Template talk:Islam/Archive 6

Older discussions can be found at:

1. Archive 1 (Includes: Start – 4 August 2005)
2. Archive 2 (Includes: August 2005 - May 2006)

Part of a series?

"Part of a series" implies there is some co-ordination by some group of every article to which the template is stamped. Is there such a group? ...and if there were, do the rules of wikipedia allow such a group to control a subset of wikipedia articles? The template is intended as a navigational aid, not as a stamp of approval upon an article. Would not "Related articles on..." be a more approriate lead-in? --JimWae 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See

Template:Bahá'í: Part of the series...

Template:Hinduism: Part of the series on...

Template:Christianity:Part of the series on...,

Template:Politics of Croatia:This article is part of the series...,

Template:Methodism:Part of the series on...,

Template:Christian theology:Part of the series on...,

Template:Gnosticism:Part of the series on...,

Template:Eastern Christianity:This article is part of the series on...,

Template:Historomania:Part of the series...,

Template:ReligionScotland:Part of the series on...,

Template:ScientologySeries:This article forms part of the series on...

I would go on but I'm getting tired of cutting and pasting. If you want to reform the terminology of wikipedia then you can, but you need to start on the policy pages and not on this template. I happen to like the wording of "part of the series on..." Cuñado - Talk 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

part of the series on.. agrees with me too. :-) Netscott 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it sounds good, if it's inaccurate, it's inaccurate, and shouldn't be used. We're an encyclopedia, not a collection of euphonic lyrics. --Cyde Weys 07:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not inaccurate. Cuñado - Talk 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is inaccurate. There's no such thing as an "article series" on Wikipedia. The word "series" implies a topological ordering, which our articles simply don't have. Our articles are an amorphous web that link to each other through the nav template. It's not a "series", it's a "see also". --Cyde Weys 07:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you've not expressed your view on this issue generally. Netscott 07:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that even mean? An hour ago was the first I'd even heard of this issue. Where do you want me to express my ideas generally? --Cyde Weys 07:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On the use of the part of the series.. text in this template. Heh. Netscott 07:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I see now... edit conflict hid from my view your previous edit. Netscott 07:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Errr, my view is that we shouldn't use "part of a series on...", but rather, something to the effect of "other articles on..." Is that what you're looking for? --Cyde Weys 07:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a better wording if you think it's terribly inaccurate, but you should realize that not everyone shares those views and you should probably be arguing on some kind of policy page because it affects several dozens of articles. I didn't mean to start a fruitless debate here. I haven't seen a better wording for it and I see no problem with the current wording. Goodnight. Cuñado - Talk 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Righto then ... time for an RFC on "series" naming? --Cyde Weys 07:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the usage of the word series in terms of an expression like, "there was a whole series of articles on Islam". Doesn't that make sense? Netscott 07:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. Series implies order. See series. --Cyde Weys 22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it Cyde! That was exactly what I was going to say. Perhaps a collection of articles? joturner 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical series?? What does that have to do with anything? It has a meaning in a narrow form of math, so what? See dictionary.com's definition of series.

Series refers to like, related, or identical things arranged or occurring in order: a series of days; a series of facts. In a succession the elements follow each other, generally in order of time and without interruption: a succession of failures. A progression reveals a definite pattern of advance: a geometric progression. In a sequence elements are ordered in a way that indicates a causal, temporal, numerical, or logical relationship or a recurrent pattern: a natural sequence of ideas. In a chain the elements are closely linked or connected: the chain of command; a chain of proof. Train can apply to a procession or to a sequence of ideas or events: a train of mourners; my train of thought. A string consists of similar or uniform elements likened to objects threaded on a long cord: a string of islands; a string of questions.

