Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Use of honorific "prophet" can be necessary when an article refers to more than one Muhammad

This does come up from time to time, for example there are narrators of hadith carrying the name Muhammad.

This is simply a question of readability. There are circumstances under which one might confuse the prophet Muhammad with another Muhammad. In these situations, it could be necessary to add the honorific "prophet" to Muhammad's name.

Further, in these cases, it should not be necessary to specify "the Islamic prophet" after other than the first reference; "prophet" alone should suffice. This is a matter of aesthetics, since overuse of the term "the Islamic prophet" would become stilted and awkward.

Your thoughts please Aquib (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that the phrase can and should be used this way, if there might be confusion about which Muhammad is meant. As you mention, and as the policy already states, this should only be done in the first such usage. In order to help clarify the somewhat vague wording in the second half of the sentence, I added "...may be rendered...if necessary."
Your change seems reasonable. In order to clarify the point about which I am concerned, I would add the following:
  • "...may be rendered...if necessary." There are occasions when "prophet Muhammad" or "Islamic prophet Muhammad" may be used in other places in the article, for the sole purpose of avoiding ambiguity when more than one person with the name "Muhammad" is mentioned.
The name may need to be qualified in some other place inside the article in order to identify which person we are referring to. This situation comes up from time to time.
Aquib (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The best way to go is the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Completely NPOV, since no one can deny that he is a prophet of Islam.VR talk 09:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Islamic Honourifics - Other Persons

Added a possible new section. Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we have honorifics properly sorted out from invocations of blessings. To ask God to bestow peace, mercy and blessings upon a prophet, for example, is not the same as to refer to a person using an honorific title such as "The honorable scholar ...". -Aquib (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I know its not the same but what exactly do you mean, I'm not getting to what you are trying to imply.Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics in Arabic

Can we add the Arabic for PBUH, etc? If my search (which I've tried to reconstruct here:)[1]was right, the Arabic form is in many of our articles (not including its use in quotes). I admit to having qualms about using Arabic when English could be used in any case. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My concern is these MOS guidelines are used as a pretext for certain people to methodically purge PBUH and other blessings from quotations as well as prose. Who is qualified to judge such a matter and what will happen to Arabic quotations if these people start going in and editing them? -Aquib (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all, your search on Google is missing an alphabet, hehe :p... Actually the Arabic PBUH is not acceptable, as an Arabic language in general. The only inaccurate article in the list is Ibrahim Arabs, which I nominated it for deletion; the rest is all Arabic quotes, I think. ~ AdvertAdam talk 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, as I said, I'd reconstructed it and thought the results were different from my original search. It should be obvious where there are quotations - no qualifications should be required - and of course no one should change quotations. Surely that isn't a good reason not to add the Arabic? Just to make sure it's clear, I don't think 'holy' should be before Bible, that 'Christ' should be used where 'Jesus' is appropriate, etc. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
All the points you made are pretty clear in this MOS, while your concern about Arabic is already under another policy: "foreign language is not allowed". I'm afraid that if you want to add PBUH in Arabic, then you'll need to add Holy Qur'an, AA, Sayda, etc... the list never ends. Maybe we can put a note in the intro of honorifics that the same policy is considered in Arabic, too. I'd appreciate to see an additional user's opinion :). ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Biography of Muhammad (Sirat Al Rasul)

The Sirah, biography, of Muhammad has tons of sources and extremely lots of opinions and sources. I've seen incidents where editors take three criticizing scholarly authors and one straight-forward historian and give the first three more weight. No-one is against a criticism section as long as it doesn't violate WP:DUE. I suggest having a group-of-authors to compare to, the most experienced in the field, to be able to shorten multiple dispute incidents in the future.
The most authoritative I've seen is Ibn Ishaq (his work was republished by Oxford University in 2004), Al-Dhahabi, and Ibn Kathir (his tafsir is a primary source, but the sirah is just a biography). I've also seen Safi-ur-Rehman Mubarakpuri widely used in the nation, but I don't think he's scholarly enough to be used here (as a standard). Opinions? ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quote from this RSN on a related topic: "A religious scholar is every bit as much a scholar as a non-religious scholar, and on a subject of religious importance like this, there will be many more religious scholars publishing high-quality reliable sources than non-religious scholars". ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Conversion from Hijri calendar to Gregorian calendar

According to a previous discussion, the proposal was questioned regarding its location. Therefore, I'd like to raise it again here.
Many articles present Gregorian months for incidents that are over 1000 years-old, where the conversion process is highly controversial and scientifically challenging. I've seen many incidents where readers think those months are our holidays, which are totally inacurate and misleading because they actually change every year. Can we add a section regarding dating recommendations for future user, which might be similar to the following:

According to the controversial conversion process when converting dates from Higri to Gregorian calendar, the following recommended guidelines can be used:

  • Converted dates should be used with care, including 'circa' or 'c.' while avoiding months and/or days when possible (if not relevant to the content).
  • Days of the week, such as "Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc," should be avoided.
  • The use of dates in articles should be based on the most reliable source presented. When multiple reliable sources are used, use a range that contains all sources.

Sorry for the scrambled thought, but please consider it a brainstorming and suggest your-own. ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lang template

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Other languages, this part of the MoS should advise editors to wrap non-English text in {{Lang}}. How should we word that, in this case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's more-likely to be related to WP:MOSAR, instead of MOS:ISLAM. I'm not sure though, as that is mostly about alphabetical transliteration. ~ AdvertAdam talk 00:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and Primary Source

According to continues POV-pushing and WP:OR in multiple incidents, I suggest mentioning that a tafsir is still a primary source. Especially when it comes to Ibn Kathir, he sometime uses multiple explanations, or incidents, of the same verse and I've seen editors cherry-picking whatever statement they like. Tafsir is a verse-by-verse, or section-by-section, based explanation, so I believe it's still considered a primary source and is misleading (when someone wants to misuse it). Opinions? ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My this has gone unanswered a long time...
A secondary source is something that is "at least one step removed from the event" and, unless it's something like the Prophet's own interpretations, exegesis falls into the category of secondary sources. Obviously, using a quote of a primary source within a secondary source as though that made it secondary is inappropriate, but I don't see that as a regular problem. Peter Deer (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia biased towards christianity

I couldn't find MOS for Christianity-related articles. in such Christian Articles they are allowed to use the word Holy for their beliefs while Muslims are not. you can see for example holy trinity, holy Father, Holy Son. I tried to make it fair for both but Christian Admins will not let you touch the articles. user: Shame Shame Shame.186.31.13.81 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What you in fact did, instead of adding the word 'Holy' or 'Qudos' to the articles about Islam where appropriate, was to remove the word 'Holy' from articles about Christian concepts. If Holy or Qudus is part of the name of something, it should be added wherever appropriate. So you seem to be making a WP:POINT here, which in wikipedia lingo is a very bad thing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove Terrorism Section

There is no need for this section in this article since it does not define any specific rules and only tells people to decide on case by case basis which they can do anyway without this section being there.

By keeping a section named "terrorism" in an article which defines rules regarding Islam related articles is equal to associating a religion with terrorism thus this section should be removed citing the reason that it does not define any rules any way.

We can also consider changing the name of the section to something else such as "bias words to watch for" and remove reference to terrorism in the body of the section as well. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not associate the Islam with terrorism. What is does is warn any editor against the indiscriminate use of the word and not to just apply it to all Muslims. The section header got changed I see and that looks good. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Respect of our Religion and our Prophet

The purpose of my message is to raise support and bring changes to the way Prophet Muhammad is referred to in Wikipedia.
In Wikipedia we are not allowed to refer to our Prophet Muhammad as "Prophet Muhammad" instead they make it say "Muhammad", this is so for all articles and is indeed intolerable!
There are over 1 billion Muslims in this world, Prophet Muhammad being the sense of honor, dignity, and respect for all these Muslims, how can it be not appropriate to refer to him as 'Prophet Muhammad'?
It is unbelievable that this is acceptable on Wikipedia, it is disrespectful to refer to Prophet Muhammad as just "Muhammad", this is a shame that Muslims are allowing such disrespect on the worlds largest encyclopedia!
We will not tolerate this, and Wikipedia must change its policies... providing it doesn't we will defy this policy until it is changed.
I request support from the many Muslim Wikipedia editors and readers to support me in this cause.
Sincerely,
Hooperag (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that Hooperag has been engaging in blatant canvassing and any decisions coming out of this discussion should be disregarded. --NeilN talk to me 15:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, I am trying to gain support for respecting the Prophet of Islam in Wikipedia articles and look at how much opposition I face. I am accused of not following a 'neutral' point of view, I am accused of 'canvasing' what next! Why is it that anytime someone tries to make a change on Wikipedia they must face such fierce and hostile opposition?
Neil, I don’t know whether you’re just a normal editor or an administrator; however either way it is very unprofessional of you to say “any decisions coming out of this discussion should be disregarded”.
This discussion is legitimate and any result should be respected and accepted.
Hooperag (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was legitimate until you started blatantly canvassing other editors who you felt would support your views. All sides must be informed in a neutral way or none at all. --NeilN talk to me 16:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you like you can spread my message to anyone you like, if that's what you want.
I would be happy if you did that!
Hooperag (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to advertise this ill-fated proposal anywhere. What I'm saying is if you want more attention given to it, you must do it in a neutral manner. That includes having neutral wording like, "I have made a proposal at x. Please read and comment if you are interested," and not only notifying one side. --NeilN talk to me 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag, you don't seem to realize that Wikipedia has a cornerstone policy WP:NPOV that prohibits us from presenting articles to appease particular religious group. For this reason, we also don't refer to Jesus as "Lord Jesus" the way many Christians would like.

The guideline does allow the phrase "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" when necessary to resolve ambiguity because Muhammad is a common name, or when referenced the first time in an article. But doing this in situations where there is no ambiguity is a violation of WP:NPOV.

I am sure you would object if we called him "the False Prophet Muhammad" which might be more acceptable to some Christian sects. The point is, Wikipedia would be adopting a religious point of view by calling him any kind of prophet, and that is something Wikipedia cannot do.

