Talk:Islam/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Islam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

New Additions

I would like to make a few more addition to the article, Here is what i want to add:

The word "Islam" on Arabic language means "submission". Islam means the submission of one's will to the only true god worthy of worship "Allah" and anyone who does so is termed a "Muslim".

Muslims Believe that all the Prophets and Messengers of Allah to Mankind on Earth have the Same One Basic Message ( Laa Illaha Illa Allah ) in arabic language, Which means ( No God Worth of Worshiping But Allah ) - simple like that, Although those Prophets came with different Books, Practices and Methods of worshiping.

Islam is the religion that was given to Adam, the first man and the first prophet of Allah on Earth, and it was the religion of all the prophets and messengers sent by God 'Allah' to mankind like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Elias, Jesus and Mohamad and many others, Peace be upon them all.

The most important message of Islam is the Absolute Unity of Allah 'God' - that there is only One Supreme Being who has no partners and is not dependent on anyone or anything. He is the creator of everything and the whole Universe is under His Own Control. Since the total submission of one's will to Allah represents the essence of worship, Islam is the worship of Allah alone and the avoidance of worship directed to any person, place or thing other than Allah. In essence, Islam calls man away from the worship of the Creation and invites him to the worship of the Creator.

I also wanted to make a new external links section called "Invitation to Islam" and add some useful sites to it like those with the proper title & description:

http://harunyahya.com/

http://islamtomorrow.com/

http://islamvoice.freehostia.com/

http://www.islam-guide.com/

adding those links under "Directories":

http://www.2muslims.com/directory/

http://www.islamicport.com/

http://www.islamicfinder.org/

http://www.islam.tc/ali/

http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Islam/

let me know what you think?

Kind Regards,

--ColdFire 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning the article on Islam it is defined as the belief in the Quran. That is partially correct. More thoroughly Islam is the belief in two things. The first being the Quran and the second is understanding the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammed. The two are needed to be able to understand the essence of Islam and you cannot have one without other. If this can somehow be put into the original article. --KnowledgeEngine

I believe most of what you suggested above are already discussed in the article. -- Szvest 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look over this talk page and i couldn't find anything related to it.--ColdFire 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, none of the above is discussed here. Why do you people lie blatantly? (216.99.60.250 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Please avoid uncivility and stop trolling (re 216.99.x.x). ColdFire, have a look (use your search tool of your navigator):

slam is an abstract nominal derived from this root, and literally means "submission to 'The God' (Arabic:Allah)".
Muslims believe that God revealed his direct word for humanity to Muhammad (c. 570–632) through the angel Gabriel and earlier prophets, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet, based on the Qur'anic phrase "Seal of the Prophets"
Shahadah

Main article:Shahadah

The basic creed or tenet of Islam is found in the shahādatān ("two testimonies"): ašhadu 'an lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa ašhadu 'an muhammadun-r-rasūlu-llāh — "I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God (Arabic:Allah) and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.". -- Szvest 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS A BIAS ARTICLE DOE NOT MENTION ALOT ABOUT THE CHRISTIANITY VIEWPOINT. IF YOU LOOK UP CHRISTIANITY IN THE SEARCH BLOCK ON THIS WEBPAGE...IT SAYS ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.148.24 (talk)

I guess most editors haven't yet realized that we should be writing all religion-related articles from a Christian perspective. BhaiSaab ^talk 11:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... This website should be renamed to Christopedia...Seriously, afterall, the overhelming majority of editors here are Christians.. I would say 95%.

I don't think so. there's a difference from being christian and being from a christian country. Zazaban 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Message to the anon. Please note that this is irrelevant here. If you want to discuss that please refer to Wikipedia Talk:Village pump. You may also assume good faith. -- Szvest 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what about addiding the new directories links and those websites i mentioned above as new resources?--ColdFire 06:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

NO. Those are dawa links, and invitations to particular strains of Islam. If we include them, then every other sect/shaykh/whatever is going to demand links. We would have several thousands links. That's why we link to the DMOZ directory, which is a directory of links. Make sure that all your sites are there. Zora 07:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are not invitation to particular strains of Islam at all, those are high quality and very informative sites i picked from the web to add as additional resources thinking they will be for the benefit of the Reader which inviting to Islam on *General* they talk about the Basics only like Pillars of Islam, Famous Converts, Miracles of Islam in Science, Islamic Guide..etc and one of those sites are the official site of "Harun Yahya" a famous islamic scholar who have a reference on the article already. anyway thats ok i got your point that if we add more sites other webmasters would ask for links too, or maybe because some websites have ADS on them, Regards. ColdFire 14:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ColdFire, i believe Zora got a very valid point. Another point is that we have plenty of articles under the category:Islam and most of them must go there. This is the main article and it should discuss generalities. -- Szvest 14:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If we add the above external links, it is only fair that we add links to critics of islam too. (for example Daniel Pipes, Ali Sina, etc. We need to keep this article unbaised, meaning we should not have links to pages inviting people jo convert to islam, unless we also have links to pages written to tell people to leave islam.--Sefringle 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed freedom of speech to "The censorship of criticism of Islam". Free speech covers criticism of gov't and censorship of the press. "The censorship of criticism of Islam" is better because it has a narrower scope.--Dr.Worm 06:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also add this is a religion of violence which promotes death to "infidels".

Important Information

Due to the lack of attention, I decided to bring this up in a seperate heading:

FACT: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the World according to Guinness World Records 2006 Edition. This is indeed a very credible and reliable source. What do you people think?

(216.99.56.61 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree, but then we get into the realms of debating whether it is due to the rate of converts/reverts OR, a higher birth rate in muslim populations, OR something else. Then we can ask at what point does the Guinness book of records consider a person to be muslim. Could be interesting. 86.133.72.79 00:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"FACT: Islam is the fastest growing religion" - Perhaps, but so is Buddhism, Falun Gong, Atheism and Wikka (see Fastest growing religion). So, by which method did Guinnes determine who's fastest? And do you have a quote/link? --Frescard 04:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is due to the rate of reverts, etc OR a higher birth rate, the fact does not change: Islam is recognized as the fastest growing religion under the Guinness World Records (216.99.58.51 16:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

That statement (Islam is recognized as the fastest growing religion under the Guinness World Records) would be true and verifiable. 86.133.72.79 22:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try it once more: How does Guinness define "fastest growing"? As you can see in the Fastest growing religion article there are all kinds of definitions. And how did they come to that conclusion? While I may trust Guinness with personally verifying how long someone's fingernails are, or how far somebody can spit, I have my doubts that they went and established these kinds of population statistics themselves; so those numbers must've come from somewhere. But where? What is the original source? --Frescard 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK here is entry from the Guiness World Records 2005: Special Anniversary Edition

"Fastest growing religion: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. In 1990, 935 million of the world's population were Muslims; however, the estimate for January 2004 is 1.4 billion or 23% of the world's population. Although the religion originated in Arabia, in 2002 around 80% of all believers lived outside the Arab world." Page 97.