You could argue that "series" is not the correct word because the articles are not in order. But series has a secondary meaning of "A set of stamps, coins or currency issued in a particular period." That is the meaning that is being used it says "part of a series...". They don't have to be ordered numerically. Cuñado - Talk 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except articles aren't "a set of stamps, coins or currency issued in a particular period", so the use of "series" is incorrect. That use of series is chronological. Take out a dollar bill and look at it ... it'll most likely say "Series 2003A", "Series 2003", or "Series 2001" on it. Obviously this has no relation whatsoever with articles, which aren't associated with having been created in a particular year. --Cyde Weys 00:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is copied from Template_talk:Christianity.

When I read , "part of a series on.." I sooner think of the example of a standalone Book series (ie:Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew) where although every book forms part of the series there is no need to read them in any particular order for their stories to remain coherent. Like, "A whole series of articles on Islam.". Netscott 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Book series are all written by the same person though. Bad analogy. What we have here is a bunch of articles on similar subjects written by lots of different people with no coherent organization in actually trying to fit stuff into a "series". Ergo, it is not a series. --Cyde Weys 01:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Cyde, you're talking out your ass. Follow the articles on Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew and you'll see that in fact multiple individuals (known as Ghost writers) wrote different books. SHOT DOWN, do you have another argument for me to shoot down? Netscott 02:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Seriously, don't be a dick. And you honestly can't see the difference between a published series of books all following the same brand and a collection of articles established by common linkage from a single navigational template? And by the way, I did read some of the Hardy Boys stuff when I was younger, and it was a series, in the true chronological sense of the word. It did refer back to events from prior books. And the books were published in a chronological order. --Cyde Weys 02:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This equally applies here. Netscott 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely going to make it Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Really people. Calm down; it's just a word. joturner 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm laughing... and totally calm... I just know Cyde a bit is all and I'm addressing him accordingly...lolz Netscott 02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The shared talk above will continue on it's original spot over at Template_talk:Christianity. :-) Netscott 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I have to wonder how 2 3 reverts in 90 70 minutes (with the only "explanation" being that others are lame & not cool & talking out of their ass) is keeping cool --JimWae 06:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• JimWae are you putting words in my mouth? User:Joturner was the one mentioning WP:LAME and I just commented on it. As far as keep cool that is standard policy WHEN A FELLOW EDITOR LEAVES EDITORIALLY MESSAGES LIKE THIS. And if we're talking about time, let's go back to 12:47, 2 September 2004 and realize that changing this wording needs to be done with consensus. Netscott 06:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • SOMETIMES MY CAPSLOCK KEY GETS STUCK AND THERE ISN'T A DAMN THING I CAN DO ABOUT IT. --CYDE↔WEYS 06:52, 19 MAY 2006 (UTC)

How/why is it useful to say the article is a part of a series?Timothy Usher 06:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just posted this over on Template:Christianity's talk page but this needs to be said here as well:

• Let's say that Wikipedia is a kind of company and publishes a kind of book (or set of mini-books -each article-) then this Cambridge dictionary definition absolutely applies to articles that fall under the same subject matter. Netscott 06:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let's say that Wikipedia is a kind of governmental system and publishes a kind of pamphlet (or flyer), then isn't Wikipedia really just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? --Cyde↔Weys 07:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, are you going left turn on us? Netscott 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm saying your analogy is so strained as to be useless. Yeah, if I accept the premises that Wikipedia is something that it isn't and that it is doing something that it isn't, then it follows that a certain definition may be applicable. Since it isn't and and it doesn't, it's not. --Cyde↔Weys 07:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlike previous commentors, I'm not asking whether the designation as a series is justifiable. I accept that it is, within the fairly loose definition of what might be said to constitute a series. This isn't mathematics, after all. I am only asking, how is it useful?Timothy Usher 07:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:Timothy Usher finally a voice of reason. It's useful because it informs Wikipedia readers that there is a whole series of articles that fall under the subject related to a templated article. Netscott 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If the articles in the series aren't actually linked from the template, informing the reader that such articles exist isn't much help. Meanwhile, if they are linked, they already are. I've tried to make the blurb useful by adding a link to "what links here" for this template. However, I don't know how to do it without including the ugly bluelighted external link tag to the right of the bluelighted text. Is this possible? Thanks, Netscott!Timothy Usher 07:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy Usher. Netscott 07:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Template linked category?