This proposal is a non-starter. Reviewing the documents linked in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines would be a good way to spend the next few days. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

To chime in, we also don't say "Christ" when referring to Jesus the man as "Christ" means "messiah". We only use it when talking about Christian belief in a Christ. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
EvergreenFir makes a good point here. We do not favor any religious group by making statements that suggest that their religion might be correct. The vast majority of Muslim editors are able to live with this and respect our guidelines and policies. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)



Ok calm down... Nothing like having tens of editors telling what you're doing is wrong. I accept this, when it is up to me I use such honorific terms for them. However on Wikipedia such a thing seems to not be possible.
Hooperag (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting development : standard consistent sources to refer to

Hi, We now have standard consistent sources to refer to , can we add this guideline in MOS:ISLAM 1)SUNNAH.COM 2)QURAN.COM

All primary references should come only from these two sources for consistency . I have seen many hadith in wikipedia which are wrongly quoted with incorrect ref name , this will make it easy to verify. http://sunnah.com/bukhari/53/9 Users approve this:User talk:Mpatel User:LatinoMuslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"The first Imam and the rightful successor of the Prophet of all Shia;"

This: "The first [[imamah (Shi'a twelver doctrine)|imam]] and the rightful [[Succession to Muhammad|successor of the Prophet]] of all [[Shia Islam|Shia]]" is found in several of our articles in a table that keeps getting copied from one page to another.[2] It doesn't appear to be a quote, so how should it be stated to follow our guideline? I don't want to change it and get it wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the word "rightful" is clearly a religious position that shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. And the guideline already recommends against referring to Muhammad as "the Prophet". I'd change it to something more neutral, like "The first imam and Shia's successor to Muhammad". ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
"The first [[imamah (Shi'a twelver doctrine)|imam]] is considered the [[Succession to Muhammad|successor of Muhammad]] in [[Shia Islam|Shia]] beliefs" would probably be a lot better. Feel free to tweak as it doesn't come off as polished as I prefer. Answering a lot of correspondance right now. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That's better, but since this is a descriptive caption rather than a sentence, it might be better to say "The first imam and successor of Muhammad in Shia Islam". ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That is indeed far more polished. Well done Amatulic. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Now to find time to edit the articles (if no one else has)! Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Descriptive Titles for Muslim Scholars etc.

Are words like, shaykh, 'alim, and imam acceptable descriptive titles on wikipedia? Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Amerrycan Muslim: In what context? Usage should conform to WP:CREDENTIAL. --NeilN talk to me 13:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

user:NeiIN, well I'm not really sure. While its usage is widespread within Islamic materials, I have also come across in academic literature where individuals are called "Shaykh" so and so. And it seems some of my fellow editors differ regarding its usage on wiki. So we can see on some articles where titles such as those I previously mentioned are constantly and consistently removed, on others pages it is the complete opposite. Amerrycan Muslim (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Those titles are needed for Muslims. So it is good to be described in Wikipedia. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abdusalambaryun: Wikipedia has its own manual of style, independent of anything else. So while "Ali, an imam from Cairo" would be acceptable (like "Smith, an Anglican reverend from Georgia), Imam Ali would not. --NeilN talk to me 16:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


@NeilN: Hi, I agree but I would prefer that this MoS for the Wikipedia to become the cover for all styles, so we need a way to link them all together. However, if I want to write Imam Ali could I write "Ali (Imam, MoS ISLAM). Abdusalambaryun (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Abdusalambaryun, this Manual of Style is just part of the larger Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The usage of titles and credentials is already covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Academic titles. The use of honorifics is already covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorifics. We don't make exceptions for Islamic related articles. We have a separate manual of style for Islam-related articles for the purpose of clarifying the primary Manuals of Style in the context of Islam, because many Muslims come here trying to make changes that do not conform to the style guides. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It is true of course that we have a lot of articles edited by people who don't know about our style guides (or disagree with them). I'm not just talking about Muslim related articles here. So it all depends on who is editing or watching a page whether or not our style guides are followed. I don't think that they have enough examples of non-Muslim titles and that will hopefully be improved over time. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Shiite

An editor on the page Talk:Marriage has requested that the use of the term "Shiite" is problmatic and should be changed to "Shia". I have no idea whether this is correct, but it seems like the sort of usage question that should be covered on this page, as "Shia", "Shi'a", and "Shiite" are all in common enough usage that editors are likely to turn to here to see which is "right", if there actually is a preferred or more neutral choice (or clarification if one is more appropriate for adjective and another for noun, or somesuch). --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

More clarification: lowercase 'h'

I'm questioning the wording of the following statements in the MoS:

There are several honorifics for Muhammad which should generally not be used in articles. The Muhammad in Islam article discusses these honorifics in more detail, the most common ones being:

  • The Prophet or (The) Holy Prophet (including with a lowercase 'h') in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad";

My first thought was to de-capitalize the 'h' in (The) Holy Prophet, but I soon had the second thought that I should include the phrase (The) holy Prophet. Or would (The) Holy/holy Prophet be more concise? In any case, I think the wording is slightly confusing and would benefit from some tweaking. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: WP:SAWW Lead vs Body

Given that MOS:LEAD tells us that the lead is a summary of the body, and WP:SAWW tells us that Muhammad should only be described as "the Islamic prophet" once in an article, does this mean that any mention of Muhammad as "the Islamic prophet" in the lead precludes describing him so anywhere in the body? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • It would seem incredible to me to "summarize" something in the lead that doesn't appear in the body being summarized. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Which article are you talking about? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this is splitting hairs. I see no problem in having the phrase "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" both in the lead and in the body, because the lead is intended to provide an overview of the body. Remember, these are guidelines, as in best practices, not hard immutable rules. I would say that WP:SAWW should be clarified to say once in the body of the article, not once in the whole article. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Amatulic. WP:SAWW should have a talk page discussion on amending the MOS to allow one phrase in the lead, and one phrase in the body. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Silly me, I didn't realize this was Wikipedia Talk:WP:SAWW. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for any discussion at all. Both Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles are Guidelines. According to that subsection "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In that case Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#Use common sense applies. Why waste good editors time by holding a discussion when common sense should be the order of the day. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Because "common sense" didn't win out at Charlie Hebdo shooting, where an editor insisted that "the Islamic prophet" could not appear in the body if it appeared in the lead. Those kinds of discussions waste far more time than simply clarifying the guidelines. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Curly Turkey. OK then lets change the guideline and see what happens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hardly, CambridgeBayWeather, it's not an "ignore all rules" thing. It's a matter of clarifying whether such a thing was against the guidlenies in the first place. Your suggestion is unhelpful—it basically means every disagreement will come down to: "The guideline says..." "Yeahbut, the guideline also says to ignore all rules, so that's what I did." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
And that's why I don't play the extremely silly MOS games. I'm out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Myself, Curly Turkey, Amatulic, NinjaRobotPirate, and NeilN seem to have agreed to amend to guideline. I will update the page with the clarification. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

God in Islam

I am not sure about the linking of the first instance of God in Islam-related articles to God in Islam, for a couple reasons;

  • Firstly, it seems to imply in relation to Islam-related articles that each inferrence of God only refers to it from a strictly Islamic perspective, discounting that several concepts from Islam-related articles also relate to the beliefs of other groups such as Christians, Baha'is, Sikhs, etc. An example is quoting Ghandi: "It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission." Should God in that sentence be linked to the main article of God, or God in Islam, considering Ghandi's perspective on God acknowledged Islam as from God but was not based solely on the teachings of Islam?
  • Secondly, along the same lines it seems to advance a point of view denoting specific separateness from or exclusion from other conceptions of God. There are other things about it that are more difficult to describe properly, but I am not sure if the current policy is best.

I would not be asking about this if it were cut-and-dry and I had a clear idea of what should be done in this regard. The God in Islam article is important and in one sense I also worry that if all instances of "God" were linked to the main God article that the God in Islam article would be severely orphaned. Peter Deer (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The "God in Islam" article should redirect to an article called "Allah".
Mcboozerilla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Allah

I think we should remove the sentence that says Allah should be replaced with God. Some of the most popular English Quran translations use Allah. And among Muslim English speakers Allah remains the preferred usage. This is because Allah has a unique noun system which does not alow for pluralisation, thus keeping with the oneness tradition in Islam. Pass a Method talk 17:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Allah=God, the only difference is that Allah is Arabic and God is English, besides, I am not absolutely certain that we can change guidelines without seeking consensus first.Kiatdd (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thats partially true. God, translated in Arabic becomes "al-ilah". Allah according to some translates more closely to "The God" [3], while others sources give a more expansive meaning or pronoun [4]. Pass a Method talk 20:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The sources support the view that Allah does not mean anything other than God (capital 'G' in God does the work of 'the' as opposed to 'god'). The first source tells us that the word in Arabic for God is Allah and your second source says Allah was never applied to any being other than God. Another helpful page is [5].Kiatdd (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Unless "allah" (lowercase) means "god" in Arabic and Zeus is described as an "allah", "Allah" and "God" in English are not equivalent, so the translation should REMAIN "Allah" as in almost all, common translations of Shahada, and as "Allah" is always used in the most cited translations of the Quran. I've never even see any citations of the Quran which use "God" instead of "Allah".
Translating "Allah" as "God" goes against something similar to common word usage, which is what dictionaries are based on, and which an encyclopedia should be based upon as well. Using "God" in Muslim articles sounds false to the ear - uncommon. It's disconcerting. In English, the long established usage is "Allah" when referring to the Muslim god (which is qualitatively different from the English Christian god, just as the English Christian "Jesus-as-God" is qualitatively different than the English Christian "God-the-Father", which would, or should, be identical to the Jewish god, whether they're speaking Yiddish or Hebrew.  :-)
"God" is an English word referring explicitly to the triune god of the Old and New Testaments, which can, and usually, means either the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost, which is definitely not what Mohammad had in mind.
Muslims believe that Allah is the same god as the Christian and Jewish gods (yes, just as Christians claim their god is the same as the Jews'). In my opinion, identifying "Allah" with "God" is a subversive religious statement.
Mcboozerilla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"God" simply means "God", the supposed supreme deity. Various beliefs about this supposed deity differ qualitatively, but the referent of the word does not.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
using transliteration is acceptable if a word has already entered English literature, for example the word Quran has entered English literature but I doubt that the word Allah has reached that level. Almost all serious writers of Islamic and religious books such as for example Karen Armstrong and seyyed Hussein Nasr use the translation.Kiatdd (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mohammed

ping user:Xaxafrad I think when clarification of which Mohammed is necessary we should recommend "prophet Moḥammed" (with prophet linked to Islamic prophet) instead of "the Islamic prophet, Mohammed", as the latter is obtuse and like saying "the Christian Messiah, Jesus". There is no prophet named Mohammed in the Bible, so there is no confusion cause by the former.Scientus (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The existing recommendation is well thought out and more neutral. It allows you to write just "Muhammad" if you find "the Islamic prophet, Muhammad" too obtuse.--Anders Feder (talk)

Related: Talk:Muhammad#Hatnote --NeilN talk to me 00:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we would say "the Messiah, Jesus", because that would be stating that Jesus is a messiah in Wikipedia's voice. The Christian messiah, Jesus creates an attribution for the view that he is messiah. (Better still would be Jesus, whom Christianity holds is the messiah, but that's just because with messiah, you get the question of whether he is just here to save Christians, or whether Christians hold he is here to save everyone.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Add

@Sa.vakilian: Per [6], what should we add/elaborate on?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Can you please paraphrase what can be added, then I participate in it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sa.vakilian: I don't know what can be added - as far as I am concerned, what we discussed is already covered. But if you disagree, we should see if we can add something to cover it.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed standard for quoting Quran and Hadith

Please take a look here. It deals with the perceived POV of some current templates as noted in this and this AfD. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Companions of Mohammed

I am surprised that the MoS recommends a lower case "C" - this is equivalent of "Founding Fathers" i.e. a specific group who's identity is fixed, and the name therefore is a proper noun. Of course proper nouns are a fuzzy concept, so I all ears for reasons why this is not so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC).

