Talk:Islamic calendar

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Maome.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge Nasi into this article

Nasi' may lack notability other than for removal from the Islamic Calendar. In that case, the content from that article should be merged into the section of this article about prohibiting Nasi. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It can be merged instead into Calendars in pre-Islamic Arabia Pogenplain (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be merged because other encyclopedias have articles devoted to Nasi' (e.g., EI2). The concept also has an attested usage (as postponement) beyond the calendar topic. Wiqi⁵⁵ 03:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Depiction of Prophet Muhammad

Template:Coltop Template:Thread retitled As a Muslim I would like to raise an objection about the depiction of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him currently included in this article.

While I understand that Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view and documents historical materials, it is important to note that visual depictions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him are deeply offensive to Muslims worldwide. For a significant portion of readers, the inclusion of such depictions causes genuine distress.

I am not arguing from a theological standpoint alone, but also from the perspective of reader sensitivity and educational value. I would ask whether the depiction is strictly necessary, clearly the article can achieve the same educational purpose while reducing offense without the depiction.

I am certain that the depiction is irrelevant to an article focused specifically on the Islamic calendar. Given the sensitivity of visual depictions for Muslim readers, I would argue that the depiction is unnecessary for understanding the Islamic calendar itself and that the article could remain informative without it.

As a result I request the deletion of the depiction. ~2026-93739-1 (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This image (and earlier versions) has been discussed many, many times before on the talk pages of this article – you can read the discussions in Archives 2, 3, 4 and 5 linked at the top of this page. AstroLynx (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which explains Wikipedia's policy on this question. It also explains how to adjust your settings so that it is not shown to you.

The reason why the image is used in this article is because Prohibition of Nasi' is a key feature of this Hijri calendar, which distinguishes it from lunisolar calendars. Your "deeply offensive to Muslims worldwide" is not true of all sects of Islam today and clearly wasn't true when a Muslim artist made that image. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Again as I have already mentioned the article does not require the depiction to be present and I have given the reason for this. Therefore your reasoning doesn’t apply here. As for your claims that it is not offensive to all Muslim sects of Islam today, how have you come to this conclusion? can you provide evidence of this claim? On the contrary in Islam the consensus is clear on the impermissibility of such depictions. Furthermore just because a Muslim artist made the depiction does not make it permissible that’s like saying a Muslim drank alcohol so therefore alcohol is permissible in Islam, no the drinking of alcohol will remain impermissible even if a Muslim drank alcohol. So your logic is completely flawed. ~2026-93884-6 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Here are some questions for both sides of the argument:

1. Which person in the image is supposed to be Muhammad? How do you know?

2. Which part of the image represents a calendar?

3. Which part of the image represents Nasi?

4. Which part of the image represents the act of forbidding?

~2026-78748-7 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It comes from The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries, published about 390 AH (1000 CE)

The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (Arabic: کتاب الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية ) Kitāb al-āthār al-bāqiyah `an al-qurūn al-khāliyah) by Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī is a comparative study of the calendrical timekeeping of different cultures and civilizations, supported by mathematical, astronomical, and historical research. The text establishes a universal timeline and charts significant historical events, relating the customs and religions of different peoples in time.

so if you want to challenge its authenticity, you will need to start a discussion at talk:The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries.

As explained at the top of this page, the policy of the English language Wikipedia is not to remove content because some visitors may be offended by it. I have already explained how you can stop images being shown to you. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not challenging the authenticity or wikipedia's anticensorship policy. I am challenging the value of the image for pages about the Islamic Calander and Nasi. If you answer my questions above honestly, I think that you will agree. That doesn't mean that the same image can't be used at The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day or other pages on wikipedia. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The image has no value or relevance to the article as I initially mentioned other than blaspheming and causing extreme offence to billions of Muslims around the world. I strongly disagree with your statement that the image can be used on other wikipedia pages. The image needs to be permanently removed and deleted from all pages on wikipedia. ~2026-93739-1 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī – an eminent Muslim scholar – considered it relevant when describing perhaps the most significant feature of the Lunar Hijri calendar (that it has no leap months), which is what makes it unique. Who are we to claim to be wiser than he?

