Talk:Basmala

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Basmala article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

Bismillah vs. Basmala

Talk:Basmala/Archive1 Link to an archive of a discussion that has run its course.

A one-line summary of my position from this discussion is "Basmala is not an 'alternative pronunciation' of Bismillah, nor was it ever intended to be such, but is rather the name of the entire phrase whose first word is Bismillah". AnonMoos 01:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having studies Qur'an recitaion books, I have seen Basmalah as the name for the whole phrase as well as saying the whole phrase. This is similar to Hamdalah for saying Alhamdolillah. Takbir and Tahlil for saying Allah o Akbar and La ilaha illallah are a little different in how the phrases are made. -- 02:09, 12 August 2007 72.70.82.24

2006 discussion

Well, i find spelling it Basmala just as offensive when ignorant people spell Qur'an: Koran, and i think we should go with what linguisticly sounds correct, which is Bismillah. - cronodevir

Not sure what you mean -- Arabs themselves invented the word Basmala, just as they invented Takbir. Basmala has a completely different spelling in Arabic than Bismillah: بسملة vs. بسم الله . I fail to see the analogy with Qur'an vs. Koran. P.S. It's "linguisticly correct" to capitalize the first person singular pronoun in English spelling. AnonMoos 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "invented" basmala. "In the name of God" is written down in Arabic as بسم الله and pronounced as bimillah, not basmala, this the first time I have ever heard the word basmala in either Arabic or English. What is بسملة mean? It is بسم الله (bism "in the name of") Allah.

This article's name should be changed to Bismillah which is the correct and is the common English spelling. --Inahet 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I bet that بسملة is indeed in your Arabic dictionary, if you chanced to look there -- it's certainly in my Arabic dictionary.

Secondly, بسم الله and بسملة are two separate things -- بسم الله is the first two words of the phrase "Bismillah ar-raħman ar-raħim", while بسملة is an Arabic word which is the NAME OF THE WHOLE PHRASE "Bismillah ar-raħman ar-raħim" (all four words of it as a unit).

Third, بسملة was indeed "invented" by taking the first four consonants of the phrase "Bismillah ar-raħman ar-raħim" as a Quadriliteral root -- in exactly the same way as the Arabic word "Hamdala" was formed by taking the first four consonants of the phrase Hamdulillah as a quadriliteral root (as is already clearly explained on the Basmala article page).

Fourth, you would probably have saved everybody some effort all around if you had just read some of the past discussions on this topic (including the archive clearly linked above), as well as read the article page itself with attention to detail. AnonMoos 23:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know I have already troubled everybody! Can you lose the condescending tone? Anyway, this is the first time I heard the term basmala, and I have read some Islamic books and I never came across this term. Anyhow, I guess I should have read a little more in to it, and I will cancel the request to move the page, although I don't see that it has caused any problems as you make you out to be. --Inahet 23:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it's causing major problems, but it's a little annoying when new people come along and raise issues which have already been discussed in detail before. Such as that Basmala is not an alternative pronunciation or spelling of Bismillah, nor was it ever intended to be such, but is rather the name of the entire phrase whose first word (or words) is Bismillah -- so that Basmala is not an incorrect spelling of Bismillah, nor is it in competition with Bismillah is any way. Check out some of the foreign-language interwiki links on the article page.... AnonMoos 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked 3 different dictionaries including this one and I checked the Arabic Wikipedia, but there were no results for بسملة. How do you explain that? --Inahet 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't attest to the quality of a random on-line resource, but I know it's in BOTH of the physical paper Arabic-English dictionaries that I own, including the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, which is pretty much the authoritative modern English-Arabic dictionary. Furthermore, it is mentioned in the Arabic Wikipedia -- but as a redlink (requested article) from ar:سورة التوبة (Sura 9), rather than being its own article yet. Arabic wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article on either Bismillah or Basmala (Arabic wikipedia's coverage is quite spotty -- it didn't even have an article on the flag of Syria until I created a small starter stub on the subject). AnonMoos 03:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] You removed the link to the archive. I thought it was strange you did, but I AGF. Look through the history next time before pointing fingers. --Inahet 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're half right -- you completely garbled my previous comments of "01:25, 28 September 2005" above (moving words around to random locations -- see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABasmala&diff=79526011&oldid=79525741 ), and in attempting to undo your garbling, I inadvertently deleted the archive link. AnonMoos 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you screwed up even more, I don't think that is how you fix mistakes, sir. Anyway, no biggie, I didn't know I did that, thanks for pointing that out. --Inahet 03:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I committed a simple error while trying to repair the effects of your strange and bizarre garbling. 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