The analogy with "Founding Fathers" is a bit strained, in my view. The companions of Muhammad is indeed not a fixed group, but rather open-ended, and even subject to sectarian schism. The Shia wants to limit the term to figures who they consider to have a record of loyalty toward the Ahl al-Bayt, while the Sunnis more liberally includes other Muslims living at the time of Muhammad.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough: Literally, all of the Muslims who have met Muhammad can be considered as his companion. From Sunni viewpoint, almost all of them are authentic while from Shia viewpoint only those who have a record of loyalty toward the Ahl al-Bayt are authentic. (List of Sahabah#Shi'a critique of the Sahaba)--Seyyed(t-c) 11:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, you have convinced me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC).

Prophet infoboxes

Since the individual templates for prophets were deleted some of the articles on prophets have gained new infoboxes (e.g. see Noah in Islam. These include a link to Prophets and messengers in Islam (also linked in the Islamic prophets template) and the name plus the honorific alaihi s-salām - ( عليه السلام ). This seems to be contrary to the policy stating that honorifics should not be used. Would it be reasonable to reduce the top section of these infoboxes to just the name?

Maybe it would be better to merge them somehow with the Islamic prophets template, but that would be a much bigger deal. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 14:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Moilleadóir: please do remove such honorifics if you happen to see them. There is a specific guideline for these Islamic honorifics at WP:PBUH, saying that they should alwawys be removed unless they are part of a quotation. You also seem to refer to the header "Islamic prophet"; I think that should move to the parameter |occupation=, instead of |honorific-prefix= - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: I think the issue with the Islamic prophet link is that there’s already a template included on the pages that links to that article, so just moving it further down the infobox is probably not a good solution as it also pushes the unifying Islamic prophets template further down the page. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 03:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Moilleadóir: @HyperGaruda: I don't think WP:PBUH applies to this infobox parameter. It doesn't use the honorifics, but rather informs the reader what it is in each case. These honorifics are a prominent part of the Islamic tradition, so they constitute part of the encyclopedic content for the article. Unless there is a better place to provide this information, I disagree with their removal from this template. Eperoton (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
If you look at, say, a pope, you'll find under the main infobox a second infobox called "popestyles", which lists standard honorifics for him. On pages for royalty, we have similar things discussing their titles and styles. So we're fine if we're stating what the standard honorific is, we're off if we're using that honorific to refer to the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@NatGertler: I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against the inclusion. Here's the closest guideline on use of honorifics in infoboxes that I can find (Biographies#Honorifics): "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that." You can see, for instance, honorific suffixes listed in the infoboxes for Elton John and Paul McCartney. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: There is no template! There used to be one template per prophet (not a good use of a template) and a previous decision lead to most of them being deleted. The words are included separately in each infobox.
The honorific is used at the top of the infobox as part of the name. It does not provide information about usage, it is used. Its usage is already discussed at Peace be upon him (Islam) and there is nothing stopping you adding information about its use to articles.
Your link (Biographies#Honorifics) doesn’t link to anything in the Manual of Style, so it’s a bit mystifying. Anyway, are you saying that a more general policy on honorifics in biographies outweighs the more specific suggestions in WP:PBUH (i.e. this very article)?
Given that this is the English Wikipedia there will always be an inherent imbalance in using honorifics that are usual in English. Furthermore the examples you give are of titles. ʿAlayhi as-salām (عليه السلام) is not a title or a description, but a religious blessing—“Peace be upon him”. It is not in English and conveys little or no information to the average English speaker. Its inclusion is not encyclopaedic and seems against WP:NPOV by i.e. suggesting that Wikipedia expresses a particular religious wish towards these figures.
In the interests of avoiding an edit war, what changes to articles would you agree to? --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 03:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Now that I’ve looked more closely at your reversion of one of my edits, I’m concerned that you are writing your own policy—“Tradition-specific article; shouldn't use names from another tradition”. This seems contrary to everything I know about Wikipedia. Because it’s the English Wikipedia it very often must use names from another tradition when talking about non-English subjects. I’m guessing your beef is with the inclusion of Hebrew, which may be touchy in relation to Ishmael (I don’t know), but are you saying that no Jewish prophet can be acknowledged as Jewish in Islamic articles? That seems a little untenable, but if so then we should not be using |native_name= at all.
It seems clear that article names and titles should include the usual English name if there is one.
Your reversion also removes my addition of the Dionysian date (as per Date policy) and a citation needed tag. Is it such an incontrovertible fact that Ishmael was born in 2424 BH? The article itself doesn’t mention a date at all.
Your reversion also removed my change of Palestine to Canaan. As far as I know, the name Palestine wasn’t used for the area until the 5th century BC, long after 1800 BC. Once again, should this be included at all? I don’t know. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 04:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Moilleadóir: Let's take disputes unrelated to MOS to the article talk page. Here's the correct link to the quoted page: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorifics. Let's think through the policy issues. Some Islamic honorifics (there is more than one) are grammatically wishes, but they serve the same general purpose as ceremonial titles, by locating the individual in a hierarchy reflecting some form and measure of deference. Religious honorifics obviously aren't exactly the same as Dame/Lady/etc, and if someone can make a policy-based argument based on their differences, I'm open to hearing it. Now, for the interpretation of policy about honorifics in general. The general MOS page mentions only four in reference to infoboxes. One can interpret it either as stating that only those four are allowed in infoboxes or that honorifics in general are allowed there. Only the latter interpretation makes sense to me or is consistent with Wikipedia practice. There are also special policies recommending removal of various Asian honorifics (both religious and non-religious) without mentioning infoboxes. One could interpret this as explicitly forbidding any use of Asian honorifics while allowing British ones. I think this interpretation would be both morally objectionable and contrary to common sense. Those special policies were very likely prompted by the large contingent of editors adding Asian honorifics everywhere in running text, which in my experience does not happen with British honorifics. Those specific policies are meant to discourage this practice, not to discriminate against editors from some parts of the world in usage of infoboxes. Eperoton (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I thought I had already made a cogent policy-based argument, but you seem to have ignored it. By the way, it would be helpful if you could use some paragraphs in your replies.

  1. This phrase is not English or intelligible to an English speaker. It contributes no information to the reader (which is the point of Wikipedia). WP:TECHNICAL, WP:UPFRONT
  2. Infoboxes are meant to summarise content of the article, not introduce new information. MOS:INFOBOX
  3. Existing guidelines suggest removing the phrase and do not suggest that infoboxes are exempt.
  4. It is not Wikipedia’s job to maintain hierarchies of deference or to perform religious duties.
  5. It is totally out of step with infoboxes in other articles, e.g. Elizabeth II, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Pope Francis, Dali Lama, Ishmael, Moses, Muhammad, Jesus. None of these include honorifics like “Her Royal Highness”, “His Holiness”, “Christ”, etc. in the top infobox. Moses is not called “Our Leader Moshe, Servant of God, Father of all the Prophets (may his merit shield us, amen)”, though that is mentioned in the article.

Also, I started this discussion and titled it “Prophets infoboxes” so I don’t think it’s totally out-of-line to be discussing other policy-related deficiencies in the infoboxes. It is crystal clear that if other date systems are used, the Dionysian system should follow in parentheses. The fact that so many seem to only have Islamic dates points to another area where these articles are out of step. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Moilleadóir: I'm not ignoring your arguments. I'm disputing their validity. I'll address them in order:
  1. Using the term in the infobox doesn't preclude discussing the honorific in the article text.
  2. The honorific suffixes MBE and CBE aren't readily intelligible either. WP solves this issue not by removing them from the infobox, but by linking them to an article explaining their use;
  3. The fact that the term-specific guidelines you're referring to aren't interpreted as referring to infoboxes is illustrated by WP:SAINT, which states: Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint". A quick check of Saint Augustine and Saint Joan of Arc shows that the appellation is preserved in the infobox.
  4. If that argument applied here, it would apply to all honorifics.
  5. The articles you refer to can't use honorifics at the top of the box because they either involve time-specific titles which are given further below in the infobox together with dates or they contain information for multiple traditions, each with their own honorifics. The only exceptions are Muhammad and Dalai Lama. In fact, Dalai Lama is an honorific title itself, as is "Duchess of Cornwall".
We can discuss other issues relating to your infobox edits here, but I would rather wait until we reach consensus on this one to avoid distraction. Eperoton (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Briefly (it is late here [oh, that was a folorn hope!]), I have doubts that a consensus will be reached or that it will be meaningful. I believe that in regard to WP:PBUH I am only advocating what is the current (& very specific) consensus, so a new consensus between two editors would have limited meaning.
The intelligibility of the acronyms MBE and CBE vary across the English speaking world. To many people in Australia and New Zealand they are perfectly intelligible. A term does not have to be universal to be acceptable English usage.
Your argument about the word ‘Saint’ does not impress me. (BTW the link should be MOS:SAINTS).
Firstly the word ’saint’ is an English word which designates a particular religious status. ʿAlayhi as-salām (عليه السلام) does not designate any particular status, is not English and is not any part of English usage. Not that there really is, but the nearest equivalent to ‘Saint’ in this case would be ‘Prophet’ or ‘Islamic Prophet’. But, as is often the case in English, the lack of a determiner actually underlines the person’s importance. The implication of a single name is that X is THE X.
There is not going to be a perfect symmetry between what might appear in the Arabic Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia. That’s just how it is.
The policy you (mis-)cite also strongly suggests naming pages if possible with just the saint’s name or with some other qualifier, e.g. Augustine of Hippo or Joan of Arc — the actual names (rather than redirects) of the articles you refer to above.
You are correct that the infobox at Joan of Arc is headed “Saint Joan of Arc” but that is an argument from usage, not policy. The guidelines for |name= in {{infobox saint}} say to use the page name and I’ve edited that article to remove the ‘Saint’.
Your arguments about what couldn’t be included in other infoboxes also seems unconvincing. There is no technical reason why we couldn’t use “H.R.H. Elizabeth II” rather than “Elizabeth II”. It’s obviously a choice and one that’s about keeping it simple, neutral and understandable.
If time-specificity is such an important criteria for inclusion in an infobox, logically you must be suggesting that prophets were inherently holy for all time, which is a belief that needs careful explanation in an encyclopaedia. It is not fact and the infobox is definitely a place for simple facts, not explanations.
It’s too late at night for coherent cogitation, so I’ll leave it at that for now. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 15:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There may be grounds for inclusion of "Islamic prophet", as in the Arabic equivalents Nabi or Rasul, both of which are basically occupational titles. PBUH, SAWS, AS, RA etc. on the other hand are blessings, related to the English use of "God bless his soul". As Moilleadóir stated earlier (03:46, 7 Jan), use of these blessings implies that Wikipedia wishes someone all the best, which is not neutral. WP:PBUH only mentions one exception: quotes, so no, infoboxes are not exempted from the PBUH guidelines. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
By the same token, referring to someone as "Saint X" can be said to affirm their sainthood, which is hardly "neutral", and yet there seems to be a long-standing consensus on interpreting WP policy to allow that practice in infoboxes. The argument for that is that the use of honorifics in infoboxes is not declarative but illustrative. If someone would like to challenge this illustrative implementation of honorifics parameters in infoboxes, this should be discussed in a different forum. However, in this case HyperGaruda's comment points to another argument against including "AS" in the infobox. While "nabi" is not an idiomatic prefix or suffix in Arabic, one could argue that the prefix "The Islamic prophet X" used in the infobox is similar to "Saint X" and conveys the same information as "AS", which signals prophethood in the Islamic tradition. Including both would thus be redundant. Frankly, I think there's a stronger argument against the form "Sir X MBE", on several grounds, but this is off topic here. On the disputed point, I've convinced myself.
Moilleadóir, I disagree with the arguments you present in the latest reply, but this is now moot. Per you request, I'll spell out my objections to your other changes in the infoboxes on this page, but in another section and a bit later. Eperoton (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Other changes to Islamic prophet infoboxes

