Talk:Islamic calendar

Reason for prohibition of intercalation of months

Does anyone have a good explanation as to why this was forbidden by Mohammed? Was it to reduce the importance of the Kalammas?

---

Why would intercalation be necessary? There doesn't seem to be any particular reason for that.

Conversions

What is the present year number in the Islamic calendar? 1379? A sentence in the text like the year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar was 1378 (or what?) in the Islamic might be good.

Of course, when does the Islamic calendar change years? Certainly this changes in respect to the Gregorian calendar as the Islamic months process in relation to the Gregorian. So maybe a page that said 2000 in the Gregorian was 1378 in the Islamic until Sept. (or whenever) and was 5709 (or whatever) in Hebrew until .... etc. with other calendars. Anyone know what these years are?

---

The present year (beginning in 2001 AD) is 1422. This is larger than 1378, because the year always has just 12 lunar months and so is about 11 days shorter than the Gregorian Calendar year.

---

The present year is 1430 AH and began in December 2008. Lunar years are either 354 or 355 days long, which means that they are 10-12 days shorter than the solar year. Riyadhrambler (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

---

This article and the article July 16 both state that the first day of the first year of the Islamic calendar corresponds to July 16, 622. Is that July 16 Julian or Gregorian? (At the time, the Gregorian calendar now in general use had not been developed, and the only contemporaneous "July 16" was actually the Julian one, which would have been a week or so off from the Gregorian count, I think. --Haruo (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the difference would be only 3 days at that time. Dates before 15 October 1582 Gregorian are conventionally given in the Julian Calendar and so this can be assumed unless specified otherwise. The epoch date is thus July 19 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Karl (talk)

---

The corresponding year that would be 1387-1388 would be from the Iranian calendar. ArdClose (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Calendar

Islamic Calendar is used only for Ramzan Fasting, Haj pilgrimage and Eid festivities. For all other purposes Gregorian calendar is used. Quran regards moon and the sun merely as sign for counting time and days as follows:

002.189 They ask thee concerning the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, and for Pilgrimage....

010.005 It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.

At the dawn of Islam there were no printed calendars, no watches and the concept of hours and minutes developed in some 600 years later. The dates were counted by the year of elephants by watching moon and time by the movement of sun. According to old traditions the advice of Prophet Mohammed was as follows:

(1) Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, "We are an illiterate nation; we neither write, nor know accounts. The month is like this and this, i.e. sometimes of 29 days and sometimes of thirty days." (2) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet or Abu-l-Qasim said, "Start fasting on seeing the crescent (of Ramadan), and give up fasting on seeing the crescent (of Shawwal), and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), complete thirty days of Sha'ban."

Around 9th centuries Muslim astronomers mapped movement of stars, sun and moon and found that the moon is about one fourth of the size of the earth and moves around Earth at an average distance of 238,857 miles, and completes one revolution around Earth in a little more than 27 days. And deep in West of Mecca the moon tends to appear a day earlier and deep in East a day or two later. As Islam had spread in different continents and the means of communications were not swift, it was difficult to determine as to when the new moon was sighted at Mecca. Therefore, Fatmid Caliphs and Imam prescribed a calendar in 10th century developed by the great astronomer Albairooni that dispensed with the need for actual moon sighting in order to maintain uniformity in Islamic world.

That calendar is still used in Egypt, Syria and most Arab world as also Bohra community in India and Pakistan and they do not see any need for sighting moon even for Ramzan. But Saudi bigots insist that the calendar should be adjusted every month based on moon sighting in Mecca. And orthodox Ulemas in India and Pakistan and North America insist that fasting and Eid must be based on moon sighting in their own country.

Bigoted Ulemas fail to realize that nowhere in Holy Quran the actual sighting of moon has been made mandatory and the Traditions (Hadiths) do not prescribe a categorical practice for all times to come and that advice was meant for Meccans of that time who used to count time and dates by movement of moon and sun and the calendars and wathces were not available to them. That is why in many Muslim communities the calendar is adjusted every month and at least two to three different sets are followed in different countries. The Muslims who do not believe in the monthly adjustment are in minority.

Shah N. Khan http://www.magway.net/paklink

The moon sighting should not be characterized as a misguided notion of "bigoted ulemas" or "saudi bigots". Numerous verses in the Qur'an (6:4, 3:32, 3:132, 4:69, 47:33, etc.) command muslims to obey the messenger (Muhammed). To muslims, the Qur'an mandates that the verbal and practical traditions of Muhammed are executable directives transmitted through Muhammed to the believers.

Muslim #2379 states "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Observe fast on sighting it (the new moon) and break (fast) on sighting it (the new moon), but if the sky is cloudy for you, then complete the number (of thirty)." Muhammed did not qualify this statement with a time constraint, or say "unless you can calculate it's appearance".

Muslim #2391 states "Kuraib reported that Umm Fadl, daughter of Harith, sent him (Fadl, i. e. her son) to Mu'awiya in Syria. I (Fadl) arrived in Syria, and did the needful for her. It was there in Syria that the month of Ramadan commenced. I saw the new moon (of Ramadan) on Friday. I then came back to Medina at the end of the month. Abdullah b. 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) asked me (about the new moon of Ramadan) and said: When did you see it? I said.: We saw it on the night of Friday. He said: (Did) you see it yourself? -I said: Yes, and the people also saw it and they observed fast and Mu'awiya also observed fast, whereupon he said: But we saw it on Saturday night. So we would continue to observe fast till we complete thirty (lasts) or we see it (the new moon of Shawwal). I said: Is the sighting of the moon by Mu'awiya not valid for you? He said: No; this is how the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) has commanded us." This practice demonstrates that different localities may begin or end a month based on the actual sighting at that locality. There is no requirement that all muslim regions are uniform with respect to the calender. Or, that every nation must adapt to meccan time.

Abu Dawud #2331 states "Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: Husayn ibn al-Harith al-Jadli from the tribe of Jadilah Qays said: The governor of Mecca delivered a speech and said: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) took a pledge from us that we should perform the rites of hajj after sighting the moon. If we do not sight it and two reliable persons bear witness (that it was sighted), we should perform the rites of hajj on the basis of their witness."

There are no known utterences from Muhammed that prescribe, or support, computational predictions of astronomical events. Nor are there any prescriptions from Muhammed that moon sightings are only for meccans or Saudis. Modern dependence on computational methodologies is not consistent with the islamic tradition that religion should be simple, even for an uneducated, illiterate believer. While many scholars do support the use of computational techniques to ease the practice of the religion, there are no mandates by anyone that requires these techniques to be used. The same scholars that support computational techniques also support moon sighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah PBA (talk • contribs) 05:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Define AH

Somehow "AH" needs to be defined before it is used, perhaps with a reference to the section of the article where it is explained fully. I was confused when I first saw AH. I'm not sure how to do this best. Bruce 20:11, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

It clearly means "After Hijra" Dr B2 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: the picture in Islamic calendar

