Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

WikiProject Islam (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam: ·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2021-02-23

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Mohammed Amine Smaili[]

This stub has been tagged for several issues for over ten years! Bearian (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I see JorgeLaArdilla has already helped with a lot of the issues. Thanks Jorge! VR talk 01:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Fatimah bint Asad[]

Hello. I am working on Fatimah bint Asad. Could you please name some other reliable sources I could use improving this article? Thanks.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)



So the Wahhabism page has been locked for the next 3 days due to warring. When I looked over the history, significant s have been made that either point to a problem with how the article was previously or how the article looks now. Hoping some ors with knowledge of the topic might have some time to take a look and see which way is up. I can wade through sources but don't really have a framework to properly evaluate. Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 6 § File:Manqabat-e-Qari Muslehuddin.jpg[]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 6 § File:Manqabat-e-Qari Muslehuddin.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal system of Saudi Arabia[]

There’s a new user at Legal system of Saudi Arabia that’s made this change x3 both as an IP and under their new account. There is a POV there but I can’t actually figure out what it is - there’s a talk page discusion I’ve been having with them but I’m none the wiser what they’re up to. Their s are a mixture of being unsourced and against the inline citations, poor English or just don’t make sense, or using as a source a website called which looks non-RS/SELFPUB. The issue itself revolves (I think) around what will be quite an obscure topic for most people: whether Saudi Arabia uses Hanbali, one of four Islamic (Sunni) legal schools of thought (known as Maddhab), in its law courts or whether it should be described as Wahhabism which is certainly the dominant religious movement in the country. I’ve not seen any sources that say Saudi’s law courts don’t follow Hanbali. It’s a low traffic article and on obscure topic hence I’m trying to get other inputs. That’s a bit of a long shot I know but if anyone one is inclined, please take a look. (I’ll post this at a couple of other Wikiprojects). DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: this is not a subject I fully understand so I am trying to get a handle on his perspective. I think he is saying that Salafi was so iconoclastic that it totally and utterly undermined the pre-existent Hanafi order in SA and that the current article doesn't tend to reflect this? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
yes (I think you mean Hanbali not Hanafi), since posting the above I think I’m a little clearer: I think that’s what he’s trying to say. He needs to support that with WP:RS though. it’s a particular POV criticism of Saudi Arabia. I think he’s saying Wahhabism doesn’t accept XYZ, Hanbalis do accept XYZ ergo Wahhabis aren’t Hanbalis. The problem is (a) At best it’s WP:SYNTH - it would need a source to make that specific point and connect the dots to the legal system at Saudi Arabia (b) currently it’s just pure WP:OR - as far as I can ascertain it’s unsourced (c) the overwhelming opinion of mainstream RS is that Saudi Arabia is “just” Hanbali. I’ve put the sources on the talk page. If an RS can be found which supports his POV it might be worth an additional sentence saying that there’s a view that SA is not classic/orthodox (for want of a better word) Hanbali or that it’s moved away from Hanbali, but that doesn’t justify deleting references to Hanbali or saying Saudi Arabia is not Hanbali at all. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
OK - I need to research Wahhabism and the Qur'ān (Brill Encyclopaedia of the Qur'ān volume five Si – Z) My bad, you are correct: Hanbali not Hanafi. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem! Quite a good way of getting caught up on the background is this Chapter (chapter 3) of Natana J. DeLong-Bas’s 2008 book on Wahhabism. Her book is quasi-controversial (doesn’t call out the Wahhabis as much as some would like) but quite accessible and I don’t think that chapter was part of the controversy. :) DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok - found some sources on Wahhabi/Hanbali divergence and added to article. DeCausa (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)