Talk:Islamic calendar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prohibition of the Nasī': Nasī' can also mean postponement w/o intercalation[edit]

It makes no sense to discuss the Islamic prohibition of the Nasī' w/o first defining the Nasi' (I have just fixed that).

Second, the translation used here is explicitly adopting but one of the 2 interpretations, intercalation, ignoring the 2nd, postponement. Either one can prove that only this interpretation has gained mainstream traction lately, or the whole section becomes misleading & untenable. Arminden (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but you need to provide a citation that supports that dual interpretation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both interpretations are described at Nasi'. Maybe you can find a suitable single citation there? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

an error which is causing harm to sentiments of billions muslims.[edit]

I know this not a delibrate action and the intentions are not ill but please take down the illustration where it says to be an illustration of our Prophet Muhammad PBUH because this will unintentionally cause billions of Muslim's emotions being hurt as in our belief associating portraits of our Holy Prophet PBUH is disrespect. 139.135.36.84 (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per long-established consensus and as explained in the headers at the top of this page, Wikipedia is not censored. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the long explanation, please read the "frequently asked questions" page that explains how Wikipedia handles this question. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to understand the theological and historical basis (or not) for the belief, see the article "Depictions of Muhammad". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phase period vs Gregorian calendar[edit]

I've edited the Months section to replace a direct quote from the Astronomical Almanac supplement ("As a result, the cycle of twelve lunar months regresses through the seasons over a period of about 33 [solar] years") with a less ambiguous explanation ("This causes the Hijri calendar to gain a year against the Gregorian calendar over a period of 33 solar years, though dates themselves do not correspond from cycle to cycle"). This clarifies that the source is referring to the phase difference of the two calendars, not the period after which a given date in one will land on the same date in the other.

I unfortunately have not been able to find a source for what that period is, mostly because I'm not familiar enough with horology to know the best term to use to find one, but hopefully the fact that I'm clearing up a potential misinterpretation of the provided source (and one that can be seen repeated elsewhere on the internet, despite how implausible it becomes once one stops to think about it for more than a moment) means a new source isn't strictly necessary and my edit can stand until someone else can clean up behind me.

OR, but a fun fact all the same: based on the (tabular) Islamic calendar averaging 354.37 days per year and the Georgian averaging 365.2425, period after which the pattern of corresponding dates between the two calendars will repeat would be indicated by the cumulative days' divergence being divisible by the average number of days. I ran out of rows in Excel trying to calculate that, which means it's not below 1,048,577 years. I'm sure there's a way to calculate it, as Abramsky did for the Hebrew calendar's 14.39 billion years - but I'm not a mathematician either, so I'll leave that to some other poor sod!

Ded10cTalk · Contrib's 16:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that you have come up with the right solution here, so I am reverting for now, per WP:BRD. I appreciate the clarity problem but the AAS is more NPOV: it expresses the movement strictly with respect to the seasons and makes no reference to a calendar that may be seen as Christian. (Nitpickingly so, IMO, but technically correct.) Also, I don't see the ambiguity? the AAS doesn't mention dates at all. Can you think of a better way to express it? (I can't!) Meanwhile, rather than a full-on revert, I'll make your text a footnote. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]