Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

Digital Quran?

I'm quite confused as to what the article digital Quran is meant to be about. Is it about…

1. …antique dedicated devices for displaying the Holy Quran, similar to electronic pocket dictionaries? [1]
2. …twenty year old desktop devices which display the Quran? [2]
3. …Quran devices for the blind with braille TTY output? [3]
4. …digital audio players specifically meant for Quran playback, with buttons for each surah or some other means of surah/āyah selection? [4]
5. …websites meant for the display on a user's pre-existing device of the text of the Quran, such as the Omani Digital Muṣḥaf? [5]
6. …downloadable ebooks of the Quran, which may or may not come as full applications for mobile phones?
7. …possibly even Quran pen devices, which are physical maṣāḥif made of digital paper? [6]
8. …some combination of these topics, or all of them?

Some guidance would be appreciated; it seems out article on the subject is quite old and has just been expanded and expanded as technology has changed with little regard to how different these types of digital Quran are from one another. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: An article for Thomas Milo was deleted. He was the creator of Arabic unicode (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Milo) - (Original text here). If you would consider helping reinstate that article that would probable motivate me to improve this article? Tiny Particle (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tiny Particle: AfD decisions are ideally based on source availability not article quality. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto, digital Quran, simply should mean the electronic versions of the book, pdf/epub/ebook, and else. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Jewish Chronicle

There's an RFC on the suitability of the Jewish Chronicle as a source here. I thought folks here might be interested, since I see Islamophobia is a top priority. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Template for muslimsinbritain.org

I updated several external links from mosque articles to muslimsinbritain.org, including five in this list. However, to simplify future maintenance, it would be worth making an external link template to use in these citations. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Issue regarding summary of the Satanic Verses to An-Najm

Referring to editors here regarding this issue I have with another editor adding an entire paragraph about the Satanic Verses to An-Najm. Here is what I've said on another admin's discussion page, and what Dogcatmousebird has said in their defence:

"I've been in a dispute concerning the page An-Najm, where the user mentioned (new account, about 4 days old) seems to be stern on mentioning Satanic Verses in the page, despite having little to no relation to the chapter itself. I reverted the user the first time, to which he removed my revert with no explanation. Then I reverted him a second time, to which he decided to add an entire section about it, justifying the addition as "a key factual and historical narrative directly tied to the revelation and interpretation of Surah An-Najm", which is simply untrue. Muslims who have memorized and recited this chapter have no idea concerning this incident since this has nothing to do with the chapter, and is a separate incident that does not need to be mentioned on the page due to its irrelevancy. I'm leaving it to your judgement since you're an administrator here, since I disagree with the addition and it even seems to be POV pushing, considering the lack of defense of such an addition, blatant false statements, and the 'summary' appearing to be a blatant copy+paste from the main article. Thank you." - Atcovi

"I want to add two things: The first time I reverted your change without an explanation was an accident, I'm new Second thing is I want to clarify the use of the term "factual". In my edit message, I mean everything I added to the post is factual. The account and dispute exists. Any non-biased observer, informed on the subject, can see the obvious relevance this topic has to the Surah, and the obvious bias in attempting to suppress it." - Dogcatmousebird

Leaving this for this community so they can deal with it however way they want to. Thanks. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Disputes related to specific articles are usually handled on the corresponding talkpage (WP:EDITWAR). Also, make sure you familarized yourself with the guidlines for proper conduct before engaging in a dispute (WP:TALK).

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks VenusFeuerFalle for your response. I attempted to open the way for a discussion by reverting the user's changes and notifying the user politely to explain their motives behind the addition (and that I was going to start the discussion the following morning to explain why the user's additions are irrelevant), but the user is adamant on keeping their changes and reverted my edit, saying that "it doesn't matter how many people revert it, this is factual and relevant information" and attempting to guess my intentions behind my reverts of their edits. Evidently from this edit summary and their reversion of your non-controversial edit, it seems that the user is not interested in consensus but their own interpretation of what iss "relevant" or "helpful".

I quite frankly do not have time to engage in such "Wikipedia battles", and would rather focus my attention to completing the Quranic recitations of all 114 chapters (which I am over half-way done). If someone else would like to deal with this user's additions, then they can do so. It would be exhausting to try and get this to the point where I can report this user for violating the 3RR rule anyhow. Thanks! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, after reviewing the history page of An-Najm, it is evident that the consensus is to not mention the incident directly on the page due to low merit (see here). After reviewing this, I've left my perspective on the matter on the talk page. For the time being, I've removed the user's additions and will have to go to the noticeboard if the user persists on adding changes without the needed consensus. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WikiShia.net

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mustansari

Shia expertise would be welcome at Mustansari please, as I and another editor are having trouble finding reliable sources about it. Thanks for any help with this. Wikishovel (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 13:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

New page

Assaf Moghadam - an Israeli academic who is cited repeatedly on most of the Wikipedia pages about the relationship between Islam and terrorism. So we need a page that gives some background on his qualifications, opinions, etc. Unfortunately most interviews etc. are in Hebrew, but I have made a stub. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Political aspects of Islam

Being heavily edited by an editor who I believe is adding material that doesn't belong, eg about coins, etc. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Kaaba: Demand for Deletion of Blasphemous Imaged of the Last Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon

Him)

Subject: Request for Immediate Removal of Blasphemous Images from the "Kaaba" Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is [Your Name], and I am writing as a member of the Muslim community deeply concerned about the presence of pictorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions on the Wikipedia page titled "Kaaba" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba).

These images, located under the 'History' tab, are highly offensive and blasphemous to Muslims around the world, as any visual representation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is strictly prohibited in Islam. The specific images in question are:

1. "Muhammad at the Ka'ba" from the Siyer-i Nebi, showing Muhammad with a veiled face, c. 1595.

