled out for such treatment on Misplaced Pages, for that would make it the official Misplaced Pages position that he is to be praised, and that that position is unique (unless we started to PBUH all names, which sound neither reasonable nor practical.) That he is seen as deserving of praise is understandable but clearly not uncontroversial.

What I do recommend for my fellow non-Muslim editors is that we be very mellow about edits from our Muslim editors who include PBUH phrasing within the additions that they make. Delete the honorific, sure, but don't give them a hard time for having included it. So long as they're not going around adding the honorific after existing invocations, they are moving the project forward, just as someone who adds information but doesn't follow MOS:LQ for comma placement does, and generally they are not doing it out of ignorance but from personal spiritual requirement. (And the same logic applies to Jews who use "G-d".) To effectively shut people out of editing because they have this relatively addressable religious compulsion would not serve the project as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this. Well said. Largoplazo (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo Yes, it is PBUH (Peace Be Upon Him). Just mistaken in hastle Uxorus (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@JorgeLaArdilla It is just another form of SAW and is frequently used in many regions. I added this one also. Uxorus (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you for clarifying. Can I ask you why you chose to use an Arabic language honorific (SAW) and not an English language honorific (PBUH)? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I just wrote how I pronounce it. There's no other reason. Uxorus (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uxorus: I see. If Muslims consider it an obligation, I'm struggling to understand why The Study Quran, a religious study text written by Muslims who are also Western Academics, does not use the honorific?

@JorgeLaArdilla, As per my understanding, it is a translation of the Quran. Quran is the kalam of Allah. In Quran, Allah has adderssed Prophet Muhammad (SM) as Rasul, Muddassir, Muzzammil and many more. Allah has directly mentioned him (O the messenger of Allah....). It is obligatory upon us, the ummah, to send salutation on his mention.

I could have said more properly if I had access to that book.

Uxorus (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

May be you are concerned about the fact that people will think Misplaced Pages as a biased platform by allowing PBUH after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). But may be they'll do so because they don't know that it is an obligation. If we let them know that this is an obligation, I don't thik they'll have any objection against adding honirific after his name. I think they'll understand the sophistication of Jibril (AS)’s quotation mentioned above, rather than thinking of it as biasness or any kind of tailoring.

As far as I know, there is no such obligation for any other person. Even in Islam, we don’t have any such obligation of sending salutation after any other prophets, though we do that form the cordial respect of our heart. From this point of view, this position of Prophet Muhammad (SM) is unique. And as a unique one, this honorific should be added to the Manual of Style. Uxorus (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect. I see your explanation that you consider writing the honorific an obligation, but I still feel that Misplaced Pages would be biased for extending this special treatment to one person. Special treatment like that is bias. You may think it due bias, that your religion calls on you to have that bias, which is understandable and no condemnation; we all have beliefs of sorts, and beliefs are, at heart, biases. This isn't just your prophet that we do this with; we strip honorifics from all. For example, we do not call the Queen of England "her majesty" (except in discussing that honorific.)

There may be some room for a browser extension that would display PBUH or similar notation every time your prophets name appears on the screen, which would serve the observant reader without interfering with Misplaced Pages as a whole. (It would have to be done with care, however, so that it doesn't insert it in the editing field; we have run into similar problems in the past.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You're suggesting people will be willing to make an exception for this because Muslims consider it an obligation. But that amounts to making a special exception for this one Islamic obligation without doing the same for every other religious obligation. I responded to that already. It's as though you don't understand that Islam is not the only religion in the world that imposes obligations.

If editors removed images depicting God's creations because they considered that an obligation, I guarantee that that wouldn't be accepted. Nor would it be accepted if editors were to begin replacing "God" with "G-d" everywhere.

