Kommunal.az

	Five Pillars of Islam was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 7, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 23, 2009 Good article reassessment Listed September 2, 2014 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Five Pillars of Islam: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2017-12-12 What we should do to achieve FA status criteria : Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Copyedit : === Heading text === Use the correct word "salat" to accurately transcribe the word prayer and modify the word salah. Priority 1 (top)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Date palm#Fruit|dates]] Anchor Date palm#Fruit links to a specific web page: Fruit. The anchor (#Fruit) has been deleted by other users before. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ThatsPrettyMuchIt, Jessw0405.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article contain zero information on the precise manner in which the Five Pillars of Islam are introduced in canonical Islamic scriptures? InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From where the word pillar came from? Which Quranic verse or Hadith mention this word? Significance of this term? Who originated this term? History? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.107.120 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cut this bit out:

Note:
In spite of the fact that the five pillars are obligatory and meant to be absolutely essential for every Muslim to keep, not all individual Muslims do, or are able to faithfully participate. Many secularized Muslims, have stopped participating in religious duties; many of them are so-called second-generation muslims in western countries, the children and grandchildren of muslim immigrants, who live in-between two cultures and have developed ambivalent feelings towards their religious duties. On the one hand they tend to cling to their traditions for identity reasons, on the other hand the influence of western mentality, daily life and peer-pressure tears them away from muslim culture. Plus, a complicating factor for observing Ramadan and the five prayers is the fact that western society is not designed for such radical habits.

This is also true for Judaism and Christianity; perhaps this paragraph could be written in a more general form, and then it could have minor modifications made for Judaism, Chrisitianity and Islam. It could then be inserted into all of these topic? RK

I'd say not. It's is, as Manning said below, 'commentary' on sociology of religion and not encyclopedic description of religion. There's certainly a place for it, but not on the pages devoted to the description of the religious groups themselves for themselves.--MichaelTinkler

Actually, I have a number of books by Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jewish rabbis, all of whome bring of this precise point. They do not view a discussion of this as an attack on Judaism; they view it simply as a description of the changes that Jewish people have experienced since the Enlightenement and emancipation of the late 1700s and early 1800s. All of the major Jewish movements regard responding to this phenomenon as part of their religious mandate. I think many Christian groups feel the same way. I think a better differentiation would be that this description does not fall under theology, but under some other category describing the religion. Real world Judaism has less than 50% of American Jews following any form of Judaism as at all (recent surveys published last month have reaffirmed this.) Even a personal survey of gentiles I know shows that many, many people in America's northeast are only "cultural" Christians, and do not accept most tenets of their faith as expressed in their particular church's principles of belief. This phenomenon is growing among American Muslims as well, although I have no idea how widespread this actually is. RK

Michael Tinkler writes "There's certainly a place for it, but not on the pages devoted to the description of the religious groups themselves for themselves." Do we really have any such pages? I don't think so. If we did, then the entry on Islam would have a long list of proofs "proving" the Torah, the Tanach, and the New Testament are all corrupt, and that only the Koran is true, and that Jews and Christians are trying to fool the followers of God. If we had such pages, then the entry on Christianity would have entries proving that the Jews are stubborn and the offspring of the Devil, and that worshipping Jesus is the only way to God. If we had such pages, then the entry on Judaism would contain polemic after polemic condemning idolatry and any form of polytheism, as well as condemning all those who follow atheism and agnosticism, and Deism. But we don't have this. Instead, we try to impartially describe what each faith/community teaches, but not 100% from their own point of view. More from a friendly outsider point of view, right? Thus, perhaps each section might include a paragraph on the real world sociology of the followers of these faiths, as distinct from the theoretical positions? RK

About this passage written above:

I feel this is not entirely true. I am not an immigrant and i lived in and around a muslim community and that was not in the western world. Yet i did not perform my duties as i should have. This para which says "Many secularized Muslims, have stopped participating in religious duties; many of them are so-called second-generation muslims in western countries, the children and grandchildren of muslim immigrants, who live in-between two cultures and have developed ambivalent feelings towards their religious duties."

