Talk:Islam

The form of the Qur'an most used today is the Al-Azhar text of 1923, prepared by a committee at the prestigious Cairo university of Al-Azhar.
- This statement never shows that who believe it.

Many others but I think we should go one statement at a time. Zain 12:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first statement is true. See

THE QUR'AN IN PRINT

http://www.ymofmd.com/books/uaq/ch3s4.htm

The Qur'anic text in printed form now used widely in the Muslim world and developing into a 'standard version', is the so-called 'Egyptian' edition, also known as the King Fu'ad edition, since it was introduced in Egypt under King Fu'ad. This edition is based on the reading of Hafs, as reported by 'Asim, and was first printed in Cairo in 1925/1344H. Numerous copies have since been printed.

OneGuy 20:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that some mention must be made of the shahada as recited by Shi'as. The article ends the Kalima at mohammed ur rasul allah. The Shi'as add 'aliyun wali allah' to that. --Notquiteauden 19:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scapula's edits

Someone recently added a rambling and discursive para to the article that was not only marginally literate, it was wrong in many cases. The statement that put my teeth on edge was that Judaism and Chrisianity were the only religions of that time and place that weren't didn't worship idols. Um, Zoroastrianism doesn't worship idols, so far as I know, and Buddhism doesn't unless it's mixed with folk religion. Not to mention the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy was riven with conflict between those who venerated icons, and those who didn't (iconoclasts).

I reverted the article to the pre-addition version. I don't want to discourage Scapula from editing Wikipedia, but I'd suggest that he/she start on less contentious articles that are closer to his/her areas of expertise. Zora 20:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problematic statement

The article states "Unlike Christianity, Islam has not undergone any period of reformation...". This phrase makes it seem like Islam is a monolithic unchanging entity, and smacks of outdated viewpoints (i wont use the O. word dont worry!). What do you think about removal?

I've occasionally thought that this should be rewritten. The wording assumes that every religion needs a period of reformation, just like Christianity. Hmmm. I'm a Buddhist and I don't think Buddhism has ever had a period of reformation. It just keeps changing all the time.

Now if I were a Muslim I'd probably be a reformist and believe that many Islamic religious professionals were medieval in their viewpoints, and that the gates of ijtihad should be opened again -- but that shouldn't be an assumption underlying the article. Zora 08:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely that, like any tradition that spans the globe, Islamic traditions are not monolithic, encompass a wide range of cultures from N. America to the Philippines, and have undergone many changes, a number of which can intelligibly be referred to as reformist. For example, in the tenth century, the great scholar and lecturer on Islamic law, Muhammad al-Ghazzali, right in the middle of his regular lectures, interrupted his lecture could speak no more. While those near him thought he had suffered from some sort of physical attack, he had, according to his own autobiography, undergone a profound crisis of conscience. He found an emptiness beneath the impressive body of legal precepts, and left his secure position as teacher of law, and went on a seven-year physical and philosophical journey that led to a major reform of the tradition that could be compared to that of Martin Luther. Ghazzali focused on an inner dimension to the legal traditions, by focusing, for example, on the intention of the person behind the performance of ritual and the precepts of legal rules. Moreover, he contributed to integration of Sunni Islam and Sufism, which by his time become a movement of interior spirituality that criticised the superficiality of legalism and what they considered the moral decline that came with the enormous wealth and power in the Middle East and Central Asia. In fact, Ghazzali was called "mujadded" that is, someone who brought something new, or fresh. His interpretation of the Verse of Light (Sura Noor) of the Qur'an, written after his journey, gives a whiff of that freshness. His autobiography, which covers his crisis, and illustrates his searching, sharp mind, his poignant honesty and is as lucid and self-revelatory as the writing of any a reformer.

What is the likely origin of the view that Islam never went through reform? It is probably the conception that Islam is essentially a pre-modern, medieval tradition. However, between the ninth and thirteenth centuries could arguably qualify as "Classical" rather than medieval, as is commonly understood. Why? This period was formative in several senses: individuals asked fundamental questions about the human condition, there was much diversity of opinion, there was significant dialog between reason and spiritual experience, individuality was respected, and there was a profound and general respect for the validity of one's experience, observation and powers of reason, and finally, a healthy suspicion of received knowledge or tradition.

Another example from that period is an encyclopedia call the "Treatise of the Brethren of Purity", written about 700 years before Diderot, by a group of individuals in many walks of life, in the city of Basra, in present-day Iraq. This massive work covered the knowledge of the day from music to mathematics, from physiology (which included knowledge of the human circulatory system) to natural history, as well as narratives that would today be called precursors of fiction. One of these narratives is called "Trial of the Animals Versus Humanity", in which a group of animals revolt against the domination of human beings, and question the assumption that human beings make that they are superior to animals. These animals do not trust human courts, so resort to the court of Genies (Jinn). This segment of the encycopedia covers probably one percent of the total work, and has recently been called the first example of deep ecology in human history.

My next submission will be a summary of several such texts, and believe that these texts should fall under a new heading in the sidebar "Islam": Literature and Science. I am new to this encyclopedia, and would like someone's assistance in this.

Just to add to the evidence for reform in Islam: "Throughout its long history, the community [of Islam] has had to respond to internal and external threats to its continued life and vitality. As a result, Islam has a long tradition of religious renewal and reform, extending from its earliest history to the present." -- Islam: The Straight Path, John L. Esposito, p. xv

"Dissatisfaction with Umayyad rule also resulted in the development of nonrevolutionary reform movements within society....In addition to the disaffected Kharijites and Alids, a host of other critics sprang up....This gave rise, in particular, to the growth of two Islamic movements or institutions, the ulama (religious scholars) and the Sufis (mystics)." -- Islam: The Straight Path, John L. Esposito, p. 48

Furthermore, the Reformation is somewhat of a misnomer. "Reformation" implies a change from within. Regardless of Luther's intent (reformation of the Catholic Church or the advent of Protestantism), the result was a schism. From this perspective, Islam has had many "reformations." With two civil wars and a slew of offshoot movements, Islam is no stranger to reform/schism.

-User:Dws

Appreciation

Sorry to interrupt your work with this, but I have just been reading the article on Islam and your talk page, and I have to express to you all how impressive it is to see such consummate civility and mutual respect in your discussions. --Jmenon

Article requests

For a list of requested article topics regarding Islam, Islamic culture, and the Muslim world, see Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts#Islam. -- Karada 13:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Islam POV

It is my point of view that the entry for islam and the talk page associated is very far from npov it is apparant that it is muslim point of view. there is nothing that I have found, (although I don't have more than a couple of hours to read this one article) about how women are repressed and abused. You all have created a wonderful recruiting page for islam, good for you. Furthermore, you edit out what people put in that disagrees with what you think islam should be, not what it is in reality. I may have missed it, but all of the various sects are not delved into, only what would be pristine islam. God is the only God, and he said 'thou shalt not kill'. May His light open your eyes.

I agree that Islamism is not as clearly separable from Islam as suggested in this article. There should be a section briefly outlining the history of radical interpretations of Islam, rather than simply the plain link under 'see also'. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But this is also true for some other religious articles on Wikipedia, especially Hinduism. I don't see Hindutva even mentioned (even in see also section) in Hinduism article OneGuy 22:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hm, in my opinion Hindutva should definitely be linked from Hinduism. I'm not saying we need a long paragraph about Islamism. One sentence is enough, just making it part of the article text rather than linking it without comment. Also, the Islamism article makes it sound like it's a 20th century phenomenon. Afaik, there were similar discussions in medieval Persia, contrasting fundamentalist/strict interpretations with more 'Persian'/mystic ideas (origins of Sufism?). But I'm not knowledgeable about this. Do we have an article where these controversies are explained? dab (ᛏ) 16:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creed "translations"

also, can people please stop messing with the translation of the "creed"? la ilaha illa-llahu means "[There is] no god but God". End of story. It does not mean "no god is rightfully worshipped" or anything similar. These are theological interpretations/implications, not translationss. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The correct translation is as follows: 'ilaah' is from the root word 'alaha' which means 'to adore'. ilaah does not literally mean 'God'. ilaah is anything that is adored or is worshipped or craved after etc, such as money, wine, women, ancestor worship, God.

Therefore, 'ilaah' refers to many objects including God but the word 'Allah' refers only to God. So in Arabic, the Creed really does mean "There is nothing worthy of worship/adoration except God". This IS the correct translation!

arguably, a periphrase. except that brevity and the etymological connection are lost. How about "there is nothing godly but God"? After all "god" simply means "to be worshipped (gheu-to-)" too. dab (ᛏ) 12:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"There is no God but God" is the usual English translation -- I don't think we need to come up with a new version. Or, if this is a matter of such importance, what about a breakout article? English translations of the Islamic confession of faith or some such thing. Do different mosques or Islamic confederations in English-speaking countries use different versions? Do Salafis and Sufis use different versions? This can be a big thing in some contexts. Consider the fuss over different versions of the Anglican services/prayerbook/whatever (I'm blanking on the correct term). Zora 12:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree the difference may be impoortant. We don't need an "English translations" article, though, it can all be detailed on shahada. Just keep the most common translation here. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Reason I removed links in "academic sources"

Another anon editor inserted four links to various websites and publications of Al-Mawrid Institute in Pakistan. That's a little much! I thought that I might narrow the links to one, and looked through them for academic content. But there wasn't any, really. Those sites are directed at devout Muslims who want to deepen their faith; there really is no academic content. I found one paper on a Christian gospel, which started out with a note to the effect that "I'm busy, I didn't have a chance to finish this term paper, but here it is." Unfinished undergraduate papers are not the stuff of a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I would suggest that the anon editor make sure that all those links are included in the Open Directory listings. We link to the Open Directory, so an interested reader could follow the links to the Al-Mawrid site. Zora 11:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prophets

Since you asked, the hadith giving 124,000 is in Musnad Ibn Hanbal. It may not be significant enough to mention on the main page, though. - Mustafaa 22:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Environmentalism and religion

I have added a section "Environmentalism and religion" to the Environmentalism article. Perhaps someone familiar with Islamic theology could add to it. --Erauch 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Sect" problem

The sidebar on this and (presumably) every other major article relating to Islam lists articles on Maliki, Hanbali, etc. among "sects." This is not accurate, they are complementary schools of jurisprudence. Note that they are insistent on that point, inasmuch as Qur'an pronounces breaking the religion into sects as a sin. In any given Sunni masjid in US, one may encounter practitioners of all four of these schools of thought, or madhabs. They're better understood as distinct scholarly approaches to how best to perform the same obligations; they're not sects in the sense of competing subgroups. May I suggest we retitle heading as "Schools of Thought" wherever it appears? BrandonYusufToropov 14:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about just using madhab and then defining it? Any attempt to coin an English phrase ends up being as long as a definition anyway. Zora 19:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. You will notice that it is not the madhhabs that are defined as sects; but Sunni and Shia, with the schools of thought within them listed after those two with a colon. And though not exactly the same as, say, Christian sects, Sunni, Shia, Mutaza'ila, etc. are close to what a sect is. What say?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Having taken another look at the sidebar, I'd say that it is misleading, and that the decision to present it that way may have been due to a perceived need to balance the list of Shi'a sects with a list of Sunni "sects" and make a visually balanced presentation. It would seem to be clearest to introduce another category, Madhab or Legal Tradition, and rework the sect list. It wouldn't look as pretty, having Sunni all by itself on one line, but it would be more rational. Zora 22:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can try to add another category, but I'm afraid I don't know how to edit a template. Where exactly is the text I would change? BrandonYusufToropov 11:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

D'oh. I don't know where templates are stored. Zora 12:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found it (with help from User:OneGuy. It was here: template:Islam, and I made the edit without totally messing up the graphics, which was a concern. What do people think? BrandonYusufToropov 18:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks Brandon. Zora 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misleading. Why are Sunni madhabs in separate section while Shi'a ones are in sect section? Ithna Asharia, Ismailiyah, Zaiddiyah, are all Shi'a OneGuy 19:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to fix that and other issues - tell me what you think. - Mustafaa 19:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any good sources?

Hello. I'm trying to find some information on why the Abbasid Dynasty in Baghdad weakened and lost to the Mongols. I'm trying to find some good books/cites/articles on the reasons why the caliphate weakened and not just what happened. Does anyone have any good suggestions?

Thanks!

Given that the Mongols trounced everyone for thousands of miles (Central Asians, Chinese, Russians, AND the Abbasids), I'm not sure that it's necessary to conclude that the Abbasids were WEAK. Would the outcome have been any different if the Mongols had arrived earlier, when the Caliphate was still "strong"? Could the Mongols have beaten the Arab warriors of Uthman?

I'm reminded of sf fans and discussions such as "Could the Starship Enterprise beat the Death Star?" Zora 08:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point. However, during the Umayyad dynasty, the empire was very large. After the Abbasids overthrew them and moved the capital, the empire gradually became smaller until it was just the area around Baghdad. I'm looked for the reasons why the empire became smaller. Green789 15:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Was the link that bad?

OneGuy, you reverted the addition of a link to arabic-islamic.org -- or something like that. I had already taken one look at the link and decided that it might actually add to the article. Could you share your thought processes in deciding that it was part of a link spam? Zora 18:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of the site is in Spanish. Put in Spanish Wikipedia if you like the site OneGuy 19:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed forum sites

Fansher, I removed the forum sites you added. Those are proselytizing sites, and if we allow them, out of the hundreds or even thousands of proselytizing sites on the web, we'd have to allow them all. Just make sure that those sites are in the open directory (to which we link) and then people can find them if they look. Zora 09:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FA status

Hello all,

I just want to say that I found this article to be an excellent article to Islam. It is clear, seems NPOV (I can't say - I'm a Christian) and well written. It uses summary sections well (though I'm not so crash hot on a section that has no summary form and refers to another article on Wikipedia) and the infobox is pretty cool. If only the Christianity article was so good!

Anyway, I'd like to know what we need to do to get this to FA status. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simply go here and follow the instructions. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates --Christofurio 00:31, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- it would be a nice feature article. No idea how to nominate, though.BrandonYusufToropov 11:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite an acheivement considering the amount of vandalism and well-meaning spamming. I think the sections containing nothing but a "main article" link should just be moved to "see also". The "English version of the creed" needs some work (can we get the original Arabic?) what is the difference between Angels (which means, Messengers), and "Messengers"? What is the term translated by "Angel"? Maybe include some stuff from Angels#Islamic_views? dab (ᛏ) 12:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

malak means "messenger" in Hebrew; in Arabic, it has no meaning but "angel", as far as I know. - Mustafaa 23:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With an eye toward nomination, I have cut-and-pasted a key paragraph from the "Islam and other religions" article to fill in that blank spot, and copyedited what seemed to me a few unclear spots in "Islam in the Modern World" -- thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 11:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proper name of Shi'a

Hi, I'm no expert on Islam, so I'm not exactly sure what the proper way to refer to Shi'as is. What should wikipedia use? I've seen the following on various pages:

Shiites
Shi'ites
Shiite Muslims
Shi'ite Muslims
Shia
Shias
Shia Muslims
Shi'a
Shi'as
Shi'a Muslims
Shi'i

Also I am confused whether to use:

Shiism
Shi'ism
Shia Islam
Shi'a Islam
Shiaism

This problem is illustrated by What links to Shi'a Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Shi%27a_Islam). Needless to say, all of this variety is a bit confusing. I think it would be useful for Wikipedia to adopt one standard, and stick to it on all articles. The problem is that it takes quite a while to change existing articles to match that standard. I am willing to do a hundred of the articles linking to Shi'a Islam via redirects, but no more than that (There are just too many). If anyone else would like to help out, just click the above link, find a page, and change the references to Shi'a to be in whatever form is thought best. Let me know what you think at my talk page, or we can have a discussion here. --Jacobolus 07:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

some are more common than other spellings, but it's a matter of convention I suppose, and uniformityu will be difficult to impose on WP. Myself I would opt for Shi'ites, Shi'a, only if because the apostrophe makes it looks less similar to shite :o) dab (ᛏ) 13:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

System problem

During a recent reversion, the final third of the article simply evaporated, and attempts to resave from the same version resulted in the same missing text.

I cut and pasted from the article page to restore the missing text, but I know there are some ugly spots and missing internal links. At least the text is now current, and Godwilling I will fix the links later on. BrandonYusufToropov 14:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've used up my three reverts for the day ...

... and the vandalism of this page continues. Help, please. BrandonYusufToropov 19:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've got it. For future reference, though, 3RR doesn't apply to simple and obvious vandalism, so feel free to revert that as much as you like. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

atheism

could somebody check out Atheism#In_Islam, please? I was under the impression that shirk and kafir were not overlapping concepts, and that kafir was more or less equivalent to atheist. The article now claims "the concept does not exist", I am not sure who inserted that. dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I added a pronunciation of "islam" in Arabic. I'm not a native speaker, though, so please remove if it's too crappy. - karmosin 08:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

wtf? and then you replaces islam with muhammad with the edit summary

"And then he crapped up the name of the Lord, and the Lord was wrathful..."

-- is this some sort of surreal vandalism? And why is the file called "ar-islam"? I suppose the audio file should include the article, al-islam, and if it is to be at all useful, be spoken by a native arab (Saudi? Bedouin?) dab (ᛏ) 09:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh... Sorry! I can't read Arabic, so I must've accidently gone to Muhammad and copied the text there. I was looking at both pages at once. And I was trying to make a joke with the description because I thought I had messed up the Arabic text while editing and thought i set it right.