New sub-discussion

Ok, so I read through this page, and I checked the archived page, however I have been unable to see where those in favor of "basmala" provided an origin for their word. It seems like someone baisically made up this word, and by saying that it refers to the whole phrase and not the first word(bismillah) tried to justify it. Can you please give an link or something to the definition or origin of the word "basmala" other than your own. If you can't I vote that the title should be changed to "Bismillah" as it is an actual word, it refers to the first word, and more importantly when muslims say "bismillah", other muslims around them actually know what that person is referrring to. So yeah, either give a concrete reason for having this word as the title, or change it to bismillah, because your reasons thus far have not been good enough. --Mistarojaz 14:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I have provided a reference (repeatedly) -- to the relevant dictionary entry in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. If you're unable to use an Arabic-English dictionary, then it's unlikely that you'll be able to make a very constructive or fruitful contribution to this particular topic at this time. The word "Basmala" was coined (in exactly and precisely the same manner as the word Hamdala(h) discussed on the Hamdulillah page) in order to have a single convenient term to refer to the WHOLE PHRASE بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم , and NOT just the single word بسم الله . As for the rest, I've already said several times that "Basmala is not an 'alternative pronunciation' of Bismillah, nor was it ever intended to be such, but is rather the name of the entire phrase whose first word is Bismillah". AnonMoos 16:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google test of validity/ popular term

Googling basmala yields about 20,300 results vs. the 544,000 results for Bismillah (as of Sept. 18, 2005). The article must be re-named Bismillah. Once I get a handle of WP editing, I will do the said without asking, in line with the be bold way of WP. TheProphetess 18:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you feel it is correct read Wikipedia:Requested moves and do what it says, there will be a vote on this. I personally don't know and will have to read about it. Google tests are not always the most sound. For instance Bismillah would be used more under both arguments but that does not make it correct. Since the phrase is "Bismillah Ar-Rahman..." when the phrase is used Bismallah would show up. However, when there is discussion of the phrase Basmala would show up according to An-Moos (I forget his username). I have seen both ways and I will have to read more to figure out which I believe to be correct. gren グレン 20:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your googlestats really don't mean too much until you first understand the most basic and essential point: Namely, that Basmala is NOT an "alternative pronunciation" to the SINGLE WORD Bismillah, but is instead a collective NAME of the WHOLE PHRASE bismillaah ir-raHman ir-raHiim. Anyway, the 35,000 hits for Google search basmala OR basmalah OR basmalat is actually quite a bit more than would be found for many other words of Islamic technical terminology. AnonMoos 03:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the apology trap! I am not ready yet. The article, rather than this talk page, is what's really worth my time. TheProphetess 12:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't asking for any apology -- I'm basically telling you to refrain from taking drastic actions until you start to understand the main issue involved. AnonMoos 18:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calligraphy

I've just done the donkey work of copying the two PNGs on the w:de article over to commons. They can now be used in this article, if anyone would care to place one or both. –Hajor 22:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (Though the second one seems kind of ugly from my purely subjective and idiosyncratic personal aesthetic point of view...) AnonMoos 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:). I can't wait until I get a handle of the frequent wiki operations, and bring over some more images. Thanks. TheProphetess 12:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You should probably check out Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. But please also take a glance at Wikipedia:Image use policy first. While neither of these two pics is particularly spectacular (and yes, the second one is decidedly funky), they are policy-compliant. –Hajor 13:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to them? Was there a copyright tag problem? The image also disappeared from German wikipedia, so it seems it's gone. Will remove image link from page. AnonMoos 17:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why they're not displaying; they're both still there on commons: commons:Image:Basmala.png & commons:Image:Basmala kufi.png. And they were tagged as both GFDL and cc.by.sa, so there shouldn't be any © issues. –Hajor 18:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Until they're actually diplaying again, I'll leave the code commented out... AnonMoos 20:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here]'s the answer, I think. Just too big; they need to be resized. –Hajor 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem -- I'll do a resizing for Basmala.png shortly... AnonMoos 22:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I recently put up the picture of the pear shaped bismillah and found out it dominated the page, so resize as you wish and leave any messages on this page.--Maliki 786 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems making out the text in the "leaves", and also I can't figure out what the letters sad-dal at the top of the pear mean... But thanks. AnonMoos 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The colorful borders were pretty, but not very useful for the purposes of Wikipedia, so I losslessly cropped and grayscaled the image. AnonMoos 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right leave: "Qāla allāh ta'ālā" ("The sublime God said"). Left: "Wa innahu min Sulaymān" ("And it is from Salomo" as the Basmala first apears in a letter from Salomo in the Qur'an). Below the pear: "katabahu al-shaykh Azīz al-Rufā'ī 1343" ("Shaykh Aziz al-Rufai wrote it 1924/1925"). The "sad-dal" is simply a wasla (you actually see s-l-ta marbuta) on top of the alif of Allah ;-) Aziz Efendi died 1934 so the image is in the public domain (did anyone of you think about that?) --89.51.56.136 (probably de:Benutzer:Baba66) 06:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... AnonMoos 08:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting it on the talkpage--Maliki 786 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Significance of Bismillah"

The sentence in "Significance of Bismillah" could be the beginning of a great article section, but as it stands it's rather enigmatic and unsatisfactory. What tasks? What is "Tauz", how is it spelled in Arabic script, and is there any explanation of it elsewhere on Wikipedia? Etc. etc. AnonMoos 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commented this section out, because it was really a marker for future expansion, rather than adding anything very meaningful to the page in its current form. AnonMoos 13:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just now figured out that "Tauz" was supposed to mean Ta'awwudh... AnonMoos 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basmala vs. Bismillah

I just came across this sad argument.... AnonMoos was, of course, completely correct when he repeated, so many times, that "basmala" is the name used in Arabic, and especially in Muslim religious literature, for the phrase "bismi llahi r-rahmani r-rahiym." It would probably be better to write it "basmalah," but I'm not sure how many electrons should die for that....