Please take the picture out of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, illustration of Al-Bīrūnī's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. It is blasphemy under Islamic law to put a picture of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This picture offends all of the Muslims and needs to be taken off immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.156.153 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

what is the importance of this image in Islamic calendar article.I think it has no relation with the islamic calendar.please remove it.--Moda yahia (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi.
Hmm, someone removed parts of the image caption at some point. The image is apparently an illustration of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, and as such is used to illustrate the Islamic calendar#Annulling intercalation section. You're quite correct that as it was, it didn't make much sense.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is not important in Islamic calendar#Annulling intercalation.I think it should be removed.--Moda yahia (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that it wasn't me who restored the image this time, so apparently I'm not alone in thinking that it is a useful illustration. Could I ask you to start a discussion about it at Talk:Islamic calendar instead of removing it again?
Thank you, Amalthea 09:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yahia, this image don't have any importance to add in this article, and for muslims it is very offensive to show prophet Muhammad in an image or statue, so i really want it to be deleted . Dr B2 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think that this image is not needed here. yasirniazkhan (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

how to dare you dont again take this image .
its so disturbing for muslims.ok be care full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noman.king (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This image is blasphemous ! Please understand that it hurts billions ! Pay some respect to such a large amount of HUMANS for the sake of HUMANITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.130.163 (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image (again),and I will do so every time it is replaced. It is offensive to Muslims, and serves no purpose other than to get a rise from us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.16.163 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You do that and watch the image get re-instated as per the community consensus of KEEPING the image in the article! Barts1a (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, I ask of you, what's the harm in removing this image? I understand that some might find the illustration useful, but I really think the article would still provide the necessary information without it. On the other hand, Muslims are forbidden to display or illustrate the face of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), any other Prophet such as Jesus or Moses (pbut) or God. This image, although may not seem much to you, will offend many Muslims around the world. I plead you to remove this image if only as a favour to all the Muslims who visit this site daily. Perhaps we would be able to find an image in its place that would respect everyone's personal belief's? 78.150.127.225 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The picture you claim to remove is taken from 600 years old Ilkhanid manuscript. So, it's an islamic picture! If your islamic ancestors could put this picture in their books, who are you to object doing the same today? I don't understand it.Merewyn (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no respect for the Islamic faith. They can't even perform such a petty act as remove the picture of the Prophet (PBUH). Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.198.24 (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please just remove the picture, just because it is from an arab manuscript doesnt make it ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.153.111 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DEPICTION OF THE BLASPHEMOUS ARTISTIC RENDERING OF THE PROPHET OF ISLAM (PBHU): Sheeraze

It is indeed, as many have emphasized in this section, a blasphemy in the extreme to depict an artistic rendering of the prophet of Islam(pbuh). As a matter of fact it is blasphemous in Islam to depict any prophet - that is to say that it is equally blasphemous to depict Moses, Jesus, Ibraham and Noah to name a few. By giving one example from of such a blasphemy from Muslim world (a few centuries ago) does not nullify one of the most important Islamic injunctions. Can you deny the fact that modern Islamic world detest any such blasphemy - in spite of the preponderance of such depictions of Jesus, Moses and other prophets, on part of non-Muslim world. By giving reference of a solitary incidence of such a depiction of prophets image you are insulting your own intelligence, displaying rather uncivilized behavior towards Muslim world. You are clearly disregarding the courtesy you owe towards Muslims. This is the intellectual-terrorism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeraze (talk • contribs)

This isn't the Islamic Encyclopedia. No such proscription (or indeed, the notion of blasphemy) exists here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fictional intercalary month

What's this nonesense about abolishing a fictional intercalary month? There is no historical source that I'm aware of mentioning that Muhammad abolished an intercalary month. For all we know, arabs before Muhammad used a purely lunar calendar. The cited verse has nothing to do with intercalary months. The verse talks about switching holy months. You see, before Muhammad arabs used to switch holy months as often as they liked. So for example they would make the holy month of Muharram a normal month and make a normal month like Jumada holy for that particular year. So why is this versed cited here? I'm deleting the entire paragraph about intercalary month unless someone show me a reliable source which mention abolishing intercalary months (which is highly unlikely). Sci fi writer (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, lycos.com has a reference to it here, citing this page. Christian Churches of God has a fairly POV article on the subject here as well. A book by the US Naval Observatory refers to it here, as do several others here and here. I hope that's enough. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the wikia page is a copy of our article, in large parts at least. Amalthea 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• There's also a bit about it at The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries and At-Tawba, but I haven't looked at the respective sources too deeply. Amalthea 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad himself stated in the cited verse from his farewell sermon (Islamic calendar#Annulling intercalation) that he is abolishing the intercalary month, "O People, intercalation is an addition to unbelief ..." For a discussion of intercalated months before Islam and their prohibition by Muhammad see al-Biruni, "Intercalation of the Ancient Arabs" in The Chronology of Ancient Nations, p.73–74 (written in 1000 CE), mentioned by Amalthea under the name The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Another discussion is by S. B. Burnaby, Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan calendars (1901) in Part II: The Muhammadan Calendar, page 367. He states that Arabs originally used a purely lunar calendar, but in 412 CE they adopted a lunisolar calendar containing an intercalary month named Nasi, which Muhammad prohibited in 632 CE. Burnaby's English version of the farewell sermon actually replaces "intercalation" with "the Nasi" indicating that Muhammad used the name of the intercalary month, "Nasi". — Joe Kress (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "intercalation" is a mistranslation of the verse. The original arabic word in the verse is an-nasi' which means literaly delaying, not intercalation. All the quran commentaries that I'm aware of explain this word as refering to the delaying/switching of holy months, not to intercalation. Check for example the commentary of Ibn Kathir [1]. As for the Remaining Signs of the Past Centuries, I'll check the original arabic text because I don't think it mentions intercalation. Now you mentioned Sherrard Burnaby, this proves that at least one scholar believes in the existense of an intercalary month. But that still doesn't change the fact that the early arabic sources -especially the Quran commentaries- mention nothing about an intercalary month and explain the verse as refering to the switching of holy months. The problem with this article is that it presents the intercalary month as an undisputed fact, even though in reality the very existense of an intercalary month is supported by a small number of scholars. Sci fi writer (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam NASI' is defined as an "intercalary month, intercalation, or man on whose authority an intercalation is undertaken". However it is also connected to "postpone". In addition to intercalation it may mean the "transference of the sanctity of one holy month to another, in itself not holy". The equivalent article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam has almost identical wording. In The Encyclopaedia of Islam article TA'RIKH (chronology) section "Pre-Islamic and agricultural calendars of the Arabian peninsula" these dual meanings are applied to Sura 9:37. One group of Muslim scholars "maintain that nasi' was a procedure by which an official (the nasi' ) connected with the Ka'ba cult at Mecca altered the distribution of 'forbidden' and 'permitted' months within a given year (or within two successive years)". Others, notably Muslim astronomers and modern scholars, "claim that the 'postponement' of the forbidden months was the result of the fact that the pagan Arabs intercalated a thirteenth month every two years; nasi' is thus in effect the old Arabic word for 'intercalation' (kabisa), a practice wnich was abolished with the revelation of the above-cited verse." — Joe Kress (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Joe for bringing this to my attention. So according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Muslim scholars believe that Nasi refers to the delaying of forbidden months while astronomers and western scholars believe it refers to intercalation. This could be a good basis for editing the article. Sci fi writer (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be worth some attention: The Quran says there are 12 months in a year Repentance: (9-36):"twelve is the number of months with God." Now, this statement is only justified if the number of months used in a year, as used by the Arabs at the time, differed from twelve. Because the Quran didn't use to present evident facts to the people, only things which were especially worth a particular mention. On this basis, I personally would think that the intercalary month did exist at the time, as mentioned by several sources, especially since the Jews living in Arabia had a calendar which used the procedure of intercalation.Aster77 (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jahiliyya

Pease, take a look here. What do wikipedians think about this question? --Vermondo (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, 93.32.59.132, just added a direct prohibition of years "before Hijra" to this article as follows:

The years preceding the Hijra are not cosidered in this calendar (Muslims regard these times simply as the Jahiliyyah, i.e. "the age of ignorance"), and calendars calculating years BH are nonsense ["Christian dates before 622 AD cannot be converted into Islamic dates as no <BEFORE-HIJRA>- chronology exists" (Computus calendar conversion program).]