2. A miniature from 1307 CE depicting Muhammad fixing the black stone into the Kaaba.

These images not only disrespect our beliefs but also deeply hurt the sentiments of millions in the Muslim community, including myself. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia fosters misunderstanding and disrespects our faith, which is rooted in profound reverence for our beloved Last Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). We kindly request that these images be removed from the Wikipedia page immediately, without any delay or further explanation.

We understand that Wikipedia requires supporting evidence for high-profile articles. In this case, the prohibition of visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is well-documented in Islamic teachings and widely recognized by scholars and religious authorities. Numerous fatwas based on Qur'anic scripture and hadith traditions from all schools of thought strictly prohibit drawing images of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions, deeming such acts as blasphemy. This prohibition is rooted in Islamic teachings that emphasize the importance of avoiding idolatry and misrepresentation. Scholars unanimously agree that there is no permissibility whatsoever for visual representations of the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his blessed companions, as such depictions are considered blasphemous and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic teachings.

Furthermore, surveys indicate that a significant portion of Muslims find such depictions offensive. The Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization highlights that Muslims believe visual depictions of all prophets should be prohibited, particularly those of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as they hurt their emotions and go against their faith (Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization). We urge you to consider the sensitivity of this matter and its impact on millions of Muslims worldwide.

Addressing Wikipedia's FAQ:

1.Wikipedia is not censored: While Wikipedia aims to provide a neutral point of view, it is essential to consider how these images offend deeply held beliefs. The presence of such content does not foster an inclusive environment for all users.

2.Historical accuracy: The images in question are historically inaccurate, as acknowledged by Wikipedia. The artists who created these works lived centuries after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and could not have seen him. Using inaccurate images perpetuates misconceptions rather than providing educational value.

3.Offense to Muslims: Wikipedia recognizes that depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. This offense affects millions globally and cannot be dismissed as a minor issue. Suggesting that users change their settings to hide images is not a viable solution; such representations on a public platform like Wikipedia perpetuate disrespect and harm.

4.Preventing idolatry: The traditional prohibition against images of prophets serves to prevent idolatry—a principle that should be respected in any educational context. The presence of these images on Wikipedia violates this fundamental religious principle.

5.Comparison to other figures: While Wikipedia may use images of historical figures like Jesus, it is crucial to note that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is universally forbidden in Islam. This distinction makes comparisons inadequate and unjustifiable.

6.Separate link for images: Creating a separate link for these images is also not an acceptable solution. The core issue remains that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is considered blasphemous in Islam, and there is no allowance for such visual representations under any circumstances. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia is inherently offensive and harmful. We acknowledge the FAQ section on the Talk:Muhammad page but believe that this request warrants special consideration due to its unique nature. The presence of these images does not contribute to the educational value of the article but rather perpetuates significant cultural and religious offense.

Examples of Content Removal from Wikipedia

1.John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Hoax (2005): A false and defamatory article about journalist John Seigenthaler was posted on Wikipedia and removed after being identified. This instance illustrates Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining content integrity by removing material that is harmful or misleading.

2.Essjay Controversy (2007): Contributions from a prominent Wikipedia editor who falsified his credentials were scrutinized and subsequently removed, demonstrating that Wikipedia actively removes content undermining its reliability. 3.Wiki-PR Scandal (2012): Manipulated content created by a company using sockpuppet accounts was removed, showcasing Wikipedia's efforts to prevent abuse of its platform.

4.Orangemoody Investigation (2015): Fraudulent content posted by a group of blackmailers using sockpuppet accounts was removed, highlighting Wikipedia's proactive stance against harmful content. Relevant Policies

Wikipedia's Policy on Images:

According to your guidelines, "images that would bring the project into disrepute... may be removed by any user." The continued presence of these offensive images directly contradicts this policy as they clearly offend a significant portion of users.

Wikipedia's Policy on Offensive Material:

1.According to Wikipedia: Offensive material, while Wikipedia aims to include material that may offend, it explicitly states that "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The inclusion of these blasphemous images does not meet this criterion as they serve no educational purpose but rather cause harm.

2.Neutral Point of View: As outlined in Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion, all content must adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV). The presence of these offensive images violates this policy by failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable.

3.Speedy Deletion Policy: This policy states that pages can be deleted without discussion if they meet criteria for speedy deletion due to being obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Given their blasphemous nature, these images qualify for immediate removal under this guideline.

4.Content Integrity Maintenance: Content that undermines Wikipedia's reliability or trustworthiness can be removed proactively by editors or administrators (Wikipedia:Content Integrity). Allowing these offensive images undermines your credibility as an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and respect.

5.Adherence to Neutrality: Wikipedia has a strong stance against Holocaust denial and antisemitism, clearly reflected in the Holocaust denial page, which debunks false claims and provides historical evidence. This commitment to neutrality and respect for deeply held beliefs should be extended to the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well.

Handling of Other Sensitive Topics:

1.Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Wikipedia handles content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sensitivity and neutrality, ensuring a balanced representation of different perspectives.

2.Abortion: Wikipedia presents diverse viewpoints on abortion respectfully, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic.

3.Censorship and Internet Freedom: Wikipedia respects local laws and cultural sensitivities, demonstrating its commitment to respecting different cultural and religious practices.

In light of these considerations and your own policies, I urge you to take immediate action to remove these offensive images from the "Kaaba" page and review your guidelines regarding sensitive religious content moving forward.

Thank you for your understanding and swift action on this matter.

Sincerely,

Yasha Ullah Afghan 202.47.33.85 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No per WP:NOTCENSORED. — Czello ^(music) 07:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)