Many Muslims commonly refer to the phrase, however, as "the bismillah." I'm not a native Arabic speaker and I don't know what the colloquial practice is of Arabs, but I do know that, in order to learn correct Qur'anic pronunciation, I had to unlearn a lot I had learned from those who helped me when I first accepted Islam almost forty years ago; they were Pakistani, Urdu speakers, and had lost a good deal of Arabic pronunciation, giving everything a Persian cast, such as using a "z" to transliterate the letter dhal (and they pronounced it as z rather than as the "th" in "the," which is what is correct), hence other anomalies with the article since corrected.

If one googles "basmala" one will find that it usually occurs as "the basmala"; "the bismillah" is also found, but typically not in articles by Muslim scholars on the subject. Someone requested a source, how about this:

www.britannica.com/eb/article-9013642/basmalah

"Basmalah" with the ta marbut at the end, often not pronounced, is more correct, but it does occur slightly less than "basmala" in a google search. We find this with many common Arabic words with that termination. Abd 01:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As for "Basmala" vs. "Basmalah", the Wikipedia tendency seems to be to omit ta marbuta ة in transcriptions. There's a quasi-official Wikipedia Arabic transliteration style guide out there somewhere...

The rules of Arabic grammar make it pretty much impossible to say "The bismillah" in the Arabic language, since bismillah is already a definite Idafa construction.

P.S. The article Hamdulillah seems to have gone downhill since I referenced it in the discussions above on this page... AnonMoos 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2019

After going through the whole discussion, here's what I think the article Basmala has a title that is very confusing for nearly all Muslims, because most do not use or even know this particular word. Most, nearly all, will recognise the word "Bismillah" instantly and that what is it referring to. Despite the fact the move has been proposed and voted for by a large number of people and editors it has not been executed. The grounds for not moving/changing the title is given (and logically so) is that in "English" language the word is predominant a few references have been provided as well, but in my opinion it does not make sense, as the article is about something exclusively related to Muslims and it should be presented in a manner that is representative of its actual use and it should be "recognizable and usable" by the majority as it is the correct use as well. Even the dictionary cited does not provide any resources to back up its claim, no etymology or root word provided. With regards to this specific title change an Arabic dictionary (Qamoos) should be consulted. Moughera (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is strongly suggested that either the title change be executed or some action like voting should be initiated. Moughera (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about "Hamdallah", it is presented by someone I think who is not much aware with the Arabic language, although it sounds like Basmalah, Hamdallah is a compound word Hamd-Allah retaining its original pronunciation and also delivering the proper meaning, at the same time the word "Basmalah" is only a distorted version, it may be used and found in some sources it does not retain its origin-words or their meaning. This point can be further elaborated if needed be with proper Arabic, further more it is not a proper derivative, its only a corrupt word with meaning at all, even if some sources say it refers to Bismillah. Moughera (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm very sorry, but the first sentence of your final paragraph above is unfortunately quite wrong -- ħamdala (i.e. the name of the "praise to God!" phrase as a whole) is spelled حمدلة, and listed under that spelling in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, while the two-word phrase ħamdu 'llāh (i.e. "praise of God") would be spelled quite differently as حمد الله -- they're actually not at all the same.

The habitual pattern since 2006 has been that pious Muslims who are very well versed in their prayers, but not necessarily sophisticated in academics and linguistic issues, want to change the name of the article to Bismillah, while those who have such relevant specialized knowledge don't want to change the name. I really don't see how voting would resolve this... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: I am going to agree with you for the sake of argument, though the "linguistic analysis" you provided between the two it semi-correct. But let's just get a few things out of the way first, can you please

First mention of the term?
First publication date of the dictionary you own, and if the term is in there?
Is the term "Basmala" in the first edition
Is there a usage "norm" in the Islamic books?
Consensus?
more well-known term Bismillah or Basmala (though more recently I've heard a couple people say the later one as well)?
It is not the matter of "sophisticated academics", rather a proper more well-known term, this one is just confusing
Wikipedia articles aren't generally for those with "specialized knowledge", its for general public and people like me, people with specialised knowledge go to libraries and dig out couple thousand page books
You can mention Basmala as a secondary spelling
you're taking a source (your dictionary) that serves a smaller pool of people (English speakers) and ignoring the majority of people who Muslims/Arabs/Urdu speakers who actually recognise the therm Bismillah
Even if the term Basmala exists in a few dictionaries the term Bismiallah would exist in far more literature