Perhaps this has been discussed previously but what about a category that lists all articles that actually have the template on them? Like this? Netscott 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, it doesn't quite make sense to have a category for everything on the template. category:Islam already takes care of that, and if you want to know, just click on the "what links here" for the template. Cuñado - Talk 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made this easier for the non-WP-savvy reader by including "what links here" on the template itself.Timothy Usher 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the "what links here" might be confusing, I think linking to the category:Islam might be a better idea, and just remove that link from the template itself. Cuñado - Talk 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the motivation of having the "What links here" link from the series word is so that people can easily find articles that share the template. Does anyone know off-hand if every article in Category:Islam carries this template? What about the idea of swapping the current What links here series link with the bottom index (category) link? Netscott 05:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuñado, what justification can there be to list articles as part of the series if they don't have the template? Conversely, what justification can there be to include the template on articles which aren't part of the series? There might be all kinds of reasons why the category might have a different membership, but "what links here" is the very definition of the series. If anything, this will help us keep an eye on the situation.Timothy Usher 05:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, the series is the actual body of articles (set) covering the same subject under the single publisher Wikipedia... but I do agree with you generally about your What links here rationale. Netscott 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We can't use special functionalities of Wikipedia (such as What links here) on articles. It breaks on mirrors and goes against technical guidelines. What links here belongs to the maintenance section, not the encyclopedic content itself. --Cyde↔Weys 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I actually had originally figured as much which is why I had created the Category:Shared Navigation Guide Islam. But now that the what links here link has been swapped out with the original index (link to Category:Islam) everything should be copasetic. Netscott 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the problem with that category is that just putting a navigation template on a page doesn't mean it's part of a series. Likewise, putting an article into the "Islam" category doesn't just make it part of a series. It's simply inaccurate. --Cyde↔Weys 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Heading still inaccurate

"Part of a series of articles on"

That's very inaccurate. The entire category on Islam most certainly isn't a series of articles. What is so wrong about just saying related articles? At least then we're being accurate. --Cyde↔Weys 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, might I suggest a request for comment or request for mediation as this debate is getting to be a bit longish? Netscott 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. If you want a major change to hundreds of articles you should get wider support. Cuñado - Talk 07:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A major change? Yeah right. It's a semantic change in the wording of a navigational template to make it more accurate. And I've seen a bunch of people stop by in here who said series is inaccurate and just you two in favor of keeping it the way it is. --Cyde↔Weys 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you change the template?

Hi, I don't intend to change the Islam template, but just for my future reference for other templates, can someone tell me where the actual template is? How can I physically edit it? I've looked everywhere; where is it? Thanks. P.S. If you want to delete this message once it has been answered then you may do so. I appreciate that it has no relevance to this talk page. ~~~~ Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.92.140 (talk • contribs) . 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my seemingly odd question but how did you actually get to this talk page as it appears to have been your first ever edit? Netscott 18:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I went to the Islam discussion page, then I went to Archive 4, then the first line says, Template Islam. ~~~~ Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.92.140 (talk • contribs) . 19:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok Sam, please sign your comments by typing in ~~~~ (four tilde marks) at the end of your comments. I've just added a "edit this box" link to the template. But it can be edited directly from here as well. Just out of curiosity was there something in particular you wanted to add/subtract? Netscott 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. No, there was nothing I wanted to change. Just wanted to know in general how to access templates. I just thought that the Islam article is one where there is a lot of discussion and that questions would be answered fairly soon. I was right. ~~~~ Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.92.140 (talk • contribs) . 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sam, remove the <nowiki> bits and "properly sign" also I would highly recommend actually creating a username. Netscott 18:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, again