Guiness World Records is indeed a reliable source.. lol (206.126.82.232 01:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

...For 2004, maybe. Homestarmy 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean, please elaborate.. (206.126.82.232 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

The entry lists a time peroid between 1990 and 2004, therefore, the maximum range where Guiness claims that Islam is the fastest growing religion stops around january of 2004. It's 2006 now and in the fall, the entry is about 2 and a half years out of date, and when it comes to numbers concerning members of a religion, alot can change in that amount of time. Homestarmy 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The entry might be 2.5 years old in the text book, but trust me, the fact still remains unchanged. Muslim population numbers are still growing :) (206.126.82.232 02:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunently for you, "Trust me" is OR. From what I have read of Muslim culture, I have little doubt that the population is indeed growing, but if some reports i've read are true, some imam-type people are starting to become worried about how Christianity is moving upwards through Africa, and a population can switch religions after all.... Homestarmy 02:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian people will be 0 at the end.. so that doesn not matter :) (216.99.61.54 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

That doesn't make much sense, wherever people go in the afterlife, they don't just stop existing. Homestarmy 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But why, will Islam be number one religion? Think, reasons are first always what Allah wants, also because: a Muslim has a truth (Qur'an) so is certain, unbelief does not have truth as definition and is NOT certain of any own ideas only to attacking the Muslims. Not only this means,using words and ALSO pictures. Because the Qur'an Surah al Fath ayat 29, tells Allah made Muslims to be strong crops at bothering the nonmuslims. Also this says, Muslims, be good kind to one other Muslim and bad kind to an unbeliver, but non-Islam does NOT have this rule. This wants to help Islam in the long run.LionofTruth 05:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For instance, specialists think that Islam will be the dominante religion in Netherland after 20 years.

This is only because the rest of the country will be a majority of secularists/atheists. So technically Islam will just be the collection of people yet to realise the stupidity of religion.

Yes, I have heard that too which apparently has turned the Dutch people's dreams into nightmares.. . lol (216.99.61.54 21:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

I want to say that I am Muslim, but I'm not terrorist and I don't want you to chage your religion to mine. Why when people think about Islam they always think only about Saddam or others terrorists? Why don't they think about great boxer of all the times Muhamed Ali? Everyone only talking about 11 september, but not about Nagasaki or Hirosima? Our religion always respected Jesus, and didn't draw offending comics about him. That's hurts a lot. Aishe

Wait, what hurts who now? Homestarmy 12:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to say (I am a muslim), Islam does not say it will be the only remaining religion (infact it says the opposite), Islam says that it will spread far and wide but the number of true muslims (truly understand islam and willing to give anything to worship it) would end up as less than the amount the prophet had during his period in mecca. And after Jesus(PBUH) returns (islam will spread) and after the prophet 'leaves' islam will eventually 'die' so that the people know the words 'la-ilaha-ila-allah' but no longer know its meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.229.58 (talk • contribs) .

About islamic conquest

The Historians like Massignon and others has made some statistics about christian and islamic conquest:

islamic conquest has engendered about 392 victims in the two camps.

croisad and Religion's war engendered 10 M victims in central Europe.

thanks

What camps, and how did they possibly break down all the hundreds of years of the expansion of the Islamic world, Darfur, Mogadishu, and who knows what else down to exactly 392 people? Homestarmy 15:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Homestarmy, the 2 camps mean both muslims and non-muslims, while the banner of croisad was (christianization or slaughtering) the banner of muslims was (no coercion to the religion), for this reason islam was accepted largely in asia (india-Indonesia-Malaysia..) without blood. thanks

Oh. Well then why is Hinduism still in India, and what about the Judea area, and northern Africa? And I'd still like to know how exactly 392 people on the dot were recorded as being "endangered" (I assume that's what you mean.) by Islam, was there some running tally? Homestarmy 17:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i live in Egypt so i am entitled to ask , What about north africa ?? i too a muslim would like to inquire about that exact number 392, might that be only during the life of Prophet Muhammed and his war with Quraish and other arabian tribes ? if any one knows please enlight us !. and the fact that there are still Hindusm or other religions being practiced in areas with great population of muslims,is a fact to be counted for islam and not against it. in Quran "La Ikrah f'Din" meaning you cannot use coersion in religion , the reason for this verse is that in "Madena" -place which prophet mohammed moved to after escaping Mecca- some people asked the prophet whether it was acceptable to coerice their sons to converting to Islam from judism. but the verse was they cannot do that. What i want to say , this article is about Islam, and this is islam's point of view on the spread of religion by means of force ((Egypt has copts till this day)), about islam not about what some -unfortunately- muslims had done in default of islam like Bin Laden or Saddam, this will open a useless vicious cycle of accusations between muslims and christians, like what christians once called the Crusaides.

Mahmoud Hazzaa, Egypt P.S , please forgive my spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.37.101 (talk)

Vandalism

AS OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2006, THE PAGE IS CURRENTLY VANDALIZED; it is locked and no one can alter it. The main page has deleted ALL previous information and instead has a hate-filled message of bigotry which the owners of Wikipedia have allowed to remain up. This situation *MUST* be resolved as long as Wikipedia does not wish to offend Muslims with this blatantly vandalous bigotry. - EDIT: It now seems to be fixed, thank you. Blacksun1942 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second here, let me get this straight, if we hadn't of fixed the vandalism, than rather it being the vandal's fault, it's Wikipedia's fault? Homestarmy 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't blame Wikipedia for locking people out. It may be the vandal's fault for the info being there, but it's still Wikipedia's fault for leaving it on their webstie. Therefore, they are culpable and likewise justifided.

Well forgive me but the page is locked; My understanding is that it cannot be edited by users (I've been a user for many months now and I don't have access to edit locked pages); my understanding is that only Wikipedia can edit those pages. Is that correct? If that is the case, then yes I blame Wikipedia since they are the only ones who can edit the page (again, that's my understanding) Blacksun1942 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, it's only semi-protected, you should be able to edit it, the new user lockout I think should go to like only a week or two. Maybe they changed S-protect policy? When a page is Semi-protected like this one, only "established" editors can edit it, generally because a page has had a problem with anonymous users vandalizing. Very new users are also not allowed to edit, since they might just be new creations by anon's to get around the semi-protect. Homestarmy 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people should be aware of anti-Muslim bigots as well. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was an oddly gross hasty generalization there anon.... Homestarmy 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, please elaborate (216.99.61.54 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

A Hasty Generalization is a logical fallacy, it essentially is when one presumes that because something is true of a certain (usually small, but in this case arguably large) part of a group, the same thing is true of all members of that group. For instance, "All the trees near my home have squirrels living in them and pestering me, therefore, all trees in the entire world have squirrels, which annoy people to no end. Therefore, we must destroy all trees!" would be a hasty generalization, coupled with a bad concluding idea because of it. Homestarmy 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete that anon's post, that's generally not a good thing. Homestarmy 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting all previous discussions

I know it is someone who recently visited this site. Whoever is doing this needs to stop. It is wrong.--Sefringle 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read about the archiving process. No one is deleting material; it's still accessible. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh. My mistake. I didn't realize that.--Sefringle 03:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC) It's already October 22 and yet the distasteful remark is still here? On behalf of the rest I urge Wikipedia to do something about this. To whom who wrote the remark, May God help you see the light my friend.