I'm puzzled that you've stated, in response to two people who are objecting and who have explained why, and in light of all the other commentators who've objected in previous discussions about the same question, that you believe no one will object. Largoplazo (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo, because I thought that's not your personal opposition, rather professional concern. Nat Gertler seems trying to analyse the matter from both point of view. Uxorus (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• General Comment: Encyclopedia provides Knowledge, which needs to be → Truth dependent → Truth should be non partisan → honorifics indirectly declares soft corner and partisanship→ Lead to attempts or condoning of censorship → hence honorifics are antithesis to critical evaluations→ hence ' honorifics are wordy superstitious rituals encouraging virtual literary idolatry of Cult of personality which can cause compromising the truth→ hence use honorifics ought to be avoided rationally and theologically both. ' Bookku (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, general comment: I read other subsections of this talk page. All I would like to say is, it will be more wise for wiki to involve only admin editors in policy determining pages like this one. In determining policy where there are disputations, there should be equal number of admins from each opinion group, all having sound knowledge of the matter. Only then the final decision can be called biasfree, neutral, justified and equitable.

Durud is obligatory salutation. It should not be categorized as honorific.

Also, I am withdrawing my words about other disputations I’ve said before. Allah is the greatest, so as his commands. What He has made prohibited, should not be admitted by any means. Uxorus (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

learn-islam.org class-9-durood fails to mention that Durud is obligatory? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ JorgeLaArdilla, the word written in arabic after 'prophet' is ṣallā 'llahu ʿalayhi wa-sallam. You should argue about the things you have sound Knowledge of. Uxorus (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already mentioned about the significance of sending durud after Prophet Muhammad (SM) referring Fazayele Amal. WE ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED TO INVENT SOMETHING FROM OURSELVES IN ISLAM. If we do that, we'll be put into hellfair. May Allah forgive and protect us. Uxorus (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We are also prohibited to talk or argue over things that we do not have knowledge of. Uxorus (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope you have read the 'Importance of Sending Blessings' part from the source you have mentioned carefully. Specially last few lines.

Fazayele Amal is a renouned book followed by many Islamic scholars. I think I should also have mentioned the explanation written after this hadith:

"In this hadith, Jibril (AS)'s curse was enough for destruction, moreover Prophet (SM)'s saying Ameen made it more firm. May Allah protect all of us from those sins. In 'Durre Mansur' it is mentioned that Jibril (AS) asked Prophet Muhammad (SM) to say Ameen, for which it's significance has increased more. First person is he whose Ramadan has been passed, but he was not granted forgiveness. This means despite the month of Ramadan's being full of rahmat and barkat that person not giving up his permanent bad deeds due to laziness has become deprived of inexhaustible forgiveness. Therefore his destruction is inevitable." Uxorus (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It's an honorific. Islam has no say over how anyone else chooses to write, and it's absurd to claim otherwise. Misplaced Pages is a neutral encyclopedia, there is no place for religious propaganda. FDW777 (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ FDW777, I was just defending JorgeLaArdilla how he was accusing that I have clamied something false. Uxorus (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Uxorus, 27 of your 33 contributions to Misplaced Pages have been edits to this discussion; most of the other six have been additions of (SM) to articles. Nobody wants to offend your religious sensibilities, and I'm sure that's the reason other people are being so patient. But you are overwhelming the discussion by repeating your opinion and your arguments ad infinitum, and taking up a lot of the time and energy of experienced editors here — time and energy which is Misplaced Pages's most precious resource. Please read Misplaced Pages: Don't bludgeon the process and desist. This discussion has definitely run its course, whether or not you are willing to accept the explanations you have been given. Bishonen | tålk 15:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC).

I have already mentioned my expectations from wikipedia. I am sorry if I could not make it clear that I don't want to argue with anyone who do not have knowledge about the matter in policy determining situation. Then why bringing up wrong explanations of sources after my final words? Uxorus (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Cambridge dictionary, honirific means "showing or giving honour or respect (an honorific title)". According to Oxford dictionary, honirific is "showing respect for the person you are speaking to". According to Misplaced Pages, An honorific is a title that conveys esteem, courtesy, or respect for position or rank when used in addressing or referring to a person.