Folks, I'm noticing in editorial commentary on this template that there is conflict as to "consensus". At this point there is no consensus either "for" or "not for" User:Mystìc's significant change. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus for guidelines in this regard as well. Netscott 08:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course there isn't.Timothy Usher 08:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's against the definition of consensus for a single editor to claim one. Pecher ^Talk 09:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a mistranslated understanding of the word? Netscott 09:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still confused and concerned about the consensus issue, I see 10 votes for it and 9 votes not for it, But I am told it is still no consensus.. How could this be.. I dont understand..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By your count, 47% is against your change, which is far from the "general agreement" required for consensus. Read WP:Consensus and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. — squell 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone could've simply pointed this out!!! Rather than beating around the bush..Thanks Squell. Anyway the calculation should be

• (9/21)*100=42.857142857142857142857142857143% is against the change
• (10/21)*100=47.619047619047619047619047619048% is for it
• (2/21)*100=9.5238095238095238095238095238095% who dont mind either.

wikipedia policy states that general agreement could be reached if 60%-80% agree or do not dispute something. In that case the neutral voters wouldn't dispute the change and could be aggregated with "for it" (please correct me if I am wrong). I qoute from the policy page "That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds"

dont know whether I misinterpreted the above phrase from the policy. But if I am correct I should have almost 57% of the editors who wouldn't dispute my image change.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 18:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are very wrong about agregating neutral votes with "for it" as it is equally concievable that neutral votes could be counted "not for it", didn't we already go through that lesson in logic? In this particular regard I would sooner say that 70% should be achieved for this change is neither minor nor major. Netscott 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By the logic you've advanced here, Mystic, were there 40% for something, and 40% against it, then consensus would exist for both the change and the revert thereof, ad infinitum. That's the opposite of consensus.Timothy Usher 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Women in Islam, Disambiguation

Women in Islam was linking to a disambiguation page, I changed it to link to Women in Muslim societies, as seems appropriate given the context (sociopolitical aspects). Equendil

I agree with the name change. Suleyman Habeeb 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, someone reverted stating "Women in Islam can mean two things...", which I kind of disagree with given that the context is sociopolitical (the other meaning being Women in Quran). Anyway, my issue here is not one of semantics, as per WP:DPL, links to disambiguation pages should be avoided, this is especially problematic with templates, as every page using the template register as linking to the disambiguation page, which has two adverse effects :

• The disambiguation page appears as needed disambiguation because of all the pages that use the template (see the list at WP:DPL).
• The actual task of disambiguating links not from the template is rendered terribly difficult, since nothing distinguishes regular links and links from a template, in the "what links here" listing [1].

Now, there's several options when that happens:

• Disambiguating the link, which was contested.
• Merging the two articles if thir context is so similar that they require being linked to together.
• Linking to both articles (instead of "Women in islam" have "Women in Muslim societies and in the Qu'ran)

Any view on that or suggestions are welcome. Equendil 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I see no objection, I'll go ahead with the plan. Equendil Talk 11:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Blank space

Why is there so much blank space between the logo and the listed items?Timothy Usher 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that may be related to my making the logo clickable, have you found the same thing to be the case on Template:Christianity and/or Template:Judaism? What browser and OS are you using Timothy? Netscott 14:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'll take a look on another browser.Timothy Usher 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Member Template

"This user edits Islam-related pages."

this doesn't mean I'm muslim, or as previously "This member is a muslim"... Can anybody provide me with a clarification? Omernos 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sufism: Branch of Islam?

I don't think Sufism really belongs as a "Branch of Islam", considering that both Sunnis and Shi'is study it. It's not a seperate sect but an Islamic discipline.

True. --Nkv 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually came onto the talk page to ask why it was listed as a societal thing, rather than a branch. I guess there's some disagreement on the point. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross referens

Why dont we add:

part of the Abrahamic religions:

Judaism — Christianity — Islam

To the end of each template?

like this:

Template talk:Islam/temp

--Striver 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it looks terrible. Cuñado - Talk 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, its the not "look" im arguing, its adding the links to the top in any way that pleases you. --Striver 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

People always want to add more onto the template. I think it should be small and to the point. Adding a bunch of links un-related to Islam or adding an "edit this template" box just makes it look busy and distracts from its purpose. Cuñado - Talk 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

About the symbol at the top of the template...