And the file name is "ar-islam.ogg" because that's the standard for naming soundfiles on Commons. "Ar-" is the 2-letter ISO 639 code for Arabic and those instructions are clearly stated at Commons if you just look around. Also, try not to assume the worst because of one mistake. I don't enjoy having "wtf"s thrown at me for no good reason.

Now I know I'm not a native. But since no one has uploaded any samples of Arabic, is the pronunciation bad enough to merit no pronunciation at all? - karmosin 09:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

sorry for the "wtf", no offence intended -- I just couldn't figure out what was going on :o) I understand the "ar-" now, I was confused because the file should properly say "al-islam" (and be named "ar-al-islam", I suppose, then). I am obviously no native either, but your file seemed to get the accent wrong, it said íslam, while it should be islám (with a long a), the i- being just a prothetic vowel (to the root slm, "peace etc.". regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then. Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to love to learn some Arabic, but I have my hands (or rather my mouth) tied with Chinese, German and Spanish. Is the word "islam" usually refered to in everyday speech as "the islam"? For example: if someone answered the question "What religion are you studying ?", would the proper answer be "al islam", and not just "islam"? Let me try one more recording and if I still don't get it right I'll leave it to the Arabs.

Btw, does the prothetic vowel become a sort of schwa or does it simply not occur on its own at the start of a clause? - karmosin 14:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's almost invariably used with the article, i.e. "the submission" as opposed to some submission of someone to somebody, just as the koran always has the article, "the lecture", as opposed to some unspecified lecture. The prothetic vowel is necessary before any cluster of two consonants, see arabic grammar. it is an i-sound (but I suppose dialects will vary). I strongly believe that if we're going to have sound files to illustrate pronunciation, they should be recordings of native speakers (Arabic has how many? a quarter of a billion? shouldn't be too difficult to find one :) dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly not enough of them know that there's even an option of uploading sound files since there are no sound files in Arabic at Commons nor here (to my knowledge). Now unless this second attempt really is horribly substandard, how about we try to be bold? I mean, what's the worst scenario, really? An upset Arab replacing it with a native pronunciation? :-) This, if anything, is a good way of letting people know there's the possibility of creating sound files on wikipedia.

Here's the second attempt: Template:Audio - karmosin 21:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

well, it sounds like "al ísslam" to me, but I am open to other opinions. dab (ᛏ) 10:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you can be bothered, you could extract the word from a qur'anic recitation. It occurs e.g. 3:19 or 61:7, you could rip it from a recitation on [1] (http://www.aswatalislam.net/CategorySelectionMadeP.aspx?CatID=1001) (the faq says the files are freely redistributable). In this mp3 file (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Quran%5CQuran%20-%20Abdul%20Aziz%20AlAhmed%20-%20mp3%5C/Quran%20-%20Abdul%20Aziz%20AlAhmed%20-%20Surah061%20-%20As%20-%20Saff(TheRow)(www.aswatalislam.net).mp3), the word occurs at ca. 1:42–1:45 (but it is chanted, not spoken in a natural voice). dab (ᛏ) 10:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't hear any difference at all between the chanter's and my own "i". I'm also definetly not stressing it; that much I know about phonetics. The chanter's "a" is more closed, though. Almost on the brink of becoming a Swedish e: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Sv-ek.ogg). Is that due to dialect or the chant?

In any case, I modeled my pronunciation on sound files from Nationalencyklopedin, which are cleary pronounced by a native speaker who clearly pronounces the "i". Incidentally, he also doesn't use an article, but I'l trust your syntactic judgement on that one.

Eventhough I really like that chant, the extremly low quality and clearity make it pretty useless as a guide to pronunciation. I suggest we use what we've got and hope some native speaker will come along and be urged to do a proper recording. I mean, it's not like I'm pronouncing it Template:Audio... - karmosin 12:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

(*lol*) fair enough, let's see what the natives say :o) dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that's bold! :-D

Islamic Civilizations

I am new to this encyclopedia, and would like someone's assistance in this. I would like to suggest an additional heading under the category "Islam" which so far, understandably focuses mainly on doctrine and religious communities, schools and orientations, but also has architecture. I would like to suggest a heading that contains architecture, as well as a wide range of other phenomena. Islamic Civilizations is in the plural because as a world tradition, the faith has interacted with a wide range of cultures: pre-Islamic Arabian, African, Iranian, Turkic, Indian, South-East Asian, Chinese, etc. This category of knowledge goes beyond theology and practice to encompass culture, scientific knowledge, medicine, technology, the meaningful relationship different Muslims have with their natural environment, with different cultural traditions, as well as the understandings and practices that are hybrid and creative integration of different traditions and cultural practices.

Islamic Civilizations covers various works from around the world such as poetic literature, stories, philosophical and scientific treatises, travel accounts, maps, and encyclopedias. This section would thus embody the pluralism and breadth of concern that is to be found in any tradition that encompasses about one billion people spanning the globe, over a period of one thousand four hundred years.

I shall start in a small way by describing texts that demonstrate a small piece of knowledge that would fall in such a category. Between the ninth and thirteenth centuries was a period of scientific and cultural development among Muslims and others who shared a cultural space that could arguably qualify as "Classical" rather than medieval, as is commonly understood. Why? Despite some degree of political turbulence, this period was formative in several senses: individuals often asked fundamental questions about the human condition, there was much diversity of opinion, there was significant dialog between reason and spiritual experience, individuality was generally respected, and there was a profound and general respect for the validity of one's experience, one's own powers of observation and reason, and finally, a healthy suspicion of received knowledge or tradition. During this period, many texts developed, mainly in Arabic, some of which are in English translation. For example, in the tenth century, the great scholar and lecturer on Islamic law, Muhammad al-Ghazzali, who lived in in Baghdad, which was then in the middle of a period of creative ferment. Right in the middle of his regular lectures, al-Ghazzali stopped his lecture and could speak no more. While those near him thought he had suffered from some sort of physical ailment, he had, according to his own autobiography, undergone a profound crisis of conscience. He found an emptiness beneath the impressive body of legal precepts, and soon left his secure position as teacher of law, and went on a seven-year physical and philosophical journey that led to a major reform of the tradition that could in some respects be compared to that of Martin Luther. Ghazzali focused on an inner dimension to the legal traditions, by focusing, for example, on the intention of the person behind the performance of ritual and the precepts of legal rules. Moreover, he contributed to integration of Sunni Islam and Sufism, which by his time become a movement of interior spirituality that, for the most part from the "outside" criticised the superficiality of legalism and what they considered the moral decline that came with the enormous wealth and power in North Africa, Western, Central and South Asia. In fact, Ghazzali was called "mujadded" that is, someone who brought something new, or fresh. He could be critiqued for being conservative, and hermetically sealing his innovative synthesis. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the Verse of Light (Sura Noor) of the Qur'an, written after his journey, gives a whiff of his respect for the inner life and his freshness of mind. His autobiography, which covers his crisis, and illustrates his searching, sharp mind, his poignant honesty and is as lucid and self-revelatory as the writing of any a reformer. Both his interpretation of that famous verse and his autobiography have been translated into English.

Another example from that period is an encyclopedia call the "Treatise of the Brethren of Purity", written about 700 years before Diderot, by a group of individuals in many walks of life, in the city of Basra, in present-day Iraq. This massive work covered the knowledge of the day from music to mathematics, from physiology (which included knowledge of the human circulatory system) to natural history, as well as narratives that would today be called precursors of fiction. One of these narratives is called "Trial of the Animals Versus Humanity", in which a group of animals revolt against the domination of human beings, and question the assumption that human beings make that they are superior to animals. These animals do not trust human courts, so resort to the court of Genies (Jinn). This segment of the encycopedia covers probably one percent of the total work, and although it is not ecology in the modern sense, and represents a rudimentary but genuine observation of animals and insects, has recently been called the first example of deep ecology in human history. I will obtain the references to the above texts and post them ASAP. My next submission will be a summary of several such texts, which should, hopefully, encourage others who know other such texts to summarize and reference them. ~saffroncoconut

You don't need anyone's permission to start an article. It needn't be linked to Islam at first. If you want to start writing articles about Islamic scholars, jurisprudence, literature, just go ahead. Just do a search first to make sure that it's not covered already.

Note: search on various terms to make sure you've looked everywhere the subject might be filed. As a newbie, I set up several pages that I later discovered already existed, under slightly different names.

Once you start accumulating the little bits, it will be clear how things should be organized into categories (note that they can belong to more than one category). Also, there IS Islamic material in Wikipedia that's NOT linked to the Islam article. Frex, there's hijab and Islam and clothing, which need to be combined, really, and Sufism, Islamic music, Arab music, etc. If you want to set up some categories that don't already exist and start cross-linking things, that's fine too. I don't think it should ALL go to the Islam article -- we'd end up with ten zillion links. But we could link the Islam article to a few link-collection pages.

Starting with the major categories and working down may not be the best approach. I'd also be somewhat concerned about the idea of an "Islamic" civilization. While Islam may have provided the framework, a lot was contributed by the Christian and Jewish dhimmis. Whenever you start with a huge, vague conception, you end up with vapid generalities and lots of arguments. When you start with the bits and work up, I think you're going to have an easier time getting consensus on how existing bits should be classified and organized.

Welcome! Write lots! Explain what you're doing on talk pages! Zora 01:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A round of edits by non-communicating editors

Several editors went to work on the article without any explanation of what they were doing, or why. I reverted, and I invite those editors to come here and talk to the rest of us about changes. This article is a result of a long period of consultation and negotiation. It is better to work collaboratively in such cases.

Skywalker added a link to a Russian website that doesn't appear useful to people searching for general knowledge about Islam. Xbla (or some such name) was busy simplifying and deleting -- edits that in some cases I thought made sense, as stripping away an aura of Muslim religiosity that has gradually accreted -- but such edits are bound to be controversial, and I think should be done gradually and carefully. Zora 18:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, article "Fundamentals of the Islamic Ethics (http://www.religiousbook.net/Lectures/Islamic_ethics.html)" is one of independence view, but it may be very interesting becouse author have a good spiritual practice. Excuse me for my bed english. Best regards, Skywalker.

regarding a round of edits by non-communicating editors

As it been remarked in earlier discussions, the text, as it stood after Grenavitar 's 01:05, 14 Mar 2005 reversion, was tainted with religious proselytization and bias while masquerading itself as an objective presentation of facts.

Though parts of the article could be informative and helpful to the reader, there was also present, a noticeable religious slant.

More precisely points in contention are:

A) The article was salted with assertions one would expect in a religious sermon,

B) It presented disingenuous misrepresentations about actual beliefs and practices.

C) It made a shrewd attempt to draw legitimacy by portraying belief of a relationship or camaraderie to Christianity and Judaism, which clearly does not exist anywhere in the world today.

D) It makes deliberate omissions of important facts and qualifiers such as relating to the true nature of dhimitude in Islam,

E) It makes subtle condescensions towards non-Muslims faiths.

F) It lists blatant distortions of population statistical information.

It seems like a far cry from the honest scholarship that one would expect from encyclopedic researchers.

I have attempted to correct this by eliminating the some of faulty sections, which fit in the four types of categories above.

Hope this helps

You may have a case regarding the population facts (I do not know about this) however I don't believe you do with the rest of your edit. You show no basis for removing the etymology of the word "Islam". You change "fellow Abrahamic religions" to "competing Abrahamic religions" which if anything adds the opposite bias. You change God to Allah making him different although God is a concept and Allah is a name for that concept therefore Allah can always be called God. It is Muslim belief that God gave his message to many of the Jewish prophets, John the baptist and Jesus and their followers distorted the message. The reason it was revealed to Muhammad is supposed to be because his predecessors communities bastardized the words. These are the beliefs of Islam and removing them so that it sounds harsher is wrong. The text compares itself to the other religions and tries to make itself look better and it is the obligation of an encyclopedia to report on the traditions of the people and what the text states. The text is an historical document and if it asserts these things then we report them. Christianity assert Jesus is God and we report that so I fail to see how this is any more biased. It is considered to be final revelation and your removal of that more or less asserts that we should remove this article too for bias. Your edits are leaving out beliefs of the people who follow Islam which is bias in itself. gren 06:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I still stand by the points I made=

I am afraid, Grenavitar, that your statement reflects your personal opinion which you have allowed to color your actions when trying to suppress the restoration of the NPOV. Essentially , your version of the article presents a sanitized face that is meant to be favorable to Islam and demeaning to other faiths. You, yourself could not help blurting out your true opinion of other faiths which you evidently regard as inferior and not as a fellow faith. This being one of my points above. I hope you can take a moment to regain your NPOV on this topic. Try to consider carefully the points I made above and see if you cannot recover an NPOV on this. Your attempt to label my changes as vandalism is ridiculous and a pretty uncalled for tactic.

X, not everyone working on this article is Muslim. The article as it stands (now that I've reverted it) is the result of many months of work by editors of various faiths. The non-Muslim editors (such as myself) have tried hard to include everything that the Muslims think is noteworthy about their religion, but state it so carefully that Muslim belief is described as belief and not stated as fact.

If your experience on Wikipedia has been of working on derelict or abandoned articles, then it hasn't prepared you for dealing with an article watched by a large community of editors. You can't just come in swinging. You can either approach your edits one by one, gradually, and argue for accepting them on the talk page, or you can write an alternate version, put it up on your user talk page or a subsidiary page attached thereto, and then call for comments.

Wikipedia is rather bad at teaching editors HOW to work with the community, such as it is. You have to learn by banging your head against the wall, as I've done too many time <g>. Please accept this advice from a veteran wallbanger. Zora 18:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your edit was also bad in other respects than npov. Don't expect people to clean up after you. You broke the formatting of boldface Islam. You removed information for no good reason. Your tearing into the first section of the article makes it clear you have not read the entire article: You just seem to have read the introduction and decided to make it less "Islamophile" as a kneejerk reaction. It is true that some points of the present article could still be npoved. For example, the assertive "as it is, after all, the direct word of God to mankind." of the introduction is redundant, and you could politely argue for its removal. It is conceivable that the less attractive sides of Islam should be mentioned here, rather than stashed away in Islamism. To that effect, you could suggest a balanced "Islamism" section (this would be the Islam in the modern world: What is "fundamental'? section which, unlike the intro, is pretty recent, and could still be substantially improved. Have you even got so far as to notice that section?). Just tearing through a half-read article like that, however, will simply get you nowhere. dab (ᛏ) 18:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of that redundant line. It made it seem like you were repeating it to convince the reader and now it is less preachy. gren 20:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Xl... an article of a religious nature will always have a sense of bias that a scientific one can more easily remove. It is a Muslim belief that their revelations have been kept perfect whereas Christian and Jewish ones have not been and they therefore surpass Christianity and Judaism in terms of truth. This is their belief and we are obliged to report this even if we do not agree. When you write an article about religion you must first report what the general mass of adherents to the religion assert as the basis for your article and this will inherently sound biased towards their beliefs. However, any educated reader should realize that we are reporting the beliefs of a group biased in their own favor and they should look further to see critiques of the religion. As for my bias, I am not Muslim either but I do have a great sympathy for the religion as I do for Christianity as well and POV is added through means of trying to remove the reporting of beliefs of any religion and I see it I will try to stop it. gren 19:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Women in Islam