Let's just settle down a number of criterion so we can rest the discussion once and forever. :) Thanks Moughera (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, as discussed at length a number of times all up and down this talk page, basmala is NOT a "secondary spelling" (or an "alternative pronunciation") for bismillah, or anything of the kind. Rather basmala بسملة ‎is THE NAME OF THE ENTIRE PHRASE bismi 'llāhi 'r-raħmāni 'r-raħīm while bismillah بسم الله is THE FIRST TWO WORDS of that phrase. They are not pronounced the same in Arabic, they are not spelled the same in Arabic, and they have different meanings in Arabic. For all reasonable bibliographic details on the "Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic", go to the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic article -- it's the standard scholarly Arabic-English dictionary, and for the purposes of equating general-usage Modern Standard Arabic words with English, it's more authoritative than any other single comprehensive source. I would be willing to bet cash money that the word basmala is also listed in monolingual Arabic dictionaries, but there's no obligation on me to go look it up there. I am a linguistic scholar, not a religious scholar -- but maybe you should ask yourself why it's people with less knowledge who generally want to change the name of this article, while people with more knowledge generally don't. AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moughera: the Institute of Ismaili Studies agrees with User:AnonMoos. It says that 'basmala' is "The standard Islamic invocation, Bismi’llahi al–Rahman al–Rahim derived from the Qur’an, meaning ‘In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.’"[2] Why do you disagree with them? This[3] sources says it's the name of the first verse of the Qu'ran. Then there's the Encyclopedia of Islam[4] and this book.[5] I could go on but it would be a waste of time, we've got enough. 14:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

removal of argument re number of first verse

I took this out

However, the Qur'an itself indicates (in chapter 15, verse 87) that the basmala should be counted as a verse in the first Sura and it is universally acknowledged to be a distinct verse elsewhere, so simple logic would seem to contradict Al-Tabari and suggest that the basmala should be numbered as a verse in all the chapters that it begins.

Here is the problem. Here is a commentary on 15:87 [6]:

15:87 And truly We have given you seven oft-repeated, and the Grand Qur’ān. 15:87 According to Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, Ad-Dhahhāk and others, all quoted by Tabai, sab‘a min al-mathāni refers to seven long sūrah beginning with al-Baqarah. The same authorities also stated the seven of the mathāni (lit. often recited) refers to the seven verses of sūrah Fatihah (1:1-7), the first chapter of the Qur’ān. The prophet himself described the seven verses as the essence of the entire Qur’ān (umm al-Kitāb, lit. mother of the Qur’ān) and prescribed the Muslims to recite the verses in every rakah of their daily prayer. The verses can also be called as the Grand Qur’ān inasmuch as they contain the gist of the basic principles enumerated in the entire Qur’ān (cf. 39:23).

From this we see that the mention of seven verses is *interpreted* by some as referring to seven verses of the Basmalah. However, *what* seven verses? All versions of the Qur'an of which I am aware, and which number verses, do have seven verses in the Basmalah, and in common Hafs printings, the Basmalah is numbered as verse 1. However, in common Warsh numberings, the Basmalah is not numbered as a verse of the first chapter, but another verse of it, considered single in Hafs, is split, leaving, again, seven verses.

This whole thing becomes an issue when claims are made regarding the numerological significance of word and phrase occurrences in the Qur'an. Otherwise it would be a mere pedantic detail. Those with an axe to grind on one side or another want to define it as suits their purpose. But there is no "simple logic" here. I can find no ab initio reasoning that requires a conclusion either way. The original texts apparently did not number verses and they did not even divide the verses, except when it was necessary for meaning. There was no punctuation. That all came later. As to the Basmalah being or not being part of the other Suras, it is always written at the beginning of every Sura except for the ninth, for which reason some consider the ninth sura to be a continuation of the eighth. Whether or not it is recited, when a reciter is proceeding from one Sura to another, seems to vary with the school of recitation.

--Abd 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i usage

I am hoping to eventually include the Bismillah Al-Bahi Al-Abha in here, provided I can find some fair-use images particularly from Mishkin Qalam for the article, but I would love it if someone slightly more veteran at this than I am would include it, as I still find myself stumbling somewhat over wiki formatting on occasion. Peter Deer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article Baha'i symbols... AnonMoos 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In The Name Of God

Why does 'in the name of god' redirect here? I was looking for something completely different, there are at least 2 songs with this name. And if i understand correctly, 'Basmala' means more than that. ClamsonJ (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is redirected here because the phrase "In the name of God," translated into Arabic, has a name, basmala. That's what this article is about. If there is some other article appropriate for a redirect, the redirection should be changed to point to a disambiguation page. --Abd (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

Hey y'all, The article says: "In the Qur'an, the phrase is usually numbered as the first verse of the first sura, but according to the view adopted by Al-Tabari, it precedes the first verse." This is incorrect. With the exception of chapter 1 and chapter 9, all chapters have Bismillah in the beginning of each chapter. This is not counted as part of the chapter. In chapter 1, the Bismillah is counted as the first verse. In chapter 9, there is no Bismillah in the beginning. You can check this in the numbering of a Quran. This is also supported by Muhammad Asad (a scholar who translated the Quran while consulting previous centuries' of scholarly work), who says: "According to most of the authorities, this invocation (which occurs at the beginning of every surah with the exception of surah 9) constitutes an integral part of "The Opening" and is, therefore, numbered as verse 1. In all other instances, the invocation "in the name of God" precedes the surah as such, and is not counted among its verses." (source: http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/koran/koran-asad10.html) 82.15.59.176 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number 786