@Moilleadóir: The other issues in your edit [7] will hopefully be more straightforward. I haven't looked closely at your changes to the other Islamic prophet infoboxes, but at glance they seem to involve the same issues, so I'm assuming we'll be addressing them all here. The use of standard English names or inclusion of BCE dates is uncontroversial. However, this article (unlike Ishmael) is about Ishmael in Islam, and the infobox should reflect the view of Ishmael according to that tradition. As far as I know, traditional Islamic sources do not consider Ishmael's "native name" to be the Hebrew name found in the Torah or use the name Canaan. If you have information to the contrary, please source your edit. Eperoton (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: These are separate issues.
1. {{infobox person}} is really meant for persons whose history is fairly well known. |native_name= implies that we know something about what the person’s name and language was (“The person's name in their own language, if different.”), which in this case may be impossible or non-neutral. Just because the topic is about a particular tradition, we shouldn’t imply that that tradition’s beliefs are fact. It’s more a problem of using a general template for a specific task. As I mentioned in the earlier discussion, it may have been better to merge this info into the {{Islamic prophets}} template when the individual templates were deleted. I’ve fiddled around with templates enough elsewhere to know that it can be a very messy business though, so it would be better done by someone who’s familiar with that template. They may also decide that it would unbalance their design. It would certainly require a rethink.
In any case, the label Native name is misleading so perhaps we could agree to not use it at all for now.
2. I can see how the issue of Canaan vs. Palestine could be viewed as a political choice or a choice coloured by one or other religious tradition, but our purpose here is to use words that reflect facts as far as they can be known and reasonably represented. Realistically we cannot know with any certainly what the inhabitants of the area called it around 1800 BC (or even where/if Ishmael was born), but variations on the word Canaan do seem to be older. At the very least, perhaps both Ishmael pages should show both? In any case, the word Canaan is not the property of a specific tradition and we shouldn’t pollute historical discussion with contemporary politics or nationalist historiography if possible.
Your argument about what name Islamic sources use isn’t relevant in the context of saying where someone was born at least 2424 years before those sources existed. Of course they would use whatever the contemporary word was (not that you offer that for consideration).
You seem to be arguing that the purpose of the article is purely to reflect the Islamic sources, but while Islamic beliefs, arguments and accounts about these figures are essential in an article about those beliefs, we still need to be careful with information summarised in the infobox [& yes, that includes me!] especially if it’s at variance with other articles. We are in danger of encouraging a kind of factionalised knowledge owned by different groups. The article is about Islamic views but it is not for Muslims any more than articles about saints are for Christians. They’re all there for all readers.
Perhaps this could be covered by some caveat, eg. Born       (tradition) 2424 BH Palestine, but that would be a better job for a template.
Once again the infobox is for short, summarised, uncontested information, so another option is to leave it out altogether especially if it’s not covered in the article (infobox is not for new info).
3. Hebrew names. I freely admit I got carried away here, but I still think there is a case for inclusion. The main articles on these people all include the Arabic version of their names, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable that figures acknowledged as prophets by Judaism before the advent of Islam should be recognised as being also connected with that tradition. Where to include this information is another question. Perhaps |Other names= would be more appropriate?
Creating a strictly Hebrew-free zone for articles about prophets who are generally acknowledged as emerging from a Jewish tradition seems a little odd. You could argue, of course, that we don’t definitively know the exact original form of these names or even the language they spoke, but given the absence of that kind of rigour elsewhere it’s a little untenable.
If the intent is to create a space where views about the strict and inherently Muslim nature of these prophets is not just acknowledged and discussed but advocated, then I think we’re drifting into dubious territory. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 04:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Moilleadóir: On the first point, I agree with your solution of moving the Arabic name to the top of the box and skipping the confusing native name parameter altogether. On the other two points, the article is a discussion of Islamic beliefs about Ishmael, and historical origin of those beliefs is certainly part of the topic. We should have a section discussing theories about pre-Islamic circulation of stories about Ishmael and Ishmaelites among the Arabs and in the wider Near East, but I hope you'll agree that putting the biblical Hebrew name in the infobox isn't the best way of getting at this complicated and murky subject. I think it makes sense for the infobox in this article to present traditional Islam beliefs rather than modern reconstructions of possible realities of a "historical Ishmael" (which should be left to the main Ishmael article, unless they have some specific relevance to the Islamic tradition). That is why I've been referring to Islamic sources. Marking those entries by the word "tradition" seems reasonable, unless it will clutter the infobox. Eperoton (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
An additional comment based on a paper I happened to look at this morning [8]: the name "Palestine" is used even in academic publications on biblical subjects, in this case by an author from Israel. Eperoton (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Arabic transliteration is out-dated

Academics and Historians no longer use the same apostrophe for ʿAyn (Voiced pharyngeal fricative/Voiced epiglottal trill) and Hamza (Glottal stop) in Arabic letter. I would like to change it to improve it Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Neither do we use the same apostrophe -at least in strict transliterations- but you should actually discuss this at WP:MOSAR. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh my bad then. It goes to details on the page you have provided. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ex-Muslim or ex-Islamic?

Hello Chicbyaccident (and others who may be reading along), you recently moved List of ex-Muslim organisations to List of ex-Islamic organisations, referring to WP:MOSISLAM. You probably mean this guideline:
"Adjective: For any general entities, applying the adjective "Islamic" is typically encouraged in lieu of the sometimes used adjective "Muslim" for several reasons. One of the main reasons is because Islamic is more impersonal, and thus creates a more sound word of choice for most related matters. Example: Timeline of Islamic history instead of Timeline of Muslim history."
I don't think that rule applies here, though. Who or what is 'ex' (meaning formerly Islamic) here? The Muslims or the organisations? Obviously, the organisations were founded by people who were formerly Islamic; they're not organisations who were formerly Islamic themselves before changing their bylaws. So 'ex-Muslim' is correct, since we are talking about persons and not entities.
One way to avoid future confusion, though, might be to change the title to 'List of ex-Muslims organisations'. I'm not sure if that's grammatically sound, but it makes it clear that the 'ex' refers to its members' past rather than the organisations' past. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably varies by case. What is meant in what case? I some examples it might be Muslim-only organizations (can't join without being one), it others might be "Islamic organizations" in the way that the YMCA is a Christian one, i.e. something religious in the bylaws.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the alternative is neither idiomatic, nor WP:Precise. "Muslim" is to be used as a noun, not as an adjective, which it is sometimes uncarefully used as elsewhere. This error creates confusion, blurs ideology/person as subject, risking unnecessarily controversial connotations etc. The section MOS:ISLAMIC has been further clarified. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

English language/Arabic language terms

It is quite widespread throughout Wikipedia's article realm to accept Arabic language terms pertaining to Islam. However, as seen in Peace be upon him, in essential subjects, Arabic language is indeed translated into English. Now, the result is that tje contents of Category:Islamic terminology doesn't translate to English as much as for instance Category:Catholic terms, the latter which could otherwise be populated with quite a few Latin words and phrases. I think accepting Arabic wording should be avoided when possible, and sources are available, for transparency. At least this could be applied more than is the preexisting case. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Transliteration discussion

Comments are requested in the discussion of transliteration guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Arabic#Problems_with_.22basic_transcription.22. Eperoton (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Prophets other than Muhammad

Regarding WP:PBUH, it is allowed to prefix Muhammad with "the Islamic prophet" upon his first mention in the article, while "(The Holy) Prophet" is not. It does however not mention what should be done with other prophets, e.g. Nabi ‘Isa/"Prophet Jesus". I think a relevant line should also be added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Angels and prophets. Suggestions? --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd add "recommended action is to simplify to just [insert prophet's name here]". --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As I see it, "the Islamic prophet" is meant primarily to distinguish him from other people named Muhammad. I haven't come across this issue arising for Jesus, but if it did, I think there are multiple ways to clarify. Not sure this needs to be in the MOS. Eperoton (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an example of what I'm hinting at. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean. Yes, "Prophet X" (also problematic per WP:SEAOFBLUE) is a honorific that should be handled uniformly. Actually, I just noticed what seems to be a misplaced comma: "the Islamic prophet, Muhammad". This is apposition rather than disambiguation. It should read "the Islamic prophet Muhammad", and one can similarly use "the Islamic prophet Ibrahim" when discussing Muslim beliefs. This also works as a more concise form of "Ibrahim, whom Muslims consider to be a prophet". Eperoton (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with both HyperGaruda and Eperoton. We should also add to this section a parenthetical, '(as we do with the Bible, which Wikipedia does not give as "the Holy Bible")', so it's clear this is a general neutralizing principle and not something directed toward Islam in particular. PS: What the hell is "PBUH" supposed to mean? Can we please come up with a more memorable shortcut? Also, all the shortcuts actually shown in this page should be "MOS:..." ones. Create them if necessary, then remove the "WP:..." ones, though leave them in existence as redirects. We've already done this cleanup on most if not all of the non-topical MoS pages, and it's time to do it with the topical ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
PBUH stands for "peace be upon him", which properly belongs next to WP:SAWW. I agree, we should have a more generic shortcut name, like ISLAMHON (like WP:HON). Eperoton (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Prophet X" is a honorific title, but it shows the text is written in the Islamic context. Thus, we can use it whenever the text or section narrates the Islamic viewpoint.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I was just reminded of this discussion, and my unopposed proposal to address SMcCandlish's concern about the PBUH shortcut. I'm creating a new shortcut, WP:ISLAMHON, for the entire section on Islamic honorifics, and moving WP:PBUH next to WP:SAWW. Eperoton (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Please replace these (and the rest in the page) with "MOS:" instead of "WP:" shortcuts. We're badly polluting the "WP:" namespace (with resolves directly to "Wikipedia:") with more and more unnecessary MoS shortcuts using "WP:". Most of the larger MoS pages have been converted to "MOS:" shorcuts (the old "WP:" ones to the same sections still work, but we need to discourage creating more of them). The problem is that there's a limited number of non-gibberish "WP:" shortcuts available, and we have many page types (policies, naming conventions guidelines, wikiprojects, information pages, essays, etc., etc.) all vying for them. This is why we created the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace for shortcuts to MoS sections. They should have the same {{R from shortcut}}, plus {{R to project namespaces}}, and if applicable either {{R to section}} or {{R to anchor}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense to me in principle, but some of these shortcuts are widely used and I'm not comfortable deleting them based on just this exchange between us. I would be more comfortable about leaving behind redirects from WP to MOS shortcuts, but that doesn't seem to address your concern about cluttering the WP namespace. Is there an existing RFC or guideline on this? Eperoton (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
No one's deleting the shortcuts. We're just "advertising" the "MOS:" versions not the "WP:" versions, to stop inspiring people creating more and more and more "WP:"-named shortcuts to MoS sections. We've been doing this migration, incrementally, across all the MoS pages for years now; it's just this page's turn.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Done. Eperoton (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Arab/Arabic/Arabian

