when searched Qur'an,at the first passage in wikipedia for arabic word sura , the engilsh was given suwar which represents pig in hindi. i would like to request get it reviewed and corrected please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.205.105 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VenusFeuerFalle! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:49, Saturday, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for paying attention and pointing out that the reference I used said Essay. This was a mistake on my end. I used a citation machine to generate the citation and I picked Essay by mistake. The book is instead an acedemic book that is written by a specialized scholar about the names of God.

The mistake is now fixed.

Thanks for the help!

Yousof YousofSulaiman (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Thank you very much for being civil about it. Many Users see reverts as a personal attack. In most cases, as annoying as reverts might be, are just to protect a neutral viewpoint. If we were to allow essay, master-thesis, self-published sources etc., even if their claims are correct, we run danger into waddling into WP:OR. Therefore, we prioritize the quality of publishing over the actual claims of the sources. Not paying attention to the creditablity is a common mistake even done by experienced editors, especially when the editor is familiar with a topic, they might mistake "correct" sources with authentic ones. Recently I had my edits on demon reverted, because I accidently used an unreliable source for a huge part on Zorastrian demons. It is frustrating, but it needs to be done. I want to let you know that your efforts and ambitions are very much appreciate. with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your helpful comments throughout the GA review of Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Harut and Marut and Talk:Harut and Marut/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Harut and Marut for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted some minor changes I made in the introduction of the Sharia article. The purpose of these changes was; Emphasizing the abstract meaning of sharia and thus making the reader understand why fiqh and Ahkam are discussed in the following sentences and not sharia, logical flow, second The expression "qualified jurists" used for muftis, of course I know what this means, but for an encyclopedia, this definition is not a statement that can be taken absolute neutrally. and so on... Thank you for your interestNGC 628 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not respond to my previous discussion and reverted my later, more far-reaching changes for one simple reason. First of all, I thought you were an arrogant person. But I see that this behavior is related to you being extremely busy. If you want progress regarding the article, discuss it, go into detail, avoid personal and relative evaluations and follow wikipedia policies or, more clearly, go by giving a reason through Wikipedia policies. If you don't have time to do these, you can stop taking ownership of the articles and wait for others to make progress.NGC 628 (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the late reply, I am indeed oftne busy, and mostly on Wikipedia in my free-time. I do enjoy editing articles. One can learn new thigns and share knowledge with others, idealistically making the world a bit better, and I am happy to see like-minded people.

Regarding the reverts, first I am sorry if you feel overlooked. It was not my intention to ignore any request. Regarding the edits, there was soemthing I thought as a disimporvement of quality.

On the contrary, fiqh, which includes source criticism especially on hadiths and decree methods such as meaning and logical inference of the text, refers to the interpretations of Islamic scholars;^[1][2][3] ahkam, practical application side of sharia, in a sense,^[4] refers to the results reached by scholars with these sources and intellectual methods they use. Fatwas, on the other hand, consist of religious decisions made by muftis on specific issues

is not better than

Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's immutable divine law and this referencing is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its interpretations by Islamic scholars.^[1][2][3] Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning,^[5][6] and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges,^[1][3] integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers.^[7]

Other parts of your edits were actually helpful such as

As can be seen in many examples, classification is relative. For example, believing in the existence and miracles of Awliya is presented as a "condition" for orthodox Islam by many prominent Sunni creed writers such as Al-Tahawi and Nasafi^[8][9] and is accepted in traditional Sunnis and Shi'ism. However, this understanding, along with expressions of respect and visits to the graves of saints, are seen as unacceptable heresy by puritanical and revivalist Islamic movements such as Salafism, Wahhabism and Islamic Modernism.^[10]

Although they might need a bit of rephrasing. It is not "relative", but "subjective". However, I could have done this without revert. Nonetheless, I do not see an improvement in your edits of the lead-section. Furthermore, if there is further dispute, I would like to discuss this on the talkpage, since it is more likely that other editors might see it overwhere and can interfere their opinions on that matter.