I am moving this statement to this talk page for discussion because a blanket prohibition makes no sense. According to its article, Jahiliyyah means the time before the Qu'ran was revealed, which began in 610 CE, hence in 12 BH. Furthermore, Muhammad is said to have been born in 53 BH (570 CE) in [2]. www.understanding-islam.com uses both before Hijra and Jahiliyyah in [3]. An Islamic book [4] and a life of Abu Bakr [5] use before Hijra years. So some "before Hijra" years are in common use in Islamic literature. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, some dates around hijra times are sometimes referred to as "this fact happened NN years before Hijra", but this is limited to a few decades, less than a century. In no book of history you will find, for instance, Roman Empire dates expressed like, say: "546 BH" or something alike. The problem is also linked with the fact that up to a certain time years were "full years" and not lunar years as in Islamic times, so years before hijra should be calculated in another way. I think that wikipedia calendar calculating such years in this way is quite nonsense. --93.32.52.197 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Admitting that less than a century of years are sometimes identified as "before Hijra" was excluded by your first edit. So both of us agree that a limited number of years are identified as "before Hijra". However, "Jahiliyyah" (the age of ignorance) cannot be stated as the reason that more years are not so identified unless you provide a reliable source which explicitly links "Jahiliyyah" with years "before Hijra". The source should be in English because this is the English Wikipedia. "Full years" vs lunar years is a separate issue already discussed in the article under History concerning the meaning of "Nasi", and on this talk page immediately above, beginning at #Fictional intercalary month. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic pilgrimage

This line

Other scholars, both Muslim[5][6] and Western,[7][8] concur that it was originally a lunar calendar, but about 200 years before the Hijra it was transformed into a lunisolar calendar containing an intercalary month added from time to time to keep the pilgrimage within the season of the year when merchandise was most abundant for Bedouin buyers.

is confusing to me. If the Hijra was Mohamed' move from Mecca to Medina (and presumably the beginning of Islam) then this change in Calendar calculation took place before the existence of Islam (or so it reads). Why then is there a reference to Pilgrimage in the same sentence when none could possibly have existed when this change took place? Did other types of pilgrimages occur prior to the establishment of Islam? If so, shouldn't there be a distinction made between that and the Islamic definition?Hschlarb (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The pilgrimage to Mecca or Hajj existed long before Muhammad. Indeed, according to Islamic tradition, it has existed since the time of Abraham, who built the Kaaba, its main focus, in some form, also according to Islamic tradition. The main purpose of the pilgrimage was to vist the Kaaba, to worship the idols around it, and to attend the annual fair held there to buy merchandise. Muhammad destroyed the idols, but otherwise continued to observe the pilgrimage. Of course, several Islamic elements have been added to pilgrimage, such as a visit to Mount Arafat in commemoration of Muhammad's Farewell Sermon, the Stoning of the Devil, and circling the Kaaba seven times (Tawaf). The annual fair now takes the form of Eid al-Adha. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I see traditional patterns that move from religion to religion. Christianity converts Sol Invictus into Christmas. Islam converts a pilgrimage to a pagan site into something more focussed. Judaism must also have an equivalent. You got to go with what works.Hschlarb (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Muslims believe that Islam was created by God and the first muslim was Adam. The pilgrimage to the kaaba begun by the muslim prophet Abraham was corrupted over time into a pagan festival. The islamic pilgrimage isn't an adaptation from another religion, rather it is a restoration of the original muslim tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah PBA (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be most beneficial if you could provide citations from third party sources Hschlarb (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Read first comment, and, by the way, you can type and search yourself, or are you too spoonfed to do research. Plus, Christianity changed dates due to an emperor of non-christian decent, Islam did not experience such and allowed for it to continue, please blanket statements makes you stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.88.212 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Days of the week in Urdu?

The days of the week should just be listed in Arabic (without Urdu translations). As much as I love Urdu, this is an English language article about the Hijri calender, which is in Arabic. Urdu is not even the most common language spoken among Muslims, so better just leave that to the Urdu article (the Persian as well). The Persian days of the week could go in an article describing the Persian calendar system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.75.198 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 June 2009

Cleanup of article

I have eliminated most redundancies, some incoherences between the propositions presented in different sections, some factual errors, some dubious statements, and tried to improve style and readibility.Aster77 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lunar or not?

In the introduction of the page the article says that the Islamic calendar is lunar, but in the "Astronomical considerations" section it says specifically that it's "not to be confused with the lunar calendar". Which is it? The lunar calendar page clearly indicates that the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, so the astronomical considerations section appears to be making a very fine distinction in a confusing manner - since it suggests that 'actual' lunar calendars have an intercalary month, while the lunar calendar page claims that this is actually a feature of lunisolar calendars and that the Islamic calendar is an example of a purely lunar one. 118.93.77.8 (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Converter

It would be great if someone who understands computing could design a converter for this page, so the reader can put in a date and get the date in the other calendar. It wouldn't be hard to do for someone who understands these things. Other Wiki pages have special mini-programs attached for various useful subject-specific effects. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The page now has several date converters. — Glenn L (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the picture showing the prophet

Zohebkidwai (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Please remove the picture stated 'Muhammad prohibiting intercalation'. We in islam do not encourage to draw pictures of our prophet. I hope you understand the sensitivity of this subject and remove the Picture from there.

See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The picture you claim to remove is a 17th century copy of an early 14th century Ilkhanid manuscript. So, it's an islamic picture. If your islamic ancestors could put this picture in their books, who are you to object doing the same today? I don't understand it. Merewyn (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Merewyn. the picture is as you say Ilkhanid, but the Ilkhanate, was part of the Mongolian empire, stretching into the Persian territories, perhaps not regarded too muslim in the aftermath. Another point here to consider in regard of the socio-political power of visual representation and propagation, i.e. history of the discourse regarding iconoclasm, is that this is not a particularly islamic featurer. Wars have been fought between christians of challenging points of view. It is not a settle matter between orthodox christians, and catholics. It is a millenia long discourse relating to the second commandment. Christian Protestantism, especially Zwingli and Calvin, has been considered iconoclastic. Hiskia, King of Judah, was an Iconoclast, even destroying the representation of Nehushtan, the brazen snakes on the ark of the covenant. Even Early Buddhism is considered iconoclastic inregard of its Hindu background, until hellenisation of Buddhism that was. In a modern reflection the commandment needs be related to the discourse of ad-busting and propaganda. On the other hand, what would be the pre-requisites for making a film on Muhammad (PBUH) without it being a blasphemous film. --Xact (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to sound offensive but what is the final short conclusion of your long story? The muslims in 14th century COULD DEPICT the Prophet but now they cannot because of Christian Protestants and Early Buddhism quarrels?? Or what? Merewyn (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

taking pictures and drawing living beings is highly discouraged in islam. with that said, graphics of prophets (peace be upon them) is very inappropriate. even if somebody thinks its useful or educational somehow and some muslims might have previously used the graphics but it doesn't justify the arguments thats taking place now. i know a lot of muslims would be willing to remove this picture but they dont know how to. so please consider the request. peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.6.68 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stimulated disharmonies