After four years, not a single contributor to Wikipedia has had created an article (even a stub!) on the role of Women in Islam. One must wonder why, especially since people have repeatedly brought this subject up for years. I do understand why many people might be frightened. For several years I have read many articles in newspaper about death threats towars those who openly discuss this subject. (Unless, of course, the article is limited to presenting traditional apologetics.) Frankly, it is about time that this changes. Wikipedia has articles on Christian views of women, the Role of women in Judaism, Feminism in the western world, and in many other areas. I thus will create a short article on this subject, and request that others unafraid of writing in our NPOV style help out. RK 21:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, be bold and create the article. --Samuel J. Howard 12:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Death threats for writing a Wikipedia article on Women in Islam, huh? What newspapers do you find those in? Anyway, back to the real world... The idea of woman imams has recently become a topical issue, which may interest editors of this article. - Mustafaa 05:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You misread my words and point, Mustafaa. The death threats are being made to Muslim authors and journalists, and to women imams, and to anyone involved in promoting a liberal version of Islam. These death threats have been reported in both American and European newspapers for years. RK 18:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your statement implies that there is something inherently wrong with a 'conversative' version of Islam, and certainly there are many people, particularly in the West, who have such a disdain for conversativism or fundamentalism in Islam. IMHO, however, the people and behaviours that you are referring to have absolutely nothing to do with liberalism versus conversativism or whatever. They are violent fanatics, pure and simple, and unfortunately there are many of these in the Islamic world at the moment (let us forget that such fanaticism is relatively recent in the history of Islam).
Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews are certainly conservative, and there are many amongst both groups who are fundamentalists, but the Wesetern media never confuses even the most conversative, fundamentalist Christian or Jew with those who would commit violence in the name of the aforementioned religions. When Baruch Goldstein committed his act of terrorism, nobody condemned conservative or fundamentalist strains of Judaism, and rightly so, since such an act had nothing to do whatsoever with religion or religious conservatism. But it had everything to do with fanaticism, and there are those in Israel who support the actions of such an individual, and they, in turn, are considered lunatics. But certainly not religious conversatives.
Point is, you may not agree with conservative Muslims, but their conservatism does not automatically make them violent zealots ready to send someone to their death for speaking out in favour of women's rights, just as the conversativism of an Orthodox Jew does not automatically make him an extremist with a violent hatred for Palestinians.
To give yet another example, the Ayatollah Khomeini, prior to the Iranian Revolution, was considered by most Iranian Islamic theologians to be a far-left liberal (I kid you not). Most of the conservative Ayatollahs were on the side of the Shah, and opposed Khomeini's so-called "reforms." Most Western liberals (including such leftist luminaries as Michel Foucault and former President Jimmy Carter) supported Khomeini as well. And we've all seen how "successful" that revolution has been, yes? The problem is not conservativism or even fundamentalism, since most religious people of any creed, no matter how conservative they are, are not inclined towards violence. It is that vocal and violent minority found in all socities who choose to wrap themselves in whatever religion or secular ideology most convenient and available, and then go off on some killing spree to justify their insanities. And they do just love seeing their names in all the papers, don't they? Ghostintheshell 03:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, and this is a bit off-topic but I feel is something consistently overlooked by those critical of Islam (and Eastern traditions in general), is the fact that when we are talking about pure Islam, we are ultimately talking about the Qur'an and nothing else. The Qur'an, by it's own account, is the only authoritative book of scripture. And this is common in Eastern traditions where personal interpretation is held above all else - and certainly in the case of Islam personal interpretation of the Qur'an is the only authorititative method. Again, this is all illustrated by the book itself.
All these so-called Islamist groups with their self-styled madrassas and lunatic mullahs advocating all manner of filth and rubbish and calling for death threats against those they perceive as heretics or whatever - these are all not only a bunch of (usually) uneducated idiots (the Taliban for example were notoriously uneducated, especially in all matters Islamic), but from a theological perspective, they have no spiritual authority whatsoever. Nowhere in the Qur'an can there be found any support for organised clergy or special schools or anything like this.
The Saudi's, the Pakistani extremists, Hamas, the Taliban types, al-Qaeda, and so forth, these are all widely reviled (even in the Arab world, especially in Lebanon, Egypt, and Morocco) and for good reason, because they are against Islam, as their very actions not only work against the faith, but there is no Qur'anic justification for their murderous actions. And again, this has nothing to do with conservatism or fundamentalism.
Islam is essentially a traditionalist faith, and thus like Orthodox Judaism and traditional Catholicism/Orthodoxy is conservative. In some ways more so, in others less so. After all, from a historical POV, Islam itself can be seen as an attempt to return to a pure, back-to-the-basics Judaism. But unlike the others, Islam has no organised body which represents the whole, and thus it is very easy for someone or some group to pick up a Qur'an and attempt to speak for everyone else. This tactic, of course, never works, but they do end up cultivating a group, always cult-like and dedicated to spreading violence to both Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Again, to say that these types are fundamentalist is highly prejudical since this implies that Islam advocates senseless killing and terrorism, which it does not. A terrorist is a terrorist, just as a criminal is a criminal. If someone is a Muslim fundamentalist, then they cannot be a terrorist since a literal interpretation of Qur'an will not lead someone to fly planes into buildings or beat or kill a woman because she is an imam. To say that Islam needs more "moderates" or liberals implies that Islam inherently is a dangerous religion. And that is pure bigotry. Ghostintheshell 06:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I don't know which country/continent you operate on, but death threats for things that the extreme right finds inconvenient are not something to be trivialized. For three generations, we have dealt with that. One groups of students I worked with had to stare down the barrel of an AK-47 (one of us literally, at one point) for having the temerity to organized an evening that included musical entertainment (just music; sung by people standing very stiffly and very modestly dressed) for students of a major engineering school in Pakistan in 1984. It drives me nuts to have the student organization that did that (the pointing of the gun) and it's parent political party mentioned as one of the more "moderate" Islamist groups. (One of the largest in the MMA.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Having been busy with Algerian Civil War for some time (not to mention Abdelkader Alloula), I know full well that death threats for things that the extreme right finds inconvenient are a serious problem. However, I find RK's suggestion that people might be "frightened" to write a Wikipedia article about women in Islam appallingly unrealistic and rather condescending. It suggests at once that every Wikipedian's name and address are publicly available, that some radical "Islamist" group somewhere is tracking Wikipedia for people whose writing they dislike, and that such an article will in itself, no matter how NPOV, drive such people (whoever they may be) into a murderous frenzy - and that every contributor to Islam-related topics must believe all this! It would have been more polite to assume good faith reasons for the article's nonexistence, such as the most obvious possibility - no one had gotten around to it yet. - Mustafaa 23:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, now. One doesn't have to be actually threatened to be stifled. Self-censorship--or, over about a generation or so, the complete disappearance of alternative points of view in all but the fringes of a body of opinion--can happen without clear and present threats. As an example, just consider the dominance of the Zionist POV in modern Jewish society, especially in the US.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly true; every culture has topics in which alternative POVs are virtually unknown, and sometimes this is a good thing (as, for instance, the near-complete absence in most societies of multiple POVs on cannibalism.) But that's a rather broader and more complicated issue. - Mustafaa 01:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Islam growth today

"In the U.S., more people convert to Islam than any other faith, especially amongst African Americans." This is unsubstantiated , where are the statistics on this? What about people who convert out of Islam ?

"There are approximately 5 million Muslims in North America." This is also unsubstantiated , considering that there is not statistical count of muslims in North America. Where do these numbers come from ? Xlaba22

---

The Pluralism Project (http://www.pluralism.org) (a Harvard associated project run by Diana Eck) estimates (http://pluralism.org/resources/statistics/tradition.php#Islam) between 2.56M and 6M Muslims in America.

A perhaps less reliable source (http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/MSA/find_more/iia.html):

"At present, the number of Muslims in the United States is estimated to be on the order of between 5 to 8 million. It is the fastest growing faith in this country." --Colorado State University Muslim Students Association. No citations in article (They due mention several books, the last of which published in 1993, in the article...one can infer from this that the article, and the statistic, is from 1993 or later.)

Muslim population of North America (Canada and the US) is put at 323.1 by IslamicPopulation.com (http://www.islamicpopulation.com/america_islam.html). If you define North America geographically (as opposed to the general European conception) and include Mexico, the population stands at 428M (according to the same source, with Mexico having 104.9M Muslims).

I accidentally thought growth stats were needed, and I dug up the following up before I realized it was unneccessary, but here it is anyway:

As for growth, ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org) has an article (http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm) with multiple sources with most pointing to Islam being the fastest growing world religion.

The Islam scholar John L. Esposito also says "that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States..." source (http://www.renaissance.com.pk/octbore2y1.html)

Dws 11:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated references in the article

I have removed the references to other prophets which are not mentioned in the Qu'ran. If the article is to reflect the beliefs of Islam it must not introduce extraneous interpretations by editors. The statements "including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus" implies acknowledgement of these names in the Qu'ran yet these names are no where to be found in the Qu'ran so why is it made ? Should we also include all other self appointed prophets of the world who also are perceived by their followers to speak the words of God?

If you wish to reinsert those names please make your case and provide references. Xlaba22

Muslims believe and follow many things which are not spelled out in the Qur'an -- just as most Christians believe in doctrines, such as the Trinity, which are not spelled out in the New Testament. Most Muslims (except the Salafis) accept the authority of the hadith (traditions), and especially the sahih hadith of Bukhari and Muslim. By insisting that the Islam article be "Qur'an only" you are in fact imposing an extremist version of Islam. Please do some research on Islam! Zora 18:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irregardles then you should provide actual references to substantiate your claims . I realize you may not have been the originator of those particular references to other prophets's name but since you chose to defend this , please provide us with quotes from the hadith that support those claims. The purpose of the article will be better served with direct quotes than a vague " this is what they believe" Xlaba22

I did put the names as well their Quranic references in this article, please check all verses. I think now those names shall be returned back. Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, and so on are indeed mentioned in the Quran. The names Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and so on are derived from Biblical characters based on similarities in their story. DiN 19:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hadith (all Bukhari)

[Vol. 1, Book 6, Hadith 293] "This is a thing which Allah has ordained for the daughters of Adam."
[Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 003] "Then Adam will remember his Sin and feel ashamed thereof."

Books that mention them

What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims by Suzanne Haneef
Islam: Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar
Muhammad: Man and Prophet by Adil Salahi

I picked up three rudimentary books on Islam I have in my possession at the moment and they all mention Adam and Abraham. The Hadith collections (a major source of Islamic teaching) mention them often. It just comes down to you being wrong, there are countless examples if you would take any effort to search. Add them in as footnoots to the article if you want references. To make this extra easy go to Hadith search from USC (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html) and search for the names and see the references. Or search the Qur'an (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html) for that matter... ~_~ gren 19:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gren. I should have just checked one of my own translations of the Qu'ran. The index to the Arberry translation has MANY references to Abraham, Adam, Moses, and Jesus in the text of the Qur'an. Plus ten references to Prophets. D'oh <g> Zora 20:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reformation

Is this comment regarding 'reformation' in the introduction necessary? I've changed it from "Unlike Christianity ..." to "Unlike other Abrahamic traditions ..." but that seems just as prejudicial and biased. This line makes the Eurocentric assumption that Islam *needs* to be reformed - in other words, there is something inherently wrong and dangerous about Islam (see my comments made above in response to RK), and that it needs to be made "liberal," whatever that is meant to imply.
Just to make things clear to everyone, Islam is not Catholicism, nor is it Reform Judaism, both of which are Westernized Abrahamic religions. Whether Islam can be Westernized is open to debate, but I do not believe that it should be implied that such a Westernization would be proper and required. Does Tibetan Buddhism need to be reformed (i.e. Westernized) as well? What about Hinduism? Honestly, I simply do not understand this Western obsession with destroying other peoples' traditions and forcing them to reconcile their belief systems with the Western world. Not even the Japanese have forced their Shinto faith to become Westernized or liberalized or whatever.
At any rate, 'liberal (or reform) movements in Islam' is all very good and well, but I do not believe it should be linked to the Christian Reformation or whatever. Ghostintheshell 23:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree with you, at least in part. There's no reason for Islam to repeat the same process that Christianity underwent. I would say that any venerable tradition has the challenge of facing and absorbing what's NEW, whether it's textual criticism or evolution, especially when what's new contradicts things that people previously took for granted. The pace of change has accelerated enormously in the last few centuries, but it's the same problem every believer faces at every moment: how do I interpret the teachings NOW? The difficulty of doing this is radically increased when the guardians of the tradition refuse to admit that there's any difficulty at all. IMHO, they've fossilized -- and hence are no longer alive. Zora 00:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The earlier statement drew attention to aspects of Islam which is widely viewed as in need of change, particularly in the area of Freedom of other religions to practice freely and in the open, including both monotheistic and non,The emancipacipation of women,Tolerance of apostates and freedom to leave Islam,Freedom of speech and freedom of thought.,Freedom to disbelieve without stigma or punishment.The comparison to Christian reformation is a much softer way of of making the point than listing the above points directly. --4r2emi 14:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your obvious prejudice against Islam aside, the issues you are referring to are all political, and have nothing to do with Islam itself. There are many Muslim countries in this world, and most of them are not like Saudia Arabia or the Taliban. Perhaps you would like to think that, just many other anti-Muslim bigots, but that's your problem. Plus, the Christian reformation is just a bad example, plain and simple. It didn't really "reform" anything, and it's primary result was a schism between the Protestants and Rome. But the Protestants were just as conservative and "hardline" as the Catholics, if not more so, as evidenced by the extreme austerities of groups like the Puritans and the zealousness of modern Evangelicals. Ghostintheshell 04:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not the originator of the original section regarding reformation, but I do think it made a good point. Reformation is discussed extensively in a wide array of books dealing with Islam and modernity, some of which you may want to read directly. Mentioning it in the article seems quite appropriate as it is reflective of current public discourse on the topic of Islam. On the subject of the listed issues, I am afraid that a great deal of Muslims do not share your POV ,indeed we would like to see you stand on any street in the Muslim world with a sign promoting those freedoms.--4r2emi 05:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I've stated before, there have been a number of reform movements in Islam - Wahabism, for example, which originated out of Saudia Arabia and which heavily influenced the Taliban. But that obviously is not the same type of reform we are talking about, since the Wahabi's are eerily similar to those Puritanical Christians who first settled New England. And you will recall that the Puritans were Christian reformers, which is why they left England for the New World.
Now, as to your statement that the "majority of Muslims" do not share my POV - you really cannot expect to be taken seriously with a statement like that, do you? Do you know how many Muslims there are in this world, and how diverse a community it is we are talking about here? Do you honestly think that the vast majority of Muslims, or even any large percentage of Muslims agree with the sott of religious tyranny to be found in Saudia Arabia?
It might surprise to find out that most Muslims are very much against the Saudi regime, most especially Saudi Muslims (particularly those who are not part of the Wahabist cult, i.e. the majority) themselves. Did you know that most Muslim-majority nations are secular? Do you know anything about (or better yet, ever been to) Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Bosnia, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco - to name a few prominent examples? Did you know that in those Muslim-majority countries like Iran where self-styled Islamist regimes are in power, that such regimes are extremely unpopular and despised by those nation's population? Do you know anything about how the majority of Afghans (majority of them very religious) felt about the Taliban?
Your statements are so illogical and ignorant, that I should even bother to reply, but unfortunately attitudes such as yours are common in the West, as evidenced by the popularity of commentators such as Daniel Pipes and the like, anti-Islam this, anti-Islam that, ad nauseum. You can be a bigot if you like, just don't hide behind all this innuendo of "reform" and "modernity."
There is plenty of modernity in the Muslim world, and there is plenty of political reform underway. Of course, does the West really want secularism (which is the most popular form of government in the world, including the Muslim world) in Muslim countries? From recent political events (you will recall the Saddamite regime was staunchly secular and the pre-Taliban government in Afghanistan during the 80's was secular as well), it would seem that the Western powers want Islamism to spread. Not everything in this world is black & white, and Muslims are human beings, not stereotypes you can condemn at will. Last I remember, most Russians were against Communism, but that didn't stop those like you to condemn and stereotype them all as tyrannical collectivists. Ghostintheshell 11:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have an article on Religion and modernity or some such title, discussing how various faiths have reacted to the increasingly fast pace of change in the last few hundred years. Then we could link the Islam article to that one. That is, if it doesn't already exist ... ??? Zora 05:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but one could also create a section (or separate article rather) dealing with reform movments in Islam - from religious extremist reform movements like Taliban to secular and liberal type reform movements, and so forth. Because reform can mean many things, and it can be good or bad. As it is, there is already a link to liberal movements in Islam, which of course deals with a very specific type of reform. But I think there is also a great deal of misunderstanding in that non-Muslims assume that Islamic law (Sharia) is in effect all over the Muslim world, which is simply not true.
You have these people such as the individual above who think that every Muslim country is like Saudia Arabia, which is not only a very stupid and uneducated thing to prmote, but grossly erroneous. It's the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell type of mentality. Quite frankly, I've debated these types of issues in the past with ignorant types concerning Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, and Hinduism, and it was all very much in this same vein - having to argue against stereotypes and disinformation. It's ridiculous and one has to have plenty of patience, and unfortunately, I can't say I have much tolerance left for this sort of stupidity and prejudice. Ghostintheshell 11:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Get honest people on the growth of Islam

OK wikipedians, its time to get honest about the growth of Islam numbers. As you may have noticed I corrected the wild marketing exagerations and produced some clear and sensible statements on the matter. We have all known for a long time now that this section has been exagerated by any means possible , however honesty must prevail here. Try to understand this , honesty will get everyone a lot further than lies. --Wibidabi 04:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am just curious as to why the Christianity page uses 1.24 as the growth rate for Christianity and 1.76 as the rate for Islam. Are these facts backed up? and if not will someone change it? gren 05:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wild marketing exaggerations? All I see is that Wibidabi removed a sourced claim with no explanation, and changed an unsourced (and now sourced) claim to another unsourced claim. Whether the figures supplied are wrong or right, he'll have to argue his case a bit better than that. - Mustafaa 11:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the points Wibidabi made, I myself had said this before and it is amazing how we all have been tolerating the obvious marketing puffery in this section. --4r2emi 15:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You agree, but you present no argument whatsoever. The question of whether these estimates are correct is a factual one, not a question of opinion, and your opinion is of little relevance without supporting factual arguments. - Mustafaa 23:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reversed edits by Alimustafakhan

A Muslim editor named Alimustafakhan made many changes to the Islam article, none of which he discussed here and most of which moved the article towards a more overt Muslim piety. I have reverted to the last pre-Ali version. I will be putting a message on his talk page asking him to be more circumspect in making changes to an article that has been the subject of so much work, controversy, and hard-fought compromise. Zora 16:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ameen. :) BrandonYusufToropov 19:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Man

Where in the Wikipedia does it explain the Islam teaching on humans as vice-regents of God? Thank you for your help. I will be watching this page.Tom Haws 18:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Added new section on Apostasy

Anon

And that's all you're going to say about it? Not even reveal yourself? The anon author has piled up every bit of info possible that would make Islam sound vicious and cruel, and suppressed everything that might put the matter in perspective. Not that I approve of killing people who leave Islam -- just that so far as I know, this is actually fairly rare, and may have a body count lower than witchcraft and heresy persecutions in Christianity. But that remains to be proved ...

There's an Apostasy article on Wikipedia already, with a section on Islam. If there's anything both new and demonstrable in anon's contribution, it can be moved there. We can add a link to the Islam article. Zora 02:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This section belongs on the Islam page, it is very relevant to the topic and is not designed to emphazise the negative but simply present actual realities of belief. If you do your research , you will see that it is a fair portrayal of what is actually believed by Muslims. Why would you want to "hide" this information out of sight because you might deem it too controversial or unpalatable to your taste? If you feel it not NPOV enough , then you are welcome to contribute to it , but this issue needs to be presented in full view not hidden in some obscure paragraph of another article. Anon

The "Apostasy" addition to this otherwise balanced and carefully crafted article is deeply suspect in my view -- because it relies heavily on massive-generalization formulas like "Muslims believe...."

