| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic literature article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This is a good topic someone put stuff on here we need help!!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.253.39 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing a project for school. No worries. I will post my knowledge on this subject when I'm done with it. There will be a lot to learn.71.169.135.119 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Prof.Dekah[reply]
The article is now just an imprecise almost circular definition of what Islamic Literature might be. There is no history, no categorization, no source, no reference.
The article says "Islamic literature is a field that includes the study of modern and classical Arabic and the literature written in those languages."
1) "is a field that" is padding.
2) "includes" rather than "comprises" suggests there is more which the editor has deliberately or otherwise not revealed to us.
3) "the study of ..." is not an attribute of the literature. Study of some language is a prerequisite for some people for some languages but not, for example, for a native speaker of Egyptian reading or studying current Egyptian Islamic literature.
4) The article ignores that there is also non-Islamic Arab literature.
5) The article says "It also often includes other ..." I should have thought that it always included Islamic literature in any language.
6) "modern, classic or ancient" is padding as is "of any area".
7) Isn't including Hebrew without reference casting one's net upon snaggly rocks?
"Islamic Literature" is deserving of a Wikipedia entry but the present article is not encyclopedic and if anything demeans the subject. In that the first anonymous Talker and I agree, but the note To Wikiedia (sic) gives me to fear that a whole load of proud nonsense will arrive. There must be real scholars, Islamic or otherwise (not the kind who say "seed" for "seen") who could contribute.
8) Don't quibble about "Egyptian" or argue that Arabic has no P, so Wikiedia is OK.--SilasW 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted as latest edit fouled up display of article--SilasW (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After 6 months none addressed my July 2007 points so I did. Now not a padded school essay.--SilasW (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am bit surprised to find this article in neglect. Anyways. In my honest opinion, More than enough reference material seems to exist to support following kind of improvements.
Am I missing any point? do discuss on Talk:Islamic literature page.
Thanks and greetings
Bookku (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that is good point. Some how good number of people seem limiting and assuming Arab literature and culture as Islamic but unfortunately that leaves huge amount of rest of Islamic literature beyond purview.
On second thought I feel 'Culturally Muslim literature' would have been more inclusive title because defining what is Islamic and what is not can be contentious issue.
Thanks for your inputs ones again
Bookku (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of Moors in plays by Shakespeare and others doesn't exactly count as a literary influence, and therefore the following should be deleted (unless sources in Moorish Islamic literature exist): "The Moors also had a noticeable influence on the works of George Peele and William Shakespeare. Some of their works featured Moorish characters, such as Peele's The Battle of Alcazar and Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Titus Andronicus, and Othello, whose title character is a Moor. These works are said to have been inspired by several Moorish delegations from Morocco to Elizabethan England at the beginning of the 17th century". Rwood128 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to [1] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims. So I’ve done some of the (requested via women’s rights article) copyediting on that basis. Please correct my ignorances with sources if wrong. Thanks! Dakinijones (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
Greetings,
Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.
Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.
Requesting your visit to the articles
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