There is an error, I believe, in the weekday table of this article stating that Sabbath is the first day of the week according to Muslims. Such an error is potentially stimulating disharmony between faithfulls. The correct (signified orthodox) view among muslims are not that Yawm Sabbath is the first day of the week, but the last. Similarly secular Christians, and secular western calendars, of phones and computers and so on, keep the erroneous calculation of Sundays as the seventh day of the week. I do not believe any biblical scholar, nor muslim scholar, as no wise Jew would disagree that Yom Sabbath, or Yawm Sawth, (or whatever transliteration) is anything else than the seventh day of the week. In addition: Jews, Christians and Muslims, do all similarly convert the Sabbath with the Roman empirical Saturday in our time. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As the Arabic names of the weekdays Sunday to Thursday literally mean 'first day', 'second day', etc., it would seem to be obvious (even for simpletons) that the list should begin with Sunday and that Saturday should placed at the bottom (not at the top) of the table. AstroLynx (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why it may be considered of importance

At least I feel it is of importance. And I feel an urge to elucidate it; since I for years have been mislead to assume that Muslims, Jews and Christians disagree about which day of the week is the Holy Day: Saturday of Jews, Sunday for Christians, And the Muslims keep the Friday.... I've even been thinking that this is a typical sillyness of religion. It surely creates problems in integration-politics, and so on. But! This is not the case! Now I've come to the opposite conclusion: what is held to be the orthodox & scholarly view within all these three denominations of the Abrahamic Religion is that it is the seventh day that is the Sabbath. We all agree. Religion is not the cause of this confusion.

The Christians keep Sundays as congregation day, because the ressurection of Jesus the Messiah was witnessed by Maria the Magdalene on the break of the first day of the week following the second Sabbath of the first month; which was the passover of Jews and all of Yisrael (not bound to the Sionist perspective). It seems quite obvious that in the year of the Golgata mystery, the lunar Sabbath and the seventh day of the Romans which was the day of Saturnus (Hebrew Kiwan) was a match, thus the indication is that according to holy Scripture Christ overcame Satan and subdued the Nephilims in the netherworld on the Seventh day, Yom Sawt, and ressurected on the first day, on that year a Sunday. That it most probably was on a Sunday is not given for every year. Because the orthodox Jews of the time most probably calculated the seven day week primarily according to the lunar calendar. The Pesakh, passover, and the sacrifice of the Holy Lamb, was/is ritually to be held on the evening before the full-moon day of the first month of spring Nisan. The following full-moon day was/is evidently a Sabbath. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Solar or Lunar week?

The solar-lunar correlations seem to have been somewhat confused during the Babylonian captivity. A theme accounted for in the canonical book of Esther. So, it was not every year a lunar Sabbath happened to be on a Saturday of the Solar Romans. Because The Julian Calendar was as novel as the Roman Empire was young; the Judeans were most probably divided along several lines in regard of what should be correct timekeeping. The western, alledged christian habbit of keeping the Sunday sacred, is actually not so much a christian as it is a pagan tradition, as is in matter of fact the western calendar (in spite being in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church). But still a cause to keep the day in awe and free from business, from a christian-muslim perspective, is that Isa the Messiah rose from death on a first day of the current global calendar, the day of the Sun in the reckoning of the Roman Calendar, There are no reason to believe that the perpetuality of the seven day week has been broken since Julius Ceasar inaugurated the system. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual pragmatics of Muhammad (PBUH)

One needs not much moral phantasy to see the revolutionary Muhammad (PBUH), being very concerned about the importance of calendars in regard of the power politics, e.g. control of the masses. It is easy to imagine him urging the people of the true religion of the prophets and all of Yisrael, to summon the holy assembly for devotional prayers allready on the sixth day, leading up to the holy seventh, on which day in the free nation of Allah, God of the ineffable tetragrammaton, the children of God are awake, giving (offering) everything back to Him; who on the seventh day of creation rests in union with the nature of All, Holy Mother Mercy of the Heavens. Or something like it. It is a matter of economics, or that is, of becoming free from enslavement. From any of these religious perspectives it is a sign of infidelity to trade, make money, to work, or to exploit the earth and the hearts and minds of people on the Sawt. My point is that Muhammad (PBUH) in line with Jesus the Messiah and all the Prophets herolds the view not merely defending the seventh day as sacred, nei, rather expanding the realisation that all of creation is sacred, directing our observation to the waxing and waning of the holy lifeforce in regard of the moon with its seventh day principle perceivable for all on the globe. This last point is of course not the orthodox perspective, since all three denominations are fooled by the calendrics of the Roman empire (probably derived from an ancient etruscan market calendar) binding the seventh day cycle to the strictly solar calendar, and mixed up with the wisdom of the Babylonian Zoroastrian calendars. Muhammad (PBUH) I believe, was aware of the errors of both the Sassanid-Persian and Roman-Byzantian imperialist traditions. When calling out for the Friday prayers, this is a statement not against the holiness of Yawm al-Sabbaoth, but the infringements to spiritual devotion and sacred time caused by the commersial interests of the elites of both the quarrelling powers of his contemporeality. --Xact (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya

The sources appear as confused as the Libyan people, but Gaddafi may have changed from the Prophet's death to his birth in 1979 following the declaration of the new calendar (dating from his death instead of the hijra) in 1978. MacFarquhar's take is anecdotal and includes women saying "Why can't we be like everyone else?" but probably sums it up best. If it weren't original research, I would add that in practice people use the Western calendar anyway. Jabrol (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

Removed the erroneous image سليمان عدنان مصطفى (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Added back per consensus and WP:NOTCENSORED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I WILL REMOVE ANY UNNECESSARY PICTURE OF OUR Prophet, especially on a page for the ISLAMIC CALENDAR!! It is stupid, just don't put it back, many muslims, including me, will remove it each f****** time, so dont bother putting back on. thank you and excuse my language or tone. As a muslim i am never like this, but sometimes, the way people try to justify acts just anger me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daasmarka (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the image offends you, but Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for all the answers to questions about depicting Muhammad. — Glenn L (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Glenn, Robert, William and the rest - when will you get the message that it's not a question of censorship but CONSENSUS? Of course the people holding minority views will scream "censorship" when their views are overruled, but that's the way Wikipedia works. If you don't want to play by the rules, go away and start your own on - line encyclopedia - you can do what you like then. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Converter (again)

Up until about a month ago, there was a converter which enabled the Gregorian equivalent of a specified month to be checked by reference to a list on the Hebrew calendar page. Examples:

2011 1 Jumada I equals 4 April (actual conjunction at Greenwich 3 April)

2012 1 Jumada I equals 23 March (actual conjunction at Greenwich 22 March)

2013 1 Jumada I equals 12 March (actual conjunction at Greenwich 11 March).

Although the data is correct (the Muslim month begins about a day after conjunction when the new moon becomes visible) it has been removed twice. I think it is a useful addition to the article and should stay, but I would like to know what other readers think. 92.24.106.228 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The French Republican Calendar has an actual calendar avaiable (as the calendar would appear currently if it was still in use), along with the current Gregorian day. Could a similar calendar be made for the Islamic calendar? I don't know how the other one was made. 65.65.230.49 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page are several links to online date converters. See also Tabular Islamic calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect for Umm al-Qura

This calendar is also referred to as the Umm al-Qura calendar (see http://www.siao2.com/2011/06/15/10174716.aspx) - a redirect for Umm al-Qura to this page should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.98 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I created Umm al-Qura calendar as a redirect to the existing section Saudi Arabia's Umm al-Qura calendar. — Joe Kress (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove the picture of muhammad.