It doesn't look right. As other users have said, it reminds of the Taj Mahal. I think the most apropriate thing would be the Shahadah in caligraphy, like this: [2]. That is certainly a recognizable symbol.

• Possible objections:

It's too POV

It's not POV because it's not stating anything as fact. All that the the Shahadah means is "I testify that there is no god but God and Muhammad is a messenger of God". Plus, most people reading the article can't even read it anyways, they just see it as an aesthetic drawing.

Other religions don't have anything like it

We should set the precedent then.

But I like picture X better

Let's vote then.

--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is partly based on the Aswan mosque in Egypt. Actually the Shahada is not recognizable as an Islamic symbol, but the star and crescent is. If you would like to change to the star and crescent then I would support that. Cuñado - Talk 16:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Shahadah logo is the best. Star and crescent logo is the second best option. - [User_talk:yasirniazkhan]] 14:50, 04 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali

Someone keeps trying to add Uthman and Umar to the list of "major figures". This subject was already hotly debated earlier and settled. The addition of Umar and Uthman were done without previous discussion on the talk page, so I didn't feel the need to discuss it before restoring it to the form which was stable for months. If someone wants to add them, please discuss first. Abu Bakr and Ali are obviously more relevant than the rest, being the first caliph and the first Imam, respectively. Cuñado - Talk 05:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Abdel Hameed Nawar (talk · contribs) has done this again without discussing it here. I'm going to revert it as a bad-faith edit (ignoring a request for discussion first). — Gareth Hughes 15:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdel Hameed, please discuss your edits before making any major changes to the article. It will save contributors (including yourselves) time. Failing to do that, i'll be obliged to lock the article untill discussions and a consensus is reached. Cheers -- Szvest 17:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Would someone be able to provide a link to the old discussion where this was decided? I've had a browse of the archives for this page but I can't seem to find it. --bainer (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Try Women, Allah as a figure, Yet another revision, and Ali AbuBakar. You'll see that it has been changed around a lot because everyone has different opinions on who is important. Regardless of what discussion has gone on, it can still be changed if you gain consensus. But I strongly disagree with adding three figures which have been added over the last few days: Umar, Uthman, and Khomeini. Ali and Abu Bakr are obvious, since they are the first caliph and the first Imam. Adding Khomeini is a joke. Cuñado - Talk 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to those discussions. I have no strong views on the issue, although I think it could be argued that Umar and Uthman should be included, perhaps not for their religious but historical significance, in expanding the caliphate, for example, or Umar for beginning serious codification of law and Uthman for organising the standardisation of the Qur'an. But that's my view as a history student, and I have no problems if people want to reserve this template more for matters of religious significance. --bainer (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali is considered the first Imam only in Shia Islam. Sunni Islam considers Ali to be only a companion of the Prophet and the fourth Caliph of Islam. For Sunni Islam, Ali is no more important than Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. So much so that many Sunni scholars consider their importance in order of their caliphate. So for them, Abu Bakr is the most important, then comes Umar, then comes Uthman, and finally Ali. Nevertheless, the four most important persons of Islam other than Muhammad are the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs — User:yasirniazkhan 14:25, 04 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, Uthman might be important to me because of the standardization. There are about 400 million people who believe the first three were usurpers who denied the expressed wishes of Muhammad for political gain. So don't try to argue that Ali is just some guy. Cuñado - Talk 01:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ali is only considered "first Imam" by the minority (i.e. shi'ites), albeit a significant minority. the majority, however, view 'Umar and Uthman as superior to Ali. it is entirely logical that the four khulafaa after Muhammad are listed in the template. is there any justifiable reason why they do not merit inclusion? ITAQALLAH 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said Ali is just some guy. In fact none of the companions of Prophet were just some guys. They were the most important people among Muslims. They were to document and carry forward the message of the Prophet. I am just trying to give a neutral opinion that Shias consider Ali to be the most important, whereas Sunnis consider him among the four most important companions of the Prophet. btw, Wikipedia says that 15% of Muslims are Shias and there are 1.4 billion Muslims, so Shias amount to 210 Million, not 400 Million, but that doesn't matter. Yasirniazkhan 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Question: will anyone object if i incorporate Umar and Uthman into the template per them being among the four well known khulaafah, as well as being a topic of controversy (esp. the former) amongst certain sects within muslim history? ITAQALLAH 06:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would have a problem. As I already stated, Abu Bakr and Ali both stand out much more prominently, and are the source of the only major division of Muslims. There are a number of other people who might be considered important, like Fatimah Zahra. If you're just trying to list all for of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, then I would just remove the names and link to Rashidun, but that is strictly a Sunni version of history. Cuñado - Talk 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont really see a problem in adding the Uthman and Umar in this template. In the regular Friday 'Khurbta' by the Imam of the prayer, we always give 4 of them the reference, so there is'nt any really objection in adding them to the Template. In my opnioin it is really necessary that we add all four of them in the list. If some one has objection , please respond. And ther is not really necessary to lock the Template. The majority of the Muslims would definately agree with my opnion Mmansoor 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is right for sure. --Islamic 06:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If some one is discrimitating and saying that Ali is like same as Abubakar, its not true. The advantage that Ali has over the other Cliphs is that he is from the family of Muhammad. As for the Calihps, all of them are of equal importance i'll put breifly about them here:

AbuBakar : Killing the Fitna and False Prophets, Zakat Collection, and keeping muslims under one flag

Umar : For creating the largest ever islami state

Usman : Writing down Quran and his pre-cliph days monetary and moral support for islam

Ali : For all of his life he worked hard, being a good fighter, and being the closest to Muhammad, and the unanmous option after the 3 caliphs

Mmansoor 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Time for Template Design Change

Hi! It is time to change the template design into an even more appealing look.

You could visit these related Wikipedia pages in other languages to see the design I'm talking about:

• http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam (in French)
• http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9D (in Hebrew)

And instead of the mosque drawing, why not use the Islamic crescent moon as the religion's symbol? (IconeIslam.png) After all, a mosque is only a mere temple to the Muslims, not officially the religion's symbol. (Wanna us guys to fix the template up before Ramadan; 9/24/06 :D)

Crescent moon is not the religion's symbol. It is the Otoman's symbol. The mosque is a better choice.--Islamic 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

PLUS! If you guys need to ask any questions with respect to Islam, I'm here, I mean you guys seem to be having problems putting down details about the religion according to your conversations here. — Qasamaan 12:50, 05 September 2006 (UTC)

please do not make significant changes to the template without first obtaining consensus. a star and crescent would certainly be inappropriate, and is not related to islam (as islami said, it was used by the uthmaanis). ITAQALLAH 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't I know that there were controversies over the crescent moon? I thought it was a mere Islamic symbol, even if not officially recognized as the Star of David to Judaism, or the Crucifix to Christianity, does. - Qasamaan 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Or could I just change the background colors (same with the mosque) instead, or would that be a bad idea? - Qasamaan 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But, if the crescent is not an Islamic symbol, as I just thought this mornin, then why are many countries (e.g. Algeria, Comoros, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Singapore, Tunisia, etc) and a few non-Turkish groups using it? That is strange, isn't it? - Qasamaan 10:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

please see [3] [4] ITAQALLAH 15:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And please read the enormous discussions at A symbol on the template, Unacceptability of star and crescent, Crescent Moon (once again), New crescent picture, image change, Image Change 2, Discussion on What Symbolizes Islam, and I think there are more. Cuñado - Talk 07:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I am a big fan of the Islamic crescent moon for this template. It is the more recognisable symbol of islam rather than an object that doesnt resemble anything. I'd not consider a source that cant complete a sentence w/o quoting religious stuff a neutral source. I'd like to point out that we can use a mosque (existing image) and the crescent moon. Template:Jew for instance features two symbols. --Cat out 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Until you read every single link I added above, I'm not going to respond, and nobody will let you change the template. Cuñado - Talk 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing Interwikis

