Talk:Ramadan (month)

Comment

The sentence, "However, it is an ordinary month for non-Muslims that live in the countries that use the Islamic calendar." seems a bit superflous to me. Perhaps it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.234.160 (talk) 02:15, 2005 December 24 (UTC)

Comment deleted. Next time, sign your post with four consecutive tidles (~~~~) joturner 02:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger?

Since ramadan is in fact not a holiday but just the month, why does this page exist? why is this information not on the same page as the other ramadan entry? i didnt see any discussion on the issue. it just doesnt make sense to me. Yung Wei 19:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Ramadan. The split was the result of a long discussion in December 2005. However, feel free to request a merger; I'd probably even support it. -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ten days

"Each year, Ramadan begins ten days earlier than in the previous year." How often have I heard that! But it's not true, as the table shows. Some years it occurs eleven days earlier than the previous year, and occasionally twelve. I'm hesitant to change the statement myself, considering that the cited source also makes the claim, but I find the inaccuracy unsettling. Unfree (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can Ramadam start twice in the same year?

If it's 10 days earlier than the previous year, is it possible, that in one calendar year, there could be a start of Ramadan in January and December? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.35.159 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can start twice in one calender year.Eiad77 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"one of the holy months"

what are the other ones?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Does the claim that Ramadan is "the month in which the Qur'an was revealed." break NPOV? Shouldn't it be "the month in which, Muslims believe, the Qur'an was revealed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.253.132 (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Your proposal is equally biased. "by tradition" could do. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some qualifier would be in place, and I do not think that the IP's proposal is biased. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Operation Badr

Not sure if this even belongs in the event section, but if it's included it should at least be accurate. The war was not a comprehensive defeat of Egypt as previously stated.Eiad77 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

but with Egypt regaining foothold on the occupied land and an overall Egyptian political success? funny if that is a success i don't know what failure is....why does this sentance have to be there at all just link it to the yom kippur war page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.16.91 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

these are the signs which allah said ..mushrik use to ask type of questions so, brothers and sistersits written in quran so how much is provided u should follow that much only — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.97.116.100 (talk) 18:14, 2012 August 2 (UTC)

A cut and paste from the Mohammed talk page about PBUH

This discussion did not occur here it was on the Mohammed article page

honorific -Difference between Prophet Muhammed and Politicians (ie Thatcher)?

Why should Margaret Thatcher honorific have here honorific (Right Honourable) but not the prophet?

Furthermore, "Right Honorable" is a title for Margaret Thatcher, not just an honorific, and that title comes from her profession, like "Doctor" would. The fact that it happens to be in her infobox doesn't mean it belongs there, and doesn't imply anything about any other infobox. Muhammad had no title associated with his profession, no title during his lifetime except possibly "prophet". SAW and PBUH are not titles, they are honorifics, and we don't use honorifics.

See also:

• Our guideline on this, WP:PBUH.
• Extensive archived discussion on honorifics in the Muhammad infobox: Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Titles in infobox
• Even more extensive archived discussion on honorifics in infoboxes in general, not just Muhammad: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Titles in Infoboxes

All of those things led to the infobox we have today, according to Amatulić on the talk page.

end of cut and paste.

That is why I did the revert on August 18, 2012. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And you did well. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome, Debresser My regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Northern countries, long days

Sunrise to sunset can be very long in Northern parts of the world (even 24h, with midnight sun!), how do muslims living there typically cope with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.183.0.36 (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

The article is missing both 1st (eg. Quran and Hadith) and 2nd-3rd level references. For example, in the first paragraph I've added the ambiguous phrase "according to common faith" for lack of a relevant reference. Also, referring to the homepage of the government of Pakistan (citation No. 6 in the current version of the article) is hardly specific enough for anything. François Robere (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Health and education issues

Both health and education issues have been criticized. Should be included. --Rævhuld (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A citation needs a source--publication and page number/

That is the basic needed to provide a ci and source. Until then you just might as well grab smoke and smear it on paper and call that your source. It is nit the reader's responsibility to justify your claims. WP needs a publication name and a page number. At resent that is lacking. the CI links back to a WP article. Again, it is not theresponsibility of the reader to determine wher your CI/source came from. PERIOD. All eleven times this is included in WP articles.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"The reference contains a link, but the reference is not the link." You are going to have to provide a better route to the source. Just pointing at a book is enough to fulfill your obligation as a contributor to WP or fulfill the fundamental grounds of historical accuracy or testing.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

All eleven times the one "quote" is used in WP articles.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

" Al-Haakim, Naim ibn Hammad, Kitab Al-Fitan " is cited as the source but "Kitab Al-Fitan" is a SEE ALSO on WP article "Naim ibn Hammad" which is also a redirect from "Kitab Al-Fitan". There is no WP Article on "Al-Haakim" so what is the CI except a merry go round in circles?2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I really don’t know all months island what I gonna do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C46:4600:F98:1502:A7F4:65DC:5ED0 (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Temporarily Remove Hadith Section

This section is confusing for a variety of reasons:

1. The hadith subject matter seems to contradict the common practice of saying "Ramadan Mubarak" and "Ramadan Kareem" mentioned in the other Ramadan page.