Wha? Homestarmy 23:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is starting to turn into a forum; comments should be limited to discussion of the Islam page only. Can't irrelevant messages be removed? Qjuad 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ismailis

I read this article and read nothing about Ismaili Muslims who follow the Aga Khan, in the context of Islam. There are a lot of them and I think they should be mentioned under Islamic denominations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studge (talk • contribs) .

In the Islam Info-Box, click on 'Branches of Islam', then go to Shi'a Sects & Ismailiyah, which then brings you to the Ismaili page --Frescard 04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Although their status is quite contentious, Ismaili's are considered by many to be Shi'a. I was careful in writing the Shi'a section on this page so that everything written in that section would apply to twelvers, fivers, and Ismailis. So no, they are not being ignored. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok well, Ismailis, alévis, Druz and other groups are not muslims at all, it's totally another faith, and they don't consider themselves muslims.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.52.163.3 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure about Alevis and Druze, but I know the Ismailis consider themselves Muslim. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ismailis I know consider themselves Muslim. That's good enough for me.

Denominations

I think the section on denominations needs to be rewritten. There are really only two major denominations in Islam and they are Sunni and Shia. Salafis or Wahabbis are just Sunnis who have rather more strict interpretations of Sunna. I must also say that the word "Wahhabi" is a word that is mostly used in the western media. The word is hardly heard in the Arab world and I'm sure people who are categorized as Wahhabis would rather refer to themselves as Salafis. "Wahhabiya" or Wahhabism is indeed a movement

Ijtihadists are another demontaion that I don't think exsist. A Sunni and a Shia maybe an Ijtihadist but he too would not refer to himself as such. The word that is more commonly used for Ijtihadists is "Ahlu Al-Ra'i" which litterally means "the people of opinion" Marwan123 05:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Marwan123

I agree. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ismalis are not considered apart of Islam by majority of mainstream muslims.

Source on that? Because I don't believe that at all. Zazaban 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is where I make comments. I consider that I have above average knowledge of Islam, but until today I was unaware of the Zaidi sect of Islam. Perhaps someone could put a link in this article that links to the Zaidi article in Wikipedia. Cheryl Young October 21, 2006

Bektashis and Ismailis don't really regard themselves as Sunni or Shia, although they may recognise those roots.

Keeping Criticism of Islam

This section has recently been deleted. It is important that we keep it to keep this article unbiased. I am going to restore it.--Sefringle 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Most other religion articles lack "Criticism of" sections. I think this is more of a problem with the other articles than the secton in our article. ----Dr.Worm 06:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem with Christianity and Islam articles. The criticism of a religion is not so much as important as the religion itself. Criticism sections should be linked under "See also", and thats it. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section in this article is actually rather low-key.

If you look at the Roman_Catholic page, their criticism section is HUGE. With several paragraphs about the sexual scandals alone.

Christianity too, has a sizable Criticism section, so it's not quite true that only the Islam page features criticism on the main page. --Frescard 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

in all fairness, criticism of Islam, and problems of all sorts within the Islamic community couldn't have much higher profile or notability these days. The section is hardly of 'not so much' importance to Islam. dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where my originial comments are archived but the criticism section on Christianity is an orange to Islam's apple. Comparing the two is absurd because the nature of "criticism" in the Christianity section is tame and theological, while the nature of criticism in the Islam seciton is controversial, political, and not even mostly of the religion itself but of quite specific elements, people, or movements therein. So justifying this section vis-a-vis the Christianity one is pretty bad form.PelleSmith 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a criticism section, but it should never get larger than one paragraph. the criticism of Islam page os already large enough on its own. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there isn't a "criticism of Judaism" section under the "Judaism" entry, but there is a "see also - criticism of Judaism." Why don't we do the same here, to be consistent? Personally I think the main page should be just the facts and you can link to criticisms, which are essentially POVs.Tubbyty 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All about Islam

the most interesting website on islam[1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.52.163.3 (talk • contribs) .

Split infinitives and the like

We find again that some authors in the Wikipedia cannot write English properly. This article contains split infinitives ('to privately practise their religion' which should read 'to practise their religion privately'). In addition we find strange words such as 'societal'. The adjective derived from 'society' is actually 'social'. T A F—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.162.190 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"We" find??? Is that the "Royal We"? Or just simple MPD?

And, yes, there exists something called "Split infinitive", but for the last 100 years or so pretty much every authority accepted it as valid grammar.[2]

And while you may find societal a "strange word", that says more about your usual reading matter than it does about the correctness of this article... --Frescard 00:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to read the link you provided, Frescard. The article concluded that there was no round condemnation of split infinitives, which is a carte much less blanche than to be "accepted". Your link also saved me the trouble of having to copy-type out of my Fowler's, although I did fetch it before following your link. "We maintain, however, that a real s.i., though not desirable in itself, is preferable to either of two things, to real ambiguity, and to patent artificiality. . . . We will split infinitives sooner than be ambiguous or artificial; more than that, we will freely admit that sufficient recasting will get rid of any s.i. without involving either of those faults, and yet reserve to ourselves the right of deciding in each case whether recasting is worth while" ("Split infinitives" from Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage). Essentially, then, Fowler accepts split infinitives as a lesser evil, something to be resorted to when all other options are ambiguous, abominable, or both. The recasting suggested by the anonymous royalty was neither ambiguous nor abominable, and so is the more stylistically acceptible option. We should not discourage editors from improving prose any more than we would discourage them from improving factual accuracy. Kai 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are snarky!!!!--Dr.Worm 06:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslims believe this , Muslims believe that

The use of the construct , "Muslims believe this ....", "Muslims believe that ...." is misleading and unsubstantiatable . Why? Because the infinitive word "Muslims" represents a large statistical population that has not been surveyed for their beliefs in such a way that the results could be presented as 100% belief on anything. Unless someone can show a survey whose result says that 100% of the Muslims surveyed show that they espouse a certain view , then we should not say "Muslims believe this ..." or "believe that..." because that is another way of saying 100% of Muslims have this view. Thus I recommend that rather than stating what is unproveable , we say rather , the Qu'ran says this , the Hadiths say that. --CltFn 19:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that primary sources will be over all the article. There's nothing wrong with using the "Muslims believe that" construction, that is exactly what the books about general Islam do. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a potential alternative. As with any religion, you have the theory and you have the practice. CltFn has a legit point: we cannot assume every Muslim (Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc.) adheres to the law, as its written. What could be substituted is something to the effect of "Islamic law teaches/dictates/says...". Of course, that leaves open the issue of interpretation. Also, it's a bit more anthropomorphic than I like. That being said, there can be general consensus re: the 'big-picture' teaching of any religion, as per written laws. This clarifies the difference between what is written and what is enacted: a most important distinction. I can tell you this from the perspective of someone who teaches about religion: generalization are a must in order to cover lots of information. However, when introducing an audience to a new concept (i.e., religion), I am very careful in making sure students don't think that because the Bible says this, or the Qur'an that, people of those faith do exactly those things. Just as not all good Catholics go to church every week, not all Muslims spend Friday with their umma. What is extremely important to avoid in all this is to give people a reason to think "well, you say you're part of ______-faith and you're not doing what your rules/laws say, so you're really not part of ______-faith." By making what is a very academic distinction between theory and practice, such problems can be avoided.

