Talk:Judgement Day in Islam

Probable copyvio

The URL source listing the text of The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection looks suspect. GoutComplex (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

did you mean this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_Day_in_Islam#cite_note-57

yes ive checked in that source. its clearly copyvio. gotta edit it Ahendra (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Migrating a section from another page

Hi, im migrating a section from Ahl al-Fatrah to here, since its clearly talking about afterlife fate of certain subjects... not about Ahl al-Fatrah Ahendra (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am an uninvolved editor, and given the time this merge proposal has been open, feel it is ready to be closed. There is no consensus on whether to merge, and strong arguments against merging. I find user:Iskandar323's argument persuasive. Jcgaylor (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I propose merging Judgement Day in Islam into Islamic eschatology. Everyting discussed in Judgement Day i Islam has been described in Islamic Eschatology, already. What is new to this article except that it is yet again another chance for low quality content, original research, and Doomsday Propaganda? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support, as there's already the article of the Last Judgment covering both Christianity and Islam. Moreover the Christian concept of this can be found in the Christian eschatology article. Same for Islam. So, merge into the Islamic eschatology article. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per AimanAbir18plus point on the Last Judgment article. Since there is already an article that mentions Judgement day in both religions there is no need for a dedicated article on the Islamic version as it is already covered in the other article. GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
• This isn't an oppose vote, but I have some reservations about the size. Combined, these two articles will break 10,000 words. I wonder if both of these articles might need some work with integration in mind. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • AimanAbir18plus & GothicGolem29, it seems the proposer of this merge is no longer active, so do either of you have any thoughts on how the merge should be done? If so, I have no objection if either or both of go ahead and carry it out. This is currently the oldest active merge discussion and a decision needs to be reached one way or the other. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

    Wow did not realise this is the longest one. As for merging I have never merged an article before so I am not sure if it should be me out of the two you pinged(and I am not sure what the procedure is for this if it can be merged before or if we need to wait for someone uninvolved to close the discussion first.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 04:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds of WP:TOOLONG. Judgement Day in Islam can be seen as a daughter article of both Islamic eschatology (of which it is only part, that seen in Islamic eschatology#Resurrection and final judgement) and Divine judgment (where it can be been as the 'main' part for the Islamic section). The topic is very large given differences in views between sects, and warrants separate coverage. Klbrain (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: As above. The current setup is a very normal and sensible parent-child article arrangement. The last judgment page is 66kb and 3.8k words and merging it into the eschatology page, which is 110kb and 7.7k words, would bloat it by 1.5 times and take it overlength. The last judgement section on the eschatology page is currently a brief summary that links to the child, and likely reflects a well-performed split. @Louis P. Boog created the page and may be able to better explain the creation process. Also, as it stands, the last judgement page is a high quality child, while the eschatology page is a lower quality parent with multiple tagged issues, so aside from the length issue and the problems a merge would create, it would blend good into bad. The last judgement in Islam content on the central Last judgement page is also a brief summary that links here in a parent-child fashion, so this child currently services two parents and does so well. There doesn't seem to be any advantage in altering this – if it ain't broken, don't fix it. There's no benefit. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

While it has been a while since I worked on the article, as @Iskandar323 indicates I did try to make the The last judgement section on the eschatology page a brief summary of the last judgment page following parent-child protocol. I agree the Islamic eschatology needs work. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality and structural issues in "Literal or figurative interpretation"

I’d like to raise a concern regarding the section titled "Literal or figurative interpretation." While the theological debate between literalism and symbolism is a valid encyclopedic topic, the current heading and the content beneath it are structurally mismatched and non-neutral in tone.

The heading suggests a scholarly overview of how scripture is interpreted. However, the text quickly pivots from theology (the Ashʿarī school) to a critique of the reliability of eschatological manuals. By framing the alternative to literalism as "the author's imagination," the section creates a false binary. It implies that if a description isn't literal, it must be a fabrication for "didactic" purposes. This skips over the central concept of the Unseen (Al-Ghaib)—where descriptions are understood as metaphysical realities that transcend human measurement—and instead labels them as "imaginary."

Furthermore, the language used is highly subjective. Describing eschatological details as "implausibly" large applies a materialist, physical standard to a subject that is, by definition, beyond the physical world. In a religious context, applying a "plausibility" check is an editorial judgment, not a neutral report of the belief system. An encyclopedia should describe the nature of these descriptions (e.g., as visionary or metaphysical) rather than passing judgment on their likelihood or dismissing them as "not accurate."

There is also a significant inconsistency in how sources are handled here. The section starts by discussing the Quran but then uses specific descriptions from secondary eschatological manuals to characterize the entire tradition as "didactic" rather than "real." This uses external, descriptive literature to cast doubt on the primary tenets of the faith. I suggest we rename this section to something more descriptive of the theological discourse, such as "Nature of the Afterlife," and replace loaded terms like "implausibly" and "imagination" with neutral descriptors that reflect the metaphysical nature of the subject. Jafroni (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)