User talk:Afghana~enwiki/ConstitutionIslam
Let's get to work![edit]
Be bold, make the changes you think need to be made, and add the things you know need to be added. --Enzuru 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Prophets in Shia Islam[edit]
I admit I am not positive of this, but I'm pretty sure mainstream Shia Islam prohibits images of the Prophet as well, though not necessarily images of Imams. I have to admit really my knowledge of Shia Islam is limited to the Twelver school of thought for the most part, I am fairly unfamiliar with most other Shia schools. Can anyone provide sources confirming or denying this? Peter Deer (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, mainstream Shi'a Islam, meaning Usuli Twelver Shi'a Islam, does not prohibit pictures of either Prophets (AS) or Imams (AS). This issue was confusing to me at first too, so don't worry. Please see Ayatollah Sistani's website for example. The next two largest branches, the Alevi and Nizari also allow pictures of the Imams (AS), but I am not sure of the Prophet (AS), but most likely they do, it simply has not be exercised much because of the Sunni taboo. --Enzuru 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reading the Grand Ayatollah Sistani's site, there appears to be some conflict here. Examples from his Q&A: "it is necessary to refrain from drawing a sculptured picture of a living being"; but it also says (in response to the question of whether it is permissible to draw the Prophet) "If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem." I find this is confusing, in what respect is it forbidden to draw, but drawing the Prophets and Imams is allowed? I must be misunderstanding this somehow. Peter Deer (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- 3D images, ie sculptures, are prohibited. 2D images are not. --Enzuru 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was referring to drawing in that particular question. Peter Deer (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it is either a bad translation or referring to drawing something that looks specifically like a sculpture. You could look around other parts of the site. Unfortunately, it'll be a pain to dig around other marja websites, especially Khamenei's. --Enzuru 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly trust your knowledge of Usuli jurisprudence above my cursory conceptions, but I try to be empiricist in my religious investigation, so don't be of the impression that this is doubt of your character. :) Peter Deer (talk)
- Thank you, always better doubt than be mislead. :) --Enzuru 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly trust your knowledge of Usuli jurisprudence above my cursory conceptions, but I try to be empiricist in my religious investigation, so don't be of the impression that this is doubt of your character. :) Peter Deer (talk)
- I believe it is either a bad translation or referring to drawing something that looks specifically like a sculpture. You could look around other parts of the site. Unfortunately, it'll be a pain to dig around other marja websites, especially Khamenei's. --Enzuru 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was referring to drawing in that particular question. Peter Deer (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- 3D images, ie sculptures, are prohibited. 2D images are not. --Enzuru 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reading the Grand Ayatollah Sistani's site, there appears to be some conflict here. Examples from his Q&A: "it is necessary to refrain from drawing a sculptured picture of a living being"; but it also says (in response to the question of whether it is permissible to draw the Prophet) "If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem." I find this is confusing, in what respect is it forbidden to draw, but drawing the Prophets and Imams is allowed? I must be misunderstanding this somehow. Peter Deer (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Shia Islam[edit]
I know this has been discussed many times but I am still not seeing a definite conclusion one way or another whether it should be Shia or Shi'a. Peter Deer (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I invited Cunado, the expert on transliteration. I'm hoping he'll work something out with us. --Enzuru 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds great, Cunado's a cool guy. Peter Deer (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am also interested in this, since I study linguistics. Seeing Shia grates on me, but Shi'a isn't much better. We don't represent the ever-present ˤ in most words. I usually lean towards Shi'a, because Shia just seems really incorrect. Looking forward to Cuñado's input... em zilch (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so no response from Cuñado. Shia seems really incorrect, I reckon we should use Shi'a. In articles, I often move to scholarly standard (Shī‘a), but for article titles and when writing without moving to same, Shi'a is waaaay better than Shia. I honestly don't even see "Shia" very often... it's one of the words where the ‘ayin seems to be regularly represented, at least by common usage in the respectable news agency and writers on Islam. Should we take a straw poll?
- I am willing, and I am sure many others, to go with whatever you decide. The fact is there is correct transliteration, and incorrect transliteration. It isn't necessarily even up to opinion. Cuñado gave a good lecture on this before, where he used an actual correct transliteration of the word. However, as we realized before, we aren't supposed to just use transliteration, since Shi'a/Shi'ite/Whatever is now an English word.