I m new here. SO I don't much about editing. This site mathematically & logically proves 786 is wrong ( http://members.tripod.com/maseeh1/advices7/id152.htm ). Could someone improve this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verycuriousboy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have any deep meaning or significance, but it's the abjad isopsephy of the Basmala phrase following the standard rules of abjad isopsephy (see Abjad numerals). In any case, I'm not sure how image http://members.tripod.com/maseeh1/advices7/0ccef4a0.gif on that page is supposed to "prove" anything, nor what he's referring to when he talks about counting shadda (non-letter-diacritics don't have any abjad isopsephy value...). AnonMoos (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the below to understand why 786 is permissible: http://www.e-786.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashmalik (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your edits, unfortunately, post-nominal honorifics like "PBUH" generally go against official Wikipedia style rules. Also, abjad numerals haven't been theologically controversial, but using numbers instead of divine names (which isn't the same thing as abjad numerals at all) has been taken exception to. For some people, the fact that it's an innovation (بدعة) is sufficient reason for them to dislike it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovers and haters

There seem to be both those who think it's absolutely un-Islamic and those who think it's absolutely Islamically permissible. I think that the current wording is reasonably neutral, and that significant revisions to this section should best be discussed here on the talk page first... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmiya(h)

According to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/55302/basmalah "Tasmiyah" is an alternative term for "Basmalah". Could this be added in the first sentence? I would also like to add the suggestion to add a footnote after the first bolded occurance of the word Basmala in the lead section, in which a short explanation could be given about the alternate spelling 'Bismillah'. Wiki-uk (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just now saw your comments for the first time. First of all, Bismillah is not an "alternative spelling"[sic], as has been discussed to death multiple times above. I found tasmiyah as تسمية in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (derived from the s-m consonantal root which means basically "name'), but I'm not sure whether this synonymy has any great significance. AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Salaam,

In the section =occurence= , referring to the paragraph that starts from : "In a commentary on the Basmala in his Tafsir al-Tabari, al-Tabari writes:"..etc

1- IMHO, the paragraph is an adectote referring to Jesus and how he 'guessed' about the meaning of the three letters, which is 1.1) far from relevant to the subject of the article, and 1.2) the least expected commentary in that section. There is much to say instead, else it is better not keep this commentary.
2- If the article agrees that Basmala is mainly in the domain of Islam, why should an important explanation be referring to a Baha'i Faith article? Is it the lack of english sources or author choice ? But let us not consider this point to avoid diving into Religious argumentwars. God is one.

It is advised to enrich this part of the article with more important / relevant information about the occurence of the basmala phrase, namely, that is used almost in any 'Opening' of action (inspired by it being the 'Opening' of the Holy Quran). Most importantly, basmala is a very important requirement to eating specifically killing animals, else the meat is forbidden, in this situation, Basmala is used as a 'permission to kill' ( granted from God .. in order to eat .. in order to work hard.. just FYI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonsali (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title page spelling correction.

"Bismillah" is the correct spelling for the title page and it need to be corrected and moved to the proper spelling.--Ibrahim ebi (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed repeatedly above, "Bismillah" is the first two words of the phrase "Bismillah ar-Raħman ar-Raħim", while "Basmala" is the NAME OF THE WHOLE PHRASE "Bismillah ar-Raħman ar-Raħim". If you have something to new to say which hasn't already been fairly thoroughly gone through, I would be surprised... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Hi AnonMoos,

I dont know why you guys are not changing the spelling , title to Bismillah. because Bismillah is the correct word/Spelling. Yes I know it has been discussed deeply in previuos discussion but nothing athentic nothing prove that word Basmala exist... almost all islamic english books spell Bismillah, all most all english dictionary spell Bismillah, all most all Islamic scholor prounonce Bismillah for whole BISMILLAH HIR REHMAAN NIR RAHEEM. I can give you thousands links. Please change the title to Bismillah. If you say that Basmala represent all sentence while Bismillah represent just two world then please give some athentic reffrence and reffrence should be Islamic scholor because It is belong to Islam

Regards Ramiz

March 2013

During the discussion it has been established in archive that the word used as title in the article is invented by a regional group of people. Therefore the rest of the world is un-familiar with this invented terminology. Henceforth, it has created confusion among the readers around the world.

Do not forget that BISMILLAH is also a noun used as a collective name for the whole of the recurring Islamic phrase "Bismillah ir Rahmanir Raheem". See dictionaries of different Languages. Therefore it has no use to promote any unfamiliar word against BISMILLAH.

Google search is another simple scientific way to verify that how many people used to of the phrase BISMILLAH rather than un-familiar phrase that has been forcefully used here to modify the actual title. For keen people other studies can also be conducted.
The disambiguation page itself narrates all the other articles have the phrase BISMILLAH like ‘Bismillah Airlines’ etc. and all are derived from BISMILLAH; not with this unfamiliar word used here in the title.

The most important aspect of changing the title back to BISMILLAH is due to, to let it remain intact the historic perspective of BISMILLAH. BISMILLAH will make it easier for everyone around the world to relate it with history and other subject of interest. There is no reason for the people with other interest to promote any unfamiliar word. Better to see the scholarly discussion of those who hold some prominent offices for general public rather than those who are trying to forcefully convince the people by anonymous self promoted puppet accounts.

Due to this confusion in title some of the material has been compiled as per the scope of the title rather than the BISMILLSH. This is another reason that the title should be modified to preserve its original essence.

Again, do not forget that BISMILLAH is also a noun used as a collective name for the whole of the recurring Islamic phrase "Bismillah ir Rahmanir Raheem". See dictionaries of different Languages. No need to promote any unfamiliar word for rest of the world.