I'm a Muslim, and I maintain that there are comparatively few common threads of belief you can accurately conclude that sentence with.

Try this on for comparison: "Christians believe that people who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior will go to hell." It makes a catchy sound bite, and you can certainly find Christians who will maintain this ... BUT the sound-bite omits, for instance, the Catholic teaching regarding purgatory. That's not a minor detail. That's Mount Everest. I think we may just be stepping over some mountains here.

Is anon saying that Shias and Sunnis view this issue identically? That all Sunni scholars believe wearing a belt to be apostasy? Where are the sources that clarify who, specifically, believes what? What identifiable Islamic authorities (as opposed to non-Muslims with a grudge against Islam) are we quoting or summarizing? Let's bear in mind that treating Islam as though it were monolithic, permitting only a single view on every issue, is a sign of Islamophobia.

I vote we take this off and let anon, or someone, edit it for the necessary hour or five until it doesn't stick out like a sore, and deeply subjective, thumb. BrandonYusufToropov 14:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the section is particularly unfair. Sure, it is much too wordy for the main article, it should just summarized, and point to the main article, kafir/takfir. I don't think your comparison of "Christians believe X will go to hell" is appropriate, since no theological speculation is involved with defining when one is considered to have left the fold. Furthermore, traditional Muslim society and fundamentalist Islam are clearly differentiated. Also keep in mind that Christian society was as least as "cruel" until at least the 17th century. Such laws are the hallmark of a pre-modern society, not of Islam in particular. Btw, many Muslims I have spoken with are actually proud that Islam is comparatively 'monolithic', at least in comparison with Christianity which looks like a disintegrating mess besides it. So my suggestion is, export to kafir, summarize here, plus add relativations and Shia/Sunna differences where necessary for npov. imho, the kfair and takfir articles should be merged, btw. dab (ᛏ) 15:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, ANYTHING looks like a monolith next to Christianity... (sorry, couldn't resist). :)

How do other people feel? Should this stay? If yes, who is going to take responsibility for condensing it and removing the (massive) generalities that (for instance) treat Shia and Sunni as essentially indistinguishable? BrandonYusufToropov 17:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 17:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy with just having links. But if anything stays, it should just be a one-inch or LESS para, with a link to a fuller discussion. In fact, there are several other sections that could usefully be treated the same way. But that's a different argument. Zora 18:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep it here. The length issue does not seem to be a problem. This section is very informative actually.Brandon can certainly expand on the differences between the Shia and Suni POVs if this is relevant.--Wibidabi 23:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have merged Brandon's new additions to the earlier version as the original text contains a lot of useful information which details fairly well Islamic beliefs in regards to apostasy. We ought to improve on the article rather than discard good information.--Wibidabi 00:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary. This article is already way too long, as it tells you when you edit it; what we ought to do is split info off to more specific articles. - Mustafaa 02:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This issue does not belong to such an extent on the main page. Maybe expand the section about this in Apostasy (which should be looked at) and make a page about Apostasy in Islam. I think this should be dealt with from different perspectives as well. A Shia perspective , a traditional Sunni perspective as shown through Hanafi or Hanbali or whatnot. (On that subject who was the guy who codified Hanafi laws and where can I find it online or in book form) I know progressives quote Al-Baqarah ayat 256's "no compulsion" to show that there should be no penalty and it should be as much a non-issue as punishment for apostasy is in the modern Christianity. All of these viewpoints (and probably more) deserve to be addressed and even some of the more brutal practices should be addressed... but in the right places. We don't start our talk of Christianity with the inquisition. gren 03:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) By the way, that reminds me... why do none of the four Madhhabs have much information on them? That's kind of crazy in my opinion.

I disagree, the issue DOES belongs on the main page as it is a crucial part of the core beliefs of Islam. In Muslim religious circles, in sermons at the mosques and in predominatly Muslim regions the issue of apostasy is an integral part of Islam. Some time non-Muslims confuse the milder mitigating views of secularized Muslim governments with those of Islamic religious authorities and scholars and conclude that those views must therefore not be part of contemporary Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. To deny the importance of apostasy in Islam is a form of apostasy itself.--4.167.193.200 15:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the issue does come up and it is reverberated twenty fold in the west because it is so very unwestern. If you take a look over the Islamic past you will not see this as a major issue, surely it came up but it is not major. Also, there is much debate on the issue and any attempt to present it as Islam = kills apostates would be defamatory. In any case, we cannot make this page as horribly biased as [[[Apostasy#In Islam]] where it cites hadith before Qur'an and we should not overstress this issue which has arisen with a realllyyy insecure post-colonial ummah (the leaders that is) gren 17:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

npov it then. We cannot have more than a "one inch paragraph" on the topic here, but that doesn't mean the death threat to apostates shouldn't be mentioned. Take the detailed discussion to Talk:takfir. Anon, if you are not prepared to collaborate towards a detailed and balanced kafir/takfir article, it appears that you're only interested in adding Islam-bashing statements to the more visible main article, rather than adding to the specialist information contained in WP. Once we have a stable takfir article, it will be much easier to give a fair summary here. dab (ᛏ) 08:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to recognize we are addressing this subject in at least Sharia#Muslim_apostates, Islam#Apostasy, and Apostasy#In_Islam and we must therefore work to keep these three (and any more?) synchronized and since this is technically a large enough subject we could then make Apostasy in Islam and have those pages just be small intros leading to a real article. In any case... we need to keep those versions concurrent. gren 12:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Wibi version should remain in the main page. It is not bashing or defamatory or too long or duplicative , it is a statement of predominant beliefs within the faith presented in a clear and understandable manner instead of hidden behind vague,ambiguous politically correct whitewashed statements. Darwin3 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section should stay, but it can be shorter. It is longer than its main article, at present. Worse, it doesn't link to its main article. Plus it should be checked for factual accuracy (i.e. Shia/Sunna differences should be looked into, etc.). Apart from that, it's fine. Compare the "Christianity and persecution" section on Christianity. We do not want to either bash or whitewash either Christianity or Islam (or any other group), and both have their share of skeletons in their closets, along with their bright sides (also, we do not (not!) want to start haggling over which skeletons are "worse". Let the facts speak for themselves). If nobody else does it, I'll start aligning it with takfir soon, but I cannot vouch for factual accuracy. dab (ᛏ) 06:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My two cents on the text in question:

It's too @#$%^&*( long.

It's not within a mile and a half of being balanced.

It throws an otherwise superb article off balance.

Linking the one-inch condensation I wrote to the previous hyperventilating, rambling mess is not a compromise, but rather a mess expansion initiative.

Best available options are either a) delete or b) develop another one-inch condensation if mine is unacceptable for some reason.

If you honestly think this needs to be discussed in depth on Wikipedia, link to a separate article.

Get an account and a name.

Just out of curiosity, how much real estate on the Christianity page is devoted to apostasy and to the details of the practice of excommunication? BrandonYusufToropov 14:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

your final point: why don't you go check? The persecution section is slightly more than half our present Apostasy section. Anyway, I haven't seen your condensed version. Why don't you put it back, but export the present section to takfir. Then (in another edit) npov it, as you see fit, over there. Then we can discuss your npoving over there, and your condensation here. Btw, am I wrong in assuming that takfir would be the main article for the apostasy section? Or why don't we link there? I will support condensation. If your version turns out biased, it will be edited, but if possible, not lengthened again. That apostates have been put to death will need to be in it, just like Christianity discusses how heretics were burned at the stake, ok? dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's there, take a look. I had already included the executions thing. If we raise the issue, that has to be covered, I agree. But "Apostasy -- The Mini-Series" is a problem for me. Hope to look at takfir later and add it to my list, Godwilling. BrandonYusufToropov 14:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's an ok intro... better than the longg thing anyways... I do think it's an issue that deserves to be talked about more (and it's not takfir...) so we could have a full article for it where it can be expanded. Granted we have 1/2 a page on Hanafi... and that's about 20x more important. gren 15:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The version as of 13:48, 19 Apr 2005 should stay until someone figures out how to keep the information in a shorter form without throwing out relevant and informative content. The discussion ought to be focused on what the merits are or lack thereof of the statements, rather than just pulling out the "length " card as a pretext to censure information. By the way it seems to me that the text is fair and balanced to all POVs--Wibidabi 00:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus here on keeping the shortened text, and an even clearer one on the need to shorten it. You have said nothing about what you object to in the shortened version; it would be far more constructive to edit the shortened version than keep restoring your own wording. - Mustafaa 00:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wibiman, I agree that we should not throw out relevant information. I think we may disagree on what is relevant but that is another issue. It is therefore my suggestion that you make Apostasy in Islam (or whatever the correct name would be) and if you can make a balanced article then good job. If you make crap them someone will try and fix it or throw fifty NPOV tags in your direction. The main point is not on the main Islam page. gren 00:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually no there is not a consensus on this. read wibidaba ' s point again. We should try not to censure information at Wikipedia regardless of our POVs ( which is exactly what is going on in my opinion) .--4r2emi 02:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did read his point. He says "instead of pulling out the 'length' card to censure information". I think most of us agree that if he wants to right an article he can, but we do not do this on the main page of Islam, we don't have a huge section on Tahweed and that is about the biggest issue in Islam. In fact the section on Sharia (which apostasy is probably a subsection of) is pretty small. The point being this subject does not deserve a large place on the main page, I don't think this is our POVs talking it's the relative size of the subject. I will state again, make a full fledged article on Apostasy in Islam where you will have no length limit, then we can have a better argument about POV because right now this is about length more than anything. gren 02:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy is not that important thing that it should be included in the main article . Its not a core belief in Islam , its a small subsection of Sharia ( where it belongs ) , that has been publicitised in the west by Islamphobes , & there R different views of it in different madhabs . It should be moved to Apostasy in Islam article where further incorrect information is given , I mean visiting a church will make anybody an apostate ?? Man where is this information coming from ?? The best thing to do would be to give a link here ( in Sharia section )& move it to its own page , where the POV issue will be dealt with .Farhansher 7:40 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Wibidabi, nobody is censoring you, so stop complaining. Your stuff is on Apostasy in Islam now, and it needs work. So I guess you should collaborate with people over there to raise the standard of that article. We can't have every scrap of information on Islam here on the main article. When people start deleting information from the specialized article, there will be ample time to cry censorship then. dab (ᛏ) 07:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it worth the time and effort to rv vandalism? Just disable the Edit feature! how do I raise this issue in the community portal? --The Brain 17:04, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

we do want people to edit the article. It's not 'finished', so it should be possible to improve it. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anybody taken a look at Exclusivistic thought in Islam lately?

Exclusivistic thought in Islam

One part—often seen as the largest or at least currently the most vocal—focuses on the differences takes an exclusivistic and aggressive approach to the differences between Islam and the Judeo-Christian community. Like in other faiths, this can lead to parts of the Muslim community holding beliefs like the necessity of bringing them back to the "Straight Path" by persuasion, or even force, and then acting them out.''

Can anybody explain what this means in plain english?--65.141.40.88 02:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haha... nope gren 02:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit re articles of belief

The old version had "Belief in the books sent by God" -- some anon editor has changed that to "Belief in the book (Al-Qur'an) sent by God. I would revert that, but I'm not completely sure of myself. As I understand it, Muslims recognize the Jewish and Christian scriptures, they just believe that the Qur'an superseded them. Muslim editors please comment. Zora 01:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Muslim but... they believe in all books... but they only have the Qur'an unadulterated. So, practically speaking that edit is right but in truth they should accept any if they had it in its "original form". Also there is some talk about one eternal book... because they common Sunni belief is that hte book has always existed. The Mu'tazila believe that that constitutes shirk... so, it's belief in the eternal book. gren 01:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

strictly speaking, the qur'an is not a "book" (kitab) but a "lecture", i.e. the book was not sent by God with UPS, but he sent Gabriel as his mouthpiece. Muslims certainly do not believe any other books were "sent by God" -- they do believe that Moses and Jesus and whoever were genuine prophets, but the texts about them were written by humans and are hopelessly corrupt. So imho, if we are talking about any book-sending at all, it should be in the singular :) dab (ᛏ) 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wah? No, it is believed that Moses was a prophet just like Muhammad and the Torah was sent to him and he kept it in its divine form (because prophets don't suck) and the people of his time corrupted it so it only exists on earth in a humanly bastardized form. But, it was a book from God in its original form. It should be equal to the Qu'ran but the caveat is that modern day humans cannot know what the original Torah said. gren 13:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have to disagree here -- seems to me that Qur'an cleary specifies that (unadulterated versions of) Injeel, Taurat, Zaboor -- Gospel, Torah, Psalms -- are in fact divinely inspired. Belief is not that they were written by humans, but that they were messed up down the line and (by implication) that traces of original teachings may remain, though identifying what's authentic is a difficult task. Generalized respect for practices and scriptures of People of the Book is, I am pretty sure, an obligation on Muslims laid down in hadith, though I couldn't tell you which one. BrandonYusufToropov 12:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the basic creed of Islam. "Those who believe in God with all their heart and in the Last Day and in the angels of God and in His Books and in His prophets" (Al-Baqara 177). The fact that Muslims do not believe that the current books called the Torah and Gospel are accurate records of the original books is neither here nor there. - Mustafaa 19:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

so would you say it is commonly accepted that the qur'an is a kitab? Or does that sound awkward, would you say the qur'an is in a kitab? (I don't know, I'm asking genuinely) dab (ᛏ) 19:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted References to Birth Rate

I deleted the references to rationlizing that Islam is growing faster than Christianity, due to those countries having a higher birth rate. I do so because one 1) It is bigoted 2) There is no factual evidence to support it. 3) There is not enough evidence to determine what the conversion rate is and 4) In many of those countrys where Islam is supposed to have a higher birth rate, the acutal death rates are equal or even higher than the birth rates. --mpa

ok, but why "bigoted"? Any sources for (4)? dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

the intro

it's much too short now. I suggest moving the first paragraph of "beliefs" back into the intro. dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pruning links

Someone added a pro-Muslim link to the opposing viewpoints section; someone else had added a rather strident anti-Muslim site there. Since it seemed that we were headed down the slippery slope to a link free-for-all, I pruned the opposing views section down to a link to the dmoz directory. We pruned all the links to pro-islam sites down to directories, so that everyone would be linked, but at one remove. It seems like the best thing to do to apply that policy to the opposing viewpoints. Zora 09:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that there are opposing viewpoints and favoring viewpoints that might not be represented by the directories, and that folks might want to add. How do we fix this problem? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Tell people to go to the directory project. Dmoz is another community project and I have never heard of any links being refused. But that's a good point -- perhaps we should put up a short explanation of why we're using the links pages (to make sure we aren't favoring one group over another and yet to keep the length of the page down) and how to get on the links page. Zora 18:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference b/w logical debate & plain insult . That site is not an apposing POV , its a joke . An insult to all sane people . The creater is an idiot/bigot ( who claims to be a ex-muslim ). U cant debate with him , he has some wierd POV about Islam . He says all Sufis were non-muslims , all muslim scientists were non-muslims . Only the suicide bombers & wahabis R actual muslims . He will delete every muslim debate from time to time from his site saying " that was done by a muslim hacker " , he wont ever debate with any muslim scholar , saying I will get killed by muslims , he debates according to his own laws , & will say in the end that he is the only one who has correctly understood Islam in the last 1400 years & the rest of muslims dont know nothing about Islam . He cant write a single sentence without insulting U .

They have got a "project against Islam" running there , specially for wikipedia . 22:06, 6-5-2005 (UTC)Farhansher

So you're saying that the open directory site doesn't include the saner of the questioning Islam sites? I just went to look at it, and it does seem a bit short, and excludes some sites I know (like Ibn Warraq's site or answering-islam) that are at least reasonable -- even if one doesn't agree with them. Is there another directory that we could use? It seems like a mistake to pick and choose sites ourselves, given that Islam is so controversial these days, and if we're inclusive, the list could include hundreds of sites. Or ... I hate to suggest this, but we could either start our own Wikipedia list, or try to open up the dmoz one. Zora 22:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooo , sorry I didnt make my point clear b4 . I was talking specfically about faithfreedom.org , & its link on main Islam article . Even answering Islam is much much better than faithfreedom . B/c as I said b4 , there is a big difference b/w "I dont agree with your religion" & "Your prophet was ******* & all muslims are lowest animals" . Hope I make myself clear this time . 4:42 7-5-2005(UTC) Farhansher

I took another look at the directory and it seems OK. We've now removed the direct listing to faithfreedom.org. So everything is copacetic? <g> Zora 05:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yea thanx, nice to have U here with us Farhansher 05:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Why have I removed apostasy section from main Islam article

1 . The main article of Islam should contain what explains the basics of Islam , its beliefs , ethics & cultural concepts , not something that is a small part of Sharia , that most muslims dont consider important .

2 . There is no discussion here on the matter that which fiqah considers apostasy as a crime punishable with death penalty & which consider it as not even a crime .It makes massive generalisations like "Muslims believe" & "muslims define" . Not even every Mufti believes tht Apostasy is a crime . & there are around 1.5 billion muslims in the world , all following different Muftis , the muftis following different Imams of madhab . So there is no such thing as "muslims believe" or "muslims define" in the matter of apostasy .

3 . I dont see apostasy section in any other religion's main page .

4 . There is a whole page for apostasy in Islam & Apostasy in general . If anybody wants to add something new to apostasy in Islam , he/she can add it there .