Now in my situation this did not apply and i know many others living in Islamic Communities in the east. They too lack the will too practice. So its not the place or the country based upon which the level of practice can be possible or impossible.

This seemed to be a commentary on modern muslim sociology and not really related to the Five Pillars. Not to say it isn't a worthwhile subject, only that it was off-topic. - MMGB

The matter of to what extent the Five Pillars are actually observed in practice by various groups within the muslim community is in fact directly relevant to the subject and is not at all "off-topic". Yes, it may be relevant to other topics, such as "modern muslim sociology", or "modernity and religous traditions", etc., but that doesn't mean it is not relevant and appropriate here. IT IS. -HWR

(From the old page) -- This needs to be incorporated or to incorporate the Five Pillars of Islam article (unfortunate capitalization, but pre-existing). --MichaelTinkler

As you were typing this, I was merging the two :) - MMGB

this is looking VERY good. --MichaelTinkler

Thanks for every suggestion here. About the 'note' paragraph above (which I wrote), it seems we are talking about two different subjects: 1. the loyality problem of the so-called 2nd generation immigrants, and 2. the practical difficulties people face when observing religious duties and traditions in 'foreign' cultures. Could both be worth a separate article? With my paragraph I wanted to emphasize the first. I have looked into the 'Sociology of religion' page, but cannot see how it would fit in there. I still think it should at least be mentioned in the Five Pillars article. In order to be able to elaborate on it, probably we should have a separate page named 'Muslims in western society', or something like Hank suggested and include both subjects there. I do not think it would be the best idea to broaden it to make it fit all major religions. Each religion has it's own background culture and it's own specific problems. We could then add more acceptation/adaptation/integration problems and processes into such an article. Ofcourse, it should then also be linked to some sociology page. What do you think? -- TK

I have put back in a rewritten version of the paragraph. I've tried to keep it as close to the Five Pillars as I could, leaving out the 2nd generation topic. The issue of 'Muslims in Western society' in my opinion still deserves a separate treatment -- TK

TK - yeah, the rewritten version is fine, it still relates directly to the discussion of the Five Pillars so is appropriate. Nice work - MMGB

Thanks, and thank you for your style corrections -TK

I agree - the fit is much better. --MichaelTinkler

Moved from main article:

Previous to the 20th century many Muslims held Jihad (holy war) to be the sixth pillar of Islam; Since the fundamentalist Islamist movement began its ascension in the 20th century, this point of view has become more prevalent. Muslims have been traditionally encouraged to engage in external forms of Jihad (warfare against those judged to be infidels or threats to Islam) by political motivations and through the promise that men who die in Jihad are rewarded in Heaven by being served daily by 70 female virgins. Islamist

Reduced to factual statement of the first section, I haven't found any evidence of belief outside of the mentioned sect, the rest is irrelavent to the particular point, although possibly the middle section should be moved to Jihad. --Imran

• Supernatural Islamic experiences

Though many westerners may not understand the intricacies of Islam, I'll try to condense it into USA-centric religious explanation. Look at the Sunni-Shia division like the division between Babtists and Catholics. Sunnis, like Baptists, believe they have a direct relationship to God, via a direct link with a prophet (Mohammed/Jesus). Whereas the Shia are akin to Catholics in that they have additional beliefs that are not in accordance with strict interpretations of the Bible/Q'uran. This is only an extreme generalization; it's an appropriate hook to find more information on google.com, or right here on wikipedia.com

The paying of alms (Zakaah) - which is generally 2.5% of the yearly savings for a rich man working in trade or industry, and 10% or 20% of the produce for agriculturists. This money or produce is distributed among the poor. And 25% of found treasure such as non gambling lottery and every precious items found by someone. -- wow, the agriculturists certainly get the short end of the stick -- 20% of the gross for farmers versus 2.5% of the net for rich men? Nice.