It may seem elementary, but these things matter in the long run.

My $.02.--Jonashart 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That construction has the same problem. Who's "Islamic law" teaches so and so? An Ismaili's Islamic law will be different from a Sunni's Islamic law, for example. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How Many?

How many muslims are there really? Encarta says "about 1 billion" but this article says 1.4 billion. That's a big difference!

As with every statistic, the answer always depends on who you ask... --Frescard 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

we have everything you ever wanted to know about that question, and more, see Demographics of Islam, Islam by country. Until Islamic nations get their act together and do proper censuses, you won't get any more defninite answer. dab (ᛏ) 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That page was very helpful.

About the separation of Islamic Extremism

I believe that there is enough information to make a separate article out of Islamic extremism. After all, they've been the ones always getting highlighted in the media. This post is in response to a message I received.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diez2 (talk • contribs) .

There is already Islamic extremist terrorism. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

i dont know if i missed it, but the article doesnt say about Indonesia as the world's largest muslim populated country. correct me if im wrong. Widi r 02:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't look hard enough. Its there, under Demographics of Islam Today.PelleSmith 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

oh youre right, i guess i missed that line. thanks Widi r 04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Related religions. to homestary.

I was going to explain this in my edit sumary but accidentally pressed enter. all the pages on the mentioned religions say they are extinct. this is a message to homestary. Zazaban 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's just I didn't see how you can say a religion has "gone extinct", I mean, how can you fact check whether their truly all gone? But I wouldn't want to edit war over it or anything. Homestarmy 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadis

This is the Islam article, and thus should present mainstream views of Islam. The mainstream view of Islam is that Ahmadis are a heretical cult that violate the most basic of premises in Islam, that Muhammad (pbuh) was the final Messenger of God. Also, they say that Jesus traveled to India. I attempted to portray this in that section on Ahmadis in this article, but I was reverted. Here is my edit, followed by what it was changed to[3].

Patstuart claims "last comments are POV - the job of wikipedia is not to "isolate" groups". However, isolation is a descriptive term, not a judgmental one. The fact is, Ahmadis are isolated in that region, just like how the Falun Gong are isolated within China. And also, my comment on why Ahmadis are considered a separate group was removed. I added that so that it would fall in line with the other groups which explain how they are different from mainstream (Sunni, 90%) Islam. Finally, I also added that they are going against the wishes of mainstream Muslims by claiming that they are Muslim, which is also entirely relevant to this article on Islam. So I have reverted back to my edit, and if you disagree please tell me why. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem was the wording, and the specific changes. By adding changing the words from "small" to "very small and isolated", it appears to be an attempt to marginalize the group Perhaps if you could state it more kindly, like "located exclusively in". Or in other parts, like the majority of mainstream Islam does not consider this to be an Islamic group rather than against the desire of mainstream Islam (which makes it sound like mainstream Muslims have been somehow wronged). My comments might not sound right here, but if you objectively sit down and read the wording, you will see it is biased. Look at Christianity, for example; it treads very carefully on ground when dealing with modern-day organizations like Mormons and Jehovah's Witness, considered by nearly all mainstream Christians to be a cult. As an objective (non-Muslim) reader, I found the changes to be POV. -Patstuart 04:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to show that they are a fringe group. And I'm not sure what you mean by "stating it more kindly". Is it WP policy to do such a thing? Wikipedia is not written in a sympathetic point of view, that's another wiki project. Also, I say that they go against the desire of mainstream Muslims because that's what they are doing; they are illegitimately calling themselves Muslims. This is a very important fact that they call themselves Muslims. The Nation of Islam considers its members Muslims too, but this self-description is rejected by mainstream Muslims as well. I have looked over Christianity, and in fact, I think that it is too extreme. Mormons are delegated to a single sentence in that article, while Ahmadis have a full paragraph describing them. I think that's more than enough. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Section on the strong connection between Islam and terrorism

Surely a large discussion of this should be present, especially regarding recent comments made by Muslim clerics in the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlosPauloEthetheth (talk • contribs) .

It is: see the section Political and Islamic extremism. --Patstuart 11:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this section is rather poor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlosPauloEthetheth (talk • contribs) .

I agree. I would add in a sentence or two about how Islamic terrorism is the most prevalent form of 21st century terrorism, but it was more your idea. I don't think it would be unencyclopedic, so I'll support you if anyone disagrees. -Patstuart 11:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah no, go for it. I don't really claim to have any knowledge on the subject, the page just came up by random and I read it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlosPauloEthetheth (talk • contribs) .

"Democracy" and the Caliphate

Two reverts have already happened over the deletion of "democratic" as a description of the Caliphate. I would like to propose that people discuss the issue here and not start an edit war. My own opinion is that the removal was a good edit because even at times when the Caliph was chosen he was never chosen "democratically" by the members of the ummah. Just take a look at the entry democracy and the entry Caliph if you have doubts. Therefore the differences between the two systems are actually obscured by the use of "democractic". It may be or seem more democratic, in other words more like democracy, than the Shia system, but it isn't "democratic" strictly speaking. The end result is simply making the Sunni system seem better by associating it with a term like democracy instead of accurately describing the difference between the two, which I'm assuming is the "good faith" intention of the adjective "democratic" in the first place. My vote is for removing "democratic". What are the objections?PelleSmith 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you. My removal doesn't have to do with the beliefs of either Shi'a or Sunni, but simply the description of the caliphate, which was certainly not always democratic. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For anyone that would like to know, "democratic" was inserted on September 17th, 2006. It's not always been there. [4] BhaiSaab ^talk 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Islam the fastest growing religion?

In the article, it said "Islam is growing faster numerically than any of the other major world religions." However, this is not true. Islam has the fastest percentage growth rate, but it isn't the fastest growing religion in terms of number of converts.

According to this article:

There are 1.4 billion muslims.

The growth rate of Islam is 2.9% annually.

(1,400,000,000)(2.9%)=40,600,000 people annually

According to the Christianity article:

There are 2.1 billion Christians

The growth rate of Christianity is 2.3%

(2,100,000,000)(2.3%)=48,300,000 people annually

Conclusion: Christianity is growing faster than Islam and Islam is NOT the fastest growing religion. Sefringle 22:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

nice research, though original. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't realize that policy--Sefringle 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there ought to be some latitude to the WP:NOR policy to allow for mathematically accurate and self evident extrapolations from sourced references. If a reference states that there are 2 men and 2 women in a room , we should be able to say that there are a total of 4 people in the room. In any case there must be some reliable source out there that makes the point presented by sefringe.--CltFn 06:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Even beyond the issue of original research your conclusion is problematic. When you say that a religion is growing "faster" this means it is in terms of a "growth rate". A growth rate is a factor of percentage growth--in other words it is only relative to the base population. Go to population growth if you have any doubts about this. You can say that Christianity has a larger annual growth, but not that it is growing "faster". Of course the religions that are actually growing "fastest" are very small ones like Wicca. However of the larger "world religions" by any statistics I've seen Islam is growing "fastest" while Christianity has the greatest total gains.PelleSmith 15:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not the "fastest growing" topic again! The problem here is not NOR. Sefringle's numbers are referenced as well as they can be in their respective articles. With "fastest growing" we naturally (per Pelle) mean 'growth rate', even if it is correct that Christianity at present still has the larger net growth. (naive, 1st order) projections would predict that Islam overtakes Christianity in terms of adherents some time in the 2070s. But since population growth will change significantly, one way or the other, before then, that is meaningless. The bottom line is that Islam may have the highest growth rate, but since Muslim countries as a rule don't do decent censuses there is no way to be positively sure. dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I bet some of the new sects have faster growth rates. I thought Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses grow at about 8% annually. Faster growing religions surely?