I have made some modifications in Apostasy in Islam & Apostasy#Islam , give them a look . Hope its appreciated . Thanx .Farhansher 21:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Farhanshar, that material re apostasy was the result of a hard-fought battle with critics of Islam who wished to stress the less appealing aspects of the religion. I think we compromised on having one para and linking to the apostasy section. I don't think we should remove the para and the link, because this is a concern that many non-Muslims bring to their investigation of Islam. An encyclopedia should answer common questions. The para probably could have used more work -- in particular, some statistics. I would imagine that the number of Muslims officially executed for apostasy in recent years is -- zilch, but it would be nice to be sure. People have been assassinated because individual zealots feel that they must "defend" Islam in this bloody manner, but I don't think that's anything more than the usual human perversity (as we see with anti-abortion bombers and the like). What bugs non-Muslims is, I think, the fact that the Muslim clergy haven't repudiated this law -- which they can't, as it's in the Qur'an. It's as if the Roman Catholics still had written policies demanding the burning of heretics. This is a real problem, and we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug. Zora 22:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Only the para in the main article has been removed , while its still present on its main apostasy page . If someone wants to investigate the matter , he can always go to its main page . Zealots R found in every community , & U cant blame the whole community for them . If OBL gives a fatwa that all westerners should be killed , this doesnt mean that every muslim believes in it . He is not a mufti but a civil engineer . U can follow him in how to make a building , how to blow a building ( b/c of his experience ) , but not in why to blow a building . There is no centrel clergy of Muslims , individually many clerics have done work on the matter & concluded that every form of apostasy is not equal to death ( I have given a link in apostasy page ). Secondly its not in Quran , its in Hadith , thatswhy its not followed by everybody .Farhansher 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't blame the whole community for the zealots, please note. If it's hadith rather than Qur'an, that's great. As for which clerics still accept the death penalty for apostasy and which don't -- well, it would be good to know, yes? Then we could have a para that says something like leading clerics A, B, and C all agree that this hadith is weak and not binding on Muslims, and it's only X, Y, and Z that still claim it applies. Plus figures on any prosecutions for apostasy. As for completely removing it from the article -- no, it's a concern for readers, and they at least need some link to where they can find material on it. If not a whole section or para, at least a sentence relating to sharia, punishments for apostasy, adultery, etc. You know I'm not one of the ignorant Islamophobes that vandalize the article, Farhansher, I'm just trying to be honest and informative here. Zora 11:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems reference to the inquisition was removed from Christianity, too. I say, put both back. at the very least a link (put it in the sharia section, if you like). Islam does have a problem with its zealots, at the moment, and it doesn't help much that they are not theologically sound. The Crusades were not theologically sound either, and still Christianity has to live with the fact that they are part of its history. dab (ᛏ) 11:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora... it is debatable as to what is really in the Qur'an. Moses had 3,000 Levites killed in Exodus for after the calf incident and I'm not thinking Christians or Jews advocate wholesale slaughter for idolatry. Farhansher, it does deserve a place because I am pretty sure at least one of Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali or Shafi schools discuss this in a manner that would scare most people (i.e. killing of apostates). We also know that some prominent Shia imams are against it as well (see Salman Rushdie). This is not a completely marginal issue by any means. gren 14:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well Zora ...I know U arnt one of the Islamphobes , I have seen your edits .

Of course I dont have anything against a link ( I have also said it b4 ) . Its a part of Islamic belief , but a very debatable part , on which different Muftis have different views , & certainly not a core belief . So its better to diccuss the rest in its main article . In the form it was present here , it shows a red hand, which traditionally means "Stop !! this is very important" ( & since its in the main article , so it must be very important ). Then it says "musilms define" that is not the case . Then it implies "muslims believe" , that is again not the case . In the end it says these countries have apostasy laws , not giving any importance to the other point of view .

It would be great if we could know or give data on which cleric says apostasy = death , which says apostasy = his own business , & which says something in the middle . But who will do it ?? And then if U collect data about clerics ABC....XYZ , its again so big that it isnt for the main article . And its still not a unanimous decision on which every Mufti agrees.

As for apostasy/adultary death punishments , every death punishment needs 4 eye witnesses , in respectable standing, whose accounts agree . Adultery again is viewed diffrently among Scholars . B/c Quran says 80 whips , hadith says death . And then death to whom , male or female , & what about rape , should the woman be also killed for it . U cant sum up all these things in one para on the main Islam article , & its not that important to be explained in 3-4 para on main Islam page.

Gren...of course its not a very marginal Issue , but it isnt that important to occupy space on the main article . If some madhab in Islam has scary rulings on apostasy , it should be noted in Apostasy article . Salman Rushdie case is more of a blasphemy case thean a apostasy case . What if somebody says that somebody's mother or father is a ********* & publishes/makes a movie/sells his perception of his parent(s) all over the world , what can the other guy do , when there is no other way to stop the first guy . Think about it , sometimes people consider somethings more honourable than their parents , & more prescious than their money , careers , lives . Though killing is never the answer , as it provokes further hatred , & counter killings .

I am not justifing any form of non-sense killing by zealots ( if somebody is getting the idea ) , just that apostsy section in the form it existed , is not suitable for the main article . Its a controversial issue & a long debate among clerics , & it cant be summed up in a para , & its not that important to have 2-3 para on the main Islam page . Better to have it explained in its own page , with all different POVs noted .

Thanx Farhansher 20:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I tried to make these kinds of points at the time, but I didn't do as good a job as Farhansher. I really think it is more like putting, say, canonization into the main Christianity article, and then making some huge generalization immediately thereafter, of the kind that were made here: "Christians worship other human beings besides Jesus, and they do it just because the pope says they're saints." Well, some of the "Christians" in that sweeping assessment might not agree. Ridiculously vague assertions have no place in an encyclopedia. BrandonYusufToropov 02:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

hey, nobody objects to your fixing inaccurate statements. It's one thing to iron out inaccuracies. It's quite another thing to delete all reference to a topic because the original poster was being inaccurate. It's perfectly permissible to link to canonization from Christianity, you'd just need to make the "just because the pope says" sound slightly less condescending :) dab (ᛏ) 03:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Canonization is a bad example because saints are a non-issue to Christians who don't believe in sainthood. Apostasy is something that exists so all Muslims deal with it in some way, addressing how different Muslims deal with it is legitimate... and I hope we don't make any moronic statements like your example. If so please fix them. gren 04:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

a)Is it really any less moronic than the whole "Muslims believe" and "Muslims define" business? Didn't that come off as slightly condescending?

b)I'm not saying we shouldn't link' to Apostasy in Islam, but rather that placing spending time and attention discussing it on the article page is a rhetorical technique favored by people who do not like Islam and should be regarded as such. Blood libel gets maybe half a sentence on Christianity. Let's follow that example, ok? 66.30.96.38 14:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was condescending... oops, it wasn't meant to be... sorry gren 19:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

sure, so we agree. canonization is an excellent example, because I claim that even though it is a non-issue for many xians, it is still notable enough to be mentioned on Christianity. It's misleading to say "blood libel gets half a sentence". The issue of Christian violence and persecution at the moment is treated in the following paragraph:

In spite of the widely held belief that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings, Christian adherents have at times persecuted, tortured, and killed others for refusing to believe in their type of Christianity. While most modern Christians would condemn such actions, they were carried out by people who were seen as mainstream Christians at the time. During the Crusades, Christian atrocities against Jews in German and Hungarian towns, later also in those of France and England, and in the massacres of non-combatants in Palestine and Syria initiated a tradition of Christian anti-Semitism, which was further bolstered by the cult of the blood libel, and continued into the 1500s by the Spanish Inquisition. The European colonization movement was endorsed by the mainstream European Christian churches. This endorsement supposedly "legitimized" the exploitation of the colonized lands by the European powers. This colonization led to the destruction of many cultural artifacts, particularly in South America related to the Inca and Aztecs. Conflicts within Christianity itself have led to persecutions of one Christian group by another. Protestants, Roman Catholics and other Christians have persecuted each other in the name of Jesus. In the second half of the 20th century the violent conflict between armed political groups among the Unionist and Nationalist communities in Northern Ireland carried a strong element of sectarianism between Protestants and Roman Catholics.

so if we can cook up a paragraph of similar length on the intolerant and violent tendencies within Islam, I'll be satisfied.

btw, you shouldn't categorize editors depending on wether they "like" Islam. Positive bias is as undesireable as negative bias. Of course we don't want Islam-bashing edits. Nor do we want Islam-hyping edits. I'm interested in the topic, so I guess I "like" Islam more than I "dislike" it, but I do hope my edits are not biased towards either side. dab (ᛏ) 15:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

dab, the ugly reality is that people on WP are, these days, doing cute things like pretending to be admins so they can lend an air of authenticity to (very) thinly-veiled -- or, more likely blatant and UNveiled -- Islam-bashing. That's what it is. Spade. Spade.
I'm not saying this kind of behavior is limited to any particular group, but I would ask you to consider whether a Jewish person (or anyone else, for that matter) has a right to condemn virulent anti-Semitism for what it is when he sees it. I hope your answer is yes.
If it is, you will understand that this is precisely the kind of hatred that fuels poorly written "Muslims believe in killing apostates" rants, masquerading as encyclopedia entries.
Then people sit around and say, "Well, it's just a little rough, isn't it? That's the problem. How can we clean it up so it sounds elegant?"
Guess what. Well-edited anti-Semitism would still be anti-Semitism. Well-edited Islam-bashing would still be Islam-bashing. I'll say it, even if nobody else will. Take a look at my edits and see if you think I'm guilty of "Islam-hyping." BrandonYusufToropov 20:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

of course it cannot be treated in detail here. It should still be pointed to from here. You know, so people can click on the link. If the only possibilities were, treat it in detail, or don't mention if, we couldn't link to any articles at all now, could we? We can say it's controversial, that's not the problem. It doesn't have to have its own section either, stuff it under sharia if you like. And any factual errors should be removed (don't tell me it's impossible to make a short but factual statement!). You know, I'm just trying to avoid that the next time the self-righteous Christians blunder onto this page saying we're all "white-washing" Islam, they will actually have a point. (oh, and please, if you want to do me a favour, try to avoid the nerdy U, b4 etc.; I find it really jarring to have those in a discussion on religious law :)

so, in a nutshell, be brief, be fair, be factual, but link to it. (we re-inserted Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and blood libel back into Christianity too, so don't say I'm lop-sided) dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

OK , I have added a link in the links sections . If somebody thinks its not fair enough , then give the link in sharia section . A short factual statment ?? I dont think its possible . Because among muslims , the perception of what is factual differs on the matter of apostasy . Farhansher 21:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Muslims and Polygamy

I would like to request that anyone here who knows anything about Muslim polygamy (and supposed Muslim polygamy in Western countries) to please see the article on Polygamy and it's talk page. Whatever I do know about the topic I contributed to the article and corrected what I saw as very POV and inflammatory material contributed by an editor called 'Researcher99'. I unfortunately engaged this user in an edit war which was a huge mistake on my part since I am by no means an expert (on Muslim polygamy and polygamy in general), and I have little interest in polygamy. But I know false information when I see it and I feel ultimately that I was in the right and my criticisms correct and valid. But I'm not a Muslim and I'm not an expert, so I would appreciate others who are better informed than I to take this issue on to keep the balance going. Ghostintheshell 19:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

To give you my two cents , Poligamy is allowed in Islam , with the clause that the husband must nevertheless be able to support his wives. As far as I see it , it a cultural preference issue, each culture can chose the parameters that it wishes to set for marriage and I personally find no objection to that. An interesting question arises though , how about allowing a woman to have multiple husbands, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.--Wibidabi 23:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy section has been restored

As discussed in earlier threads, apostasy is a real life issue in Islam. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4516539.stm --Wibidabi 23:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Sudan is not Islam , its Sudan . If you think its a real life issue , clearify its realities hereApostasy in Islam. And put whatever facts U like . Farhansher 05:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

so we have room on this long article for verbatim quotes of the hadith, but not for a reference to apostasy. I included the apostasy stuff in the sharia section. Do you argue there shouldn't even be sharia and hadith sections, since this is Islam, and not sharia or hadith? Please correct factual errors, I did not verify this information. It is, however, at least as relevant as what the prophet told some merchant about what he could or couldn't sell, come on. dab (ᛏ) 07:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The linked article above is one example of the apostasy POV in the Islamic world. It looks like Farhansher is trying to simply erase all mention of this subject, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge not CAIR's marketing page . Dab, apostasy belongs in its own section not buried in another section where it can be watered down to meaningless double-talk and eventually quietly deleted.--Wibidabi 10:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

no it doesn't. you argue that apostasy is notable enough to be mentioned, and I supported you on this. Now you claim it needs its own h2 section. What next? We're not allowed to change your choice of words? Your decisions on the ToC? I strongly recommend you return to my compromise suggestion, that did include your apostasy stuff. dab (ᛏ) 11:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I argue that apostasy belongs in its own section and apostasy was its own section until Farhansher deleted it . I just reverted it.Futhermore that section used to be many times bigger , then various editors argued to create the Apostasy in Islam page and reduce the apostasy section in the main Islam page to a concise few paragraphs. This was negotiated and agreed . Well, now we are down to; "lets get rid of the section all together , and just have a one paragraph mention incorporated in the article". You ask what is next , well I guess what is next is that we will just erase any mention of it all together. In the mean time the Apostasy in Islam page is going through the same process, delete this embarasing fact ,lets water down this other unsavory part , lets sanitize it all for public consumption and soon there will be no mention of this unsavory topic.If that is the outcome that you want then I guess the process is well under way. (By the way , if you want to see the result of this sort of process take a look at what is left of the Islam#Exclusivistic thought in Islam section)--Wibidabi 11:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

well, I guess we have to keep separate concerns of article length, and concerns of "whitewashing". It's not obvious at all that it should have its own section. it's certainly not obvious that it should be a h2 section, on par with "the qur'an" and "the 5 pillars". Frankly, while I'm familiar with the terms mushrik and kafir, I've never even heard of irtidad before this discussion (I'm not a specialist of course). You seem to be very interested in giving so-called embarassing facts as much prominence as you can get away here. I'm motivated by no such desire, I just think it looks out of place in the ToC as it is. And btw I'm not sure we can agree the facts are embarassing, obviously a number of governments does think apostasy is a capital crime, and I remind you that the same was the case in Christian lands up to the "enlightened" 18th century, and certain popular western leaders seem to think so still[2] (http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm). But I guess since we have you to count on, you'll make sure apostasy is not watered down, even when stashed away in the sharia section :) dab (ᛏ) 12:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The same standard applies to all articles , Christianity and western leaders included. --Wibidabi 12:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

POV Islam-bashers have an agenda for getting the word "apostasy" into a title headline

... and I disagree.

If someone believes "apostasy" deserves a title headline, please go to Christianity and sell the idea of a headline on the word "excommunication" there. After you've done that, then come back here and let's have a discussion.

Not before.

By the way, this is precisely what I was talking about, dab. For a minute there we were all trying to work out a compromise.

But actual content is not good enough.

Somebody has an agenda.

Somebody has to get the "boo" word "apostasy" into the title headline, and by extenstion into the outline for the article.

Why is that? BrandonYusufToropov 14:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Its been added to the Christianity page.--Wibidabi 14:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

How do you think the Protestants are going to react to the edit you just made? How long do you think that edit will stand? BrandonYusufToropov 14:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not know how long it will stand , lets see. Irregardless Lets not be jump to conclusion here ,Brandon, there are numerous POVs to any wiki article, its not a conspiracy againts your own POV. We are presenting all relevant POVs in an impartial and NPOV way. What we should not do however is sweep information under the carpet if it seems contradictory to one's own POV. What goes for the Islam article also goes for any other articles including Christianity.--Wibidabi 14:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I see our very own Dab just took it off the Christianity page. And we were thinking that it was the protestants that were going to pull it off the page. --Wibidabi 14:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So Brandon what is your objection to the word apostasy?? do you feel it the word has too many bad connotations? It seems to me that it is the word to use when talking about the views and policies of Islam towards those who leave Islam.--Wibidabi 14:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

BYT, I do think it is silly to have a h2-section "Apostasy: Exclusion from the Islamic Community", since that's just the definition of apostasy. Apostasy is fine as a title (why is it a "boo word"?), the question is whether we want that section. Incidentally, the ToC looks mangled. What sort of section title is "slam in the modern world: What is "fundamental'?"? Don't let the edit-war-du-jour mangle the ToC. I say, collapse sections. Make one "Contemporary Islam" section, and collapse "The growth of Islam today", " Islam in the modern world: What is "fundamental'?", and "Islam around the world". (will anyone please think of the readers?!) Collapse the "Inclusivistic-Exclusivistic" stuff into one section. And stash the "Apostasy" stuff into either Sharia or "Islam and other religions". I don't want to either whitewash or smear Islam, ok? I want to whitewash the bloody ToC, and it's in a mess. Wibidabi, it is also silly to spill this edit war onto the Christianity page, and it is unwise to approach edit disputes with impositions on layout. Argue the points to include first, and talk about layout once the dust settles and a stable version emerges.

So, can we please decide,

what is the wording on the apostasy thing we want here
where will we include it (ToC-wise)

you are conflating these, right now. Stop edit-warring over a section title, and settle the actual wording first. dab (ᛏ) 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab you may have some points there, however remember if you make the information too hard find it most likely will go unnoticed and unread. The current organization is likely the result of many many negotiations and compromises and we may not want to touch this issue at this point in time--Wibidabi 14:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

yeah, I'm not suggesting removing or adding information, but "refactoring", with no other agenda than readability. As for finding stuff, that's precisely why we want a clean organization. Remember, it's not just about finding *your* bit of info, it's about how to present a lot of information intelligently. Your stab at apostasy penalties is a small point in a long article, live with it, and take comfort that it has its own article. You cannot force people to read your info. You can only put it there for those who are looking for it. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, "excommunication" lasted nineteen minutes on Christianity. (I maintain that) a headline about it is a level of detail that the article simply will not sustain. Why is Islam different? Because POV-pushers are clearly eager to have a headline with a negative connotation.

actually it was dab who took it off the Christianity page.