You had previously stated that the picture is islamic and it is not. No picture of that nature is islamic. Here is the proof that these pictures have nothing to do with islam. The picture has no relation to islam not even in a general sense.

Hadith - Bukhari 3:428, Narrated Said bin Abu Al-Hasan

While I was with Ibn 'Abbas a man came and said, "O father of 'Abbas! My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures." Ibn 'Abbas said, "I will tell you only what I heard from Allah's Apostle . I heard him saying, 'Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.' " Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned pale. Ibn 'Abbas said to him, "What a pity! If you insist on making pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other unanimated objects."

Hadith -Bukhari 4:47, Narrated 'Aisha

I stuffed for the Prophet a pillow decorated with pictures (of animals) which looked like a Namruqa (i.e. a small cushion). He came and stood among the people with excitement apparent on his face. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is wrong?" He said, "What is this pillow?" I said, "I have prepared this pillow for you, so that you may recline on it." He said, "Don't you know that angels do not enter a house wherein there are pictures; and whoever makes a picture will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and will be asked to give life to (what he has created)?"

Hadith - Muslim, Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib

AbulHayyaj al-Asadi told that Ali ibn AbuTalib said to him: Should I not send you on the same mission as Allah's Messenger sent me? Do not leave an image without obliterating it, or a high grave without levelling it. This hadith has been reported by Habib with the same chain of transmitters and he said: (do not leave) a picture without obliterating it.

So whoever invented these pictures are unislamic and so are the pictures. They are of severe offense to the true muslim people and would be greatly appreciated if it is removed as it is not associated with islam. It's a fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamirWahid (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are using the "no true scottsman" arguement.157.157.68.205 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

First day of the week in islam is Sunday, Not Sat.

Saturday is the sabbath, friday is jum'ah. The first day of the week is youm- al ahad meaning "day one" and that falls on a sunday, not saturday. I can provide my proof if you are serious about editing this article to accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamirWahid (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there is an error in the article regarding the English translation of the Arabic names of the days of the week. For example, Sunday and Monday are correctly transliterated as al-Ahad and al-Ithnayn, but they are wrongly translated as seventh and first days, whereas the meaning is actually first and second days. This applies throughout, with the obvious exception of al-Jumah (Friday).

Remove the picture depicting the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

the picture is irrelevant to the topic and offensive to 1.6 billion Muslims. I don't know why Wikipedia care so much about copy right law (which I agree with) and not care at all about the feeling of millions if not billions of Muslims. Please remove the picture immediately as it has no value in the topic rather than offending Muslims. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabdulky (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the image offends you, but Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for all the answers to questions about depicting Muhammad. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the pictures depicting Mohammed

I feel strongly the pictures should remain. They help immensely to illustrate the story being told, and it's vital to note that Wikipedia is not subject to Muslim or any religious belief. To be guided by religious feeling from any religion sets a very dangerous precedent. Randal Oulton (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove or Blur face of Prophet Muhammad SAW from one of the image

Hi

The image under the section "Prohibiting Nasi" is depecting Prophet Muhammad's face (which will not be taken well with muslims). Kindly remove or blur the face of Prophet as soon as possible.

THanks, 193.130.234.15 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Mateen

Won't happen. See Talk:Muhammad/images William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't you guys add up?

Re this post on my talk page User talk:87.194.35.154 the voting following discussion here was

For removal of the image

Moda yahia 16:33, 15 April 2009

Dr B2 04:36, 8 July 2009

Noman.king 22:52, 12 February 2010

68.82.156.153 11:16, 21 March 2010

202.125.130.163 09:35, 14 April 2010

Zohebkidwai 09:55, 27 May 2010

72.213.16.163 23:53, 11 Aug. 2010

yasirniazkhan 02:16, 21 Aug. 2010

78.150.127.225 23:54, 13 Nov. 2010

174.115.198.24 05:59, 13 Dec. 2010

سليمان عدنان مصطفى

08:53, 13 May 2011

DamirWahid 06:05, 29 June 2011

Yabdulky 19:37, 18 July 2011

193.130.234.15 08:59, 1 Aug. 2011

Daasmarka 23:20, 9 Oct. 2011

Against

Amalthea 09:34, 17 April 2009

Neil N 12:43, 14 April 2010

Barts1a 09:35, 12 Aug. 2010

Dougweller 05:56, 21 Aug. 2010

Merewyn 13:08, 7 Jan. 2011

Xact 04:37, 18 Feb. 2011

CIS 19:55, 18 July 2011

Randal Oulton 01:54, 30 July 2011

William M. Connolley 09:59, 1 Aug. 2011

Glenn L 02:44, 10 Oct. 2011

All the IPs are on different continents.

Motion passed15/10/0.

The argument by the antis is that removing the images would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. But the pros aren't asking for them to be removed altogether, only from places where they are not material to the subject being explained. The subject matter of this article is not the Prophet at all - it's the calendar used by his followers. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For policy on this see [6] and [7]. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That isn't how consensus works on Wikipedia. Egg Centric 12:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not consensus and the opinions of two people running in the board elections carry no special weight. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not consensus. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the argument:

In favour

Moda yahia (irrelevant)

Dr B2 (blasphemy/irrelevant)

Norman.King (blasphemy)

68.82.156.153 (blasphemy)

202.125.130.163 (blasphemy)

Zohebkidwai (picture not allowed)

72.213.16.163 (offensive/provocative)

Yasirniazkhan (irrelevant)

78.150.127.225 (adds nothing to the article/offensive)

174.115.198.24 (disrespectful)

سليمان عدنان مصطفى

(no reason given)

DamirWahid (offensive/not a true likeness)

Yabdulky (irrelevant/offensive)

193.130.234.15 (offensive)

Daasmarka (unnecessary)

Against

Amalthea (useful)

NeilN (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)

Barts1a (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)

Dougweller (inadmissible reason)

Merewyn (picture is Islamic)

Xact (inadmissible reason)

CIS (uses WP:NOTCENSORED argument which says in effect that you can put anything in even though the majority don't want it)

Randal Oulton (useful illustration/Wikipedia does not care about religious sensitivities (???)

William M. Connolley (inadmissible reason)

Glenn L (claiming consensus for keep when there is none)

It will be seen that discounting the objections which are mainly hot air the consensus is even more marked - 8 to 3 for removal. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ? AstroLynx (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point being that while in normal circumstances editors might cut someone a little slack if they want to include content which is not relevant, if that content is going to upset the majority of readers it might be better to leave it out. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that the majority of the readers of this article are Muslims? There are many non-Muslims who are interested in the organization and history of the Islamic calendar (I surely am not the only one). Anyway, deleting the image here would also affect other articles in which the same or similar images are used - see Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images. The image in question is a respectful image of Muhammad made by a Muslim artist for a Muslim audience and is relevant for the article as it is linked with the abolition of intercalary months in the early Arabian calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that the majority of the readers are Muslims? Many non-Muslims are appalled that a handful of people deliberately set out to rile members of faiths that they are not (so far as I am aware) members of. I take the Tube (subway) to my place of worship so therefore you can say that the Tube is relevant to places of worship but you wouldn't therefore expect to see pictures of Tube trains in an article on places of worship. The picture is not a picture of Muhammad at all - if put in an auction catalogue with the label "Picture of Muhammad" it would contravene the Trade Descriptions Act. If you disregard the blasphemy argument there is still a consensus of 6 - 3 for removal. I don't know where you get the idea the picture was painted by a Muslim artist - according to the attribution the author is unknown. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why the Tube is now relevant to this discussion. The (unknown) artist who made (or in this case copied) the image was perhaps not a Muslim but it was made for a work by a well-known Muslim author which was dedicated to a Muslim ruler. Did you actually take the trouble to have a look at the work we are talking about? It is available online in several editions. You will then see that the image is quite relevant for this topic. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and is not subject to religious rules. If you are offended by this image, then there are ways to block it from appearing on your screen - see Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images. AstroLynx (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So the book was written by a Muslim and dedicated to a Muslim ruler. So what? This book covered not only Muslim chronology but also Babylonian, Coptic, Greek, Jewish, Persian, Roman etc. the last time I looked. In any event, the picture was painted 200 years after the book was written.