wow, the agriculturists certainly get the short end of the stick -- 20% of the gross for farmers versus 2.5% of the net for rich men? Nice. sounds like it. but unfortunately no. that 2.5% of the rich man may contribute more to that of 20% farms output if i may say. also considered the redundancy. 2.5% is deducted over and over for the same wealth throughout the years. farm product are consumables and only deducted once. also farm product are ready for direct distribution with only transport cost incurred. however for wealth requires transaction for conversion and thus incurred more cost than farm product. and by the way 2.5% percent wealth saving exceeding the nisab applies to anyone with wealth including farmers themselves. doctors, lawyers and other profession should actually observed the 20% of their annual income. 202.158.33.162 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) eko of jakarta[reply]

An Understanding of all religions

Other then be patient in anyways and to absatain from food, Fasting is also the only way to achive the state of mind, by focusing and concentrate to avoid think about things, it is there to make people easier to become one with the universe, some say fasting is only to teach people to be more better then before, to reduce the temptation in many things, it is correct, but they need to understand that fasting is the only way to make everything peace, even Allah also named his religion "ISLAM" means "PEACE or THE WAY OF LIFE" to be or to make that people have to be one with the universe, achive the state of mind, and people will see how wonderfull is life when all the nature is on their side. 30 days of fasting is not a very long time to achive it, Prophet Muhammad spend 15 years in hira` cave just to give his followers the easiest and the best way of doing the same thing of what he had done. Saturday 27Jun 09(Malaysia)

I think the last section ("Modern Muslims and the pillars of Islam") should be edited to remove a perceived bias. I'm not an expert on the issue though, and would like someone else to change it.

• Besides a POV, the section is irrelevent. Modern Muslims not adhering to the "pillars" is just some Muslims who aren't as religious as others. Similarities exist in all religions. Catholic have their requirements of holy days of obligation, fasting on Fridays during Lent, going to confession once a year, etc, but far from a majority practice all of them. However some practitioners not following all the edicts doesn't change the religion itself. This section needs a rewrite only to reflect that not all Muslims devotly follow the 5 pillarsBarneygumble 21:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I am not really sure where this should go, but is "Striving to seek God's approval (Jihad)" an accurate description of either this Arabic word or Muslim belief?JBicha 21:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have some review and comment on the changes shown here. I am not sure about all of them but I do not know enough. I just want to make sure the editors of this article are paying attention and an anon user (who once blanked the page) is not being arbitary. gren 19:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that along with Shia and Sunni, Ahmadiya is mentioned while in almost all of the Muslim scholars or Islamic sects had denounced as non Muslims. It will be good to atleast flag it with a citation/reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.73.3.122 (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain why this is, and how to fix it:

A search (from the little search box in the sidebar) for "Five Pillars of Islam" will turn up this article.

But, searches for: "five pillars of islam" "Five PIllars of Islam" "Five Pillars Of Islam"

All of these say that an article by that title doesn't exist, and ask if I'd like to create it or search Google or Yahoo for it (which is how I eventually found it). This is NOT true, oddly enough, for "Pillars of Islam", but it is for the same in lowercase.

Why is the uppercasedness of the title so important for finding this article?

Because no-one had made a Re-Direct from those pages yet. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

This seems a little oversimplistic: "Modern interpretations of Jihad have lead to the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism and particularly suicide bombers." This implies that the Jihad tradition is the only reason for Islamic terrorism, which is a claim that would require a little more backing. Perhaps "Modern interpretations of Jihad have contributed to the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism and particularly suicide bombers."?

Why was the section Jihad as the sixth pillar of Islam? removed? I have not found any explanation here so I put it in again.

- - Removing the reference to the Beslan school siege

The Beslan school siege is controversial. Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility for the Beslan school siege in September 2004 in which over 350 people, most of them children, were killed and hundreds more injured. Some see in him Chechnya's most famed contemporary national hero, others a Islamic fundamentalist, politician, or terrorist. Since 2003, Basayev has also used the pseudonym and title Abdallah Shamil Abu-Idris, Amir of the Brigade of Shahids 'Riyadus Salihiin'".