Waqar --125.209.101.206 (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Bismillah

Hi AnonMoos,

I dont know why you guys are not changing the spelling , title to Bismillah. because Bismillah is the correct word/Spelling. Yes I know it has been discussed deeply in previuos discussion but nothing athentic nothing prove that word Basmala exist... almost all islamic english books spell Bismillah, all most all english dictionary spell Bismillah, all most all Islamic scholor prounonce Bismillah for whole BISMILLAH HIR REHMAAN NIR RAHEEM. I can give you thousands links. Please change the title to Bismillah. If you say that Basmala represent all sentence while Bismillah represent just two world then please give some athentic reffrence and reffrence should be Islamic scholor because It is belong to Islam

Regards Ramiz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summations (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Islam - Page 94 "The basmala, also known as the tasmiya, is an Arabic word for the phrase bi-smillah ir-rahman ir-rahim" and see [7]. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summations -- The word "Basmala" certainly exists in my Arabic dictionary, and if you have an adequate Arabic dictionary and know how to use it, I bet that it exists in your dictionary as well, so I don't know what "this invented terminology"[sic] is supposed to mean... As has been explained many, many times before, "Basmala" is not an alternative pronunciation to "Bismillah", and was never intended to be such, but rather is a collective term for the entire phrase bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes u guys are right! sorry my mistake, I heard this first time only in wiki page but i have confirm this from a authentic Alim e Deen (Islamic Scholar) from daruliftaahlesunnat@gmail.com and they replied " Basmala is a neme of complete بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم like durood is name of durrod paak so if some one recite only basmala so he will not be rewarded of بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم. " so please,, how if this will also be include to wiki page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summations (talk • contribs) 06:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to "Alternative Christian meaning" section: into

I added 2 words to this section, for scholarly purposes, but someone seems intent on removing this. It's a scholarly addition, and increases accuracy in the article, and was cited. While a longer discussion of the difference would be appropriate elsewhere, there is no reason not to give an alternate reading – from the Greek – for the "formula" given here. It was only 2 words added plus a citation. There is no good reason to remove it. It does not take anyone on a tangent, unless they wish to review and study the citation. It's pertinent, scholarly, cited, substantive, notable, and important, as whole Christian denominations are split over this very thing (not mentioned in the article here). Please leave it in. Thank you. Misty MH (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misty MH: Perhaps it'd be more convincing if you cited to something other than just the Bible itself. The footnote you reference gives no indication why it's important that the preposition might also be translated as "into." Either way, it doesn't seem all that important to add here, since people aren't likely to come to the Basmala article to read about the nuances of Christian Trinitarian theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmvjjvmd (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misty MH, I'm afraid I agree with the editor who reverted you and Dmvjjvmd. It doesn't belong here, and if it belongs anywhere it needs better sourcing. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic

Hence this page Heading "Basmala" is entirely misleading for those who want to enhance there knowledge about Islam.

This does not seem very encyclopedic... These debates should be held on the talk page or cited. Designate (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was just added by an IP a little while ago, I've reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numerology

I see there is a sluggish revert war about the numerologic section. Since it is unreferenced, I am inclined to support deletion. Please do not restore without references. - Altenmann >t 05:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's been on the article for the great majority of the last five years or more, and there's no legitimate dispute about its existence or notability (or at least none that's been presented so far). It doesn't date back to the time of Muhammad, and some Salafist or back-to-the-origins type Muslims hate it for that reason, but on the other hand it's quite culturally prominent in parts of South Asia among people who also think of themselves as being good Muslims. Since there's a high probability that it's being deleted for reasons of ideological purity in an intra-Muslim dispute, and not in furtherance of legitimate Wikipedia article improvement, it should stay. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is common, then there should be a separate article on Arabic numerology, where 90% of the discussed paragraph belong, and in this article a single sentence would suffice. - Altenmann >t 00:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Arabic numerology. It's called Abjad numerals; however, it's about the numeric aspect, and not the cultural customs connected with the Basmala phrase. There's also an article on 786 (number)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that (and that too :-) (and even edited a minute ago). Did you read and understand my post? Your text does not answer my suggestion. BTW, the topic in question is tagged unref for quite a while in the abjad numerals page. - Altenmann >t 00:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was somewhat pointless, since "numerology" is a vague and broad cover term, while isopsephy is the particular aspect of numerology which is specifically relevant in that case. AnonMoos (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was removal of an easter egg wikilink. If you think isosephy is a correct word in this context, write it in plain sight. (I believe there is a guideline to this end, too). - Altenmann >t 01:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- sometimes people are much more likely to know word A ("numerology") than they are to know word B with very closely-related meaning ("isopsephy"), but a link to the word A article is less useful in a particular context than a link to the word B article. In such cases, I really don't see the harm in an [[B|A]] link (i.e. [[isopsephy|numerology]]). AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus title

A user has been changing 'basmala' to ' bismillahirrohmanirrohiim'. Please note that: (a) there has already been quite a bit of discussion about the title and the name of this concept and (b) ' bismillahirrohmanirrohiim' is not even a standard or correct transcription of بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ. --Macrakis (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A jewish expression?