It may be helpful to read the article Depictions of Muhammad. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad is not relevant to this discussion from my point of view because whether Muhammad is depicted in the image or not, the image does not help teach the Wikipedia reader anything about a calandar or leap months. On the contrary, the image has become a significant distraction from learning about and discussing those things because people have become so fixated on whether or not its ok to show an image depicting Muhammad in the article. Maybe Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī liked the picture and wanted to include it in his work. That doesn't change the fact that the image doesn't help a reader of the Wikipedia articles learn about the Islamic Calender or concept of Nasi/leap months. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It's relevant to the section it's next to. Again, people can filter out images if they want to. We do not remove them because they might cause offence. — Czello ^(music) 18:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, my argument has nothing to do with Muhammad being (or not being) in the image. So, being able to filter it is not relevant. The issue is that the image does not contain the subject of the article and doesn't provide any educational value to a reader trying to learn about the subject. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, it's relevant to the section it's next to. If your argument isn't about Muhammed being in the image, then what harm is there in the image being there? Why do you care so much? — Czello ^(music) 07:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Tangental relevance does not benefit a reader seeking to learn about the subject. I care because Wikipedia should provide encyclopedic value. The image does not do so in this context. So far, no one has explained exactly how they think it does. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

It is typical on Wikipedia to use related images to break up the monotony of text. Not every image needs to be an explanatory diagram. I find it interesting you are making this argument for this image, although you claim it's not because Muhammad is in it, but not for any other such images on the site. — Czello ^(music) 12:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step. Your assumption of bad faith is concerning. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

We assume good faith, but we are also not dumb. — Czello ^(music) 16:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

How do you suggest we proceeed? So far, you have failed to provide any reason why the image shouldn't be removed that doesn't conflict with established policy. Furthermore, you have most recently essentially accused me of lying. Would you like me to draw a picture of Muhammad and upload it to my talk page as a way to convince you that I personally couldn't care less that the image contains a dipiction of him? As I have stated plainly many times, it's not about about what the image contains, but rather what it doesn't contain. You have so far failed to address my core issue that neither the subject of the article, nor the subject of the section, appear anywhere in the image. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Main reasons why they're refusing to remove the image is because Wikipedia is not censored. If you see that link, it says Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. Basically, why would Wikipedia follow an organisation's tradition, in this case: censoring/removing the images of Prophets, if they're not part of the organisation anyway?

Also, like what @JMF said earlier, some Muslims of that time and present-day Muslims have no problem with images of Prophets. I'm not sure of the statistics of Muslims that do/don't feel offended by the images of Prophets but I think that may be redundant anyway.

So what could you do? You can stop images being shown to you. Probably the best option in my opinion. Other, very tedious things in my knowledge you could do are proposing restrictions/changes in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not about the not censored policy. Another thing you could do is go over at the Village pump proposals page and discuss about the not censored policy. The Village pump is an area where editors discuss about exisiting policies and/or propose new policies.

My personal opinion: I don't really like seeing images of Prophets but I just deal with it now. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If you wanna stop images being shown to you, I recommend you read Help:Options to hide an image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Asked and answered. This isn't about censorship. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

And in this case, it is particularly "significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" because it is in the section "prohibition of Nasi'" (leap months) which is probably the most distinctive characteristic of the lunar Hijri calendar. It is this rule that separated it from the tradtion of lunisolar calendars that predominated in the Middle East at the time (of which only the Hebrew calendar#Leap year calculations survives, afaIk). It is this rule that causes the month of Ramadan to begin earlier with respect each successive solar year. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

However, the image doesn't depict any of those things except in a caption, making it not only primarily, but entirely decorative. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

So the essence of your complaint is that you do not accept that the caption on the image – which declares it to be an "Illustration of Muhammad prohibiting Nasī'" – is a true report of the relevant pages of the al-Bīrūnī codex. What makes you say that? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't consider a caption to be part of an image. A source could caption the Wikipedia logo as "Jimbo Wales fucks Trey Parker's uncle", but it still wouldn't be relevant use the image along with that caption on the South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut article. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If that is the best you can do, then your objection reduces to wp:I just don't like it. The image will remain, case closed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. As shown by my absurd axample above, just adding a caption to an image does not magically make it relevant or an important illustrative aid to understanding a subject that is not depicted in the image. I have no objection to displaying the image at The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries where it is relevant and we can link to that artilce from Islamic calendar, but the image itself does not meet the MOS criteria for use on this article.