Dab, "apostasy" sounds scary and medieval, especially when you can connect it to the death penalty, which is why, in my view, POV Islam-bashers are so very eager to get it into the headline, regardless of whether the two ideas combine to describe, you know, reality in, say, Indonesia or Europe, where there are huge numbers of Muslims.
If the issue were to get the topic covered -- as opposed to highlighting it for use as a propaganda tool -- the text we have, with a title describing the larger, and NPOV, topic of exclusion from the community, should certainly suffice. My personal inclination is to delete this material, because apostasy is not by any stretch of the imagination central to a discussion of Islam. (Just like "excommunication" is not by any stretch of the imagination central to a discussion of Christianity, or even relevant to it if you're a Protestant.) BrandonYusufToropov 14:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Brandon I beg to differ here, Apostasy is a very central concept in Islam, people loose their lives in very horrible ways on account of apostasy whether it is at the hands of crowds of angry zealots, lone vigilantes or through the sentencing of a sharia court. One might argue that it is the mis-interpretation of the tenets of Islam which is to blame, but being that what it may be it is nevertheless a reality and it is a topic which deserves its place in the Islam article --Wibidabi 15:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

apostasy doesn't sound scary to me at all, it just means "to stand off". The death penalty does, of course, but as we argued, that's no reason to remove it. blood libel is much scarier still, and survived a day already, on Christianity. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropof, knock it off. Here's a hell of a reference for you: Hadith (Bukhari) - translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (http://www.desistore.com/sahibukhari.html). Quotes found within:

- 9-17 "Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
- 9-57 Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
- 9-58 Narrated Abu Bruda, "Abu Musa said.....Behold there was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Musa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and hen reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Muadh to sit down but Muadh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and his messenger," and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers .....

You could also look here (http://muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm). ElKabong

Dab, does "apostasy" still seem like a neutral topic to you after reading ElKabong's measured, objective post? BTW Ingrid Mattson has a great term for people who appoint themselves instant scholars in discussions like these: non-Islamic fundamentalists.

I repeat: the issue does not merit a discussion on Christianity, right? Option one for me is therefore deletion.'

Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Let me ask, then. Is there anything wrong with a paragraph or two that addresses the topic covers the context responsibly, while providing a NPOV headline that does the same?

ElKabong -- you seem to have a deep familiarity with the kinds of conflicts that come up on these talk pages. Yet apparently you are a brand-new user. Why is there no information attached to your username? Oh, that's right. I've asked you these questions multiple times, and you've refused, each time, to answer them. Good thing you're not a sockpuppet or anything.BrandonYusufToropov 15:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Brandon if you do not mind I will re-add the word apostasy to the section . I will wait ten or so minutes before doing so to give you a chance to respond, you mentioned in your edit of the section that you were awaiting for meaningfull discussion on this , I have made my points in the threads above .--Wibidabi 15:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I mind. This has not been resolved. BrandonYusufToropov 16:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab could you please restore the excommunication section in the Christianity article that you deleted. Standards apply equally to Christianity as to Islam.--Wibidabi 16:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Let's not. BrandonYusufToropov 16:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I am loosing you here , the reason for this would be what? --Wibidabi 16:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Loosing me? BrandonYusufToropov 16:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

yes you keep mentioning that the Christianity page does not have a page on excommunication , one was added then taken off. I asked Dab to restore it since he is the one that deleted it and you now say not to restore it. So what is the point that you want to discuss here?? I have presented my arguments, if you read threads under my name.--Wibidabi 16:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You say "was added" -- sorry, that's the passive voice. I have a grammar cop's fixation on good English style. Passive voice = weak and flabby prose, drains text of specifics and references to actual human beings. This fixation is a character flaw, I know, but it's mine, and I've grown to accept it. Do you think you could revise the question to include a specific reference to who added that to the Christianity page? BrandonYusufToropov 16:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Look in the page history , and uh someone else has actually restored it .--Wibidabi 16:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. Point is moot. My point, though, was that whoever advocated putting it in in the first place should not be lobbying that it instantly be put back, but rather should let the folks at Christianity have a say, which it looks like they have.

I have resequenced the article to reflect the importance of the topic. BrandonYusufToropov 16:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK then you demoted the section to the belief category and I have re-inserted the word apostasy in the title of the section. --Wibidabi 17:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Even better solution

See new titling. Seems like the best option yet. BrandonYusufToropov 17:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK then, that was certainly a rough one , wasn't it, I am surprised the calvalry ( zora, gren, etc..) did not jump into the fray this time to back you up:) . Lets see how long the section will last as it is before someone comes along and "sanitizes" the content for public consumption, .--Wibidabi 17:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm calvalry. gren 20:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Wibidabi...Your link was an example of Muslim's POV in Sudan for a blasphemer , not for apostasy . You should know there is a fine line b/w apostasy ( that is considered by many people as a personal matter or a family matter ) & blasphemy which is not a personal matter . If I wanted to erase all mention of the subject , I wouldnt have copied all of your stuff on Apostasy in Islam page .

the link was a quick reality check, lest we get lost in never never land that some editors of this article would like to create. Heck there are so many such items in the news these days I would suggest that you go to just about any major new web site to catch the events unfolding under our watch.--Wibidabi 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

U say your stuff hasbeen deleted ?? Most of your stuff was pure non-sense phobia . How many people become apostate by visiting a church , or wearing a belt . Many people dont offer 5 time Prayers or observe Ramadan fast. R all these apostates . If I say the universe is eternal , it goes in circles of start & end , and all that is done by Allah , would that make me an apostate . Sufis believe humans R reincarnated in Alam-e-Araf , does this make them apostate . Remember this is an encyclopedia , not some platform that will be used to defame Islam .

phobia ? ever heard of the real world ? try doing any of those things listed in the apostasy article publicly in any muslim majority area and find out for yourself if it is just a phobia.--Wibidabi 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Can U give me stats of how many people were executed for apostasy in the days of Caliphate . The only thing I remember is a war against Muslims who were not willing to give ZAKAT . Which is the one of the basics of Islam economic system , & not a personal matter . Can U give me stats on how many apostates were killed in the Muslim which have apostasy laws , after their de-colonization . The most famous cases were Salman Rushdie & Taslima Nasreen , both of which were blasphemy cases , not apostasy . They lie in the definition of Takfir , not apostasy . Ahamedies R considered by many as apostates , how many of them R killed . There were many Muslims who converted from Islam to Christianity during British Rule in India , how many of them were killed . They still live in many parts of India & Pakistan . Next time U will be asking for a section on Adultery , muslim oppression of Women , & how suicide bombers R condoned in Islam . O I forgot , Mohammed was a pedophile too , & Aisha had an extra-marital affair .

I do not have exact stats at hand , I do know that it the late 90s the Saudi Government admitted to executing around 100 people a year for a range of offenses including apostasy--Wibidabi 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

When U R trying to justify such huge generalizations like " this is Muslaim POV " U cant do it by just a news . If U want Apostasy in Islam article not to be deleted , keep your eyes open . Btw , I wont delete any thing from it . Except for if U add some more non-sense "no where to be found stuff" like U previously did . And now U have edited Christianity to justify your edits in Islam . Next thing we know , some Christianity phobe wil edit the Islam page to justify his edits on Christianity page .

this is the "..." POV is the convention used in WP. --Wibidabi 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So apostasy does not belong in main Islam page, but in its own page where all the POVs can be explained in detail .

Dab…Why apostasy is a boo word ?? B/c some people want Islam to become synonymous with” Don’t go in , U wont come out alive” .

Exactly. But there is apparently extraordinary pressure to accommodate them on this page if they're really, really insistent. BrandonYusufToropov 20:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Like they have made Jihad a boo word . Jihad is a whole philosophy of striving for betterment, inside your mind , your home , your life , & outside it . How many people actually know this . I think nobody . But everybody considers OBL/911/beheadings as a synonym to Jihad . When killing an unarmed human is never under the definition of Jihad . And as a proof these Islamphobes come up with pictures of people chanting the name of OBL . This is how a deep philosophy is made a boo word . Like wise Hijab is made a synonym to women oppression . Farhansher 20:15 , 11 May 2005 (UTC) ---

come on Farhandler Jihad has broader connotations than only a personal struggle. Why is the word being constantly used in the middle east right now calling on muslims to fight the bad bad westerners?--Wibidabi 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Wtf ??? man this is really sick . How many of the claims that U just reverted in Apostasy in Islam can U back up . This is a waste of time man . Listen very carefully , if U cant back up your claim that going to church/wearing a belt implies apostasy , practicing magic means apostacy , or burning sharia/hadith books implies apostasy , I WILL REVERT IT TO MY LAST EDIT.Farhansher 20:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Note to everybody other than F:

He makes some excellent points, above. But we (meaning me and everyone else) have now successfully fast-forwarded over each and every one of those points, because people with a political agenda are good at brinksmanship, subterfuge, and doubletalk. Of course, F is not as used to compromising on WP as I am. Personally, I think that's probably a good thing. BrandonYusufToropov 20:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Brandon , interesting POV you got there, no offense but didn't someone once say that the person pointing his finger at others has 3 his other fingers pointing back at him --Wibidabi 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OOO s**t !! now I remember....now I remember very exactly where I have seen a sick man who is very fond of inserting his views in somebody elses opposing post , justifing that he is a freethinker & all others R dum , so they dont even deserve a coherent post in one piece . U can hide your face using different nicks , but U cant hide your twisted personalty . Why dont U go back to your sick site , & leave the free people alone .

Guys see the similarities in his post on FFI & here

[3] (http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/YaminZakaria1.htm)

the same narrowmindedness

this is what I was talking about b4

[4] (http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5640&highlight=)

And yea , U still havent proved all the claims U made in apostasy in Islam , Remember , I WILL REVERT THET , & this page will revert too , may be to my or dab's last edit . I am not in a mood to search "any major new web site" , its your problem to do it . Btw I do & have seen people doing many of things that I had deleted from your non-sense "how to become an apostate" section. And yes , Jihad has much much broader meaning than beheadings & suicide bombings , as people like U falsely proclaim . Farhansher 06:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

OK

Zora, if that's your call, I will go along with it. BrandonYusufToropov 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know what's going on... and I don't particularly care what the heading is... if you're so worried about using the word apostasy in a heading then *shrugs*. and what the hell is a "boo word". I do ask that you keep statements like Islam says... because that's not exactly a proper statement to make. The Qur'an says, Muhammad is reporting as having said, the hadith XXX says, Hanafi says... but Islam does not say. gren 20:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, do we really like this?

It is more common for an accusation of apostasy or blasphemy to provoke mob violence and extra-judicial executions (lynchings), to which authorities turn a blind eye.

This is "about" Islam? Or mob violence?

Come on. BrandonYusufToropov 21:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That's in there because various editors have insisted that Islam condones killing apostates, giving as references instances of mob violence in places like Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, etc. I have the strong impression that the authorities do not punish the lynchers (just as in the southern U.S. states, African-Americans were lynched with impunity). Also, that the ulema promote and approve such violence. But I could be wrong. In any case, I think a distinction must be made between mob violence and official executions, or critics are going to insist on seeing them as the same thing. If you want to qualify the statement by saying that most Muslims view such lynchings with horror (or do they?) then go ahead.

This is a difficult issue, like honor killings. The practice on the ground, in various Muslim countries, is strongly believed to be Islamic, and so justified by the local ulema, but Muslims from other countries and cultures may regard such things as cultural aberrations and abominations in the sight of Allah.

I'd like to propose a major re-org of the article. We move most of the inclusive-exclusive stuff to a separate article and summarize it; that shortens the article. Then we add a new section, on Islam as practiced, talking about how clergy are trained and recruited, how mosques are organized, and how people are received into or ejected from the community. The apostasy/blasphemy stuff could fit in there, and it would help put it in context if the reader is informed that Islam is just not organized in the same way that, say, Roman Catholicism is organized. Rulings by semi-educated provincial mullahs fall into better perspective that way. Zora 21:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. The lynching thing really sticks out like a sore thumb right now. Very weird left turn. Again, editors with a political agenda are not our audience. If 100 people insist that Islam is based on worshipping the moon-god, do we put in a paragraph about the importance of lunar symbolism to appease them? BrandonYusufToropov 22:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As a practical matter, touching on topics of high current interest (even if they're politically motivated) in a NPOV way seems to ward off vandalism by POV warriors. Frex, since the Muhammad article is now linked to Muhammad's marriages, Muhammad as warrior, and Aisha, there are a lot fewer people trying to insert "He was a pedophile! a murderer! a sex maniac!" in the main Muhammad article.

I think we have to distinguish between people seeing that something is not-quite-right, and their proposed fixes for it. The perception may be defensible, the fixes may be atrocious. We see this with Urchid and the Muhammad article -- I think I finally got his point, as badly as he expressed it -- but his fix just doesn't work. In the case of this article, we have people who are afraid of Islam, and don't know much about it, proposing all sorts of POV edits. Their solutions may be unacceptable, but their concerns should be addressed.

So yes, if there were a sizable number of people who believed that Islam worships a moon god, we should address the issue in a NPOV way. Zora 22:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Um... why? I mean, seriously what is POV about telling somebody on the talk page, "Sorry, this is simply not true," and refusing to address it in the article? I don't care of 100 people claim to believe that Islam is about worshipping the moon-god. It's not factual, it's insulting, and it doesn't belong in a responsible summary. And any group's bringing the issue up repeatedly is proof, not of a widespread misconception among actual users of WP, but of a concerted campaign by a small group to slander Islam.
Part of the agenda of POV Islam-bashers is to get the topics they perceive as most unflattering to Islam onto pages like this. So the end result is we "compromise" with these propagandists, and we get what we have now: "Apostasy is this thing where Muslims kill you if you change your mind, and by the way, they condone mob violence, too." Come on. It's absurd and it doesn't belong on the page. You know (I hope) howmuch I respect your work, Zora, but that simply doesn't belong on the page.
The question of Islam's theological stance on the worship of the moon-god is a complex and disputed one. Scholarly authorities emphatically reject worship of the moon-god, but the use of the moon-and-star logo among Muslims is nonetheless widespread.
"Addressing the issue" means allowing partisans who hate Islam to establish their own talking points on this page. Why would we do that? BrandonYusufToropov 14:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it does unbalance the page, by cluttering it up with disputes with POV warriors. That's why I'm happy with what we did at Muhammad, giving brief references to the topics of dispute and linking to whole pages devoted to those disputes. As I said, it does seem to have reduced the vandalism. Anyway, I'll admit that the current apostasy section is out of place and possibly too long for its real importance. If no one else does it, I'll try to do a re-arrangement soon, when I get a round tuit. I just don't want the apostasy reference completely taken out. Zora 19:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora, the issues you address of how Islam is practiced is immense. The Afar women (Muslims from Africa) don't cover their bosoms... which... is pretty interesting compared to what we normally here about. Granted they are conisdered more "fold Islam" I think the phrase is... their views don't get mentioned anywhere... and it's true that we seem to just pass on the view of the traditional Sunni and to a lesser extent Shia. So, this would be an interesting endeavor indeed. I personally feel that the instances of mob violence and trying to place that in the context of Islam and not merely Muslims is a problem... I don't know what "Islam condones" but I know that classical scholars have condoned (some say it is a punishment ordained by God) killing of apostates. I don't think I have any agenda in putting this in, it's just fact. We cannot marginalize the practices of the four madhhabs whilst you still see commentaries regarding "why it is mandatory to choose a madhhab". So, it must be mentioned from a perspective of those scholars which many profess to follow even today (whether they know they implications of it or not). I also think Fazlur Rahman is interesting talking about how Muslim scholarship post-middle-ages turned slowly to commentaries on established books rather than new philosophical study... and I think this has relevance insofar as much of the scholarship is still based on reading interpretations of Shafi, Maliki, etc. gren 01:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

fwiiw, I think the present version is quite fair. apostasy is not a boo word. maybe "death penalty" is a boo word, but if apostates were burned, they were burned, where's the problem? I mean, Christians burned tons of people, their article says as much, matter of factly, and moves on. dab (ᛏ) 10:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

dab...Well I tend to disagree . First of all can somebody give me a decent link where apostates were lynched ( not some phobic site claiming to free the world from the claws of Islam ) . Secondly , its not a matter of history , its inside muslims beliefs , even befroe Quran . U think the most important points to be explained in Sharia or beliefs include Apostasy , If bashing Islam is that important ( & that too on main Islam page ), then Jihad & Polygamy deserve more importance than Apostacy , why?? b/c atleast they R dicsussed in Quran , so there wont be any apposing POV regarding these beliefs .

I have given a link above , U should understand whats goinon here & whats gonna happen on this page if we keep on compromising on these non-sense claims of " people should know what Islam really is ". These guys arnt an apposing POV , they just wanna make WP a hoarding sign for their underground cult of phobia . Do U see how wibidabi ranaway when I wanted a proof of his claims , saying I should try to do these things in muslim majority area . I havebeen doing or seeing people do allthese things ( that I deleted ) in a muslim country for all my life . Characters like these read articles on a few phobic sites & claim to be " I know all " . How many of these " I want to introduce a religion bashing section in main religion page " people do U see in Christianity or Judaism ??