Nothing is said about the possible jewish origin of the expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:ED95:3AA1:68D3:19A4 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Christian meaning section, Matthew 28:19 "into"

In this section, it uses the translation "in" regarding the so-called Trinitarian formula. First of all, Matthew 28:19 in Greek says "into" (or other) vs. the Greek word "en" which means "in". This error has been perpetuated in doctrines and translations around the word. So, it could say, "... baptizing them into the name...". Because of the interpretation of "in", people have thought there is a contradiction in the Bible, comparing baptisms in the book of Acts (e.g. Acts 2) where in Greek it does "en", which in English is "in" (as it relates to the name of Isa/Yahshua/Y'shua/"Jesus"). This is also mentioned in the ESV's footnote: https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/mat/28/19/s_957019 Secondly, there are groups that call themselves Christian who believe in the formula but do not believe it indicates a Trinity. I tried to add a simple note that this could mean "into" but someone reverted it. Since the Trinity and the meaning of the passage is debatable, it seems that including the controversial translation, at least as a note, is wise. This is what I tried to add: "Matthew 28:19.* ... *Or, into.^[1]" Again, a major English version includes this in its footnote, and the Greek – often used as a source of translation for the "New Testament" – supports it. The word "into" (or other) vs. "in" is a major insight into understanding the intent of the passage, and is perhaps closer to correct than the word "in". Misty MH (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we already discuss this on your user talk page over two years ago? AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ "English Standard Version (ESV) Footnote on Matthew 28:19". Retrieved 27 November 2013.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basmala. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's "Bohemian Rahpsody"

This text was on the article for a number of years; not sure why it was removed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The [[Iran]]ian authorities permitted an album of songs by [[English people|English]] [[rock music|rock]] band [[Queen (band)|Queen]] to be released in Iran in August 2004, partly because the song "[[Bohemian Rhapsody]]" contained several exclamations of the word ''Bismillah''.<ref name="Queen album brings rock to Iran">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3593532.stm|date=2004-08-24|accessdate=2007-03-04|title=Queen album brings rock to Iran|work=BBC News}}</ref>

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basmala. 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/20161128152712/http://www.iraqinationality.gov.iq/attach/iraqi_constitution.pdf to http://www.iraqinationality.gov.iq/attach/iraqi_constitution.pdf

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) 11:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello help pls

use harakat, its very important بَسمَلَةۡ فاتح باشر (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help rename

rename page to Bismillah Saifullah.vguj (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saifullah.vguj: please see the discussions above, which you don't appear to have read. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UserDoug Weller please at least read the calligraphy even the calligraphy reads Bism-allah not basmala hope you know how to read Arabic Saifullah.vguj (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed VERY EXTENSIVELY over the past 15 years(!), "Bismillah" is the first two words of the phrase "Bismi-llah ar-raHman ar-raHim", while "Basmala" is the name of the ENTIRE PHRASE "Bismi-llah ar-raHman ar-raHim" (all four words of it, not just the first two words). So Bismillah and Basmala are very different things -- they are spelled differently in Arabic, and they have different meanings. I seriously doubt that you will be able to come up with any new arguments which haven't been discussed in detail during the last 15 years, but feel free to to try to surprise us. (By the way, I hope you spell your name with a letter sad not a sin.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer a different name for the article as well. Basmala is a relatively new rendition of the name, and actually violates the rules of the Arabic language. Regardless, it does exist, even if it may be linguistically incorrect. Personally, I think Bismillah or Tasmiyah would be a better name, though not for the reasons Saifullah has given, which are confusing two different things as AnonMoos has pointed out. Also, changing the Arabic text in the article to Urdu needs to stop. -- LissanX (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "violates the rules of the Arabic language"? It's derived from an ad hoc quadriliteral formed by collecting the first four consonants of the phrase, in exactly the same way as hamdala. It's a word listed in standard Arabic dictionaries which clearly and unambiguously refers to all four words of the phrase "Bismi-llah ar-raHman ar-raHim" (which is not the case with Bismillah).... AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it’s a portmanteau which has no basis in original Arabic. The correct noun for the phrase is تَسْمِيَة, which relates to “naming” (i.e. “in the name of...”) and has been the name used for centuries. The word “Basmala” was mostly mentioned in verb form in earlier dictionaries, for example: “لقد بَسمَلَتْ هندٌ غداةَ لَقِيتها”, “لقد بَسمَلَتْ هندٌ غداةَ لَقِيتها”, “فيا حَبَّذا ذاك الحَبِيبُ المُبَسْمِل”, etc. In most cases, it isn’t even defined as referring to all four words of the phrase. Of course there are other examples of verbs, such as حَسْبَلَ، حَيْعَلَ، سَبْحَلَ، حَوْلَقَ، حَوْقَلَ. “Standard” Arabic is riddled with semiliterate words, including “hamdalah”, which is a laughable word used to refer to the Tahmid.

The contracted “Bismillah” also does clearly and unambiguously refer to the entire phrase, it’s not confused with anything else and is commonly used in the Arab and Muslim world to refer to the phrase. In fact, most non-Arab countries refer to the full phrase as “Bismillah”.