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Long-standing MoS material on these terms has been moved to an essay after a short discussion. Further discussion of what to do with this material [9] may be warranted. Please see WT:Manual of Style#Arab and Arabic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Adjective

@Chicbyaccident: Your addition seems to be a personal essay not based on RSs or community consensus, and as such doesn't belong in MOS. In fact, the sentiments in expresses resemble my personal preference for using "Muslim" in reference to people and "Islamic" in reference to religion. However, I see no evidence that this is a generally accepted standard. For example, Oxford Dictionaries define the adjective "Muslim" as "Relating to Muslims or their religion." Eperoton (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is going to be one of the few times that consultation with journalism style guides may be helpful; about the only thing we ever get from them is MOS:IDENTITY material. Because they're aiming to avoid offense and are updated annually for the most part (much more rapid publication cycle than academic style guides), they have a better finger on the pulse of any shifts in the sensitivity and nuance surrounding group labels. And even the academic style guides are put out much more frequently than dictionaries. Remember that dictionaries record usage (without regard to nuance and social factors), they don't advise usage in particular contexts, so they are not much help here. My general sense of the usage of Muslim and Islamic (a usage which has shifted away from synonymy within my lifetime) is in general agreement with where Chicbyaccident was going with that material, but a) we should get some external confirmation of it, and b) avoid all that editorializing. MoS readers do not need some detailed explanation of why to follow a rule, they just need a rule to follow. If an explanation is thought necessary, put it in a footnote, and compress it more please.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Here's The Economist Style Guide: "Islamic means relating to Islam; it is a synonym of the adjective Muslim, but it is not used for a follower of Islam, who is always Muslim. But Islamic art and architecture is conventional usage." On face of it, this statement only discourages using "Islamic" to refer to a (single) follower of Islam. If we can find more helpful summaries of editorial standards in RSs, I have no objection to reflecting them. Eperoton (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Eperoton: I reverted your good faith edit, since SMcCandlish too minded. Its statements already mirrors de facto state of affairs throughout Wikipedia. It is important to strive to choose the more impersonal term choice when faced with the need of an adjective in article titles and content. Since we are dealing with Arabic terminology throughout this subject, it is natural that some etymological background is also presented, as is the case in several headings in this manual of style in question. That said, anyone is of course welcome to improve phrases and sections, including this newly introduced one. If you advocate using a more personally and less ideologically focused adjective, you are asked for better arguments. For a starter, correct English doesn't borrow Arabic "mu-" grammatical feature addressing a personal feature, but has simply borrowed Muslim as a noun from Arabic straight away. Innovatingly conjugating that noun as an adjective, mistakingly perhaps in equivalence with Christian, is not encouraged for said reasons no matter how widespread this misconception is elsewhere, for WP:NPOV concerns. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • UPI Stylebook and Gudie to Newswriting (4th ed., 2004): "Muslims: The preferred term to desribe adherents of Islam." "Islam: The Muslim religion. ... The adjective is Islamic."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Financial Times Style Guide (1994, and perhaps too old): "Islam is the religion of Moslems ...". Does not address Muslim, and its preference for the obsolete spelling Moslem makes it of dubious use. Does not clearly distinguish between Moslem and Islamic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (2015): Islam: Followers are called Muslims. ... Islamic belief .... Although Arabic is the language of the Quran and Muslim prayers, not all Muslims are Arabs. Most of the world's Muslims live in .... about 85% of all Muslims .... The adjective is Islamic. Islamist is an advocate of political Islam .... Islamic fundamentalist should not be used as a synonym for Islamic militant or radical."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Garner's Modern English Usage (4th ed., 2016): "Muslim; Moslem. Both terms mean 'a follower of Islam.' ... Moslem was the standard spelling until the 1940s [through 1960s; details of adoption of Muslim elided]". Does not address Islam, Islamic, or distinction from Muslim. Kind of a weird omission given the scope of the work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed., 2017): "8.95 Major religions. Names of major religions are capitalized, as are their adherents and adjectives derived from them. ... Islam; Islamic; Muslim". Doesn't address Islamic versus Muslim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed., 2015): Does not address the matter (another unexpected omission).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks. Yes. If you follow suit with other available sources, I'm sure those that indicate Arabic language skills author would too be consistent with these above that suggest Islamic as the more correct adjective. It seems clear that anyone who argues otherwise would be asked for better arguments than the ones suggesting Islamic.Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Good Word Guide (M. Manser, Bloomsbury, 2011): "Muslim or Moslem? Nowadays, the preferred spelling for a follower of the Islamic faith is Muslim ...." Does not address Islamic versus Muslim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (as part of Oxford Style Manual, 2003): "Islam: ... the Muslim religion; see also Muslim". "Muslim: (a member) of the faith of Islam; not Moslem, Muhammadan." Does not address Islamic versus Muslim. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (2002): "Moslem, Muslim: Moslem is the older spelling, but Muslim is more used today perhaps because it is preferred by those of whom it is used and beacuse it is a closer representation of the Arabic. Either is likely to be preferred to Mohammedan or Muhammadan, which some people find offensive." Does not address Islamic versus Muslim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • BBC News Style Guide (2017) [10]: "Islam: The mainstream groups are Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims (who should not be described as 'Shiite'). ... The highest religious authority in a Sunni Muslim country is the mufti, who .... Shia Muslims .... The term Islamist has come to refer to those who derive a political course from Islam .... The Islamic concept of unbelief, of being outside Islam ...". "Muslim and not 'Moslem' – always capped."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Economist Style Guide (online summary, 2017): "Islamic, islamist: Islamic means relating to Islam; it is a synonym of the adjective Muslim. Islamist refers to those who see Islam as a political and social ideology as well as a religious one." [11] [The lower-case "islamist" appears to be a typo.] Muslim does not have a separate entry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Economist Style Guide (full paper 9th ed., 2005): "labels formed from proper names: A political, economic or religious label formed from a proper name should have a capital: ... Islamic" (p. 25) [i.e., islamist in the online summary is definitely a typo]. "Islamic, Islamist: Islamic means relating to Islam; it is a synonym of the adjective Muslim, but it is not used for a follower of Islam, who is always Muslim. But Islamic art and architecture is conventional usage. Islamist refers to those who see Islam as a political and social ideology as well as a religious one." (p. 80).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Guardian and Observer Style Guide (2017): "Islam: ... Muslims should never be referred to as 'Mohammedans', as 19th-century writers did. It causes serious offence because they worship God, not the prophet Muhammad. ... Islamic: a synonym for the Muslim religion when used as an adjective eg Islamic art. It should not be used to describe people. ... Islamist: A person who believes in Islamism, ie, the organisation of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. ..." [12]. "Muslim: not Moslem" [13].
  • The Times Style and Usage Guide (2011): "Islam: is the religion of the Muslims. Islamic is interchangeable with Muslim as the adjective, though normally use Islamic with religion and fundamentalism. Islamist (noun, adj): refers to support or advocacy of Islamic fundamentalism. Note Shia Muslim(s), Sunni Muslim(s). See Islamic terms. Islamic terms: note our preferred spellings of ... kafir (non-Muslim, "unbeliever", "infidel"); umma (the community of Muslims)." [14]. "Muslim, not Moslem or Mohamedan. See Islam, Islamic terms, Muhammad" [15].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Reuters Handbook of Journalism (2017) "Islamic: An adjective used to describe the culture, art, architecture, music or finance associated with the religion of Islam. Adherents of the religion are usually described by the adjective Muslim though. An Islamic state is a country ruled by Islamic law (sharia). A Muslim country is one whose population is predominantly Muslim." [16]. "Muslim: An adjective or noun that usually describes adherents of Islam. The adjective Islamic is usually used to describer [sic] the culture, architecture, music, or finance of the religion Islam. ... Muslim dress: Islamic head coverings worn by women are all referred to as ...." [17].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Telegraph Style Book (2017) [18]: "... our Muslim readers." "Muslim, not Moslem."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (5th ed., 2015, ePub edition): "A Muslim Arab has at least three names ...", p. 25. "Black Muslim. Do not use this term for a member of the Nation of Islam .... Most black Americans who are Muslim follow traditional Islam or are members of theological splinter groups. They are black Muslims but not Black Muslims." (p. 39). "Eid al-Adha, the Islamic Feast of Sacrifice, is celebrated 70 days after Ramadan, the holy month of daytime fasting." (p. 101, and various similar examples throughout, using "Islamic", e.g. "fatwa (a decree by an Islamic religious leader)", p. 111; "Ramadan, the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, a period of daytime fasting.", p. 245; "Shariah, the legal code of Islam based on the Quran.", p. 265). "chador. The traditional shawl or cloak of Muslim women. The plural is chadors. Other Muslim garments include ...." (p. 54). "fundamentalist. As a religious term, the word should be used with care because of its connotations of rigidity. .... In references to Islam and other non-Christian religions, equate fundamentalism to doctrinal conservatism only; do not assume or imply a link to militancy or terrorism." (p. 120). "Hamas (the militant Islamic movement in the Middle East)." (p. 132). "Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim militant group ..." (p. 137). "Islam can mean not only the Muslim religion but also Muslims generally and the areas of the world where their religion is predominant. ... The adjective is Islamic. Islamist (n., adj.) refers to a proponent of government according to the tenets of Islam. Avoid implying that it is synonymous with extremist or terrorist. Take care not to confuse Islamist with the adjective Islamic, which simply means related to Islam." (p. 151). "Moslem. Use Muslim instead in references to Islam." (p. 186). "Moslem. Use Muslim instead in references to Islam. (p. 188). "Quran. The sacred book of Islam. Muslims believe that its text ..." (p. 243). "Taliban. The movement of militant Sunni Muslims in Afghanistan. ..." (p. 283). A variance from this pattern: "Allah is the Muslim name for God", p. 17, which we'd probably expect to say "Islamic" not "Muslim" given the other treatment in this source. Another weird variance: "Muhammad. Use this spelling for the name of the prophet of the Muslim religion and for people who bear his name, except when an individual's preference is known to differ." (p. 188); we would expect "Islam" here (or, more awkwardly "the Islamic religion" or "the religion of Islam"), not "the Muslim religion", which is just unusual, even by NYT standards.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • University of Queensland School of Journalism and Communications Style and Production Guide (2012): "al-Qa’ida: Islamic organisation." "Islamic and Islamist are often confused. The former relates to Islam; the latter to Islamic militancy and fundamentalism. So it is not 'Islamic terrorists' but 'Islamist terrorists'." "Koran is the sacred text and book of the Islamic faith. ..." "muslim (n) a follower of Islam. Hence muslim countries, muslim law." [This is the only style guide I've ever seen that would lower-case these words.] "Shiite: one of the two major Islamic divisions ..." (most style guides today advise against this term in favor of Shia Islam, Shia Muslims).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions

What I would conclude from this – and an overall trend, and which could be written into the guideline in some form:

  • Use Islam (noun) and Islamic (adjective) in reference to the religion of Islam and to Sharia law.
  • Use Muslim (noun, plural Muslims) and Muslim (adjective) in reference to followers of Islam and their culture (including dress).
  • Example: A tenet of Shia Islam (a branch of Islam) may be closely followed by Shia Muslims (followers of Shia Islam). Neitehr should not be referred to as Shiite(s).
  • As adjectives, Islamic and Muslim may otherwise be used as synonymous: an Islamic holiday and a Muslim holiday are both permissible, as are an Islamic group and a Muslim group, but imply a different focus (respectively, on religious basis versus observance/participation).
  • Islamism and Islamist refer only to politicized Islam. They are not synonymous with Islamic fundamanetalism/ist (strict interpretation of Islamic doctrine), nor with various other terms (Islamic militants, etc.). Use the terminology used in the majority of reliable sources for the topic in question.
  • Islam, Islamic, Islamist, and Muslim always take an initial capital letter.
  • Do not confuse any of these terms with Arab, Arabic, or Arabian
  • Do not use Moslem, Mohammedan, Muhammedan, or Mussulman, which are obsolete and may even be offensive.

A consequence of this would be that Islamic culture would move to Muslim culture, which is a move anyone with a background in anthropology or history would support anyway. Islam and clothing#Islamic dress in Europe should also use "Muslim", though the main article title is fine – if the scope is actually accurate, which it may not be. It is possible this article should move back to Muslim clothing or to Muslim dress, since it appears to mostly be a list of Muslim dress styles, with only some introductory information about Islam and clothing per se. "Islam and clothing" is more properly a subtopic. Islamic music is clearly misnamed; a proper article on that topic would only be about Islamic ritual music directly connected with mosques, not music of the Muslim cultural sphere, but the latter is actually the content of the article (see "musical traditions of the Muslim world" in its lead sentence). Muslim cuisine would not be affected, since both it and Islamic cuisine redirect to the more specific term Halal.

Whatever the outcome is, it should be summarized in compressed form at MOS:IDENTITY after we add the details here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC); revised 03:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: My hat's off to you for this extensive source review. There are some conclusions I don't quite follow, however:
1) I don't see how you arrived at your conclusion about "Islamic culture". The only source about which addresses the adjective to be preferred with "culture" (Reuters Handbook of Journalism) says: "Islamic: An adjective used to describe the culture, art, architecture, music or finance associated with the religion of Islam."
2) The term "Shiite(s)" is commonly used with some spelling variations in current reference works and academic literature. I can round up a sample of sources among the numerous possibilities, if there's doubt on this point. We can note that some style guide advise against it, but I believe stating it as a WP guideline would not be NPOV.
3) I think the usage of "Islamist" and "fundamentalist" is too complex and inconsistent to be tackled in the MOS. We have a long inventory of definitions of the former in Islamism. Where there's a substantive disagreement between RSs, we can't override it by a stylistic guideline.
Going back to the original question, let's collect the statements which address the distinction between Islamic and Muslim:
  • The Economist Style Guide (full paper 9th ed., 2005): Islamic means relating to Islam; it is a synonym of the adjective Muslim, but it is not used for a follower of Islam, who is always Muslim. But Islamic art and architecture is conventional usage.
  • The Guardian and Observer Style Guide (2017): Islamic: a synonym for the Muslim religion when used as an adjective eg Islamic art. It should not be used to describe people.
  • The Times Style and Usage Guide (2011): Islamic is interchangeable with Muslim as the adjective, though normally use Islamic with religion and fundamentalism.
  • Reuters Handbook of Journalism (2017) "Islamic: An adjective used to describe the culture, art, architecture, music or finance associated with the religion of Islam. Adherents of the religion are usually described by the adjective Muslim though. An Islamic state is a country ruled by Islamic law (sharia). A Muslim country is one whose population is predominantly Muslim." [19]. "Muslim: An adjective or noun that usually describes adherents of Islam. The adjective Islamic is usually used to describer [sic] the culture, architecture, music, or finance of the religion Islam. ... Muslim dress: Islamic head coverings worn by women are all referred to as ...." [20].
  • University of Queensland School of Journalism and Communications Style and Production Guide (2012): "muslim (n) a follower of Islam. Hence muslim countries, muslim law."
Here is a formulation I can extract on this question keeping closely to the citations:
The adjectives Muslim and Islamic are used interchangeably, with certain exceptions. The term Islamic, which means relating to Islam, is conventionally preferred in a number of contexts relating to religion and culture, but it should not be used to describe people. A follower of Islam is called Muslim. Similarly, a Muslim country is one whose population is predominantly Muslim.
@Chicbyaccident: If you want to add disputed content, especially to a guideline, you need to get WP:CONSENSUS, which is not a vote. I will let SMcCandlish state their own view, but I'm not sure what leads you to think even they agree with your added text. It can't be based on OR. Please join us in examining RSs. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
In brief:
  1. The general usage pattern in the quoted material plays out this way. To the extent that there's a clear delineation in usage between Islamic and Muslim as an adjective, the former is limited to religion matters and the latter to more openly cultural ones that are not tied to Islam's doctrinal writings and Sharia law rulings/edicts. The article and section renames I suggested are ones I would pursue anyway, regardless whether this MoS page ever says anything about the matter.
  2. I didn't quote all the Shia/Shiite materials (almost none of it, because it wasn't central to the question). However, virtually all of these sources avoid "Shiite"; the only one I recalled that did not was the one I directly quoted, because it was unusual in this regard.
  3. The matter being complex doesn't mean it can't be addressed at MoS; we regularly deal with such matters as MOS:WTW. Maybe the wording I proposed to address it isn't good enough, but it's not actually wrong.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
We talk about Jewish culture, not Jew culture, right? So do we about Islamic culture, including Islamic architecture, etc., irrespective of sources for expressions of this in the Quran, the hadiths, or Islamic law, since Islamic culture cannot be reduced to any single of these aspects. "Muslim country", on the other hand, may be correct in colloquial text if implicating a "Muslim-majority country", a demographical reference. In comparison, we correctly talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, since the name ultimately refers grammatically in both English as well as original Arabic to a "brotherhood of brothers who are Muslims", also in essence a demographical reference, and not to a "brotherhood of Islamic brothers". However Islamic dress, as exempelified above, refers ultimately to a "dress that pertain to Islam", hence essentially to Islamic culture, customs, and/or law, and not to demographics. Isn't this all quite clear? Do you see any inconsistencies? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's focus on the Muslim vs. Islamic question in this section to avoid distraction. The other questions can be taken up in separate threads. SMcCandlish, I don't see this general usage pattern. Perhaps you can point to concrete examples. In any case, while style guides can be a useful source for explicit generalizations (which are unfortunately scarce even in this thorough sample), they aren't representative of the body of RSs whose actual usage we should reflect proportionally per NPOV. We may wish that a certain usage pattern based on abstract principles prevailed; as I noted above, I personally prefer to reserve the term "Islamic" for specifically religious attributes. But we can't do so in cases where this contradicts the prevailing usage in RSs, and much less create a guideline instructing others to do so. So, for example, while one may wish that the terms "Islamic art" or "Islamic architecture" were reserved for religious artifacts, with the adjective "Muslim" being used for other forms of art and architecture created by Muslims, this is not actually the case. If you'd like to propose moving those article, we can discuss those terms on their respective talk pages. I expect that it would be difficult to get consensus for a terminological choice which runs contrary, for instance, to the choice made in the standard academic reference on the subject, The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture:

We have therefore taken the broadest definition of Islamic art: “the art made by artists or artisans whose religion was Islam, for patrons who lived in predominantly Muslim lands, or for purposes that are restricted or peculiar to a Muslim population or a Muslim setting [in the Christian Art entry].” Some scholars have found this definition confusing and have proposed differentiating “Islamic,” which would refer to matters associated only with the religion of Islam, from “Islamicate,” which would refer to matters associated with cultures that flourished under Islamic rule. Such fine distinctions, however, often bewilder the general reader to whom this work is addressed. We have tended to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, in line with modern scholarship that recognizes and celebrates the many facets of Islamic cultures around the world. [Introduction]