2. Additionally, there is a large corpus of hadith across other hadith books that simply state "Ramadan" instead of "the month of Ramadan."

3. These hadith are considered weak or daif.

A few additional notes:

Sunnah.com is an aggregator of hadith from a variety of hadith compilations. They're methodology and information can be found here.

I know YouTube is not an accepted resource, but I included it to show at least one well known Islamic scholar, Omar Suleiman considers this hadith to be weak.

Weak hadith are not considered valid for use.

I am working on sourcing a copy of Al-Bayhaqi's Sunnan al-Kubra or a commentary on it to make up for the YouTube reference.

In the meantime, to prevent confusion during the upcoming month of Ramadan, could we temporarily remove this section?

I apologize for the formatting. This is my first time using a talk page. Aelarth (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aelarth: Given that the existing text is sourced (although only one source), then it is not enough that a Wikipedia editor doesn't accept its validity: better sources need to be produced that confirm that what you say is true. Note that Wikipedia articles are not themselves acceptable citations but the sources they contain certainly are. In the meantime I have tagged the section as {{disputed}}: if you can find the more reliable sources that declare these hadith to be 'weak' and the existing text has received no convincing support by the end of the month, then you may go ahead and delete it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aelarth: These arguments are not very good at all. "The hadiths contradict common practice so they should be removed"? Really? Since when does people not following a religious text render the text wrong, as opposed to the other way around? If that’s the case, then we would also have to censor half the Islamic articles on Wikipedia.

The hadiths being called "weak" or "daif" according to Ilm al-Rijal is also not a good argument, because Ilm al-Rijal grading is subjective, not objective. It involves judging the list of people who report the hadith and then judging their personal character, including whether or not their religion is agreeable, whether or not they are famous, where and when they lived, if they had any conflicts with other Muslims (including political conflicts), etc. For this reason, what one Ilm al-Rijal scholar says is "weak" or "daif" is called "authentic" or "sahih" by another scholar, and these contradictory gradings are very common. There are also scholars who view the entire Ilm al-Rijal system as an un-Islamic "bidʿah". The source you provided which states that the hadith is weak neither actually cites which specific hadiths he’s talking about, which books they’re from, who their narrators are, nor why he considers them weak or which of the narrators are judged to be weak. He only mentions one book, Musnad Ahmad, which is not even included in the hadiths on this page.

Of course this is ignoring for a moment that YouTube is neither a reliable source, nor is Omar Suleiman a reliable scholar. In order for a scholar to be used as an Islamic authority for consideration at all, they must have the degree of "mufti". Omar Suleiman is neither a mufti, nor a senior-level scholar. As far as I can tell, he has not even attended any of the major Islamic seminaries in the Middle East, and his only Islamic education comes from taking some Islamic classes while studying accounting and political history in Dubai and Jordan. At best, he seems to simply be an Muslim-American activist. Being popular on YouTube does not does not make him an authority.

The hadiths listed in this article are also sourced from books which are almost universally deemed to be reliable, including Tafsir al-Tabari, which is the foremost Islamic Tafsir book and is written by Imam Al-Tabari, one of those foremost scholars in the Islamic world. It is also sourced in Sahih al-Bayhaqi by Imam Al-Bayhaqi, who is also one of the most prominent scholars in Islam, and is considered the third most authentic book in Sunni Islam after Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. It is also similarly reported by prominent scholar Imam Al-Ghazali in al-Maqsad al-Asna Fi Sharh Asma’ Allah al-Husna. The hadiths listed in the article under the Shia section are also from some of the most reliable books of the Shia, including Al-Kafi, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Wasa'il al-Shia and Bihar al-Anwar.

So the arguments of it "contradicts the common practice of saying 'Ramadan Mubarak' and 'Ramadan Kareem'" because people either don’t know, don’t care or arbitrarily don’t accept the hadiths; the hadiths are is "weak" or "daif" through Ilm al-Rijal according to some; and YouTube star Omar Suleiman said so, are all weak arguments that don’t justify removing the sourced hadiths from this article. 2607:FEA8:56E1:8200:AC52:4BB8:A515:3475 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

References