I fail to see how a picture of a group of believers standing around a pulpit can in any way aid the understanding of the Muslim (or indeed any) calendar. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Your arguments are shifting targets in an attempt to remove an image, isn't going to happen. Ogress _smash! 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The tenuous link is that this is a representation of the Prophet telling the faithful there will be no more intercalary months. But does the painter actually say that, or does he merely say that this is a representation of the Prophet giving his address at the Farewell Pilgrimage? 87.194.35.154 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you still have not taken the trouble to do some research yourself. The image in question is found in the second chapter of al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations. The text clearly links the image with Muhammad's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage [Sura 9:37]. You can find an English translation here [p. 14]. If you want to check Sachau's translation, the Arabic text can be found here [p. 12]. If you want to check Sachau's edition of the Arabic text, the Paris manuscript (ms. Arabe 1489) is online here [see fol. 5v]. WARNING: the manuscript contains several Muhammad images! AstroLynx (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, you've made a valid point there. The picture does have some passing relevance to the subject of the Islamic calendar. The point is that if every fact which had some passing relevance was included in articles they would all be the size of full - length novels. This is why the concept of "consensus" was introduced to provide an efficient mechanism for determining what peripheral matters should go into articles and what should stay out.

Although the picture is billed in the article as "Muhammad prohibiting intercalation" that is misleading. It misrepresents the intention of the artist, which was to depict the Prophet addressing the faithful at the Farewell Pilgrimage. A number of matters were covered in that discourse, not least the fact that this would be the last time he would be able to speak to them. So please, in this instance, respect the consensus. Thank you. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that the picture stays - your statistics (half of which consist of people - like yourself - hiding behind an anonymous IP address) do not convince me. The sources mentioned above make it pretty clear that the image refers to Muhammad's abolition of the intercalary month (al-Biruni's text does not refer to the other topics covered in Muhammad's Farewell Speech). I really don't see the point in discussing this any further and wonder what you are trying to achieve. Even if you would be able to get this image permanently removed from this page (which is not likely to happen), what are you going to do about the other WP pages (and the WP pages in other languages) which have this image? And what about the original manuscripts - how will you make these disappear from the web? AstroLynx (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

They say statistics can be made to prove anything, but no statistics prove nothing - they certainly don't support your claim that most editors support your stance. An uninvolved reader looking at this talkpage would come to the opposite conclusion.

You're now trying to smear other editors by insinuating that the vote has been rigged - request CheckUser or withdraw that allegation.

If you are unable to find a definitive statement from the painter that the picture is Muhammad prohibiting intercalation you are not in a position to say that it is. It is highly unlikely that painting 600 years after the event he was intending to convey anything more specific than the delivery of the Prophet's farewell message. Browsing the link you provided, I believe I saw a picture of some men on horse- (or camel) back. Now don't tell me that has some deep chronological significance as well.

Finally, don't smear Muslims by suggesting that they want to tear pictures of the Prophet out of ancient manuscripts. Muslims do not practice censorship as you imply. The simple issue is that readers come to the article hoping to learn about the Islamic calendar and a picture of the Prophet delivering his homily imparts no information at all. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly grasping at straws now. First you claim that statistics prove that you are right and now you claim that statistics don't prove anything at all. Nor did I say that the vote has been rigged - I would however argue that the votes of people who hide behind an anonymous IP (like youself) and who never have contributed anything useful to the article in the past should not be given the same weight. However, I do not know what the WP rules are in this case.

If you do not understand the other images in the Paris manuscript, why do you not take the trouble to read Sachau's English translation and find this out for yourself? You are really acting like a spoiled child now - too lazy to seek knowledge by yourself?

Where do I say that Muslims want to deface ancient manuscripts? I only asked how you intend to prevent the images from appearing on the web. In English there is a very nice phrase about the pot calling the kettle black - recognize anyone?

You are really wasting your time (and those of others) on this issue - it would be much wiser spent on improving the article. AstroLynx (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• How does a picture of a homily delivered 1,380 years ago improve the Islamic calendar article?
• People who don't produce statistics (such as yourself) can't argue from them - but others may draw the inference that the statistics are not forthcoming because they don't support the argument.
• If you don't know what the WP rules are, don't invent them.
• Did I say that I wanted to stop the Bibliotheque Nationale digitising its collection? We're not talking about other pictures of Muhammad - no two cases are the same.
• Who's "acting like a spoiled child?" Aren't you the one who's building up a comprehensive online library of chronological works? Where does a spat about an obscure picture fit into the grand scheme?
• Sachau's English translation (with which I am familiar) isn't going to aid the understanding of the pictures in the Paris manuscript for the simple reason that it is a faithful rendition of what Al - Biruni wrote a millennium ago, not a commentary on some pictures produced by an unidentifield artist 500 years later. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you know for sure that Sachau's edition and translation are a faithful rendition of al-Biruni's original text? One can never be sure as all known manuscripts are later copies. You can perhaps argue that al-Biruni's original manuscript did not contain images but there is no way to prove this. The earliest known manuscript (Edinburgh University Library, ms. Arab. 161), dating from 707 AH [1307/08 AD], is illustrated and there is no reason to doubt that it continues an earlier tradition of illustrating this particular work. AstroLynx (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The only consensus which can be taken into account at this article is the one which is manifest on this talk page. Whether a particular picture is relevant to an article is determined solely by the subject of that article, not other articles. Presumably the different editions of al - Biruni have different illustrations, so unless the author of a particular illustration added a caption saying it was Muhammad forbidding intercalation you can't assume that it was, and your caption will fall foul of the rules against original research. From the picture you have inserted there is no way of telling whether Muhammad is speaking or not, and if he is there is no way of ascertaining what he was discussing at the time. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What gives you the impression that I inserted the image and also wrote the caption? If you study the image file you will see that it was already inserted in 2006 by the user 'Der hungrige Hunne' - I can assure you (and swear on the Bible if you wish) that he and I are not the same. If I had inserted the image, I would have shown the complete page - not the cropped version. Regarding the image caption, you cannot expect that medieval scribes followed the same conventions as modern publishers. AstroLynx (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you. Whether or not it's your caption, this diff [8] shows you inserted it into the article nine minutes before your denial above. Furthermore, you now admit that the caption (whoever wrote it) is a modern fabrication. 87.194.35.154 (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

IP87, it's time to give up and move on. You are a minority of 1 arguing against longstanding consensus. The issues you raised have been refuted numerous times before and you've brought nothing new to the discussion. Further removal of the image will be reported as vandalism and could lead to your account being blocked. Doc Tropics 20:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a sure sign of desperation when one editor grabs the stick and starts beating another editor with it. I think RMHED put things very well in his statement before the 2008 arbcom election:

"Whether someone is POV pushing or trolling very much depends on personal opinion, so is therefore extremely subjective. It's all too easy to label someone you disagree with as a POV pusher or accuse them of trolling, likely as not, they'll think the exact same of their accuser."