I’m not saying the word “Basmala” doesn’t exist in modern Arabic, I’m saying it’s a semiliterate word introduced into a mutilated language. It’s also not common among non-Arab Muslims. — LissanX (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a portmanteau according to any useful and specific definition of "portmanteau". (The Semitic languages do not naturally lend themseves to portmanteaus, but if you want one, there's kaduregel meaning "football/soccer" in Modern Hebrew.) It's derived from an ad-hoc quadriliteral (four-consonant) root, which is something rather different. And the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic covers educated Modern Standard Arabic usage (i.e. the high side of Arabic diglossia), and does not include too many "semiliterate" words. Also, Bismillah naturally means the two words Bismillah, but can sometimes also mean the whole four word phrase. Since it has more than one meaning, it's not unambiguous... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is very common among non-Arab Muslims. In the country with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia), clerics (including countless ulamāʼ who have studied in Saudi Arabia or at Al-Azhar), teachers, and ordinary believers commonly refer to the phrase as id:basmalah. E.g. every introductory book to the correct practice of salāh either says "say Bismillahirrahmanirrahim" or "say the basmalah". I'm surprised to see that it is supposedly unheard of in other countries. My interaction with Arab, Turkish and other imams gives a different impression. –Austronesier (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: I think I was unclear on my main point, which is that the word “Basmalah” is most correctly used as a verbal noun relating to the act of saying the phrase, while the word “Tasmiyah” is a verbal noun used as a proper noun for the phrase itself, not the saying of the phrase.

Specifically regarding the issue of including all four words, many dictionaries do no explicitly state this is the case. For example:

Kitab al-Ayn:

بسمل: بَسْمَلَ الرّجلُ، إذا كتب: بسم الله، قال:

لقد بَسمَلَتْ هندٌ غداةَ لَقِيتها ... فيا حبّذا ذاك الدّلالُ المبسمل

Taj al-Lughah:

[بسمل] قال ابن السكيت: بَسْمَلَ الرجل، إذا قال بسم الله. يقال: قد أكثرتَ من الـبسملة، أي من قول بِسْمِ الله .

Mukhtar as-Sihah:

ب س م ل: (بَسْمَلَ) الرَّجُلُ إِذَا قَالَ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ، يُقَالُ: قَدْ أَكْثَرْتَ مِنَ الْــبَسْمَلَةِ أَيْ مِنْ قَوْلِ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ.

Misbah al-Munir:

ب س م ل : بَسْمَلَ بَسْمَلَةً إذَا قَالَ أَوْ كَتَبَ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ

Lisaan al-Arab:

بسمل: التهذيب في الرباعي: بَسْمَل الرجلُ إِذا كتب بسم افيفي بَسْمَلة؛

وأَنشد قول الشاعر: لقد بَسْمَلَت لَيْلى غَداةَ لَقِيتُها، فيا حَبَّذا ذاك الحَبِيبُ المُبَسْمِل

(* قوله «ذاك الحبيب إلخ» كذا بالأصل، والمشهور: الحديث المبسمل بفتح الميم الثانية)

قال محمد بن المكرم: كان ينبغي أَن يقول قبل الاستشهاد بهذا البيت:

وبسمل إِذا قال بسم افيفي أَيضاً، وينشد البيت. ويقال: قد أَكثرت من الــبسملة أَي من قول بسم افيفي .

Even Lane in his lexicon explicitly states that “Basmalah” can refer to either just “Bism Allah” or the full “Bism Allah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim”:

بَسْمَلَ, inf. n. بَسْمَلَةٌ, He said, or wrote, (T, Msb,) بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ [In, or with, the name of God I recite, or read, or I begin, &c.]: or بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمَانِ الرَّحِيمِ [In, or with, the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful]

@Austronesier: with respect to Indonesia, that is a country with ~270 million out of a world Muslim population total of ~2 billion. I know for a fact that in Persian, spoken by over 100 million people across several countries, the shortening “Bismillah” is used. From my own personal experience, in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, the second, third and fourth largest Muslim populations in the world which combine for ~550 million Muslims, they also use Bismillah, as do Azeri Turks, Pashtos, Uzbeks, etc. That may just be anecdotal, so maybe others can confirm or correct me.

Importantly, even in places where “Basmalah” is used, the shortening “Bismillah” is also either used or understood, making the word “Bismillah” more widespread and universal. — LissanX (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely open for a well-argued page move discussion based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. LissanX's last comment is very well-argued for that purpose (certainly better than talking about a "semiliterate word introduced into a mutilated language", and calling hamdalah "a laughable word"). A page title must not necessarily be based on the abstract designation of the topic; if it is a phrase, the phrase itself may as well be apt for the page title, cf. Alhamdulillah. The deplorable uninformedness of some of the commenters in the last 15 years is truly embarassing, but should give us a hint that we possibly do not follow WP:COMMONNAME here. –Austronesier (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody

In the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody a 1975 song by the British rock band Queen, bismila is used which is the same thing. Can we have a popular culture section to mention it? Aminabzz (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment of "00:33, 8 May 2017" above for sourced text which was previously on the article. Not sure why it was deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is Bismillah not basmallah

pls change it Makingislam (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained many times on this page since 2005(!): Basmala is the NAME of the ENTIRE PHRASE "Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim", while Bismillah is the first two words of the phrase. AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "English Standard Version (ESV) Footnote on Matthew 28:19". Retrieved 27 November 2013.

[1]