- I've wandered off. You are the linguist here, and I don't know anyone who would really, besides Cuñado, have any knowedgable input. So I'd rather you just decide. To be honest anyway, no one here likes "Shia" anyway, it is just disgusting. The real controversy comes to if we should use "Shi'a" or something that takes ten keystrokes to write. We can take a poll on that if you'd like. --Enzuru 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so no response from Cuñado. Shia seems really incorrect, I reckon we should use Shi'a. In articles, I often move to scholarly standard (Shī‘a), but for article titles and when writing without moving to same, Shi'a is waaaay better than Shia. I honestly don't even see "Shia" very often... it's one of the words where the ‘ayin seems to be regularly represented, at least by common usage in the respectable news agency and writers on Islam. Should we take a straw poll?
- I am also interested in this, since I study linguistics. Seeing Shia grates on me, but Shi'a isn't much better. We don't represent the ever-present ˤ in most words. I usually lean towards Shi'a, because Shia just seems really incorrect. Looking forward to Cuñado's input... em zilch (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds great, Cunado's a cool guy. Peter Deer (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Straw Poll: Use Shi'a?[edit]
Very Strongly Support - Shia is awkward and less common; most modern reputable publications seem to use Shi'a. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Very Strongly Support Shia is aesthetically reprehensible, and no major publications use it. --Enzuru 23:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Imam capitalization[edit]
How are we supposed to capitalize it? I don't think we're following normal English by always capitalizing it? --Enzuru 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- In general in English you would just capitalize it if that specific Shi'a Imam's name immediately follows the word "imam". Like the word doctor, you would write either Doctor Jones or doctor. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is something that should be discussed and eventually addressed in the MOS. Peter Deer (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- For some reason, me and all the other Shi'a editors have always capitalized Imam. I have no idea why. "In Ismailism, the Imam is seen as the face of Allah." Why does that not look right in small case? --Enzuru 04:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note, even in your post MezzoMezzo, shouldn't it be Shi'a imam, like American president? --Enzuru 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I always use Imam for 12er Shi'a infallibles and others like Sevener living Imams. If they have the "spark" they are capitalised; if they are prayer leaders or a religious source, I call them an imam. I avoid honorifics so the issue of a Sunni imam ("Imam Barhah") wouldn't be an issue. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Does this have basis in grammar? I can't wrap my head around it. --Enzuru 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I always use Imam for 12er Shi'a infallibles and others like Sevener living Imams. If they have the "spark" they are capitalised; if they are prayer leaders or a religious source, I call them an imam. I avoid honorifics so the issue of a Sunni imam ("Imam Barhah") wouldn't be an issue. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note, even in your post MezzoMezzo, shouldn't it be Shi'a imam, like American president? --Enzuru 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- For some reason, me and all the other Shi'a editors have always capitalized Imam. I have no idea why. "In Ismailism, the Imam is seen as the face of Allah." Why does that not look right in small case? --Enzuru 04:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is something that should be discussed and eventually addressed in the MOS. Peter Deer (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding unacceptable sources[edit]
I'd like to see this well defined. For example, if we have Shaykh Such-n-Such's web site and he is from Such-n-Such tradition, obviously that site wouldn't really be a neutral source to be writing about other traditions within Islaam or issues in which there is a dispute. But for example, if an article contains something about Such-n-Such tradition's position on an issue, does the source become acceptable then? Or do we still want to avoid using such things? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- When it comes to viewpoints, in general we can stick to notable individuals. For example, I believe saying "there are fatwas" and then linking to the fatwas is original research. Rather, we need a source that says there are fatwas in regards to whatever issues. Now, if we say a certain brand name scholar said this, then of course then we could link. For hate sites that are against whatever your favourite apostate group is, they generally have nothing that can be linked to aside from original research, ie, Muslim Group A hates Muslim Group B, am I correct? --Enzuru 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:ISLAM#Reference_Materials for general guidelines about the sourcing we should use. Everyone agrees that academic material in peer reviewed publications should be used primarily. There is dispute over whether more religious-oriented sources should be used (i.e. whether it is acceptable to use The Sealed Nectar in biographical articles) - so we tend to stay away from such sources as we can build scholarly, comprehensive articles quite easily based upon extensive use of the former. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No honorifics[edit]
I have different viewpoint about using some words. In my view WP:MOSISLAM is completely secular and against NPOV approach. I proposed a new proposal here but we couldn't reach consensus.
non-sectarianism[edit]
I completely disagree in this case with Itaqallah. I think his edition is biased and he has similar belief about my editions. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hadith[edit]
As I added some time ago and nobody has opposed(here), it's good idea to add Qur'an and Hadith to clarify the issue, but not as a main source.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)