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Once any of my contributions are published, they are no longer mine. If you don't find it useful, you can take it back. However, what you consider unimportant may be important for people living in different geographies. It would be beneficial for the article to progress if you explain it in detail and open it up for discussion if necessary.NGC 628 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"However, what you consider unimportant may be important for people living in different geographies. It would be beneficial for the article to progress if you explain it in detail and open it up for discussion if necessary."

fair point. THe one quote I posted, nonetheless, was not a matter of geographic disagreements. This is why I am confident, this is not an improvement. Sharia was never a uniform or codified scripture-like set of rules, and never limited to the Quran and Sunnah alone. It is the favored approach in contemporary times (some also add the founder fathers of the Sunni madhabs), but we cannot make anachronistic claims in an article, especially not in the lead-section. Please note, that we do not want to claim which interpretation should be favored, nor do we want to list all interpretations possible (they would be too many), but limit ourselves to what reliable sources have to say on that matter. When historicans agree that Sharia was not a codified law until the 18th or 19th Century (do not remember the exact date), we cannot give it equal weight than to the opinion of Muslim jurists arguing that "sharia was always Quran and Sunnah alone and the rest is a deviation". Such claims are "intra-religious" and rest more on beliefs than historical data. This does not even mean that the intra-religious opinions are correct, they ultimately rely on the findings not only about written sources, but also societies. As you brought up, the consensus might even shift depending on geographical region. Nonetheless, on Wikipedia, we regard academic consensus as the guideline, and if you are aware of both the possibilities and the limitations, it can be a very helpful tool. Yet, it is, of course not infallable. For example, Wikipedia is, as a tertiary source, the last source updated. New results will first be pulbished in secondary sources, while the primary sources might ahve existed long ago, and only afterthat, then we as Wikipedians discover the secondary sources, it finds its way to Wikipedia. I want to take your advise too heart and have a better eye on reverts especially when I am in a hurry. Wikipedia is done best, when one is relaxed.

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I believe that those who make contributions to Wikipedia by writing and those who retract these contributions with good and correct reasons provide equal service. In this respect, I see every action as a positive contribution. Another point is that with Wikipedia, we, and perhaps the whole society that benefits from it, can benefit from what is written mentally and improve understanding. In my opinion, the most important condition for this is that, in addition to impartiality, "different opinions" are presented without disrupting harmony, taking into account their weights, and especially in an understandable manner.

The issues you mentioned in response will be more understandable to me if you go through concrete examples. For example, it would be useful if you exemplify an anachronism or other problems you detect in my contributions.

Regards from me too.NGC 628 (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply and I wholeheartedly agree. I want to check the exat edits to provide an example as soon as I have time, to give an appropriate reply. Currently, I am having a strict schedule again. (strictly speaking, I writing this while working)

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I finally found time (and energy for a reply).

I think my issue was that this part was undone

Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning,^[11][12] and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges,^[1][3] integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers.^[7]

I think the part with customary law is important, since there was no codified sharia, and Quran and Hadiths rather aided than defined "Sharia Law" in pre-Modern times. I apologize if it was just moved, but I could not find it in the alternative version. Maybe it was also removed by accident (this happens often during larger edits).

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase that bothered me in terms of impartiality in this section was the phrase "qualified jurists". I took it away and you brought it back.(with last change) NGC 628 (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you object about "qualified jurists"? To derive rulings for the Sharia, one had to be qadi or faqih. A non-qualified scholary opinion has no value in Islamic jurisprudence. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Qualified" may be the right word to indicate a degree, but it is also an honorific adjective, which may not be appropriate for Wikipedia's neutrality policies.NGC 628 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that "qualified" is used as a honorific, it is pretty much a technical term, just like "authorized exegesis" in reference to "tafsir". In contrast, everyone is doing "exegesis" by reading the Quran, since interpretation is unavoidable, but it has no authority. However, neither "qualified" nor "authority" are honorifics, and I cannot recall anyone using the term to honor anyone. What terminology would fit better in your opinion? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, only mufti or "Islamic legal theorist" would be an appropriate phrase.NGC 628 (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But is a mufti not exactly that? A "qualified" jurist? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct but mufti is not only a scholar but also kind of a preacher. We should avoid using "qualified" for muftis, priests etc. it closes all doors of criticism. as bias do exist, whether you like it or not. for eg: we don't say qualified priests said this about their religious scriptures so others research is irrelevant or non qualified. third person/source who has neutrally studied the scriptures is generally more reliable and qualified in this scenario 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you are NGC but not logged in? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who wrote it, but it caught another person's attention.NGC 628 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was just confused. Then I will just ignore them, until they add something to the discussion.