Taken from the lemma on Shamil Basayev: In "an interview to Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky in which Shamil Basayev describes himself as 'a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist.' But, to justify his own acts to intentionally kill unarmed civilians, women and children, he claimed that the Russians 'officially' killed 40,000 Chechen children and are therefore terrorists as well" [1].

Hence, it can be argued from a neutral POV that the reference to the Beslan school siege as a terrorist act and part of jihad is valid and should be included again in the main article.

Jihad has been removed from this article because it does not fit the Wikiliberal agenda. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. --Haizum 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad is indeed the essential and very important part of Islam but it is not included in five pillars of Islam. Wikipedia is not based on original research. --- ALM 12:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should not the "Template:Basic Muslim Beliefs" be included? --Striver 01:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As appropriate as it may be, two large templates on page is unsightly. joturner 01:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and therefore i propose that we discared the one less relevant to this specifical topic, that is the "Islam" template. --Striver 04:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All~

This page was looking quite good, and I have contributed a few changes. A couple of these are terminological:

-I have taken out the word 'fundamental' from the description of the status of the five pillars, since this term is of dubious semantic value when it comes to describing Islam.

-I have replaced the term 'sect' in all places it occurs, since the term itself is an impediment to expressing a neutral POV.

The major change I have made is to add a paragraph at the beginning historicizing the five pillars model. This is by no means a consensus model of piety among all Muslims, and that fact is even more apparent if one looks back in history. I am not sure if this belongs here at the beginning or in a debates section later in the entry. In any case, I think it is important to register the fact that large communities of Muslims in the world today (and particularly groups with a low level of international visibility and presence on the internet owing to illiteracy, poverty, linguistic identity and so forth) do not understand Islam through this five pillars model.

elbev

I deleted the following:

"The five pillars are intended to increase one's faith and make a person "better". If they do not have this impact on a person, then they are practiced in vain."

There was no reference for this and I don't think it complies with the general Islamic creed.

From the article: "Zakāt, the paying of alms

   Main article: Zakat
   Zakat means both purification and growth. Each Muslim calculates his or her own
   Zakat is calculated"

And there it ends. I'd add something to make it a complete sentence, but I don't know that much about Islam. I'd appreciate it if someone who knows what this is supposed to be would correct it. cøøkiə Ξ _(talk) 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong about this as I am not Muslim, but it is my (limited) understanding of the concept of Zakat that its beneficiaries must be Muslim. As there is nothing about this on the main Zakat article, I fully realize I could be off base, but if I'm not, I think it's relevant enough to include in this article as well as the Zakat one. Can anyone speak to this from experience? Thanks Kitmention (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen nothing in the Quran to indicate this, but I'm no hafiz so I could have missed something.

9:60 Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise.

So I think if you're poor and needy but not a Muslim, that you still benefit from Zakat. But then I'm not all that familiar with the individual rulings within Islamic jurisprudence, my knowledge of Islam is almost entirely Quranic. Peter Deer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone corrupted the first pillar bulleted in the list. Could someone correct this? I would if I was already familiar with the five pillars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.89.216 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is everything in this article correct from the viewpoint of each branch of Islam? If the two major branches (or any others) have differences on some significant aspect of the Five Pillars, the differences should be mentioned here. On the other hand, if there are no differences, it would be helpful to those of us not very knowledgeable about Islam if the article would mention that fact. JamesMLane t c 07:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify Shia viewpoint. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this article is good one. I want to nominate it if you agree with me.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention necessity to perform Salah/Sawm (or lack of) for women during menstruation and following childbirth AA
• Contents from the external link can (and should) be incorporated in the article and the EL removed. AA
• The following quote in the lead ""the five duties incumbent on every Muslim" needs a citation or the quotemarks removed. AA

I removed '' ''.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is perfectly covers this subject without going into great detail. It is also concise, and surprisingly neutral considering that it deals with religion. The main issues that I found were so minor, that I fixed most of them up myself.