You need to back up your argument with some diffs, and the names of the editors who you claim form this "consensus". 87.194.35.154 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the image

Hi,

this is regarding image which was inserted depicting Prophet Mohammed (Sallellahu alihi wasallam) sitting with followers, which is strictly prohibited in Islam ref: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Calender). My request to remove the picture immediately from there else All muslims will Boycott use of Wikipedia.

Thanks Zareef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.210.100 (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry won't be done, see. See Talk:Muhammad/images, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Help:Options to not see an image. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Always 29 or 30 days per month?

Is it possible, that an Islamic month has 28, fewer, 31, or more days? --84.61.131.15 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete the Image

Remove the Picture of Mohammed (PBUH).Big text

We are boycotting. delete the Image Immediately.

Syeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.79.177 (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Title change from Islamic calendar to Hijri calendar?

Hijri is more specific name of the islamic calendar? Let me know if you like the move? Thanks MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how hijri is a more specific name of the Islamic calendar and how renaming the article will help English-speaking users of Wikipedia to be more familiar with its history and use. Personally, I would prefer to keep the current title as this is English Wikipedia, not Arabic Wikipedia. AstroLynx (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is muslim who speak english don't say islamic calendar but Hijri calendar. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As I noted at MohammedBinAbdullah's talkpage, I believe WP:COMMONNAME applies here, in that Hijri is not commonly understood by English speakers in general and wouldn't be a productive search term. This is contrasted with Hajj, which is widely understood and which has been incorporated into English vocabulary. I don't see how the present status quo with a redirect is problematic: Wikipedia generally uses a translated title for foreign terms when there is a satisfactory English equivalent and the foreign-language term is not in widespread use among English speakers. I am open to a rewording of the lead paragraph to provide a better discussion of the Arabic terminology, as the "also called" doesn't seem to do the proper Arabic terminology justice. Acroterion (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd hate to see such a move even if it were shown that the Hijri calendar is the one only calendar used by Muslims. This is an English-language encyclopedia. Unless your motivation is to make the "inscrutable" Islamic culture even harder to fathom, I'd suggest that we keep Islamic calendar where it is.

We can always emphasize that the "proper" term for the calendar uses a foreign word. By the way, I don't agree that Hajj is either (a) widely understood or (b) incorporated into English vocabulary (not the way Sushi is, at least). I daresay for every English-speaking Westerner who knows that each Muslim must make a one-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca, less than 1 percent of them know that Muslims call it a Hajj (let alone what language they are using when they call it this).

You still run into people who aren't sure that Qu'ran means the holy Koran. (On the other hand, the transition from Calcutta to Kolkata went rather smoothly, but there were political reasons involved.)

There have been many attempts to de-Westernize the English-language Wikipedia, including a concerted attempt to pretend that many major scientific advances were discovered first by Muslims (or within the Islamic world). It took a lot of trouble to remove all this bias, and I'm not sure it's been completed - or even undone!) so let's not start more trouble. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

English is not just spoken by english people but by many different people so that argument is flawed. Hijri calendar is islamic calendar and islamic calendar is hijri calendar. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with English people: this is the English language Wikipedia and policy requires that article titles be in English unless the foreign-language term is a recognized English word. Hijri is not used in the English language. Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Acroterion above. So far as I can see, English usage is for "Islamic" (a term which most English speakers understand), as opposed to "Hijri", a term few if any non-Muslims even recognize. [{WP:COMMONNAME]] would seem to support the use of "Islamic" on that basis. While I could see, if anything, Islamic religious year might be preferable, as that is the title of the article in the Eliade/Jones "Encyclopedia of Religion", parallelism would probably support the usage of the word "calendar." John Carter (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Authors who discuss this calendar in the English language use Islamic and Muslim with about the same frequency. Usage of Hijri or Hijra is quite rare. Although Muslim had been present in the first sentence for many years, somewhere among the recent edits by MohammedBinAbdullah and reversions, Muslim was lost. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, because there is also a Solar Hijri calendar. Khestwol (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Crescent Islamic Calendar?

This just redirects to the main article and the section is otherwise empty. A quick google reveals nothing but mirrors and knock-offs of this page. Deleting. Tigerboy1966  09:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Arabic names of calendar months and Turkish months

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian months, articles on names of months in specific languages are not likely to be notable as stand-alone articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose a merge: This is an article about this Islamic calendar, those articles contain information about the names of Gregorian months in various languages. Also, the AFD resulted in a keep for Serbian months, with the understanding that the article could be improved. I think the same goes for Arabic names of calendar months and Turkish months. Fitnr 15:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Should the date converter at the top be more specific?

At the top of the page the date converter Today presents today's date and its equivalent in the Persian solar calendar and the Islamic lunar calendar.

Considering the different versions of the Islamic calendar which are currently used and which can differ one or even two days from each other, I think that some indication should be given about 'which' version is actually followed. Many unsuspecting users of WP may be inclined to believe that it always displays the 'correct' date.

For today (9 October 2014) the converter gives the Islamic date as 14 Dhu al-Hijjah while the date in the Umm al-Qura calendar and in the Turkish Islamic calendar is actually 15 Dhu al-Hijjah. I suspect that the converter is probably based on one of the several possible tabular calendars. AstroLynx (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving Sunday to the top of the weekday table?

In view of the often-recurring changes (and reverts) made to the meanings of the Arabic weekday names (is Monday the first or the second day of the week?) it may be less confusing for most readers if we move Sunday (now at the bottom of the table) to the top of the table. Any thoughts on this proposal (and my earlier proposal of 9 October)? AstroLynx (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So far nobody has commented on my proposal, so I assume that most editors have no strong opinion on this matter. Unless someone objects within the next 24 hours, I will restructure the weekday table and move Sunday (the first day of the Islamic week) to the top (where it properly belongs). AstroLynx (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Names of Months and Weekdays

I have two, somewhat unrelated, questions:

1. Are there are any traditional English names for Islamic months that could and should be provided in this article? I happened to be reviewing the U.S.–Tripoli treaty signed and ratified in 1797. The text of the treaty mentions Hegira months such as Junad and Argill. Could someone look into this further?

1. What is the purpose of providing a table with names of weekdays in various world languages? While the names may be specifically related to Islam or the Islamic calendar in some languages, there are others that make no distinction whatsoever. The names usually belong to the Gregorian or local civil calendar and are "religion-neutral" in the sense that they're used by non-Muslims, too. If you look into the Albanian names, for instance, you'll the see days of the week named after Roman and Illyrian gods and celestial bodies ("e martë" means Mars day; "e mërkurë" Mercury day; "e enjte" Jupiter day; and the rest have the same meaning as in English; so the Semitic root for Sabbath isn't used either.) Is it this discrepancy that the table is trying to prove then?

Thank you, --Getoar TX (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should we remove the picture of Muhammad? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a topical moment for this RfC. There has been for many years, ever since it was first inserted, a slow edit - war between people removing the picture of Muhammad and people adding it back.

Remove. This is an article about the Islamic calendar. It in no way adds to the reader's understanding of the article subject. The caption is disingenuous. The picture was painted 700 years after the Prophet's death and is not a true likeness. It purports to be a picture of the Prophet forbidding intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage. In an earlier thread a proponent tried to justify this by saying that the picture was added into Al - Biruni's book at the point where he was narrating the events of the Farewell Pilgrimage.