What do you think about the distiction between a qualified jurist and a mufti? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether a qualified jurist and a mufti are the same thing, or the quality of the muftis. The use of a word with an honorific meaning for a person or group poses a problem in terms of Wikipedia neutrality. I don't want to discuss this issue any further. If you have no objection, I can correct the article. Even if there are, it may be more beneficial to discuss it with other people who are interested in the subject.NGC 628 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page jaguar) But surely "jurist", esp. "qualified jurist", and also words like "professor", are also in some sense "honorifics". Neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view", meaning we can't use any word of import for anyone. Remsense诉 07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted accurately "in some sense"NGC 628 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with "some senses"? I do not want to transgress, but do you understand the language we are communicating? Some of your replies would make sense if you use aid from a translator or AI, as a lot of your replies are completely out of context. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have been helpful if you were using the talkpage of the article instead of my personal talkpage. As I said before, "qualified jurist" is no honorific in the English language, but an adjective describing a subject. Therefore, I do not follow your arguement as it rests on wrong assumptions. Comparably, "authorized exegetes of the Quran" is a preferred translation for "mufassirun". Following your arguement, "authorized" would be a "honorific" as well, but it is not. It is simply a translation or a description Further, I do not see how this violates a neutral viewpoint, since it is an objective statement that they are "qualified" to make such statements within the system they are operating in. If you want to close the discussion, it is fine by mean, but this means status quo remains and you edits are not accepted, since you failed to reach a consensus. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested for a third opinion regarding the dispute in WikiProject Islam here ☆SuperNinja2☆ 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any dispute listed. Has the dispute been resolved already? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you broke several citations with that last (but very needed) edit. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out, I do my best to repair what I ahve broken, needs some time since I also want to update the Islam section. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. Figured you weren't done. Didn't want to make edit conflicts... Skyerise (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for saying something without knowledge about the word sura and suwar 2400:C600:337D:6F7E:1:0:17B6:FA01 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @VenusFeuerFalle! I saw that you recently reverted my edit here. The change I made basically rephrased the narrative according to the Hadith provided in the source: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2880. The Sunan al-Tirmidhi is one of the authentic sources of hadith; the hadith which narrates the story mentioned in the article does not say that the Ghul promised Abu Ayyub al-Ansari to teach the Ayat Al-Kursi, rather it says that the Ghul told him the benefit of reciting the Ayat Al-Kursi. This would be the most authentic source we can get for this story, if you want me to have a look at some other source, like which you mentioned in your edit summary, then please do so. If not, I would request you to please undo your edit. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow users to conduct research on their own. YOu can take from my main-page: "Original Research: Wikipedia gathers researched information together, but does not do research itself. Doing research yourself (Original Research) is a great thing in science, but not in writing an encyclopedia. Remember what the project is about creating an encyclopedia, not a promoting your research findings."

You edit further had a lot of typos. If the current source is a primary source as well, you are free to remove this part entirely. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there @VenusFeuerFalle. With all due respect, I am aware about Wikipedia's policies on original research. I find your opening statement, Wikipedia does not allow users to conduct research on their own, confusing. I do not consider the current source as a primary source since it is a Hadith that was preserved more than a thousand years ago. Furthermore, you are not addressing my concern. The source/hadith does not imply anywhere that the Ghul promised to teach Ayat Al-Kursi to anyone; if you read the source, you can easily interpret that the Ghul talked about the benefits of reciting Ayat Al-Kursi, rather than promising to teach it. You also mentioned that my edit had a "lot of" typos, from what i can see is that in my edit I misspelled 'information' as 'inofrmation'. Your reply here also has a "lot of" grammatical errors which I can point to. Anyways, I am editing the article as I see fit. If you can sufficiently address my concerns, I will revert myself. Until then, please don't revert my edit without proper explanation. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that there are no concerns about the statement being backed up by a primary source, I have replaced it with a better one. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, it is indeed much better and helps to keep WP:NPOV. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request for a third opinion on Talk:Jinn#Belief_in_jinn_and_belief_in_Islam has been made at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog

I came here from WP:3O to confirm whether VFF is communicated about WP:3O listing. I respect both of you as good WP editors.

I do have following suggestions to facilitate better discussion, and inputs by other users.

• Separate edit disagreements issue by issue - and preferably number them to understand how many content disagreement exists.
• Provide issue wise synopsis mentioning edit dif, Which sentence one user wants and the alternate competing suggestion by other user; why does it matter to either side; What are the policies and guidelines useful to provide inputs.
• I suppose WP:Edit summary is usually brief statement to indicate what the edit is about and many times may not suffice as sufficient synopsis to understand the issue for other Wikipedia users.

I hope and wish issues get amicably sorted out in near future. Wish you happy editing to both of you. Bookku (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]