Zora...Your idea about inclusive-exclusive view & Islam practiced is a much better way out . B/c seriously , Apostasy doesnt deserve to be in Sharia or Beliefs section or its own section . A much better heading I think would be "Islamic practice in current times" .

Honour killings R not/never a part of Islam . In Indian sub-continent it was british law which for some unknown reasons discriminated b/w murder & honour killing . And the muslims in Pakistan ( again for some unknown reasons ) continue to have this discrimination in their Law . Farhansher 20:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

No, apostasy does deserve to be in sharia section... because, it is traditionally listed as an aspect of hadd law. [5] (http://islamicbookstore.com/b6779.html) I think that might be a decent tool to look into this... but... yeah.... I really am not sure I understand this debate. gren 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

OK ( I dont know if its the case or not ) then it deserves to be in hudud page . And whats the point of giving link to an Islamphobe in that page . Isnt Islam complete without discussing these guys . Or do they need to be included in every page related to Islam . I am not against a link or a brief para under Islam today or Islam practice heading . But apostasy in its own section ?? under Beliefs heading ?? comeon man !! Its like crusaders under christian beliefs heading . Have U seen so much hatred for any other religion's page . Why every non-issue should be included in main Islam page ??. Farhansher 21:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It has been an issue of great controversy within and without of the Muslim community with a wide range of beliefs from all. Those beliefs range from the "let's kill an apostate", (which I do find incredibly shocking but that doesn't mean we shouldn't report the schools that believe this) to the "quote 2:255(6?)) in saying you can't ever kill an apostate. In thinking this is somehow all Islamophobe is nuts. It's an issue that is brought up a lot, not all Muslims are the same and we will represent the classical and modern schools here. I do get slightly tired of these Islamophobe claims knowing that I have no reason to possibly wish to slander this religion. It's a fact that some major schools supported death penalty for it,. I am not here to say whether Muslims are brutal or not (every one I happen to know is great), but I am here to report what is said to be believed... and with Sunni places of orthodoxy still urging everyone to pick one of the four Sunni schools then we should say what those schools command on this issue. It's an interestingthing... because I've found a high percetnage of (American) Muslims I know claim to follow a school and yet don't know the nuances of it and really believe what is more liberal... If people are going to continue to purport to believe in the one of the schools they should know what is involved, even if it is like [6] (http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=76474) which says "homosexuality and murder are both crimes deserving of the death penalty... if this site, as Brandon quotes to me, is a sign of Muslim orthodoxy then why whouldn't we report such things? If Islam looks horrendous then that is someone's take, we report what they say in their scholarship... and we also report those who disagree... but I don't think we can just marginalize some things. Reporting what the scholars say is necessary, you can't base any decisions on what will look good or not. gren 22:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I think this is interesting. [7] (http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/05/Article01a.shtml) and talks about traditional beliefs more or less and what we think about Apostates today and how that differs from rulings. gren 22:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Farhansher, I ask you again to please be more conservative in your orthography. Your posts are almost unreadable, and they make me feel like I'm discussing religious law in a high school chat forum. Since nobody disputed the claims that apostasy is still a capital crime in a number of Islamic nations, I took that to be factual. You are only arguing whether or not it should be included. Well, it certainly should. The fact that it has its own article is completely irrelevant. Muhammad and the qur'an likewise have their own articles, and nobody would argue that they shouldn't be mentioned because of that. You cannot present just a sanitized theoretical theological picture of Islam here. There is such a thing as "Islamic culture", which is a way of life of actual people, and these people will behave in certain ways that are relevant to what "Islam" is. Mentioning apostasy does not mean you have to tolerate Islam-bashing. I agree that the ToC needs to be reconsidered. Why is sharia under "beliefs"? Apostasy belongs under sharia, but does sharia belong under beliefs? Only in a loose sense, I suppose, and I suggest "Islamic law" be made into a h2 section (which I'm trying out just now). dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Soory , I have been doing this orthography stuff for so long that now I do it sub-consciously . Anyways will try to control it . About Capital punishment , I dont know about other countries , but in Pakistan we have balsphemy laws , that are only applied in case of open blasphemy in public . And the matter of punishment is decided in court , not on streets . You should understand there is a difference b/w mob shouting to kill the person & the person actually being killed . Never heard of any person killed for apostasy here in Pakistan. Muhammed or Quran are a part of Islam , without which Islam isnt complete , well actually without them Islam doesent even exist . While Islam can survive without an Apostasy section . The place where Apostasy exists on this page & the detail with which its explained , both give the matter undue importance . Its still better to explain the matter in its own page , like Zora did with Muhammad as warrior & Muhammed's marriages , because including these in main page gives unnecessary importanse to unimportant aspects of the matter . People search Wp to get information about the thing they are searching , not to find the apposing views of it on its main page . If there are opposing views , ofcoursethey need to be discussed in their own page .Do you see any of these Islam-bashers do anything else on WP other than introducing their own POV in Islam pages . Most of them dont have anything on their talk page . Why ?? Because they are only interested in Islam bashing here , to make Wp a hoarding board of their claims . And link Islam pages to their sites .

I think you said it yourself , there is a "Islamic culture" , & apostasy related things are a part of Islamic culture in many countries , if it were an integral part of Sharia ( as islam phobes try to imply ), it would have been found in every muslim country .

Anyways , Apostasy is still here , wibidabi is not interested in the unbalance he created here , & will only come back when we remove his scholarly work from this page . Very typical !! I am very busy with my exams right now , hope fully by the end of the month , I will give my recomendations for ToC , here on talk page .

regards Farhansher 21:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Now for something completely different

I've been trying to put together a table showing contemporary population and percentage of Muslim, Sunni, Shi'a, and Ibadi per country (it could be useful in various Islam articles). I've been using the CIA fact book online, adherents.com, and googling like mad. I've got a real problem, however, in giving Sunni/Shi'a/Ibadi percentages for many countries. In many cases I can assume that the country is overwhelmingly Sunni, in some cases percentages are given, but there are a few countries where I don't feel that it's right to assume that all Muslims are Sunni but there are no breakdowns of the Muslim population given. That's especially true of the Muslim diaspora in the West. I know that there are Shi'a in the US and the UK, if only from the Persian diaspora, but I can't find any figures anywhere. If I assume that all the Muslims in Western countries are Sunni, I'm going to be undercounting Shi'a.

Does anyone know where such figures might be found? Have I been reinventing the wheel?

If there are no figures, would it be reasonable to assume that Shi'a make up 10% of the diaspora and adjust the counts that way? So far I've come up with a figures of approximately 90/10% for Sunni/Shi'a balance overall -- of course, fudging the Western diaspora figures would change this slightly.

- Well that's a delicate tasks for the estimates on the percentage of Shias in Pakistan range from 5 to 25, and this is just one example. It is very problematic to assume an overall average for Shias in the diaspora. Whereas 10% might be an underestimation with regard to Canada, it would be an overestimation for many European countires where the majority of Mulims is of North African origin.Marriex 08:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a delicate task. It's driving me nuts <g>. The estimates I'm using for Pakistan is 20% of total population -- that's from the CIA factbook and hey, they must have an intense interest in the religious makeup of Pakistan right now. Good point re different sources for the diaspora in different countries. If the continental European immigrants are from North Africa or Turkey, they would usually be Sunni, yes ... but I think we can assume a higher percentage for the UK, the US, and Canada. Especially for the US, because I think it got a lot of the Persian immigration. Enough to support a Persian pop music scene in LA. Assume 10% for UK and Canada, and 15% for US? Please please help me! I'm tired of dealing with POV warriors who are sure, on the one hand, that 95% of Muslims are Sunni and the Shi'a are just a few malcontents who don't count, OR, that 30% of Muslims are Shi'a, and they're being undercounted because they're oppressed. Surely it must be possible to come up with something better than guesses. Zora 09:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I will also need some help, if and when I get done, in putting the table in the proper Wikipedia format. Right now it's an OpenOffice spreadsheet. Zora 03:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

See my suggestion for a more systematic ToC. I have not changed the article content except for importing the summary of History of Islam, since otherwise the history section would only have treated contemporary Islam. I have included "5 pillars" and "Qur'an" under "beliefs" to parallel "God" and "prophets". The "denominations" part I moved in front of "other religions" since it seems logical to discuss Islam first, and its relation to other religions later. dab (&;;;;;;;;;;#5839;) 11:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Good moves, Dbachmann. Article flows much better. Zora 15:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed links added by anon

What with all the changes recently, I didn't even NOTICE when an anon editor snuck in a new links section, "popular sites on Islam". Whether they're popular or not, they all seem to be Sunni and possibly Salafi-leaning. Letting them stay would lead to the old link-wars in which each Islamic group put its links on the list, which grew like a cancer. The directory sites link to everyone. Let's leave it at that. Zora 15:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Can the mind reconcile what the eyes see?

The problem we human beings seem to have is we let what we are told about the world override what we see with our own eyes.

Do you your eyes see idolatry yes or no? worshipping the kaaba (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kaba-close.jpg) --Grandger 19:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

NO !!! DO U ??

Muslims seriously believe that a piece of brick & cement cant give them anything . Thatswhy that thing in your picture is also called Qibla ( i.e. direction ) . U wont find anybody calling it God . Why ?? b/c its degrading for human beings to worshiping stones . Farhansher 20:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not to mention the fact that the Ka'aba in terms of its outer structure has been rebuilt a number of times to make sure that it is structurally sound. The primary relic is the Black Stone, which was a part of the original Masjid believed to be built there by Abraham. Linking to www.bible.ca with some sort of polemical article is absolutely ridiculous and has no place in something that is attempting to be a legitimate resource about Islam.

Linking to a bible.ca picture is fine... not exactly sure what his point is... when you prostrate/pray no matter what/when/wear you're facing something earthly... but it's not supposed to be implied that you're praying to it... ~_~ I don't understand the point of this. gren 23:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for article sections

Greetings All, Full respect for the high standard of all of the Articles on Islam. There are several articles relating to general religion / theology, where I think that a section on the corresponding Islamic belief would be welcome.

Fintor 05:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC) talk

I said I would do it and I did <g>

The section on inclusivist and exclusivist attitudes was extremely long and complex; I excised it. I've saved the text and I'll make sure, today or tomorrow, that everything is included in the main article. I think the article is more balanced now. But of course the summary paras I wrote should be checked for NPOV, clarity, etc. Zora 07:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I made some revisions to your revisions. Probably all religious and political movements today would like to excise unsavory events from their past histories in order to present a much more favorable picture to the world. If you take out all the bad stuff from communism, for instance, like the millions of people killed by Lenin, Chairman Mao or the Khmer rouge, then communism could sound like a pretty nice ideology wouldn't it. The problem of course is that darn reality which just keeps rising up to the surface and eventually we have to admit that the world we live in just is not as rosy as we would like to see it. --Aspriolioni 07:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I reverted your revions. Aspriolioni, it doesn't seem to me that you're even trying to be NPOV. You just want this summary section to reflect your indictment of Islam. You have exaggerated the worst parts, and carefully limited the better parts. I haven't got the Islam and other religions page fixed yet (I'm trying to combine the two chunks of text, the original page and the bits excised from the Islam article), but that's the place where there's room to expand on your criticisms. I think that the summary para as it stands reflects the difficulty of trying to generalize about inter-religious relations over many times, places, and sects. That's about all we can say about it in the main article. That's one reason why the article was so darn long before I excised that swollen section.

I'm not trying to whitewash anything. I probably feel just as strongly anti-Islamist as you do -- perhaps more, since I'm one of the people they'd stick in a burqa. But I don't confuse those guys with all of Islam, that's all. Come on over to the Islam and other religions article, where there's room to spread out, and make sure that your POV is represented. There's just not ROOM to go into detail here. Zora 08:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

1)Zora , but then why are you selecting the mostly unsavory bits to move out of the main article. You could just as well chose to move out many of the Islamic POV sections just as well. But still you mostly select the sections that contain irrefutable unsavory bits.

2) I think you are confusing the inherent goodness of human beings with the character of the ideology of Islam. According to your way of reasoning, if there are good people living in the Muslim regions of the world, and there are, then it must imply that the dominant belief system ie;Islam must also be good, only misunderstood by ignorant people. You could apply the same reasoning to Nazism: "there were good people born into Nazi germany, therefore Nazism must be good, it is only misunderstood by the ignorant".

3) The vision of Islam that you subscribe to seems to be one from which all the bad stuff has been deleted, a sort of revised version of the Qu'ran and Islamic history , a G rated version. Unfortunately that does not correspond to the reality of the tenets and history of Islam. I must say that I find this G rated version of Islam very naive Zora, it could only be derived from living in the daydream world in the west , far from the reality of life under Islamic majority rule. Try being a buddhist anywhere in the Islamic world. See how that version of Islam pans out in the real world.--Aspriolioni 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have lived overseas, in the small but aggressively Christian nation of Tonga. I've had a policeman scold me for picking up a stick in my yard on the Sabbath <g>. If some Muslims are intolerant, so are some Christians.

I understand that I would have a hard time of it as a Buddhist in Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, say ... but I'd probably feel completely comfortable in Indonesia, Morocco, Malaysia, Dubai, and other such Muslim majority states. That's why I'm insisting that it depends on when and where.

I'm afraid that your comments above only convince me that you think Islam is inherently bad and intolerant. My sympathies are with the Muslims who want a peaceful and progressive Islam. Yes, they actually exist. Zora 22:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes it depends on when and where , but the factor at play is the person's inherent goodness as a human being and whether it is strong enough to overcome pre-packaged judgments and superstitions you find in the Qu'ran.

For example a Muslim meets an idolater. He can form his own opinion on this person and discover that this is just another human being, assume a live and let live approach or he can submit to the judgments in the Qu'an that say that idolaters are evil and to be eliminated. A muslim can befriend an infidel because they see that the infidel is just another human being like he or she, or he can shun them or worse because the Qu'ran tells it to be so. In either case his inherent goodness would have to overcome tremendous social pressures to cede to the judgements of the Qu'ran. And just like you would have to overcome the judgments of Islam that say that since I take a critical look at islam and I am challenging something inherently perfect and unchallengeable , that would make me a bad person.

As far as the statement "My sympathies are with the Muslims who want a peaceful and progressive Islam", it is like saying "My sympathies are with members of the Nazi party who want a peaceful and progressive Nazism". Its very naive and self-contradictory. That statement would make more sense if you said "My sympathies are with the Muslims who want a peaceful and progressive world despite the Qu'ran" in which case I could not agree more --Aspriolioni 06:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've completely redone the article on Islam and other religions. Go over there and make sure that your POV is represented. Zora 06:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

the map

the distribution map in "contemporary islam" seems to have issues -- it gives major parts of England and France, and bits of Germany as islamic. I know there are sizeable Islamic minorities in Western Europe, but on the map, the territory is just green. Without explanation, you'd assume these areas are predominately Muslim, which I would be surprised to learn (Northern England is essentially islamic?? I think I must read the newspaper more...:) dab (ᛏ) 08:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I noticed that Muslim marketing is eager to paint the world Islamic. It appears that true statistics are either not available or seldom consulted as exageration makes for better proselytization. That is why most reports from Muslims greatly over estimate the actual numbers of Muslims throughout the world. The methodology used by Muslim marketers to estimate population distribution would make you wonder whatever happened to intellectual honesty. The map should probably be replaced with a more accurate one.--Waffer 13:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

now, now. I noticed no such thing. What I did notice is that our map doesn't fulfill encyclopedic standards and should be replaced. I am confident that there are reliable numbers for the number of Muslims in Western Europe. dab (ᛏ) 13:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

interestingly, the map seems faked indeed. I found it attributed to

UT Library Online - Perry-Castañeda Map Collection - Middle East Maps. "Muslim Distribution (World 1996)" #735021 (R01698) 6-95 by the CIA.

here [8] (http://library.auraria.edu/generalhelp/libnews/islam/), with Western Europe conspicuously un-islamic :) guess it's time to replace it. dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

articles of belief

an anon edit [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=14039248&oldid=14030687) seriously jumbled the articles of belief section. Are there six or seven? Since anon's hyper-literal version cannot stand, I am reverting to the earlier version for now. dab (ᛏ) 13:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

new section : Islam and the clash of civilizations

We have to mention this, this being a major issue with Islam in the world today.--68.130.206.146 04:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

See Islam and other religions. It's a newish version and still needs lots of work. Can you help in a NPOV manner? Zora 05:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

we have like megabytes of this stuff scattered over all sorts of articles. We even have Category:9/11. I don't see why we should have a reference to 9/11 on the main Islam page (the article on the religion), at least not in its own section. There can be a brief reference to 9/11 in connection with jihad or islamism, but what you are suggestion is similar to an essay or a newspaper column opinion piece. dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Reza Aslan recently argued eloquently in his book No god but God that the "clash of civilizations" thing is actually much better understood as a "clash of monotheisms."

I'm dubious about the proposed title "Islam and the clash of civilizations" ...

a) because it implies a level of cultural uniformity on both sides that does not actually exist

and

b) because of the scare message lurking just below the surface. ("Muslims are out to attack our civilization, boys and girls, a civilization with whose modernity they have yet to reconcile themselves.") Not sure where the "clash" is in evidence in, say, Dearborn, Michigan, where large numbers of a thriving American Muslim community -- the largest in the country -- dutifully goes to high school football games and tunes in to American Idol just like everyone else does. BrandonYusufToropov 15:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Dawah

JuanMuslim added two edits to the article, re Dawah. I didn't think that either edit was informative, or even demonstrably correct. (Are conversions a result of missionary activity? No way of knowing.) This editor recently wrote the Dawah article; the edits to the Islam page seem like advertising to me.