Something rather fundamental missing...

Why on Earth is there not a section on the Six Beliefs? Dev920 (Tory?) 15:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Islam is the most peacefull religion upon our planet. After reaching the ultimate goal of Islam, Dar esSalaam will rule the Earth. The ultimate goal of Islam is to reach the status of a complete elimination of all infidels. With the praesence of at least one infidel the true peace is impossible. So, it is not possible to talk about Islamic extremists - they are just normal Muslims.

If you're bored and want to make it to FA...

Move all of the inline citations to the end of sentences, after the full stop/period. It's one of the first things any Peer Reviewer or FA reviewer will pick up on. Dev920 (Tory?) 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"founder" of Christianity?

no, Christianity doesn't have a single founder. That's because it is much more fragmented than Islam, but individual churches do have individual founders. Being more monolithic is something Muslims are as a rule proud of, I don't see why that pride doesn't hold in the "founder" case. The single most prominent "founder" of Christianity is Saint Paul. But the "founder" of the Roman Catholic Church would be Saint Peter. The "founder" that got Christianity underway as a political power the way Muhammad did with Islam would be Saint Constantine. The founder of the Lutheran church is obviously Luther, that of the Calvinist one Calvin, etc.. dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Zwingli. A.J.A. 03:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above analysis. In the Christianity article, it makes little sense to talk about a founder - the closest would probably be Jesus, but it so was heavily influenced by Paul that this distinction shouldn't be made. The same could be said about Judaism, or even non-monotheist religions like Hindu. However, with Islam, it makes sense to talk about Mohammed as founder. I think that wording should be left in (though I haven't reviewed the history to see how it was opposed). -Patstuart 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There you are, if Jesus is the founder of Christianity, Archangel Gabriel is the founder of Islam :) -- seriously, historical Jesus didn't "found" anything, he got himself killed for trying, but that so inspired his followers that they made a real effort. But the theological haggling began as early as at the Council of Jerusalem, so that the Christian church has various founders from there. The problem is really the lack of a term parallel to ecclesia (church) in Islam. We could uncontroversially say that Muhammad was the founder of that. There is Ummah, and I have repeatedly suggested that we could say Muhammad is the founder of that, but the term isn't really parallel because it is much more political than religious, as it were just parallel to Ecclesia Militans, not to Ecclesia altogether. dab (ᛏ) 07:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It remains that all the people named above as potential 'founders', had they been asked "Who founded Christianity?", would have pointed to their traditions, which took written form as their scriptures, which claim that the religion was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone", and that report Jesus saying "I will build my Church." (Ephesians 2:19-20 and Matthew 16:18.)

A martial arts teacher of mine started a dojo in my home town from scratch, and built the business up until there were five locations. He had a picture on the wall of the Founder of his martial art. It would have been pointless and silly of me to argue with him that he was the real founder in our town, because he didn't see his labours as being separate from those of the Founder, but a continuation of them.

After all, who is the founder, the one who says, "Go, and teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19), or the ones who go and teach? The latter would obviously point to the former. Otherwise they would have stayed home. Plain jack

Criticism of Islam vs. Islamophobia

I propose a split between these two topics, as they are quite different.--Sefringle 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Islamophobia warrants its own section in this article. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree here. Islmophobia isn't really a global issue. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is I don't think they should be under the same category. The Islamophobia imformation should be under a different category than the criticism of Islam imformation. Do you disagree with that?--Sefringle 04:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They're closely related - a lot of the critics are just plain Islamophobes. BhaiSaab ^talk 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't just assume all critics of Islam are islamophobes though. They are different topics.--Sefringle 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Islamophobia, there is evidently even a wiki run by Islamophobes under the pretense of uncensored dialogue about Islam. The wiki is WikiIslam.org. Also, Islamophobia may not be "a global issue", in Dev's words, but it certainly is an important one within countries that have a large impact on world affairs (US and Western Europe). This makes it a "globally significant" issue nonetheless.PelleSmith 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Veils

User:Rursus inserted heading - User:Rursus 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

I partially hate the fact that lots of Muslim women are forced to wear veils, hijabs and niqabs. This is sexist.

This topic should not be discussed here. Talk:Islam is discussion about the factual accuracy of the article Islam, not general opinions about islam. Go use usenet instead of this place! Be warned!! User:Rursus 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

With regards to veils (and to a very great degree Islamophobia), countries such as Tunisia, Turkey & France explicity forbid women from wearing the veil. The women that do so may be discriminated against (they won't be able to go to universities or to public office buildings, see www.cair.com) or even attacked.

To say that lots of women are forced to wear veils, one would have to do a breakdown of each Muslim country. Some countries are more stringent than others. There are also different modes of dress in each country. Also, just because women in a particular country wear the veil does not mean that they are forced (many choose to do so) or that they are somehow put down (as many ladies in the veil actually work for a living). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.105.195 (talk)

From what I know, wearing a veil is a requirement in some Muslim countries (e.g., Iran, Taleban Afghanitan, perhaps Saudi Arabia(?)), a choice in others, and disallowed in Tunisia (I was unaware that it was disallowed in Turkey). -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In America, the choice on whether or not to wear a veil is that of the individual. At least we got that much right. Shame on you, France, for banning veils. And "shame on you" as well to any countries that require it by law. RobertAustin 22:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Veiling is not allowed in Mecca or Medina. Hijab is the Islamic guidelines for dress that both men and women must follow. There is no specific mode of dress identified as "hijab", other than that the only parts visible are the hands and the face. Wearing burqa, or niqab, is not Islamic, it is a cultural tradition. And even wearing a basic chadoor is part of culture nowadays. So banning "hijab", means to ban Islam. Also, nobody is forced to wear hijab, in the same way that nobody is forced to pay taxes. But you will damn sure get in big trouble if you don't do it. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

The summary omits the concept's criticism and fawns disputed organisation CAIR. --tickle me 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section is lacking too in that it does not mention Muslim responses. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The muslim responses are mentioned in the article.--Sefringle 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mission of Islam

I added a section on the Mission of Islam: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=81192607&oldid=81189611 which has since been deleted. I would like to propose for discussion that some such section be added, since something is clearly missing from the article: Islam has a very particular world view that originates from its conception of the Dar al Islam vs. the Dar al Harb and Islam's mission to the world. How can the main article on Islam leave out these two critical concepts? Not every religion has such a mission: Christinity has an explicit mission to all people (albeit not in the secular/political order); Judaism and others do not. Islam's approach is distinctive and should be described, in neutral terms. Plain jack

I think Plain Jack is talking about this [5] edit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) .