1. It is well written.

I found the article an enjoyable read with good writing quality, but could do with less redundancy words. (see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

All information is cited by reliable sources, and the article contains no cases of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

I did not feel, that the article was lacking in anyway, except that it may benefit from having more comparison between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Secondly it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

As I said above, I was expecting a small amount of bias, but there seems to be no clear evidence of this.

5. It is stable.

Besides the higher than normal levels of vandalism, yes.

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labelled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.

The images are appropriate to the subject, however a more relevant image could probably replace Image:Date-seller.jpg. They also follow the copyright policy.

In conclusion to this I hereby award this article Good article status. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph notes that there are three additional essential practices adhered to by Shi'a Muslims. It only describes two. Could someone knowledgeable on the subject add the third? --68.39.187.136 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the first additional essential practice was removed without explanation. I'm reinserting it, but I must confess that I do not know much about this subject. If I am in error, please revert me.--Rise Above The Vile 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your reinstatement has been undone already. Whether or not the mention of Jihad is appropriate in this section, the opening of the paragraph should correllate with the rest. I think first it should be decided whether Jihad should be mentioned here, and if it is to be removed, the first sentence should then be changed to introduce two additional practices instead of three. It seems appropriate to me that Jihad be part of the article, but again I'm not an expert on this topic either. --66.202.1.140 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks complete and stable. I want to ask for peer review.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed whatever Millhamstreet had added to the article[2], due to the fact that it related to the belief and should be added in articles like Iman (concept) or Aqidah.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I d like to ask which is the correct form of writing: Zakat/Zakah or Salat/Salah. I ve found it in a book both with T written at the end and on websites as well. Does it matter whether I use T or Z? Nóra (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there has been such a substantial number of Muslims who believe in the sixth pillars of Islam that a mention is needed. The main Jihad article clearly refers to it as the "Sixth pillar". I suspect that a mention has not been made because of the expected nagative publicity. For a person who knows nothing about the five pillars of Islam, I believe that a mention of the sixth pillar is warranted. EgraS (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of a sixth pillar in any hadith or verse of the Koran, therefore it will not be put in. 72.219.231.47 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed a statement that I added concerning the origin of the 5 pillars. I have since re-added it, but am wondering about the reason for the removal (none was given). Here is the statement that was removed:

"The concept of five pillars is taken from the Hadith collections, notably those of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. The Qur'an does not speak of five pillars, although one can find in it scattered references to their associated practices."

Is there something inappropriate about this? Inaccurate? Please let me know. 71.166.114.186 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know the five pillars of ancient islam. Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.84.176 (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has inserted a sentence confusing Mohammed with the Buddha (saying he, Mohammed, achieved Nirvana!) I took it out, but pyrrhus reversed it back in again -- and some other changes too. I think there needs to be a reference to the "touchstone" nature of the Pillars as defining a Muslim across all the sects and opinions, but I'm obviously not going to be allowed to make it.... 217.40.173.77 (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC) U[reply]

Under the Salah heading: "Salat is compulsory but some flexibility in body and clothing, as well as the place of prayer, must be cleansed." That makes no sense--something's missing after "clothing", and before "as", I think. I'd fix it myself, but I figure I'll leave it to someone who knows the subject.--MisterRational (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Five Pillars of Islam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is comprehensive and well-written. There are a few terms that are unfamiliar to the non-Muslim that should be defined. Terms such as Gyhad, and Ahl al-Bayt. But for the most part the article remains in good shape, links are sound and references are comprehensive and properly formatted. I will keep the article at GA. H1nkles (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyhad? I find no instance of this word in the article, could you indicate which paragraph it is in? As for Ahl al-Bayt, I'll see what I can do. Peter Deer (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some kindergarteners seem to be having some fun, so I've protected the article for a bit. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formulation: "[I profess that] There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet." As expressed, I think this is misleading. It, implies that Allah means something different to God, when the difference is simply linguistic (i.e. Allah is Arabic for God). Here is an alternative version, with reference: "There is none worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is the messenger of God." http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html Jalfro (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)jalfro[reply]

the "I profess......" statement is a translation that just names Allah in an apropriate way. it would be unusual for someone who has no knowledege of islam to jump straight to the five pillars.  rdunnalbatross  11:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHy doesn't the Shahada have a separate subheading in this article? 129.173.223.104 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it had been removed by a vandal and accidentally not replaced. I've put it back now. Thanks for pointing it out! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current structure of the main article is confusing. There are six headings in the main pillars section and it is not clear which of Hadith or Shahadah is actually a pillar. I think the article should be structure in the following way