According to Mufti Muhammad Abdullah's translation (2013) of Riadh us Salehin (by Imam Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi), (pg 624), Arabic ‘Salah’ (durud) when used after any worshipper (human being) means wish blessings for him. So durud, by no means, is a title/honirific. Muslims say/write durud as an obligation after the mention of Prophet Muhammad (SM), about which I have previously provided the references. So durud, by no means should be removed after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM).

Uxorus (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages style is not governed by Islam or by the proclamations of Imam Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi. We also don't write "G-d" instead of "God" even though many Jews believe writing out the name "God" is blasphemous and customarily write "G-d" instead, so you can see that Islam isn't being singled out in this regard.

Misplaced Pages is not speaking for Islam or Judaism or an other religion. It does not wish blessings on people, wish peace to be upon them, or call for their memories to be a blessing. Largoplazo (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Muhammad (PBUH) is so commonly seen in all type of prints, just as 'God'. Don't remove PBUH after the name of Prophet Muhammad (SM). Uxorus (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Holy Quran and Prophet Mubammad

Calling a book such as the Koran “Holy Quran” is not a value judgment but giving it its due respect as a sacred object. Referring to it with other titles such as the “Noble Quran” might fall into the said category. I recommend updating the article.

Also, calling Muhammad “Prophet Muhammad” is by no means an honorific but a description of the person as he was a prophet whether one believes in him or not. It doesn’t change the fact he prophesized and so was a prophet by default. Referring to him as “Most Beloved Prophet Muhammad” would be an honorific. I highly recommend updating the article accordingly. 786wave (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Deeming a religious scripture, object, place, or person to be sacred is a value judgement that depends entirely on one's religious beliefs.

We don't ordinarily prefix a person's name with their profession or role. For someone who isn't writing "Prophet Muhammad" out of personal devotion and religious custom, writing "Prophet Muhammad" is like writing "Actor Olivier" for Laurence Olivier.

Articles on Misplaced Pages are in Misplaced Pages's "voice". Misplaced Pages doesn't have a religion and has no opinion on the holiness of anything, so it expresses no such opinion. Largoplazo (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel this demonstrates that the OP is unable to view subjects relating to his religion from a neutral position. Alssa1 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sacred is sacred whether one believes in it or not. The problem with post-modern thinking is it considers everything as equal and nothing as sacred. It’s not. It will never be. 786wave (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with "post-modern thinking" or anything else of that sort. It has everything to do with being objective and writing from a netural point of view. You may personally believe that the Quran is holy, others don't. You may believe that Muhammad was a prophet, others do not. Referring to the Quran as holy, or Muhammad as a Prophet would be an endorsement of the Islamic position; which is something Misplaced Pages cannot do because we have to be neutral. On Muhammad's article, we show very clearly how to be neutral in relation to revered figures in world religions:

Muhammad (c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of the world religion of Islam. According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

Do you understand? Alssa1 (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Sacred" things are, almost by definition, not sacred to people who don't believe in them. Which is why, I suspect, WP does not have a category of "sacred articles" – there is absolutely no way in which such a category could not devolve into an endless POV-pushing tug-of-war, and I can imagine no sense in which it would improve this project. Its sole likely consequence would be to invite protracted sectarian squabbling over which religious figures deserve what amount of deference for what reasons, etc etc, with the likely end result that articles about religions would become the personal fiefdoms of adherents of those religions, and ultimately little more than proselytism and propaganda. Same story whenever any special-interest group with a conflict of interest is allowed undue editorial control over articles relevant to them. We're not in that game; we are aiming to make available a resource that informs readers about what different groups of people in the world believe, from as close to a neutral perspective as practicable. This has nothing to do with whatever you consider "postmodernism" to be, and everything to do with a need to keep WP articles a bias-free space. In this case, we don't preface prophets with that title "Prophet X" because it's simply not normal English-language practice; we do not describe Einstein as "Physicist Albert".

