.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

WikiProject Islam (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2021-02-23


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Chapters in the Quran

The 114 articles about 114 surahs in the Quran are some of the worst POV-filled articles in the encyclopedia and the present status of sourcing is almost never compliant with WP:HISTRS. I will be trimming all the articles, leaving only the lead and properly sourced parts. If you have objections, please note. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Can you detail what sort of issues you see? And why do you WP:HISTRS on articles that are not about history, but rather religion?VR talk 18:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Abdul Hakeem Azhari#Requested move 1 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Abdul Hakeem Azhari#Requested move 1 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 02:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Khadija bint Khuwaylid#Requested move 30 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Khadija bint Khuwaylid#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 02:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Marawi#Requested move 10 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Marawi#Requested move 10 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 09:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 30 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.VR talk 18:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Help needed on Umm Qirfa antti islamic properganda

This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from editing by having the wikipedia page protected and even after lengthy talks in the talk page with a admin c.fred and ratnahattin not even ratnahastin could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?

My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consensus before its done?

Tolwol56 plays the same tactics as ratna and accuse me of another user exil who reverted his edits I am not exil but if he keeps playing this game I can accuse him to be ratna is he so eager to use his version and same accusation?

His new accusations is that the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.

Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?

https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/

So can anyone deal with this here is the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umm_Qirfa here is my edit whicvh was reverted after a month long period of no new accusation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1044995801

Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 00:05, 23 Sep 2021 (UTC)

That article is a mess and doesn't cite reliable and secondary sources. The current sources are mere translations of WP:primary Islamic texts, therefore unsuitable to establish notability or due-ness.VR talk 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Question from Wikidata

On Wikidata we have recently gotten a property for madhhab (P9929). Currently the only allowed values are Hanafi, Hanbalism, Malikism, Shafi`i, Isma'ilism, Ja'fari, Zaidiyyah, Ibadi, Ẓāhirī and Al-Mawardi

Does the members of WikiProject Islam have any suggestions for improvements? Which value do you think should be allowed and not allowed? King regards--Trade (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Islam in Finland has an RFC

Islam in Finland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for inputs

A Peer review request has been made for article Islamic marriage contract to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tafsir ibn Kathir#Requested move 7 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tafsir ibn Kathir#Requested move 7 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 20:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Society of Baltimore needs revision!

Assalamu alaikum, can some one please check the controversy part of the Islamic Society of Baltimore. Seems like they have omitted a couple of information in the sources they had given. I think it needs to be edited thoroughly. Particularly the edits by Tim [history)] I reverted those but on closer inspection i think the wording have been biased. for example i mentioned in his talk page that

I believe there are valid concerns as to why some of the sections were deleted. For example its mentioned a couple of times that Washington Times (in particular, oh i just realised its not Bezos' The Washington Post ) and Fox network accuses the Organisation of terror associations because the imam had supported the Muslim Brotherhood, but it mentions only once that the imam had "cut relations with the group in 1992." I find the section needing some thorough editing even though I reverted Tim's edit earlier. Let it be put on the record for future viewers that i am giving Tim a clean chit for the time being ie he has made reasonable deletion and that some edits needs to be re-edited. The "Controversies section" has been deeply cited by News articles by the way. Moreover there's a couple part left out
"But he told the Post in that same article they had cut ties to the Muslim Brotherhood abroad and “we don't receive an order from any organization abroad, and [they] have no authority to tell us what to do." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/baltimore-mosque-set-for-obama-visit-has-controversial-ties
My overall verdict is there needs to be thorough editing

Can some one help me out as i am still a new editor. Thanks --LostCitrationHunter (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I've started a discussion at Talk:Islamic Society of Baltimore, please add your concerns there.VR talk 22:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

History task force

Assalamu Alaikum. i think the Historical department need more attention. Ahendra (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)