I noticed that not all interwikis for this template are being put in place. So far, we only have three, and I learnt that there is a lot more out there in other languages. - Qasamaan 11:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Al-salamu alaykum. Listen, I already found the Hebrew interwiki for this template. You guys can help find the rest if you can. Thanks. - Qasamaan 12:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mu'tazilis

I think we should add this branch in template. They are more important than Kharijite--Sa.vakilian 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never even heard of this before. According to the page it appears to be a school of thought and not a sect or division. Try adding it to Divisions of Islam. Cuñado - Talk

I agree with you. We don't need to it. It's one of the branches of Islamic theology--Sa.vakilian 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Allah

When we click God in this template we go to Islamic concept of God, but there is a more complete article: Allah. I'd like to replace it. Also I think we can merge these two articles.--Sa.vakilian 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, used in many religions. I try to avoid using Allah altogether because it gives the impression that Allah is different from the God of other Abrahamic religions. I think Islamic concept of God was created with the purpose of fixing that problem, so I would rather see that article cleaned up instead of merged. Cuñado - Talk 00:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. The article Allah just deals with the word Allah (as it should, since it otherwise would just be a copy of the "God" article). I really don't think that's a central enough topic in Islam (the word itself that is) to merit inclusion in the template, and it certainly is not the same information as Islamic concept of God. -Elmer Clark 00:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on my idea, but at least we should add too much about Allah from Hadith, Theology and Philosophy of Islam. Because this article just contains quotations from Qur'an. --Sa.vakilian 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Islamic concept of God is a pretty poor article, but I think cleaning it up and adding to it is the best solution. -Elmer Clark 04:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Word "GOD" does not has the same meaining as 'Allah'. Its not a matter of English or Arabic, but the work 'Allah' is always translated in all the languages as 'Allah'. Mmansoor 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Islam-related violence.

Please add something about jihad to the template, considering it's the most prevalent facet of Islam doing the rounds. Cerebral Warrior 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion on what is "the most prevalent facet of Islam", but I think most educated people would disagree with you. Islamism is already linked. Cuñado - Talk 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

cleaning up

I removed a number of items that were repetitive or non-notable. Sunnah, Women in the Qur'an, and Salafism were removed. Salafism should be blatantly obvious, women in the Qur'an follows link to women in Islam, and Sunnah is not a text, law, or of much importance compared to the other entries. This template in particular tends to build up excess fat over time because people love to add to it. Cuñado - Talk 05:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunnah should come after Qur'an as the second source of Islam. It should stay there. I don't also see why "Salafism should be blatantly obvious"! --Islamic