This justification is also disingenuous. There were no doubt many matters discussed at the Farewell Pilgrimage - not least the fact that Muhammad would not be speaking to the faithful again. There is no basis for the suggestion that the Prophet was discussing intercalation as opposed to any of the other matters which came up. I would suggest that the uploader of the picture only put this into his description as an attempt to justify his insertion of an irrelevant image. Also there is no indication in the picture that the Prophet is actually speaking as claimed. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this topic with user IP 87.194.35.154 about three years ago (see "Can't you guys add up?" on this Talk page) - the consensus then was to keep it. AstroLynx (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting that discussion, in numbers there were fifteen !voting to remove and ten !voting to keep. On argument, omitting comment such as "disrespectful", there were eight for remove and three for keep. I note that some of the iconophiles made the comment "there is consensus for keep". How come, when the consensus is not ascertained till the debate is closed? I see that Astrolynx is now going down the same road. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The image seems relevant to the topic and fills the mundane whitespace throughout the article. My two cents. - Gaming4JC (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep As Gaming4JC points out, the image is relevant and punctuates the monotony of the text nicely. It is also a lovely example of early Islamic art available in the public domain. Extremists would do well to be reminded that their prohibition on any depiction of the Beloved (salallahu aleihi wasalam) is a minority opinion which the rest of the Islamic world has historically rejected. The suggestion of removal is essentially a campaign from a religious minority to exert censorship of wikipedia according to their personal prejudices. Isn't there a Wiki policy concerning such campaigns? Chrislamic.State (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep per others voting keep. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep It is a good illustration. --Adam in MO Talk 04:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep The IP has used the same arguments regularly seen at Muhammad which were rejected by the community. The caption reflects the sourced text in The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. I would suggest this is yet another case of attempting to censor the image per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the "sourced text" in al-Biruni's book? From what I remember he frequently says "It is reported" and then quotes his sources. How could he source a picture which was painted getting on for a millennium after his time? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a strawman argument. Jimbo enunciated the "principle of least astonishment" and IIRC it was endorsed by the community in an RfC and made official WMF policy. Bottom line - if material is irrelevant and also alienates a section of the readership it has no place in Wikipedia. People need to be proactive - I bet Mark Zuckerberg wishes he had taken steps to ensure that Facebook gave no offence to the Chinese government, now that it's banned in its biggest potential market and his learning Chinese hasn't helped. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the argument to keep the picture. One of the few ways for Wikipedia to become worse than it is would be for it to be edited by governments. Religious movements, especially sectarian ones, would be no better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that IP editors are very welcome to !vote in this discussion. Also, the claim that the argument is the same as that deployed at Muhammad is wrong. Obviously a picture of a person has relevance to an article about that person. A picture of a staircase has no relevance whatsoever to an article about a calendar. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. That is not a "picture of Muhammad", it is a picture of an incident relevant to the article. And it does not contain a "likeness of Muhammad", it contains a generic representation of a bearded man, very like several other representations in the same image. Maproom (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly my argument. We're not in the business of feeding misleading information to our readers. The caption says it's the Prophet, but it's not. And no - one has pointed to the elephant in the room, that not only is it not a picture of the Prophet, the caption relating it to the subject of the article (i.e. intercalation) is pure sophistry.

There are plenty of illustrations which could be added to the article. This one has no merit and should be removed. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic art historian Robert Hillenbrand, in the paper referred to in the caption text, argues quite convincingly that the central person in this image is indeed Muhammad. AstroLynx (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It might be more or less relevant, as many pictures in Wikipedia are, often used to illustrate a monotonous text, and there is no reason to remove it, except for the claim that it is "offensive" to depict the prophet, a claim which is fake, given that still in the 1960 Syrian mainstream Muslim theologists edited a children's cartoon depicting the life of the prophet. That was mainstream. There is no reason to give in to a minority sect claiming offense. Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Were any pictures of the Prophet painted before his death? If so, did any survive to the fourteenth century? And if they did, was the painter of this picture aware of them? I suspect that the answer to all these questions is "no". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Remove This is rubbish; we aren't a colouring book or a comic-book for infants and imbeciles, but a source of reference for people seeking information. Irrespective of religion, politics, or sentiment, irrespective of whether we have or have not any verifiable pictures of Mohammed, the article is not about him and gawping at even a true picture of him would not inform any one a scrap about the calendar, whether Islamic, Judaic, Gregorian or Bhuddist. You want a relevant picture for a lunar calendar? Put up a picture of the moon; I have seen some nice ones in Mother Goose books, smiling and complete with a cow jumping over. Whitespace??? People complaining about whitespace? No one likely to read about the Islamic calendar and equipped to understand the article is likely to find the whitespace a serious impediment. Get real folks, the article is to tell anyone who wishes to know, whatever it is they want to understand, not to gawp at a fictitious portrait that would have been irrelevant even if it had been an exact likeness. JonRichfield (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And again, these arguments have been used in the community-wide RFC. Please tell me which portrait of Jesus, Buddha, the Apostles, etc. is "non-fictitous". This article is about the Islamic calendar. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Remove. Hi. First, because it is not offensive (people in it are well-groomed and respectable), one can assume the artist attempted to produce a visual work in good faith. But a picture of Muhammad belongs to Muhammad article, especially since I don't know which one is Muhammad and I don't see the act of forbidding. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So you're advocating removing pictures of Jesus from all non-Jesus articles? And, as forbidding is an abstract action, we rely on the interpretation of reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Leave Lisa alone. Why would anyone want to put a picture of Jesus in a non - Jesus article? You can't "rely on the interpretation of reliable sources" because that's original research. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am replying to her points (just like you have done with other editors, over and over again). There's lots of articles which contain pictures of Jesus which are not specifically about Jesus, Christian Church for one. And we're not interpreting reliable sources, we are using the interpretations of reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Christian Church" is an obvious repository for a picture of Jesus. "Islamic calendar" is not an obvious repository for a picture of Muhammad. And according to Astrolynx, Hillenbrand argued that the picture was of Muhammad, not of him forbidding intercalation. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that Muhammad founded Islam, it seems you are grasping at straws. And AstroLynx was specifically replying to your assertion that the figure was not Muhammad. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify, Hillenbrand specifically links the illustration with Mohammad forbidding intercalation in the pre-Islamic calendar - the earlier practice of intercalation and its abolition by Muhammad is the topic discussed on the same pages in al-Biruni's text. It is not simply a picture of Muhammad, it is Muhammad forbidding the insertion of intercalary months so it is perfectly appropriate to show it here. AstroLynx (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, NeilN.

If you feel that the following answer is reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "non-Jeus". But to my current perception, the following items, chosen from the very top of my current watchlist, are non-Jesus articles: Windows PowerShell, Adobe InDesign, Sniper (disambiguation), Adobe Flash, Adobe InCopy, Windows RT, Microsoft Surface 2, Windows 3.1x, List of DOS commands, Spartan (browser), Graphical user interface builder. Yes, I will revert addition of an image of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or Bill Gates in all these articles.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a picture of Christopher Clavius in "Gregorian calendar". You might just as well claim it's him announcing that ten days will have to go. It's a load of rubbish. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Clavius was one of the astronomers who advised pope Gregory XIII on the calendar reform and later wrote a very fat book on it. So there is every reason to depict him there, though perhaps his image should rather follow that of the Pope than precede it. AstroLynx (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Clavius was one of a group who effected the reform, but most of the work was done by Lilius. Mohammed didn't advise anyone and didn't even devise the calendar that bears his name - that was done by one of the caliphs about ten years later. And you still haven't answered the point that the caption to the Wikipedia portrait was dreamed up by the person who uploaded it - like to cite a page reference for your claim that this is Muhammad forbidding intercalation? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)