Even the concept of such a category of "sacred" Misplaced Pages content is against the spirit of WP:NPOV, as observed above. These practices of respecting neutrality – most especially in naturally contentious matters such as religion and politics – have been adopted for good reasons. Ultimately, endorsing a particular perspective on the sanctity of prophets or religious teachings is not a goal of WP, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the basic policies and objectives of the encyclopedia. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That something is sacred is entirely a declaration of belief that it is so. It has everything to do with what one believes. Is the Bhagavad Gita sacred to you?

What do you even understand the word "sacred" to mean? That's important to define in order to discuss this in any more detail. Does it mean "something given by God"? In that case, every plant and animal and rock on the planet was given by God. Is every one of them a sacred object? If not, then the decision to name some of them sacred and others non-sacred is a subjective one. Largoplazo (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If it’s related to God and religion it’s sacred. Very simple actually. 786wave (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Which, as God is a fictional character, means that "sacred" is meaningless.--Khajidha (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Sharia" not "Sharia law"

I propose we add a guideline that, when referring to Islamic law, we should either call it "sharia" or "Islamic law", but not "sharia law". Dictionary.com contains an entry for sharia but no entry for sharia law. Similarly, merriam-webster contains an entry for sharia, but none for sharia law, and Cambridge Dictionary contains sharia, but not sharia law. In fact there is nothing conveyed by "sharia law" that isn't already conveyed by "sharia". So we should definitely not use "sharia law" in article titles per WP:CONCISE (meaning Ban on sharia law should be moved to Ban on sharia or Ban on Islamic law).VR _talk 03:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Seems perfectly normal phrasing to me. Especially given that several of the examples of how to use sharia in a sentence on the Dictionary.com page you linked to use it. --Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying its invalid English, but rather "Sharia" is more WP:CONCISE than "Sharia law", which matters for article titles.VR _talk 23:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Sharia" by itself would be as recognizable, though. --Khajidha (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Khajidha how is "Sharia" not recognizable? Our article on the topic is called Sharia, not Sharia law, and the most reliable sources routinely use the term "Sharia" (as opposed to "Sharia law") in their titles: .VR _talk 17:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. "Sharia law" has connotations that are useful when describing the subject. Alssa1 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Alssa1 what connotations does "Sharia law" have that "Sharia" or "Islamic law" doesn't?VR _talk 17:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Given that the current MOS recommends using "God" instead of "Allah", it would be more consistent to use "Islamic law" instead of "Sharia law".VR _talk 17:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Apaugasma, as you recently pointed out that we should be using English when possible what is your opinion on "Sharia law" vs "Islamic law" vs simply "Sharia"?VR _talk 18:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• The general guideline to use English applies for terms that are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, like for example Jewish law vs. Halakha (cf. vs ). However, the difference between Islamic law and sharia (cf. vs. ) is not big enough in my view to impose one of two usages. Sharia law is used a lot less often though , but since it's rather equivalent to the commonly used sharia and since it still gets 38900 hits in Google Scholar, I don't see a reason to outright ban it. Best usage would probably often be to use something like Islamic law (Sharia) or Sharia (Islamic law). I also agree that sharia law may in some contexts have a slightly different connotation, as in 'sharia put into law' (i.e., traditional sharia pronouncements converted into a codified law voted in by a parliament and enforced by the system of justice). All in all, there's not by far enough here to create a guideline on it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for those statistics! The ratio between "Jewish law" and "Halakha" is 128,000:17,600 or about 7:1. The ratio between "Islamic law" and "Sharia law" is 245,000:38,900 or about 6:1. In terms of ngram link you gave, "Islamic law" seems 5x more used than "Sharia law". So I agree that best usage would be either Islamic law (Sharia) or Sharia (Islamic law), on first usage in the article, but all subsequent usages should either be Islamic law or Sharia (i.e. without the bracketed explanation). And point taken about not creating a guideline around it.VR _talk 19:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