If you believe your proposal reflects community consensus, let's do an RFC and see if there's broader acceptance for it. Eperoton (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
And "Jew" in standard English is a noun not (except in slang or as an epithet) an adjective; use as an adjective is generally offensive and intended to be so (e.g. "a Jew conspiracy", "some Jew lawyer", etc.) This is not true of "Muslim", which is everyday, neutral English as both a noun and an adjective. Cf. Republican use of "Democrat" as a replacement for "Democratic" in reference to the Democratic Party (United States); it's the same as use of "Jew" as an adjective.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
What are the arguments and/or explicit sources for using the noun "Muslim" as adjective, please? I am still unable to extract undisputably such a conclusion from the above collected sources. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
It's explicitly identified as an adjective in several sources quoted above. I'm not sure I understood your question correctly. Eperoton (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
A minority of the sources consulted seem to find significance in mirroring that use, yes. However, is it correct, grammatically or otherwise? Is it better? If Islamic encompasses "Muslim", why use the latter if the latter risks undesired misunderstandings and misconnotations, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand why you're asking this. As Wikipedians, we aren't here to arbitrate English usage. We're here to reflect what's in RSs without our own editorial bias (WP:NPOV). Eperoton (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
That is the general principle, correct. In applying that principle, though, would you not consider weighting in grammatical correctness when evaluating a minority range of assertions such as forementioned ones? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I would consider grammaticality judgments found in RSs; I would not use my own judgments to disqualify usage found in RSs. I'm also not sure why you're referring to this as minority usage, as I see no evidence that the opposite view is represented by a majority of RSs. On the contrary, the use of "Muslim" as an adjective/attributive noun seems to me to be standard usage and we have no explicit statements in RSs arguing against it. Eperoton (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems like we are just talking past each other. Would you participants mind welcoming 3rd perspectives on this discussion? Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If you're referring to WP:3O, this wouldn't apply here as we already have 3 participants. If you'd like to broaden participation, this sounds like time for an WP:RFC, especially since you're trying to change a guideline. Let me know if you need help with that. Eperoton (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep. 3O cannot be used for anything but article content disputes (I've tried; none of the dispute resolutions methods like 3O, MedCab, MedCom, etc. will hear an MoS-related "case").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Since this discussion has become dormant without achieving consensus for the proposed addition to the guideline, I'm removing it. As before, let me know if you need help with an RFC. Eperoton (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would propose a RfC on this one if you don't mind. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, see WP:RFC. We need to formulate one or more concrete proposals. The quickest option would be to ask whether respondents support adding the text you'd like to add. However, if you decompose your proposal into multiple proposals for smaller, more incremental changes, it may be easier to reach some form of consensus. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Yeah, a RfC would probably be at hand. The potential controversial issue stems from that the adherent noun "Muslim" risks confusing being about a group of people (Muslims) rather than an idealoogy (Islam), especially when aspects of criticism are dealt with. It would therefore be wise to consider giving priority to "Islamic" rather than "Muslim" when possible. The opinions of more people on this issue would be welcome in order to make Wikipeda as neutral as possible while also as little contentious as possible. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Chicbyaccident: For an RfC, we need a concrete question. Would you like to get comments on inclusion of your paragraph in its latest form ([21])? Eperoton (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Yes, please! Chicbyaccident (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Chicbyaccident: Ok... do you need help opening the RfC? Eperoton (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

See The Venture of Islam for a fascinating discussion of the problematic. Though this text suggests making a distinction between people (Muslim) and the faith tradition (Islamic), it in no way supports the idea that this is already standard practice. This is confirmed by other texts: 1, 2. Two sources (This and this differentiate Muslim countries (majority Muslim) and Islamic countries (those explicitly oriented around Islam). Again, all of this represents choices made by authors in particular situations, without any representation that there is a clear academic consensus on usage in this regard. Clean Copytalk 20:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC about additional paragraph

The consensus is against adding the paragraph to MOS:ISLAM.

Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Should the following paragraph be added to MOS:ISLAM? Eperoton (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

For things pertaining to Islam, the more correct adjective is "Islamic" (from Arabic: الإسلامية, romanized: Islamiyye, in turn from the triconsonant Semitic root s-l-m, meaning "submission"). "Islamic" is an entity-oriented, ideologically referring adjective for anything not directly linked to an individual person, as opposed to the noun "Muslim" ("mu-" connotes someone who does something, in this case submitting). Yet, regrettably, "Muslim" is sometimes misused as a noun-turned-adjective-synonym. However, using this noun as an adjective is due to linguistic confusion in non-Arabic academia and media, bordering etymological fallacy. Wikipedia should be careful not to reproduce this misconception. Instead, we assent to the more impersonally nuanced "Islamic", since it should be clear that a subject discussed is primarly pertaining to ideological-religious perspective(s) and not individual(s), wherever this distinction is applicable. Example: Timeline of Islamic history instead of Timeline of Muslim history.

Survey

  • Oppose Our review of reference works above (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Adjective) indicated that RSs do not support the proposed generalizations. Also, the style of the proposed addition would be more appropriate for an essay than for MOS. Eperoton (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As one who is coming to this topic cold, I note that in the similar way in which one refers to a history of "Christianity", not to a history of Christians, it seems to me more proper to speak of a history of Islamic faith and not to a history of Muslim faith, if indeed it is the belief system and not idiosyncratic manifestations of it that is being discussed. I agree, though, that the paragraph given above would best be reworked for the Manual of Style. A shorter statement would seem sufficient: the religion is ordinarily referred to as Islamic and its practitioners as Muslim, if such is true. Jzsj (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Good remark. Yet, perhaps a little extension would do, further clarifying why "Islamic" would be preferred where possible as opposed to "Muslim"? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in present form but support clarifying: (1) believers should be referred to as "Muslims" (2) though "Islamic" and "Muslim" are frequently used as synonyms, and both are viable options, "Islamic" is {sometimes/often/increasingly} considered the preferred adjective when referring to culture, institutions, etc. Clean Copytalk 19:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also coming to this cold, via Legobot, but I think oppose per Clean Copy, above. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say it: the proposed text is condescending and a poor fit for the tone of a style manual. But in substance, I don't find anything wrong with the suggestions. "Muslim" isn't necessarily incorrect as an adjective—for example, describing a mosque as a "Muslim place of worship" is technically accurate, because it's a place of worship for Muslims. But I'd prefer "Islamic" as the adjective in almost all cases. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in present form but support clarification of a kind suggested by Jzsj or the longer mod suggested by Clean Copy. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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.

"Allah" meaning: pre-RfC discussion

Hi, so I noticed that there is something really wrong here. Allah doesn't mean "God". I repeat, it does not mean "God". Ilah Arabic: إلاه means "God" but not Allah. Allah is similar to Yahwah in Judaism, it is the name of the Muslim God not the Arabic translation of God. These terms don't mean God! They are the name of the God.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The God in Islam is, as a tenet of Islam, the same God as the God in Judaism and the God in Christianity. They aren't different gods. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also call God "Allah" when speaking Arabic. In English, "God" with a capital G refers to that god, though the Latinized form of the Arabic name for him, "Allah", is often used in Islamic contexts. Ilah means "god", little "g", any god. Zeus is an ilah. Thor is an ilah. The being God, whether called "God" or "Allah", is one god, one ilah. Largoplazo (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To be consistent in English, with "the King", "the President" and the like, we really should say "the God", just as in Arabic. I don't know why we don't. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about the capitalization? Largoplazo (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ghazwatul Hind

Your expert help/comments/advice are needed to make a page on Wikipedia on Ghazwatul Hind that meets the requirements of Wikipedia. It's getting deleted repeatedly, even in draft stage or mere title stage. For a quick overview, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Draft:Hadith_of_Ghazwae_Hind. Thanks Abi Hanzala (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

AH dates?

Is it standard to use AH dates—alone, or as a supplement to AD/CE dates—in articles on early Islam? I could be missing something, but I couldn't find an answer on MOS:DATE or here. Thanks to anyone who can point me in the right direction! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You might be looking for MOS:ERA, though it has only a single line about AH. My personal opinion: use CE years as much as possible, as long as they are supported by reliable sources. Reserve AH for exact dates that include Islamic months/days, again if supported by reliable sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

conflating ayin and hamza

I'm in favor of keeping the English spellings of assimilated words such as Mecca, Koran and Shiite. But if we're going to give the Arabic form, shouldn't it be correct?

Hamza and ayin are different consonants in Arabic, and dismissing them implies contempt for the language. If we made similar "I can't tell the difference so who cares" changes to European languages, people would be upset at the anglocentrism.

Take the articles in List of cities and towns in the Czech Republic. Would it be appropriate to move them all to ASCII forms, just because many English speakers don't know the difference between ř and r or ě and e? Or consider Hawaiian personal and place names, where we're careful to maintain the ʻokina and macron.

If there's some technical reason that we shouldn't use proper transcription of Arabic names in titles, then perhaps we can display them correctly using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. In the text of the article, I don't see why we should make ASCII substitutions that would not be acceptable for almost any other language.

We do make the same conflation for Hebrew, but Modern Hebrew no longer distinguishes the two sounds. Many Arabs, on the other hand, maintain that ayin is one of the most beautiful sounds in the language, and is one of the primary elements that gives Arabic its characteristic sound. It seems inappropriate to say, in effect, "Eh, who cares what a bunch of ferners think. If our readers don't already know the difference, it can't be important."

— kwami (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Latin alphabet languages are an exception. For transliterated languages, the basic rule is to follow the spelling most commonly used in reliable sources. From what I have seen, scholarly texts tend to use a "perfect" transliteration, including the letters ʾʿāīūḥṣḍṭẓġ, while newspapers and other mass publications stick to simplified spellings. The question is then: which of these should we regard as a reliable source? --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Do we show either of them in article titles when they come at the beginning of a word? If not, then we are, in those cases, inherently not distinguishing them. Largoplazo (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Reply: If these lines of questioning cannot be answered in this specific MOS then we look at (and should consider) the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic#Article titles, WP:CRITERIA, and "the relevant policy". -- Otr500 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

adding main or central prophet of islam before Muhammad in the lead

Is it allowed to add the title "main or central prophet of Islam" before Muhammad in the lead section, if allowed, shall it be added in the manual? 45.125.220.162 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

PBUH

For previous discussions about PBUH, please review the archives:

Use of Allama in the name in lead section etc?

Do we allow use of honorofic Allama with the names? Policy Islam-related_articles#Other_persons doesn't specifically deals with things like Allama, Maulana, etc. The question is right now specifically being asked in relation to article Syed Jawad Naqvi where it keeps getting added despite constantlbeing removed.--Fztcs 17:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

'Comment': First sentence in WP:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related articles#Other personsseems a clear hint enough. At Talk:Syed Jawad Naqvi#Content change/addition dispute resolution 2020 I had given third opinion of sort. But some how it didn't get sorted out and edit war seems to be still on. So in my personal opinion let it go for formal WP:RFC process so it may help in building a proper consensus.
Best wishes and greetings
Bookku (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but as you mentioned, despite giving that argument, the addition doesn't stops. Before going for WP:RFC, I posted here, to be sure I have not misread the policy.--Fztcs 05:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are right.
Thanks & greetings Bookku (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Izno: @Dawnseeker2000: @Innocent Paki: @HistoryofIran:
Almost a month discussion is not moved much ahead, so pinging in users came in related recent changes of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Islam and requesting their inputs. Thanks Bookku (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about whether to allow use of honorofic 'Allama' with the names or not?