• The pillars should be grouped into five level three headings under a single level two heading called "Five Pillars" or something similar.
• There should be no other headings or sections in this level two heading.
• Each pillar section should explicitly begin with the statement "The X^th pillar of islam is Y", in order to make it completely clear what is a pillar and what is not.86.41.99.167 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points; I agree. Hadith wasn't a section until someone added it recently; in my opinion it should probably be removed, and people can go to the article on Hadith if they want more detail. Feel free to make the changes if you like, 84. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.al-islam.org does not qualify as a WP:RS. If you want to edit-war about this topic, please make sure you refer to actual quotable references, not to some thing you found on the internet. Seriously, please stop this, it is disruptive. If this continues much longer, we'll have to blacklist al-islam.org from inclusion.

Also, the proper reaction to this sort of edit-warring is not heaping up a ridiculous bunch of random references like the CIA or Public Broadcasting Service[3]. Sheesh. Just cite one single good academic source. --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab - Do not misuse you Admin privileges. Please build up a consensus at WP:RS first then proceed ahead with allegations. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Islam.org has recognition from Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress. When such reliable sources take it as reference for Islam then how come you can allege so? Humaliwalay (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To user Deb; thank you very much for your interference. Your presence can be a help to overcome this problem. I will be appreciably grateful if you first have a look page 38 of this book [4]. User Humaliwalay discussed reliability of the other source and also I can provide more sorce in this case. I would like to add, in Islamic articles, idea of both sects must be reflected while the users have respect toward each other. If you read the text I added (pillars of Shia), you won't see any disrespect toward Sunni users or their ideas. Also I didn't write any bad information about Islam. Thanks. --Aliwiki (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us not involved - what is the issue with the website that makes it not a reliable source?

I see that it appears to have a unifying advocacy mission. Is it felt to be fringe or a purely advocacy site?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not abusing anything. Somebody here is failing to respect WP:CITE, and it isn't me. The question is, who is Bashir Rahim and why should Wikipedia mention his opinions? As long as this isn't clarified, the "Bashir Rahim" section needs to go. Wikipedia isn't a private webhost or blogspace provider for your personal ideas. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut this section because it is completely unreferenced.[5] You are welcome to add it back with proper references.

According to Mulla Bashir Rahim, additional acts also referred to as "five pillars" are as follows:

It isn't disputed that these are principles of Islam. What is doubtful is whether and by whom these are known as "five pillars" or "ten subsidiary pillars". --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab, the 5 +10 acts do not even mention the main first pillar ("shahada" or "belief") which is required to be a Muslim. In other words, if people were to follow these 15 acts they are considered non-Muslims. "This is the basic statement of the Islamic faith: anyone who cannot recite this wholeheartedly is not a Muslim." Some of these are clearly acts which only Shias follow, i.e. Imamate (Divine Leadership).
• About PBS (Islam: Empire of Faith). This is the most trusted and reliable source for Islam-related articles. Its documentary on Islam is often shown on TV, at www.PBS.org [6], at google videos [7], youtube [8] or on DVDs. The people involved in this documentary are professors from top western colleges and universities, so I think we should use this before any other.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid parallel discussion, let's follow this matter on Islam talk page. The last point was to remove the word five to make it general for all Muslims.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Hajj1.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a tag for clean up at the Shia Islam section. In addition to the need for wikification and MoS, there's also no citations to reliable sources present in the section. These issues should be fixed promptly since this article is rated GA. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I add that Islam is the most beautiful religion in the world when it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.55.196 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely because that's a subjective statement and impossible to support. How does one quantify "most beautiful"?129.139.1.75 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary couldn't contain the link of an IP edit, so I am reporting again the full comment of my edit:

Reordered the five pillars of Islam according to this source http://web.archive.org/web/20101203124633/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/5PILLARS.HTM and also based on several editors corrections such as this.--Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please use the word "salat" instead of "salah" to accurate transcribe the word prayer. 79.71.113.191 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice this before but it appears I did it anyway, here. 02:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Request restructure of the Five Pillars based on preliminary research across other web based sources showing agreement of this *Particular* order. (Change in position of Zakat and Sawm.)

I - Shahada II - Salat

• III - Zakat
• IV - Sawm

V - Hajj

References http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/pillars_%28P1188%29.html http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/Islam/five_pillars_of_Islam.aspx http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/pillars.shtml http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-16.htm http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/I_Transp/IO5_FivePillars.html

Please address at convenience. If not correct in request, please address with cited conflicting sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jknight89 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar number 5 (Hajj) of the introduction reads: "Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to do." I think this is grammatically incorrect and I would change "is able to do" to just "is able," or "is able to do so." Also, I think the use of "he/she" is inappropriate because the sentence is not referring to a single person, so I would substitute "if one is" for "if he/she is." thanks --75.18.185.128 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in need of major work to fit the GA criteria. It doesn't contain anything about the history of the Five Pillars as a concept or how they've been variously interpreted by Islamic scholars and religious-studies academics. In addition, some of the sources look unreliable and the formatting is wildly inconsistent, wholly incomplete in some cases. I don't like to do this, but I'm going to nominate this for GAR if no one begins work soon. Tezero (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

They are:

1. Shahadah: declaring there is no god except ALLAH, and Muhammad (S.A.W) is God's Messenger

Imroz19121 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please Muhammad should be write as Muhammad (PBUH)

39.55.133.213 (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: See WP:PBUH. Stickee (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Five Pillars of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070308025221/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_21.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_21.html#HEADING20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page for the word "Ummah" which means "community" see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

Since this word is used in this article, it would be nice to have a link to it. Since I am not a registered user (although a frequent reader) I would like to propose that that word be linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article. I don't think it would 'clutter' the paragraph in question, and it would allow those of us interested to continue learning about the subject.

Thank you!

Shouldn't it be stated somewhere in this article that some Muslims, such as the People of the Quran don't believe in the "five pillars"? That they believe it is an innovation. Jahelistbro (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove neoclassical rome architecture picture, Five_pillars_of_Islam.svg Not convenient symbol to express Islam.

212.174.232.222 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. st170e^talk 12:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Five Pillars of Islam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203124633/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/5PILLARS.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/5PILLARS.HTM

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First photo on the page Wikipedia 5 pillar of islam's English conversation is Faslse.. Zakat's English conversation is not Compulsory giving but original meaning of zakat is to charity... Zakat's meaning is very descriptivly found in islam that given some rule of islamic way followed by quran...

You should change it very early Thank u..😊 Ramiz gadhiya (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think #Zakāt: Charity and #Sawm: Fasting sections of the article should be swapped in order. And please capitalize "pilgrimage" in "pilgrimage to Mecca" for consistency with previous section naming style. --5.43.68.69 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah Prasad19.hari (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC) There is no god but God[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has said that Jews and Christians have distorted the teachings regarding prayer. This statement is very offensive to Hews and Christians. Please amend this.103.100.11.3 (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in the opening section heading, Overview..., contains unclear wording (in italics):

• "Regarding the matter of the Hajj, the longest Quranic section (Sura 2.196-203) recommends the destination location of the pilgrimage, the lead and exercises of the individuals who participate..."