'Hadith' section problematic

The section 'Hadith' is problematic: it says that articles on hadith should make clear the level of reliability of the hadith. This is misleading: the 'reliability of the hadith' refers to the judgement of medieval hadith scholars, whose declared methodology was exclusively based on analyzing isnads (though underneath this they did use other, not explicitly declared criteria). This is not the same as the methodology of modern historians, who take a lot of other factors into account, and generally assume that at least part of every hadith reflects concerns dating from the time of its recording (8th/9th century) rather than from the time in which it was purportedly originally related. In other words, the modern scholarly view is that no hadith is perfectly and straightforwardly 'reliable' as a source on events dating from before the late eighth century, and that the choice of which hadiths were considered 'reliable' or not by 9th/10th-century authors was very much informed by their own agendas.

What this means for Misplaced Pages is that articles on hadith should report not on whether a hadith is 'reliable', but, for example, on which medieval scholars considered it 'reliable', and especially for what reason they did so and what that entailed for the broader development of Islamic doctrine. Or these articles should report, for example, on the extent to which modern scholars believe the hadith to contain a kernel of truth (which may emerge when ideological layers are stripped off, a common methodology).

Now I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of this section. Is it to streamline the use of these four terms, and only these four (Sahih, Hasan, Da'if, and Mawdu'), from among the rich and complex hadith terminology? But that seems disingenuous: we should use the terms used by the reliable, secondary sources on which we base our articles. Could it be that this section dates from a time period when it was still acceptable to pump out whole WP articles purely on the basis of primary sources (as hadiths, as well as medieval works about hadiths, are)? In that case, I think it should be removed, because its intent would contravene WP:PRIMARY: what we write about hadiths should be firmly based on independent and reliable (basically: modern), secondary sources. If there is some other purpose to the section, the section should be reworded such as to make it clear that this is not about 'reliability' in the common sense of that word (and especially not in the Misplaced Pages-sense of the word!). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to add that the comment "which medieval scholars considered it 'reliable'" should apply to all scholars, both medieval and modern. Unless a view is very commonly accepted, we should state it with attribution, eg "Nawawi believes hadith X is authentic" or "Donner has disputed the historicity of hadith Y".VR _talk 17:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Terminology consistency

I could not get any feedback from the Islam article so I'm trying posting here. Considering consistency, Misplaced Pages articles have the words, for example, Sunni Islam and Sunnism, Shia Islam and Shiism, the adjectives Shiite and Shia. Would anyone know how Misplaced Pages handles that when translating from other languages in other topics when there are difference in how the sources translate a term? The options I can think of are a) Use the term that the source of that sentence happen to use b) Use the most commonly used version of the term for the whole article. Anyone can think of other options? Either way, it would be nice to have a consensus to refer to. Sodicadl (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Using an unqualified "Prophet" in place of Muhammad

I have seen both Muslim and non-Muslim reliable sources sometimes refer to Muhammad as "the Prophet", after having introduced him first as Muhammad and assuming there are references to no other prophets in the text. For example, Irving Zeitlin writes "The strict and absolute monotheism at which the Prophet had arrived meant that no real compromise with Christian doctrine..." or Takim writes "A more accurate picture of the Prophet appears in Simon Ockley's History of the Saracens and George Sale's translation of the Qur'an.". Yet currently MOS:MUHAMMAD seems to prohibit that. There's also discussion at Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy on whether to rename the article something like "2022 Prophet remarks row", the "prophet" would be used in the title without any qualifier. Should the guideline be changed to allow the use of "prophet"/"the prophet" in place of Muhammad in some cases? VR _talk 18:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

1. 'The Historical Muhammad.
2. "Western Depictions of Muhammad". Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God.

• Project-Class Islam-related pages
• NA-importance Islam-related pages
• WikiProject Islam articles