Actually, it was this: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=81192607&oldid=81189611 Plain jack

1. No. 2. The language you wrote in it was not neutral. How can you claim "The first is the portion of the world that has been brought into Islam, where the blessings of peace and submission to God are to be found." is in any way NPOV (or indeed, factual, given the wars Muslim states are embroiled in)? 3. No. 4. I cannot, as a Wikipedian editor, allow you to maintain such a proselytising section. "Unbelievers are to be invited and instructed in Islam, in the hope that they will willingly convert. Whether or not they do so, however, Muslim believers are charged with bringing Islamic order and law to all those living in the Dar al Harb, and should, ideally, rule over unbelievers." 5. No. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dev920, I simply opened the section with "Islam claims..." and then provided the teachings as they exist. I didn't know it was necessary in Wikipedia style to open every sentence with "Muslims believe" or the like -- I used the style that is common in writing in other fora, where the opening statement covers that what follows is part of their belief. I happen to agree that the Dar al Islam doesn't seem, on the face of it, to bring about the peace it is supposed to, but that's what the religion teaches. I can add a few more "Muslims believe" and "Islam teaches" etc, if that makes it more palatable. Would that work for everyone? To get back to my original point, the terms Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb are not even mentioned in the article as it now stands, nor is the mission of Islam to expand the one while shrinking the other, in the political here and now. These are important notions and very distictive to Islam, I think they deserve to be spelled out. Plain jack

Jack, what you wrote would have been NPOV even if you had added Muslims believe all over the place. Take "Unbelievers are to be invited and instructed in Islam, in the hope that they will willingly convert." If you add "Muslims believe" to form "Muslims believe unbelievers are to be invited and instructed in Islam, in the hope that they will willingly convert", this is still POV, and you are using weasel words to put in what you want. You haven't referenced this quote, and I certainly do not know anything about Islam because I was instructed in the faith by a Muslim, and I grew up in Newham. If you want to put Dar al islam in, it would probably be better in Other Practices under a subsection of Dawa. But don't pretend that basically saying the mission of Islam is to convert the world or rule them is NPOV. I can think of few Muslims I know personally who would argue that, so you need to reference to back up your claim. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, while your sentences are clear, I didn't understand to what you were referring with "1. No.", "3. No." and "5. No." I couldn't identify five questions/proposals or separate sentences in my post that these numerals might correspond to, so I couldn't figure out what you meant. Perhaps, as a Wikipedian editor, you could clarify. Plain jack

It was a rhetorical technique, emphasising how unplatable I found your suggestion. If you genuinely did not understand what I meant, I apologise, and suggest you ignore it.Dev920 (check out this proposal) 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My sense is that if we research responsibly on this, we will find little or no mainstream support for the idea that "Whether or not [non-believers take shahada] however, Muslim believers are charged with bringing Islamic order and law to all those living in the Dar al Harb." If you disagree with my assessment, Jack, I would like to see a reference to support what you say. FYI, I have been a Muslim for three and a half years, and have talked to scores, possibly hundreds, of imams in that time about questions of doctrine. Not one, ever, has told me I was "charged with bringing Islamic order and law to all those living in the Dar al Harb."

Bottom line: cites, please. BYT 12:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Two points: 1) the comments from the two of you gave me the impression that the Dar al Islam/Dar al Harb teaching was not part of your tradition at all. That prompted me to read a bit more widely. It does indeed seem, according to several sources, that the teaching has been declared by many authorities to be no longer applicable in the modern world; that today only Wahhabists still hold to this concept as applicable. This does underline the value of having many eyes scrutinize submissions to Wikipedia. Plain jack

It's not part of my tradition because I am not Muslim. Not all editors have a vested interest in the pages they edit, you know. :) Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The concepts of Daral Islam & Daral Harb are no where to be found in Quran or Sunnah . Lateron travelling muslims divided the world into Daral Islam (domain of peace) meaning place where they are allowed to practice their religion with peace , & Daral Harb (Domain of War) meaning place where they will have to fight for practicing their religion . And that was it. The added "Masala" often come from non-islamic sources . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

This statement is not true under Organization "Muhammed died without appointing a successor or leaving in place a system for choosing one."

There are a plethora of recorded history agreed by both sects of Islam Ahla Sunna and the Shia's that have proven this statement otherwise. I have given refrencees below to show that Imam Ali Bin Abu Talib(a.s) was infact appointed by the Prophet Mohmmed(s.w.t) during his lietime.

Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of 'Ali as the leader of the Muslim ummah. The Prophet [s] held up the hand of 'Ali and said:

"For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla)."1,2,

1)Ibn Hanbal, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal b. Hilal b. Asad, Abu `Abd Allah al-Shaybani al-Marwazi

Al-Musnad

Unidentified edition, vol. 5, p. 366 no. 22028 2)Ibn Kathir, `Imad al-Din Isma`il b. `Umar b. Kathir b. Daw', al-Qarashi al-Dimashqi

Al-Bidayah wa'l-Nihayah fi al-Ta'rikh

Cairo: Matba`at al-Sa`adah (14 vols), 1932- vol. 7, p. 347

There are sevral more factuals proof availabe if required. Hence if need be I will be more then willing to supply you with more information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.92.178 (talk • contribs) .

This is a problem with Sunni and Shi'a point of views. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the sections for the caliphate and Shi'a, I believe you'll now find this problem addressed. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sulayman

Please express your opinion in Talk:Islamic account of Sulayman about renaming Islamic account of Sulayman into Islamic view of Solomon, which was made unilaterally by user:Striver without any previous discussion, who now refuses to discuss the name claiming that "Solomon" is "English name". Mukadderat 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Myth About the Four Madhabs

The statement that a muslim has to follow one of the four madhabs is a myth. It is very clear as the madhabs originated long after the death of the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H). Islam is not a religion alone but a way of life which the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H) showed by his action and words which was then followed by the Sahabis(followers). He himself didn't follow any madhabs. And muslims follow the Prophet. If the Prophet never brought up the madhab system then why is it mandatory for any muslim to follow the madhabs? And the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H) has also said that any addition or deletion from the religion of Islam is haram and not allowed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohd asif iqbal (talk • contribs) .

Islam Audio not working for me

Other OGG files like Muhammad work for me, but not (Arabic: الإسلام; al-'islām^ⓘ). Anyone else having the same issue? --JohnsAr 05:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Salam

Please excuse my arabic to english conversion spelling (the words have been spelled phonetically) I cannot edit the page because I am not a registered user, so I would like someone to do this on my behalf: The web page states that islam derives from the word 'salam' (which is incorrect). Islam does not derive from 'Salam' (meaning peace) but actually derives from the word ‘is-tis-lam’ - meaning submission. When you become muslim, you ‘is-tes-lim’ (i.e. you submit (to god and his orders))—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.229.58 (talk • contribs) .