The ranking is usually given as Qur'an, then Hadith, then Sharia. Sunnah is another word for Hadith. Salafism (Wahhabism) is one of dozens of sects or movements covered in Divisions of Islam, there is no reason why it deserves special placement on the template. Cuñado - Talk 06:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Salafism is in contrast to Sufism. Both are major branches --Islamic 07:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hadith is not always source of Sharia per se, as you have weak, fabricated, authentic etc hadeeths. sunnah denotes (perceived) authentic hadeeths, and thus would be source of shari'ah. maybe it can be written as Sunnah (Hadith) or the other way around? ITAQALLAH 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems silly to say that the two are completely different, like you said "sunnah denotes (perceived) authentic hadeeths" as if Sunnah is the name for good Hadiths, and others are questionable Hadiths. It's better to link to Hadith which explains the four levels of authenticity. Also, as an American studying ME studies in a university, I very rarely hear the word "Sunnah", but Hadiths are commonly discussed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't heard a good explanation to keep both links. Cuñado - Talk 04:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH is correct on that. Hadith is a tool for determining the Sunnah. Fiqh is based on Qur'an + Sunnah. Sharia is the islamic law and is part of the Fiqh. We can put it before Kalam since Kalam is not related to the group. --Islamic 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what should be included under 'texts and laws', why are you consistently reverting the other changes? Cuñado - Talk 03:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I already told you: Salafism is in contrast to Sufism. Both are major branches --Islamic 05:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. You're pushing it as important because that's the creed you belong to. Read over Divisions of Islam. There are literally dozens and dozens of schools of thought that deserve more show than the wahhabist brand. Cuñado - Talk 07:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't know much about this, but Sufism#Controversy_and_criticism_of_Sufism does seem to indicate that Sufism and Salafism are sort of "rival" sects, and Wahhabism, which apparently is the same as Salafism (? if so should they be merged?) says that "It is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and recently Western Iraq." That sounds pretty major to me.-Elmer Clark 11:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Salafism is the same as Wahhabism. Salafism was a few centuries older and was revived in the modern form of Wahhabism. But Wahhabis prefer to be called Salafis because they don't want to be labelled as a sect (they're true Islam, not a sect). Wahhabism is relatively new, and geographically limited to parts of Arabia. Again, this is no more important a movement than any of the four Madh'hab schools, the Shi'a Twelver sect, the Tariqah orders of sufism, including the Qadiriyyah order, Tablighi Jamaat, another revivalist movement in Islam, or in South Asia there are movements and sects that I assume far outnumber the Wahhabists such as the Deobandi or Barelwi. Cuñado - Talk 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Figures

User Islami is bascially inserting non-islami views and he is not aware of the facts. Just keeps on removing the Households from the box. does he dont know while reciting the darood we also say "salawaat on Alehey."

protect

Is anyone in favor of having the template locked by an administrator to prevent User:Islami's constant reverts to the template? Cuñado - Talk 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary when there's only one user doing the vandalism. I left him a message on his talk page; if he ignores it the best course of action would be to bring it up somewhere on the Administrators' noticeboard. -Elmer Clark 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree that this box should be administered by some Moderator. User:Islami is reverting this box according to his own sect which is not acceptable to all of Islamic sects. Wikipedia should have views from all the sects and not limited User:Islami's sect. This person keeps on ignoring some important info. 202.63.229.194 06:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am entering the phrase Household of Muhammad in the Major figures section. Everytime i enter it that section he reverts my changes. This is maybe because he does not have any good sentiments towards the Households. 202.63.229.194 06:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Get our of here. I do not object the inclusion of Household of Muhammad --Islamic 06:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I requested comments on this because User:Islami and I have been reverting each other from October 10 to present (17 days). It comes from a dispute on what include in the section titled "Texts and Laws" on this template. For a long time it looked like this:

Qur'an • Sunnah • Hadith 
 Jurisprudence •  Theology 
  Biographies of Muhammad 
 Sharia

I cleaned it up and now I'm advocating showing it like this:

Qur'an • Hadith • Sharia 
  Jurisprudence • Theology 
 Biographies of Muhammad

While Islami is reverting to this:

Qur'an • Sunnah (Hadith) 
 Jurisprudence • Sharia 
 Biographies of Muhammad 
 Theology

The main issue is:

• I removed Sunnah because I feel it is repetitious to have Sunnah and Hadith both, and I was trying to reduce overlinking in the template. Islami insists that "Hadith is a tool for determining the Sunnah", in other words, Sunnah is what Muhammad did, said, and approved of, and Hadiths are stories passed down and collected about what Muhammad did, said, and approved of. Hadiths, in their own right, are divided into four categories based on authenticity (agreed upon, authentic, fair, and weak).

The other issues related to the reverting are inconsequential. Islami was proposing to keep a link to his particular brand of Islam on the template. Cuñado - Talk 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• RfC Response: Neither of you seem to dispute the inclusion of both the Hadith link and the Sunnah link, so the real issue here is layout. Now, if the two categories are so intricately tied together, it would seem to me that Islami's version makes more sense since from my understanding the Hadith is a part of the Sunnah. Unless there's a valid reason to keep them separate based on their actual definitions, I support Islami's version of the template.