Let's look at this a different way. Aside from concerns over previous censorship attempts and the decorative benefits, why is it important to you that the image be kept here? What specific enclopedic value(s) does it add to the article from your point of view? ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This debate has reached its natural conclusion. There is no value in repeating the same points over and over in a variety of ways and continuing to do so is time-wasting and wp:disruptive. It is the clear wp:consensus of editors that the image should remain and that it is compliant with MOS:IMAGEREL in the section where it is used. The discussion is over. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

So we can remove the image right? Because no one has presented a valid reason for it to be kept. The only disruption and concensus that I see are two people repeatedly failing to answer polite questions about whether or not the image content meets the MOS requirements for inclusion and instead attempting to derail and shutdown that conversation. If you no longer want to participate in the conversation, that's your choice and there is no deadline. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You are still evading the core issue. Why not just answer my original questions honestly? (You are not required to answer, of course. However. if you don't want to, please stop disrupting attempts to have a conversation about the merits of using the image in this article (or lack there of)).

What non-comsetic value does the content in the image provide to the article and wikipedia readers seeking to learn about the Islamic Calendar and Nasi?~2026-78748-7 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Nasi

Editors who participated in this discussion should also keep an eye on Nasi' as the OP recently removed the image claiming that the consensus of this talk page was that the image was only decorative and could be removed. I have reverted his edit. AstroLynx (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither you nor other editors chose to participate in a conversation about the merits of keeping the image outside of the context of censoship. There are other reasons for removing the image from this and other articles which have been repeatedly ignored. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You have already been given the reason why the image is relevant in the context where it is used in both articles – just as it was when Al Buruni used it for the same reason and in the same context, 1000 years ago. The discussion has already ended. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Please restate it for me clearly then because I have not understood other than for you to say that it appears in a caption which does not meet the MOS requirement. The subject of the article is this article is the Islamic Calendar and the subject of the other article is Nasi'. Neither of those are depicted in the image. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue is simple. There are at least three editors here who believe it is in line with MOS:IMAGEREL. It is only you who disagrees. This is a case of WP:1AM, and so as JMF said it's time to drop the WP:STICK. — Czello ^(music) 07:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Please answer my quesitons. Where is a calendar in the image? Where are the Nasi in the image? How does the image teach anyone anything about a calendar or Nasi? ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The image portrays the prohibition of Nasī. It is next to a section talking about the prohibition of Nasī. It's that simple. — Czello ^(music) 07:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It does not. It has a caption the says that, but there is nothing in the image to indicate that is what is occuring. It just shows people. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a citation to the book it's from. — Czello ^(music) 07:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

That still doesn't help anyone. Its an abstract drawing that doesn't show the subject of the artice. Sure, it looks nice, but the Wikipedia MOS does not allow images that are primarily decorative and that do not help inform the reader about the subject. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You're going round in circles here. Several editors have already explained to you that it is in line with MOS:IMAGEREL as a portrayal of the events in the adjacent paragraph. If your argument is that what is happening in the image itself is unclear, that's why there is a caption which explains the context of the Arabic text. — Czello ^(music) 07:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting MOS:IMAGEREL. I am not saying that the image isn't relevant. I am saying that it doesn't teach the reader about the subject. I could look at the picure for eternity and never guess that the image was supposed to depict anything about leap months or time keeping. ~2026-78748-7 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Images aren't required to inform the reader in uncaptioned isolation, I wouldn't guess that the atomic clock closeup at File:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg related to timekeeping. The adjacent article text in the Nasi' article is about an announced prohibition, and the image, with a caption describing what it depicts, is a relevant illustration of that concept. Belbury (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to temporarily give Nasi' the same protection against vandalism by anonymous editors as Islamic calendar currently has. AstroLynx (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Or you could just try discussing like Belbury did. ~2026-12735-56 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Template:Sock vote--Belbury (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Although the perceived need for protection does raise a quesiton about Czello's claim that my opinion is one versus many. ~2026-12735-56 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Template:Sock vote--Belbury (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That's because it is still just one person, persistently edit warring and not dropping the stick. Talking of which, Slakr there appears to be some block evasion going on here. — Czello ^(music) 06:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like User:~2026-11919-72 was blocked for disruption on the evening of the 22nd, so all comments after that time above were evading that block. I'll just strike the ones from the past 24 hours and remove the one with no response, under WP:BLOCKEVASION. I guess that ends the discussion for now. --Belbury (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)