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.
Consensus to generally remove Allama. A raw vote count has 10 editors in favor of general removal, 3 arguing that it should be included in the lead, 1 for always including it, and 1 calling for a more case-by-case decision. Editors in favor of removal argued that this is in line with both MOS:HON and MOS:ISLAMHON. Editors in favor of including the honorific, either in the lead or more generally, argued that the use of these honorifics is so common in sources (and particularly South Asian sources) that it is necessary information for readers. Note, however, that MOS:HON already establishes the exception that Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. Thus, the outcome of this discussion is essentially, possibly unintentionally a near-unanimous call to uphold MOS:HON: in most cases, this means removing honorifics, but they should be left in if they are used by nearly all English-language RS. In the case of Jawad Naqvi, a quick glance at its English references suggests that Allama is not used near-ubiquitously, but this can be contested further on its talk page if evidence to the contrary can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Policy Islam-related_articles#Other_persons doesn't specifically deals with honorofics like Allama, Maulana, etc. Do we allow use of honorofic Allama with the names or not? So policy can be updated @ relevant section of this policy page

Recently the question has been arisen specifically at an article Syed Jawad Naqvi where it keeps getting added despite constantly being removed.

For those who want to know more about term Allama, Wikipedia has an article about term Allamah

For information @Faizhaider: & @Sharief123: being first ones to discuss the issue at the article Syed Jawad Naqvi.

Thanks for your opinions.

Bookku (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Remove: seems to be analogous to those other honorifics, and to titles and honorifics in general. We don't even put "Queen" in front of Elizabeth II in her lede, so why would we use "Allama" here? --tronvillain (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • And, even more relevantly, we don't refer to Muhammad (or Jesus for that matter) by anything more than his name. Are those who want to add honorifics putting these people above Muhammad? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, if, as a involved party, I should vote or not, but, definitely my opinion is to remove it.--Fztcs 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove. MOS:ISLAMHON states In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations. and WP:HON, In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article.. Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove - per MOS:ISLAMHON -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per reasons above. Doremo (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Its more nuanced In this case the information is retained in the Infobox. So no information is lost...but we should remember that half our stakeholders are below average intelligence. Whoever removes it really should ensure that the fact that he is know, outside of Wikipedia, as Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi is given high prominence. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove with the normal exceptions per MOS:HONORIFIC, such as when it "is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it". If someone is often known by a name that includes the title, but this doesn't rise to the level of being seldom referred to by anything else, this should probably be mentioned once in the lead as an alternative name, per MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. In both cases, a distinction should be made between simply adding a title to a name, such that it remains recognisable with the title taken away (e.g. Dr Albert Einstein can become Albert Einstein without losing the identity of the person being referred to, and when the title is an essential part of the identity (e.g. Mother Teresa as an example of the first case – "Teresa" alone does not identify the person – or Phil McGraw, with "also known as Dr. Phil" in the lead, as an example of the second – "Phil" alone would not identify the person. Robminchin (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Add I would like to say with full enthusiasm and Unctuousness that if his official website and other means of social media or channeling have given them Allama or any other title is given. Or outside of social media, official websites or channels, many famous and renowned scholars and philanthropists Addressed him as Allama or Ayatollah and so on but as per MOS:ISLAMHON, this should be emphasized that other prominents with titles and honorifics should be removed. If not then should abide with the name... Sharief123ᗙ Sharief123 (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per consistency with other articles, any Unctuousness notwithstanding. ——Serial # 13:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Include in lede As mentioned above by JorgeLaArdilla, prominently mention this in lede when it can be demonstrated that the honorific title is extensively used in publications - similar to how it's done for Muhammad Iqbal.
Regarding the Syed Jawad Naqvi article, most of the "remove" commenters above appear to not have a Pakistani background, therefore are unlikely to appreciate how often the honorific gets used - as Robminchin pointed out above, extremely widely used honorifics should be included in title. However, this does not appear to be the case here, for starters a YouTube search on my end, gives more results for "Agha Syed Jawad Naqvi" than with the "Allama" honorific. Furthermore, in terms of being widely used, the Muhammad Iqbal article would deserve the Allama honorific significantly more than the Naqvi article. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per HON; allow it in the body, once, as an explanation for those who "are below average intelligence" (really? Is that how we think of our readers?). We don't use PBUH for Muhammad (we simply explain, once, in the body, what it is and when it's used), and that's used (in the culture/context) far more often than these people are referred to as Allama; happy days, LindsayHello 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I recently noticed that in over enthusiasm of removing honorifics editors have been removing Syed & it's variants from the names and have even moved articles to reflect that. It should be understood that Syed & it's variants are part of the official names, at least in South Asia, they appear in all the official documents as such from certificates to passports.--Fztcs 19:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
While the work on this Rfc is underway here, on the article, the title Allama to Syed Jawad Naqvi which was removed by user-editor Alivardi has been added back by ip-editor 110.224.242.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). May be, this what JorgeLaArdilla was trying to convey above.--Fztcs 08:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I like how IP (not me) has styled it. I was just noting Pope Francis, Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks, Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet - there does seem alot of tolerance for titles and honorifics. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Pope Francis is that way because Francis alone is insufficient to identify the subject (it goes to a DAB page); Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks is a redirect to Jonathan Sacks, which is how he is referred to in the article; and while Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet is the article title, within the article he is consistently referred to as "John Arbuthnot" or "Arbuthnot" ~ solely the name; happy days, LindsayHello 14:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
And, not only that, i notice that Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks didn't even exist until you created it fifteen minutes prior to your comment, so i don't think it's a very good example at all of OTHERSTUFF; happy days, LindsayHello 15:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The example is '''Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks''', not [[ Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks ]]. WP:OTHERSTUFF kinda reminded me of duff hadith JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove Unless it is the most common way they are referred to in reliable sources (as per WP:UCRN, e.g., Pope Francis), such titles should not be included with names. To use a non-Islamic equivalent, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, does not have "Reverend" placed before his name in the lead.
    Alivardi (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Most British publications don't refer to him as Reverend Justin Welby or Reverend Welby, for example, this BBC article. By contrast, "Allama" can be part of the WP:COMMONNAME in many Muslim countries.VR talk 16:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
In that case, if one googles,
So, definitely it seems "syed jawad naqvi" returns more than two-times the result w.r.t. "allama syed jawad naqvi".--Fztcs 17:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove per LindsayH. In addition to Allama, I came across Ustad and Aga, so which one will it be for Naqvi? Islamic scholars are addressed with various titles and honourifics, and to continuously use such fluff in running text makes for a tiring read and distracts from the core information. Sure, if a particular way of addressing stands out like Mother Teresa, by all means use it per WP:UCRN, but that does not seem to be the case with this article in particular. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
So, do have a conclusion?--Fztcs 16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
It's been open just four days. While there is no set time for an RfC, it is more usual to allow them to run nearer thirty days, no? I'd give this one at least a week before calling for a close, unless the consensus is blindingly obvious and hasn't a chance of changing; happy days, LindsayHello 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@LindsayH: Personally I do not have any issues for waiting longer if we get more perspectives. Last 17 days, no new discussion added. Do suggest Bookku (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep in lede because these are most frequently used with them, rest not needed in infobox or anywhere. USaamo (t@lk) 20:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Mostly remove, but it's reasonable to keep it once each in the lead and (if any) infobox. It should not be boldfaced as part of the name proper, and it should be linked so people who aren't Muslims can go find out what it means.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove. There is no reason we should privilege islamic scholars and clergy in MOS:HON. Note also that MOS:ISLAM has some specific Islamic related guidance on honorifics and there too these are proscribed. SpinningSpark 13:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove except in cases comparable to Mother Teresa or Dr. Phil or Queen Latifah, if there are any. The practice within a community or by a set of publications of prefixing the names of people in a particular role with a particular honorific, however strictly followed, with however much devotion, doesn't amount to the honorific being part of their names. Therefore, it's irrelevant to WP:COMMONNAME. I haven't reviewed the guidelines for mentioning the honorifics typically applied to a person's name in the lead, but those apply to Allama in the same measure in which they apply to any other clerical or devotional honorific. Largoplazo (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Dr. Phil and Queen Latifah are stage names, not honorifics. That's not the same thing at all. Dr. Phil is a particularly bad example, the stage name is mentioned, but he is not referred by it anywhere in the article. SpinningSpark 00:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
      • That doesn't detract from the point that unless "Allama" is part of the name by which a person is primarily known, it's nothing more than an honorific and is to be avoided after first mention. Largoplazo (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are several articles about Jewish personalities using the honorific "Rabbi" E.g Marvin Hier. Should these be removed too? ImTheIP (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. Which I see you just took care of. Largoplazo (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Comments: Voice (printed) of reason. I am not into the whole need for suppression thing. We name article titles predominantly after what is "commonly" found in reliable sources. Exceptions are made for disambiguation, which includes being as concise only as necessary to identify the subject. If being concise also just happens to be the more commonly used name, it would not make any sense to unnecessarily disambiguate or avoid, with some rationale to remain neutral, mention or use of an honorific title. I would think some mention in the lead, accompanied by sourced coverage in the body of the article, would be exactly how a neutrally presented article would cover the title. Obviously there have to be limits. One only has to look at List of rabbis#Rabbis: 16th – 18th centuries. If the subject (Rabbi) is clearly noted then it is over redundant and distracting for it to be used on every name, and needing an"enthusiastic" pruning. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
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.

See also related quasi-RfC at Village Pump.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Use of Maulana and Hafiz?

I'm guessing by Mawlānā and Hafiz (Quran) that these are best excluded? FDW777 (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Images in Islam related articles

I have found this supplementary manual of style not to be particularly helpful in the case of images of Islamic clerics and/or scholars. Interested editors may wish to visit and offer opinions in this discussion, and to consider whether this MOS supplement requires enhancement to cover this situation in specific terms. I am unsure that the general image guidance is suitably specific.

The file in question in the discussion is a poor, shoddy file, but that should be set aside from the broader matter. It is obvious to me that one might choose in and because of this discussion to:

  • delete this particular file as a poor image, perhaps not even the person concerned, while being certain that one should keep this class of image
  • delete this particular file as a poor image and also consider that all others should be deleted as (possibly) offensive, thus setting up the full discussion in a more appropriate venue
  • keep this file, with or without a wider discussion in the correct venue
  • reach some other view

The purpose of this message is to make interested editors aware of the overall issue, assuming that this has not been covered elsewhere already, and also assuming that it is a real issue, not simply a drive by deletion by a random IP and my possible over reaction. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If we are looking at the specific issue of this image then we could do with some assistance at the discussion at wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_May_8#File:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg to confirm the contents of this youtube video and indentify possible other images in the video of the subject. Language is possibly Hindi/Urdu and my apologies it is not within my competency to identify it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles/Archive_2&oldid=1142664738"