This was perhaps translated from another language. It would benefit from a rewrite for clarification. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: The article includes a section titled "Pillars of Sunni Islam", in comparison with other sections I think the article suffers from undue weight issue. the weight of the Sunni view is not proportional to the weight of the others. In the other hand, most of the material which was mentioned in the Sunni view section has an own article. For example, there is an article about Salah, why is such a detailed material as to salah is needed? Isn't it better to summarize them? Saff V. (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V., you may be right, but I honestly don't have enough familiarity with Islam in general to be able to look at this article at a glance and immediately determine whether there's something off about the weight. That having been said, the instructions do seem to be unnecessarily detailed, and also carry a non-neutral tone. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the Second Pillar section and came upon a sentence that was not logical which led me to reread the section to see what I had missed. The sentence in question was:

Sermons on Fridays usually have considerable public opinion's impact regarding sociopolitical and moral questions.

The possessive "opinion's" was the puzzler. Also, I was not at all sure what Friday's Sermons had to do with prayers on Friday.

Rereading made me realize that the section although held OK content was poorly structured and was not at all well written.

The major (basically the only) reference for this section was the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA article "Islam", Paragraph "Five Pillars", Fundamental practices and institutions of Islam, subsection Prayer. It was referenced eleven times. Much of what is in this section was lifted and poorly rephrased to do a bit of ham-edited editing in order to by-pass plagiarizing from the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA.

The sentence that was taken from the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA was

"Friday sermons usually have considerable impact on public opinion regarding both moral and sociopolitical questions."

Seeing this resolved my confusion; the Wikipedia editor added a possessive apostrophe for no apparent reason.

Using the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA as the major source to explain a Pillar of Islam is just plain lazy as there are undoubtedly more authoritative sources for this subject. Also, the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA article is not very well written to begin with.

This section needs to be revised to reflect "prayer" as a Pillar and leave out all else. If the "all else" is important as a Pillar then it should be somewhere else and made clear as to its related importance.

Realizing the strange Wikipedian Philosophy that EVERYTHING CAN BE ANYWHERE AND ANYTHING CAN BE EVERYWHERE, The Five Pillars of Islam concerning "prayer" is in several other articles within Wikepedia. The "Five Pillars of Islam" is contained in the Wikipedia page Islam; and for some reason, there is a "See Also" to this "Five Pillars of Islam" page. And the Islam page also refers to another Wikipedia page Salah which goes into great length explaining "prayer" as the second of the five pillars in the Islamic faith. Maybe there could be a little less of EVERYTHING BEING EVERYWHERE because EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE IS NOT USEFUL BECAUSE IT IS EVERYWHERE.

Sorry about the EVERYTHING EVERWHERE rant, but, having lots of so-so redundant articles in Wikipedia does not make Wikipedia better. It apparently happens since we must compromise and try to make everybody sort of happy.

So this section needs a bit of rewrite and some research to find more authoritative sources than the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

I have deleted the references to Sermons from the section as they don't exactly fit as directly pertinent to the Pillar of prayer.

It would be good if this section was improved.

Osomite (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran is the only source of Islam, there is no "sunni" or "shia" and sectism is even banned in Islam because it is political. Yet wikipedia includes references to these sects as primary information, simply put, if it's not in the Quran, it is not part of Islam.

Same goes for the Hadith, the Hadith has many flaws in which it has sayings that contradict the Quran, hadiths which contradict other hadiths and most of all, it isn't the word of God according to Muslims, it is the word of man.

Here, the 5 Pillars are not a official statement from the Quran and as such, it should not be presented as part of Islam,but actually a cultural tradition.

I don't have a horse in this race, but titling this page "Five Pillars of Islam" feels like a violation of WP:NPOV. While the "Five Pillars" is the *majority* view, they are (as described in this article) by no means the only view. Five pillars, Seven, five pillars but they're different from the first five pillars, no pillars at all; there's a lot of disagreement (as is also evident from the (presumed) muslims on this talk page going "this is wrong". The five pillars may be orthodoxy in the notion of majority consensus (i.e most sunnis), but taking the side of "orthodoxy" is not a Neutral Point of View.

103.147.162.7 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]