I've commented out the section until we can find a reliable source for the etymology of "Islam." BhaiSaab ^talk 06:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

see Lane's lexicon for a bit of information on this, where it states that "islam" refers to submission and is derived from istislam, a variant of the root s-l-m. ITAQALLAH 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

ما معنى كلمة الاسلام؟

في القرآن الكريم جاء ذكر ابراهيم ويعقوب ويوسف وهود ونوح كمسلمين لأن كل نبي دان بالاسلام كدين ودين كل الرسالات كما قلنا هو الاسلام والديانة هي الرسالة. والاسلام لفظاً هو التسليم لأمر الله تبارك وتعالى. ونلاحظ أن أول آية في القرآن بعد البسملة (الحمد لله رب العالمين) والحمد هو إعلان الرضى بقضاء الله تعالى يعني التسليم يعني الاسلام. وعندما نوصّف الفرق بيت الاسلام والإيمان يجب أن نسأل هل الاسلام الذي نقصده هو اسلام دين أو اسلام عقيدة؟ والايمان هو وسط بين اسلامين. وإذا سألنا أيهما أعلى الاسلام أم الإيمان؟ يجب أن نعرف أين إسلام نسأل عنه فإسلام العقيدة هو شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله وهذا أقل من الإيمان بدليل قوله تعالى (قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آَمَنَّا قُلْ لَمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَكِنْ قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ وَإِنْ تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُمْ مِنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (14) الحجرات) ولمّا في الآية تعني النفي مع توقع حدوث الأمر. فالأعراب تقول آمنا أي أصبحنا مطبّقين لكل كتاب الله تعالى لأن الإيمان هو التطبيق لكن الله تعالى ينفي عنهم الإيمان لكن لا ينفي عنهم الاسلام فهم مسلمون اسلام عقيدة ورسالة أي أنهم أعلنوا الشهادة ونفى دخول الإيمان في قلوبهم مع توقع حدوثه. والبديع قوله تعالى (يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِ وَلَا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلَّا وَأَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ (102) آل عمران) مسلمون هنا تعني إسلام دين وهذا أقوى من الإيمان بدليل أن الخطاب في الآية جاء بـ يا أيها الذين آمنوا. وإسلام الدين هو أن تعرف أركان الاسلام وأركان التقوى والإيمان والإحسان وإسلام الوجه لله تعالى فعندما أصبح مسماً بإيمان يناديني الله تعالى في الآية (مسلمون) بمعنى مسلمو الوجه لله تعالى وهذا قمة التسليم لله رب العالمين. وفلنا أن قمة التسليم أن يخرج العبد من بيته فيقول: بسم الله توكلت على الله لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله ما شاء الله كان وما لم يشأ لم يكن حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل فتقول له الملائكة هُديت وكُفيت ووُقيت وتنحّى عنه الشيطان. Semitic87

Could you translate please? BhaiSaab ^talk 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but keep the original please! I need a sample text for making arabic in my true type font. User:Rursus 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No need - I took an UTF-8 and a bitmap snapshot! God bless You! User:Rursus 12:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ArDr nom.

Sorry for not mentioning this before, but I've nominated Islam at the Article drive. Vote here to support it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not have much time to check what it will achieve if sucessuful. Can you please explain a bit that how this will improve it quality? --- ابراهيم 15:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, if it is successful we'll get a whole load of editors coming in and improving the article, because it will be placed on the Community Portal front page. This article isn't lacking anything essential, after I did that Peer Review, but as you may have noticed, most editors to this page do not have very good English, so the writing is very poor. This would probably be dealt with in an FA drive. I don't know if the referencing problem would be dealt with, but it might be enough to get it to GA standard at least. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it's already suitable for GA standard. It has been listed as a GA previously, but the main problem the last time we tried to get it back to that status was edit warring. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Please give your vote there Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam. Thanks. Be careful about your vote and before voting read the article (other than introduction) and see the disucssion too. --- ابراهيم 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Question -- In "Beliefs" section, we now have ...

Without these distortions, known as tahrif, or tabdīl ("alteration, substitution") the main content of the Torah and Gospels would allegedly have been in accord with the later teachings of the Qur'an.

This is problematic, because Muslims believe (as far as I know) that earlier prophets brought guidance that was suited specifically to the requirements of their community. So for instance, the prohibition on shellfish is a provision of Mosaic law, but not of Islamic law, and this difference is not attributable to alteration or substitution of text in the Torah.

How should we address this? BYT 12:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

i would suggest removing it altogether, whilst relocating the descriptions of the types of distortions (tahrif, tabdil). the previous sentences in general discuss it sufficiently- or could perhaps use a bit of expansion, but the above is not really it. ITAQALLAH 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

addition of the bad side of islam

there should be a section about the many crimes commited by islam.....such as mass murders and continued persecution of people in countries that are controlled by islam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.97.46 (talk)

How does a religion commit crimes? BhaiSaab ^talk 18:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If that should eb ut it, it should go in under criticism of islam and how people have used Islam to support their goals. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed here too. And the same should be valid for /insert religion here/. Now, is wikipedia an encyclopedia, or a sissy-whining place for flame wars about this-or-that perceived wrongs. There's has been too much b*llsh*t*ng in this talk page lately. User:Rursus 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Brother, when the IRA killed scores of people in the UK was it because of their religion? When the Israelis, who silently proclaim thenselves to be the best race in the world, kill kids and women why isn't it blamed on their religion? Islam is a way of life. Understand it. People will do and tell things as they want. If u want to learn the truth You've to learn yourself. Religion doesn't commit crimes. People do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohd asif iqbal (talk • contribs) .

Brother Mohd asif iqbal asked: was it because of their religion? - memyselftinypuny User:Rursus answered: I don't know - that's one of the vast mysteries of the so called humankind - for another day, and for another place. Join the

This user is a member of the Harmonious Editing Club.

! User:Rursus 09:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is SPAM. The Islam talk page is not a promotional soap box for editing clubs. Can it be removed?PelleSmith 04:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Many atrocities have been committed in the name of many religions. To my knowledge, Islam is not different in this regard so as to warrant a mention.--Loodog 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Death Cult

Someone is continously setting "Death cult" to link to "Islam". This is obviously NPOV. I suggest something is done to prevent further vandalism of this kind. Bert.

Err, just to point out, NPOV is good for wikipedia, a non-neutral POV is bad :/. Homestarmy 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, yeah. Bit of a screwup there. But anyway... this is obviously not NPOV, that is what is should be saying :) Bert.

Conclusion: voilá! New term: NNPOV! (or N²POV) HHOS! User:Rursus 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethymology

So what's the ethymology of the word 'Islam'? What did it mean? --euyyn 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Submission (to the will of God). BhaiSaab ^talk 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy

Factual discrepancy: This Islam page states that only 20% of muslims are Arabs (from Arabic countries), yet the wikipedia page on 'Arab' states that Arabs are predominantly muslim in religion. Another site on the web about arabs states that 85% of them are sunni muslims, and 10% are shi'a. Clearly saying that only 20% of arabs are muslim is contradictory. If this is true, then what religion are the other 80% of arabs? I'd appreciate it if someone would clarify. The info. on this Islam page should correlate with what's on the Arab page..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.78.198 (talk • contribs) .

