Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Formatting articles

Formatting

There's probably no example that can really serve as the template for every other one of these articles. It's more of a perspective than format question.

Stubs

There is now an Islam stub (see Template:Islam-stub) that can be used for very short Islam-related articles. There is also the corresponding Category:Islam stubs for the Islam stub.

==Hierarchy definition== Religion/Islam/etc.

Sahaba

I propose that we add the {{Category:Sahaba}} at the top of every Sahaba, or at least at the top of every non-prominent sahaba. the template displays this text:

This category contains articles about the sahaba of Muhammad.

Then also add [[Category:Sahaba]] under it so as to list them here --Striver 16:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Do it. --Juan Muslim 08:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't look correct; I've had a recent dispute/discussion (which almost turned nasty) with another user about this (I wanted a correct version and he didn't want anything like that at all) and in the end I created the template {{sahaba}}. It was agreed that placing this at the end of every article about a sahaba would be the best compromise. The category, of course, should be at the end. MP (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Scholars

I propose that all scholars get a "Academic line" section before the "See also", but after the "legacy" section.

It will contain something like this;

Academic line

Teachers:

• ????
• ????

Students:

• ????

It will repeat the information in the article, but will be of great help for those that want to see the line of teachers and whom he taught without wanting to go through his biography. It will also encourage people to add those facts, if they are missing.

It will also let one to follow the line uppwards or downwards the line of students, for those intrested in doing so.

If no student and/or teacher exist, or if it is assumed that the list is incomplete, i propose to add sometheing like:

Teachers:

• ????

Students:

• (none known)

My first implementation of this standard is here: Ibn_Kathir. --Striver 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, look at this! I could advocate using that on the more prominent scholars! --Striver 06:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

fatwas

I propose that if the scholar have made a fatwa that is mentioned in some other article, then link to it in the "See also" section like this:

--See also--

Fatwas:

• Triple talaq
• Nikah Misyar
• Salah

i have implemented it here: Abu Hanifa.

--Striver 01:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

gren wrote in my Talk page the following:

These see alsos don't seem to be really directly related... under the pretext of relating to his fatwas, I somewhat understand... but, that doesn't merit a see also really because it has no specificity, it's like linking Einstein's see also with physics, jus too vague to be of any worth. So, could you not do it please? gren グレン 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

well, the alternative whould be to repeat allt the fatwas on his talk page... Or maybe having a article named "Articles on Wikipedia including Fatwas from X ibn Z", a alternative i dont favor...

I personaly belive its of great benefit to see what fatwas X have been contributed to wikipedia... If the "fatwas" section in under the "see also" section are not esteticaly appealing, then i would gladly hear some alternative. If the idea of linking to the fatwas are not supported, then please motivate that. I could see linking Einstein to physics if there was some some quoting from him done there :) Best regards! --Striver 03:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Specificity of Fatwa would be useful, however what Muslims scholar hasn't ruled in some sense about salah? Those things you list are concepts that concern many Muslims scholars. Where is direct fatwa from Hanifa about Misyar anyways? It is incredibly vague. My alternative is writing about what they have done, if Scholar XX said you should pray on your head then you write about that, you don't put Salah in a fatwa see also. I also saw this. Just because it is listed in the Muslim guild standard means nothing. It is not a wikipedia rule and it has no weight. Please do not refer Zora to this as if it's established. gren グレン 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I addresed the Zora issue here. Regarding the other issue: I see your point and agree. I withdraw my proposal, and instead make this:

I propose that if the scholar have made a fatwa that is mentioned in some other article, add a link to that article in a article named Articles containing fatwas by X, and then include a link to it in the "see also" section of the scholars article.

i have implemented it here: Ibn Taymiya. --Striver 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)