There is no discrepancy- yes, most Arabs are muslims, but that does not mean most muslims are arabs! the page doesn't say that 20% of arabs are muslims, it states 20% of muslims are arabs--khello 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Prophesy, Scripture and Vandalism

The Qu'ran is by definition scripture, and prophesy is determined from within a religion and not from without on some kind of objective basis. There is no argument about whether or not Muhammad was a prophet on some level of objective fact, because it is inherently a matter of what Muslims believe. This is like saying that you should never write "the god Vishnu", or "the prophet Moses", because maybe based upon my criteria (not being a Hindu, a Christian or a Jew) Vishnu isn't a god and Moses wasn't a prophet. (In fact my secular perspective would require the removal of all such qualifiers everywhere by the logic of that edit). All of this is also made even clearer by stating that "Muslims believe ...". Please be aware that removing "scripture" and "the prophet", without dealing with the facts of the matter as stated here may be construed as vandalism. Also, on a general note try to refrain from masking one edit with the explanation of another.PelleSmith 18:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop calling good edit vandalism. Its very upsetting.

No Muhammad is NOT a prophet to me or probably to most people. Prophet is not an imaginary thing like a God but you are saying an imaginary thing about a real person. You cant argue about what you cant know of course but we do know about Muhammads life. Next sentence say MUSLIMS BELIEVE him the final prophet so it is clearer as youre saying it should be.

Scripture is true but collection of verses also true and more specific. Is there something wrong with being a collection of verses (ayat)?Opiner 18:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire point of the word "Prophet" is that the belief only applies to a specific group of people. I think it's pretty much inherent with the word itself that many people don't accept a prophet as a prophet. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not enough to say Muslim believe him final prophet as next sentence say?Opiner 18:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The better question is: why the objection with saying "the prophet" when it seems customary for Muslims to refer to Muhammad as "the prophet"? On what grounds should it be changed? Also why remove "scripture" when clearly it has been the prefered discriptor and it is accurate? A collection of verses is not inherently considered sacred or to refer to something sacred so why not be more specifc? Why, again, make the change?PelleSmith 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about scripture because inherently sacred. Thinking about this some more. But for prophet: Right it seems customary for MUSLIMS to refer to Muhammad as the prophet. Why not enough to say Muslim believe him final prophet as next sentence say?Opiner 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything PelleSmith has said. If the article mentions one time that "Muslims believe Muhammed to be a prophet," then anytime thereafter when it mentions him there is no need to repeat "Muslims believe." Really, I'm not even sure it is necessary to say "Muslims believe" at all, but you might as well do so to avoid controversy. But there is definately no need to say it every time you mention "the prophet." HeBhagawan 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If to keep it simple in those case why not just say Muhammad?Opiner 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Preparation for Article Improvement.

x-posting to the Islamic Wikiprojects. It looks like Islam is going to win the ARCAID on Sunday(and if you haven't voted yet, please do so), so, to coincide with it, I would like to request your help. This Sunday, take a book on Islam from your shelves (or borrow one from your library). It doesn't really matter what book. Then spend a few hours flipping through it and reference Islam. Either reference facts that are already on the article, or add new ones that you find. It doesn't matter how much information gets dumped on the article, we can always move it off into more appropriate articles. Just find a fact, and give a reference. If we all do that, Islam could reach FA by Christmas. Anyone with me on this? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a chance it could be Rosetta Stone? BhaiSaab ^talk 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I said "looks like", and requested anyone who hasn't voted to do so. I was going to suggest this anyway, so if Islam doesn't win the ARCAID, it'll be disappointing but not an insurmountable problem. I still think we should do it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 09:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you have against Islam, Opiner? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats aloaded question but I'll answer it anyway. All I have against is loading the NOT neutral things onto wikipedia. Remember Neutral mean not believing OR disbelieving. NOT for NOT against. If you are FOR or AGAINST than you are NOT neutral.Opiner 10:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant the article Islam actually. As mentioned above, I am not Muslim and am perfectly neutral regarding this article. But I do want it to be FA. Why don't you? Dev920 (Please vote here) 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be the feature article when and because editors make it reliable AND neutral. I make a simple change aboiut the redundant prophet in the introduction and what happen? Are people nice to me or compromising with me? Its revert revert fight the infidel revert O ye Muslim revert. Come on were going to say the PROPHET Muhammad? NEUTRAL PLEASE. They not even trying!Opiner 10:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets get some perspective here. I am NOT a Muslim. In fact I'm a non-religiuos individual of a variously European background. So lets not let our assumptions get the best of us. You didn't make a "simple change" you made a major change which included not calling the Qu'ran "scripture" and getting rid of a common emic descriptor, "the prophet" Muhammad. My concerns with this and any other entry are neutrality and realiability. This should be more than obvious above as I was arguing against a major and quite POV edit.PelleSmith 12:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vigilante editing", not a very civil way to describe editor's work on this article. I agree that it is false to generically use the term "prophet" as in this edit before Muhammad's name. Muhammad is only a prophet to those who believe him to have been one. Additionally the "central religious text" wording comes directly from the Qur'an article itself. (→Netscott) 13:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know guys if you are aware of the existence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). -- Szvest 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Hello Szvest, this section in particular covers what's being discussed here. I know for a long time that even though that MoS isn't established policy editors both Muslim and non-Muslim have been abiding by that. (→Netscott) 13:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. Yes true but i still see some disagreements here. I see that Opiner is not satisfied. This may mean that some editors do not abide by the MoS and that's why he is making that clear. -- Szvest 13:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Prophet and Scripture again.

Can we move the text from above, about "the prophet" and "scripture", here? I'm afraid that I may have contributed to messing up an entry that really wasn't about this issue but about the ARCAID. The original discussion was above the last posting. What is the policy on moving around text on the talk page?PelleSmith 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the issue, if it is accepted as a matter of style not to use "honorifics" like "The Prophet" then I'm fine with removing "the prophet". Opiner never pointed this out, and I was quite unaware of this fact until just now when Szvest linked to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). I appologize for my ignorance, but this is why we we're discussing the matter in the first place. My main concern here is with discussing such changes, and or explaining them properly and not just editing haphazardly.PelleSmith 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

PelleSmith, if you're not familiar with it you might want to peruse Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. What you describe as haphazard others would describe as "being bold". Please do remove the "prophet" wording. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages but it also states that it is "reckless" to disregard debates on the talk pages. I will make the change, but I'm making the change as per the style conventions that have come to light, in order to remove possible "honorifics". Of course it could have been changed to "their prophet" Muhammad, and not been at all an honorific. Personally I don't see anything wrong with establishing the internal belief of his status upon first mention, as a matter of clarity. But it isn't worth arguing I guess since the very next sentence states that he is considered the last prophet.PelleSmith 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree w/ removing the honourific titles. Obviously, people would know from the article that Muhammad is considered a Prophet by Muslims. We have to follow the MoS and encourage everyone to do so, otherwise it would be a waste of time of all the contributors who participated in the establishment of the MoS. -- Szvest 14:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Thanks Dev920 for changing it and Netscott andd Szvest for style link and support. Problem solved!Opiner 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)