I don't see any particular advantage to using the term "dawah" in place of English terms like "mission" or "missionary". Zora 03:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Dawah is not nearly the same as missionary work in the way we normally think about it... It's often, from what I've seen, an openess to discussion of the issues and I don't think it normally has the negative or coercive connotation of missionary. I'm not sure what edits he made but the article doesn't look too bad... I'm sure it is something that cold be greatly expanded. Not sure what you mean exactly. gren 06:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the people who are subjected to missionary activity who think of it as intrusive -- the folks engaging in it think it's just great <g>.

As far as the edits that JuanMuslim made -- he claimed that conversions were the result of Dawah, and that's not at all clear. If someone reads a book in a library and converts, is that Dawah? If someone marries a Muslim and converts, is that Dawah? No way to tell, so far as I can see. He also added Dawah to the list of beliefs. I'm not sure that it's that salient. It's the first time I've run into it, and as you know, I've been reading a LOT of Muslim material lately. Mostly academic but, hey, if the academics can do without it ...

I think there's a personal and perhaps subjective aspect to my concern about the concept ... it's that I'm myself a member of a religion that's fairly new to the West, and we're constantly trying to balance between the fake exoticism of using Pali/Chinese/Japanese terms when there's a good plain English one that would do, and the necessity of using foreign words for things that have no name in English. We happily use terms like zafu, zabuton, hojo, rakusu, oryoki ... but we draw the line at using "hashi" rather than "chopsticks". By analogy, I'm not sure that it's necessary to use dawah instead of "witnessing" or "preaching" or "missionary work" or whatever.

I'm not going to campaign to have the article for Dawah removed from Wikipedia -- it's not hurting anything -- but I'm not at all sure it's useful to import it into articles where it's just one more new word that might induce MEGO (my eyes glaze over).

Fayssal

I just put this on Fayssal's talk page:

The Islam article keeps getting LONGER and LONGER, as people decide that this or that little bit just has to be added. Once the article gets too long, it's no longer as readable or useful.

Until fairly recently, a huge chunk of the Islam article was devoted to relations between Islam and other religions. After a discussion on the talk page, I cut out most of that section and combined it with the material already in the Islam and other religions article. Now you're expanding the Islam article again, with interesting info that is just too specific for what is supposed to be a placeholder section, just a brief summary directing people to the main article.

I'm going to revert your additions, but not because I want to silence you. If you want to argue about the wording of the summary section (keeping the number of the words much the same, but changing the words) let's do that on the talk page. I feel that that your edits are an attempt to paint Islam in a good light, and I'm not sure that this is being honest to the history.

(And yes, we have this problem with all the religion articles; adherents want all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff. People being people (alas!) there's always bad stuff. One of my online friends said something like "There's no position so sensible that it can resist total distortion by idiots".)

I don't have the time or energy to do it right now, but I'd like to move the interesting stuff you added to the Islam and other religions article, which still needs LOTS of work. I turned it into a historical survey and there's a lot of history to cover. See Mustafaa's cogent comments on the talk page. Right now there's one sentence on Spain, which is ridiculous, given that Granada is often given as an example of tolerance. If you want to move your additions and work on the Islam and other religions article, please do.

I think I've changed my mind about reverting. I'm just going to edit ruthlessly instead, and try to cut down the section again. I hope I'm not going to discourage Fayssal from contributing, because he seems to have a lot to offer. Zora 09:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zora for letting me know and being enough explicit. I am with your idea to transfer my edits to Islam and other religions and keep a resume of it here. Cheers and respect -- Svest 09:57, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Anon making edits seemingly from an ijtihadist viewpoint

Dear anon editor, please take a username! I removed some of your edits and here's why: I don't think it's right to say that dhimmis had the same rights as Muslims. If they couldn't build or repair churches without permission, or proselytize, then they didn't have the same rights as Muslims. Also, it's POV to say that the Qur'an preaches jihad only under certain conditions. That's a humane and commendable interpretation, but not all Muslims share it. Lots of jihadis would disagree. We aren't supposed to be making judgements about what IS properly Islamic and what ISN'T, we're just supposed to be reporting that "some Muslims believe X" and "some Muslims believe Y". Please don't be discouraged. It takes a while to learn the ropes here. In fact, I myself may not have puzzled out all those long hemp things criss-crossing here and there. Zora 03:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

AdamCaliph's edits

A new editor has arrived, and has split the Tenets of Islam into two sections, Sunni and Shi'a, and vastly elaborated the Shi'a section. It is now longer than the Sunni section. It seems to me that this disturbs the flow of the article (introducing sectarian divisions in advance of the sectarian section) and unduly amplifies the distinction between Sunni and Shi'a. There is so much that these sects have in common. I'm not sure I want to revert -- the earlier version, with its presentation of the Sunni list and a footnote for the Shi'a seems, to slight the Shi'a, which may have upset the new editor -- but I don't have time to rewrite today.

Could someone else tackle it? I'm thinking that we need to avoid the clash of lists and just identify, informally, the beliefs that all Muslims (Sunni, Shi'a, Ibadi) hold in common. The Qur'an, Muhammad, the Hajj ... what else? Zora 01:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about that either... I am rather deficient in Shia knowledge.... but that section was meant to be very basic... which, is what the five pillars are... the basics. I also think in the Islam and other religion section we have some problems... it says fight... but I think it should be clarified whether it is QITAL, JIHAD, or HARB because they have different meanings but can all be translated as fight... so, I'm not really sure how to fix it though. gren 16:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've given it a try... - Mustafaa 17:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks good to me. Zora 21:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New or old sections have been reinserted

These topics are covered in NPOV and are part of the article. The usual suspects are probably going to start their usual attempt at squashing the information.Nevertheless the info belongs here.--Aldowi 13:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those POV sections are not fit for this article. Try other articles like Islamist terrorism if you want to start ranting about 9-11 and the "clash of civilizations".Yuber^(talk) 14:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually they belong right on this page. You are so ethno-centric in your POV that you do nothing but censor any info which does not fit your agenda, very much like Islam itself . If you want to challenge any statement then you can , if you cannot challenge them then do not blanket them out--Aldowi 16:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually they don't. Please stop adding your blatant POV unsourced paragraphs to this page where they don't even belong.Yuber^(talk) 17:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is the source for the conversion.: Al-Jazeera (http://web.archive.org/web/20040610172416/http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/shareea/articles/2000/12/12-12-6.htm) --Aldowi 17:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia.Yuber^(talk) 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, read it for yourself , its in arabic, you can read can't you.

A source on slavery for the historically illiterate :[10] (http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-TheScourgeofSlavery.htm)--Aldowi 17:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the clash of civilization section I refer you to any contemporay newsmedia you want to check for yourself .--Aldowi 17:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, should we also cite the end of Islam (http://www.frontline.org.za/news/end_of_islam.htm) from the same site? Maybe a nice source like bible.ca would add to this article ~_~ Slavery in Islam would have to mention that Muslim slaves were taken to the Americas by Christians too... That is a bad source. . . bad. --gren 01:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is a vague citation. Besides, there is already a Clash of civilizations article, and it seems to be very controversial theory not worthy of inclusion in this article.Yuber^(talk) 17:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the slavery section (again -- we have some very determined POV warriors here) and added a link to Slavery in the "see also" section. Surely this should be a sufficient pointer to the info there. Zora 18:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora put the slavery section back , it is a historical fact just like the other sections which need to be put back as well. Obviously there are folks in here determined to obfuscate the parts of history that they deem undesirable and would rather see erased. Are you one of them ?--Aldowi 18:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please look at other articles about religions before starting lists of bad things followers of the religion have done.Yuber^(talk) 20:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OO that was very logical , quoting CHRISTIAN ACTION for an article on Islam . U know christians were the ones who captured & marketed those slaves to America , so U should first add this to Christianity page . How pathetic..some guys come here only to publicitise what they read on their hate filled evanglist sites . And U know whats even funnier , all the facts about verses in bible about slavery havebeen removed from the slavery page . And some phobic psychos R insistent to add slavery in main Islam page , just b/c their teachers told them that slavery is a core belief in Islam . Feel free to PM me if U want to Slavery in Christianity page . I have loads of verses from OT & NT for that matter . Peace Farhansher 20:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article references was provided for as a reference. It provides its own historical sources . The fact that it is on a Christian web site is irrelevant , the article is the work of a published historian on the matter.--Aldowi 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any case, this article is about Islam, not Islamic history. Generalizations about slavery in Islam do not work well, you can go to the history page and write about slavery in the Ottoman empire... or slavery under the Mamluks... but this is the Islam page... and Islamic slavery throughout history is not something to be dealt with here. gren 01:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is relevant. Slavery is part of the scriptures of the Qu'ran and we are mentioning that fact and also its historical implications to the Islamic world. It is sourced and presented in a NPOV manner, it is a legitimate insertion. If you want to challenge any assertion go ahead , but you certainly have no right to block it just because you do not like the fact of it being mentioned. You have no basis to say that it should go on another page.--Aldowi 05:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are maintaining that a slavery section deserves to exist you must realize what you are pushing now is utter crap. Firstly you talk about Saudi Arabia and the Moors which are eras from history not what Islam says about slavery... You could possibly legitimately put (if we somehow agreed it belongs on the main page) that "The Qur'an has verses referebcing the good of freeing slaves and Islamic theology of now opposes slavery but some non-Muslims argue that the text really allows slavery" That might be a decent section... find Islamic sources talking about the advocating of slavery. Notable ones. We are not here to do an exegesis of the Qur'an to our own liking... and the things you have stated are historical. gren 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

U and your published historian & your Christian action site know nothing about what Islam says about Slavery . Besides U know nothing what relevent is . What the Christian action people want .. well .. one can easily figure out by watching their logo ..africa bible..cross .. & a sword . Nice

BTW this is english page .. right ?? Farhansher 05:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

U guys have nerves talking about what Quran says , when all U read is one-forth of a verse . For your benifit I've started a new article , Islam and Slavery . Farhansher 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery

There are plenty of sources in the Qu'ran and the hadiths mentioning slavery. You can start with a search on the word slave. Muhammad had slaves, and historical Islamic culture has always been characterized by the ownership and trading of slaves. The atrocities and evil commited in Islamic culture through slavery is so horific that most people would not have the stomach for it.

Qu'ran search (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html)
Hadith search (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html)

--Aldowi 12:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, this article is about a religion and we are to report what that religion says... You are glossing over so many issues... Wikipedia is read by a great many Americans where the word slavery is incredibly loaded. You will know if you have read anything like Ibn Hazm that slavery in Andalusia was completely different from what it was in America... but this is all beside the point. The religion (which is not your interpretation of the Qur'an) is against slavery now. You will not find any books in the mainstream or anything close to it advocating slavery. Therefore, it is not our place to start rants against the religion because you choose to interpret it as pro-slavery... Historically we can take those issues in Ottoman Empire, Safavids, and even History of Islam. I don't care if you like Islam or not... I do not like brussel sprouts but I am not going to go to that article and say it is a well known poison.... .... nice analogy huh?? If I thought for some reason you were well versed in Hanafiyyah or something similar I would trust your opinion more... but I'm not thinking you are... The Christianity article isn't going to have a rant about slavery, the Moses article is not going to talk about the killing of 3,000 levites and the Islam article is not going to rant about slavery... so, please, you are free to use your userpage to write your argument against Islam, but trying to push your point of view onto this article, and that is definitely not a view Muslims share, is tantamount to vandalism. gren 18:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are simply reporting the answer to the questions below.

Is the practice of slavery sanctioned in the Qu'ran ?
did Muhammad have slaves?
Is the practice of slavery part of historical Islamic culture?
what is the modern day status of slavery in Islamic world.

We are not pushing a POV , we are stating facts about the faith that anyone including yourself can easily verify. Perhaps this is not how you would want to SEE your faith, but that is its reality . Your statement that Islam is against slavery now , implies some kind of reformation , well I am all for that, however that does not change the statements above. --Aldowi 19:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re Converts from islam section, the source has been provided , what else do you need? The source is here Al-Jazeera (http://web.archive.org/web/20040610172416/http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/shareea/articles/2000/12/12-12-6.htm) so read it for yourself. --Aldowi 19:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is slavery a central issue of Islam fit to be on the main page? There is a page for legitimate talk of the issue, the main page is not that. What type of slavery was performed by which Muslims? More importantly than the modern status of slavery in the "Islamic world" what is the modern teaching on slavery by Muslims? We are the Christian world like they are the Islamic world... we cannot pin everything any Muslim country does to Islam. Most Islamic sources will tell you that the phasing out of slavery is prescribed because it was impossible to do it at that time... you do not know very much about Islamic teaching and that is a problem when you edit this article... No, I would not want to see my faith portrayed incorrectly therefore I am trying to defend the Islam articles because I don't think they would want to be portrayed unfairly either... we're not all Muslim here ~_~ ... so put historical fact in the history of Islam article... and put the view of Islam and slavery in that article... I don't trust you will do that in a proper manner but at least we might move the argument away from here. gren 20:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect this type of blatant revisionist / apologist approach towards Islam cannot erase history and facts and is utterly unconvincing. Apparantly nothing seriously incriminating can ever be said about the nature and conduct of Islam, without a bunch of zealots jumping up at once to erase or rewrite the text into watered down nonsense. Are you so insecure about the legitimacy of Islam that you have to resort to continual historical revisionism, which seems to be the favored activity on this page. We will have to see how this plays out but I place my bets on the belief that cold unvarnished truth will prevail. --Aldowi 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, not all the editors here are Muslim. I'm a Buddhist, frex, and a stickler for not avoiding inconvenient facts. A number of the Muslim editors here will tell you that I've raised hackles by insisting on including material that some Muslims find offensive. Indeed, I arrived here declaring that some of the material read like mosque hand-out material! I've worked on the Satanic verses article, and put a long section on Western academic treatment of the Qur'an in the Qur'an article. However, I've found that many of the Muslim editors here are willing to have other, opposing POVs represented as long as it's clear that the editor in question just wants to be fair. People with a strong anti-Islamic bias, however, who want the Islam article to be an indictment of Islam, are going to face resistance.

Most of the Islamic articles seem to be delicate balancing acts. On the one hand we have the anti-Islamic crusaders. On the other hand we have the devout Muslims who want to put PBUH (praise be upon him) after every mention of Muhammad, insert Muslim piety, and censor anything inconvenient. And then there are the Sunni-Shi'a wars, now raging at Umar ibn al-Khattab <g>. Right now, I think the Islam article is fairly neutral, pushed into the middle by fanatics on both sides. You seem to want to push it over to one side. Those of us who have worked hard to reach this balance point are going to resist.

IF you want to work on Islamic topics, there are lots of them that need attention. Instead of going straight for the highest profile article, how about working on the Zanj slave rebellion? Islamic slaves rising up against their masters ... interesting, yes? Or adding a critical perspective to Deobandi. Or adding an article on modern-day immigrant domestic workers? They're women, they're exploited, they're often egregiously mistreated. There was a New York Times article on Sri Lankan guest workers, many of whom had worked in Muslim-majority countries. Or discuss debt slavery and cocoa plantations. Lots of work ... Zora 21:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what to make of your claim that you are a Buddhist, that Zora, does not make a lot of sense to me to spend so much of your effort defending a belief system that is so antipathetic to the beliefs and growth of buddhism. I do buy into the idea that you demonstrate some impartiality at times, but at other times though I would characterize your efforts as clever methods of re-directing what you perceive as anti-islamic inserts to less prominent pages which is apparantly what you are suggesting for me to do. But just to reassure you , I do contribute heavily to other articles so I do pull my share in Wikipedia.

I sort of disagree with your premise of a balancing act in Wikipedia, someone says the wall is red , someone else says it is white , so we compromise and say it is pink. That approach does not get to the actuality of the color of the wall. I am a proponent of evidence and facts. In the case I have made on slavery , we can assertain by direct observation whether my assertions are true or not. You can do a search in the Qu'ran and the hadith to see whether or not you will find the word slave mentioned. It is a yes or no deal. If it is a yes , then it is a legitimate statement for Wikipedia. It should never be , "well yes it is mentioned in the Qu'ran but lets insert qualifiers to lessen the undesirability of those facts or lets just erase that all together."

It seems that we are dealing with editors here who put far more emphasis on perception than on evidence and facts. I think this is a fair conclusion since after the endless arguments over that past days on the slavery issue , i have yet to hear of anyone actually acknowledge the facts which they can easily check for themselves in the Qu'ran.--Aldowi 03:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I place my bets on the belief that cold unvarnished truth will prevail....well I completely agree with this part . Try to talk some sense . Did U ever read any Islamic stuff , other than that provided on their phobic Christian Missionary/Supposedly apostate sites ? Did U read Quran ? Did U read Hadeeth ? Did U read Sunnah ? Did U read Sira ? Did U read how many slaves Muhammad had . Did U read if they were serving Muhammad on their freewill ? Did U see how Muhammad treated them ? Based on treatment , were they actually slaves according to modern definition . What the Sahaba did with Slaves ? How many of these slaves made by Jews/Christians were freed by Muslims ? How many of those Ex-slaves were made very respected citizens ? Comeon man ..did U ever read a single Islamic book in your whole life ? & U blame Islam for your dumness ?? This is sick . Do U see Muslims trying to introduce these kind of hate/lie filled Sections in Christianity/Judaism page ?

U know I have seen many people like U , who claim to be so much , & R actually nothing more than childern crying for attention . They always copy claims from their hate filled sites as a justification for their illeteracy . And the people running these sites R always unknown people , who again R illeterates . I can see the pattern here , one of U starts by introducing a hate filles section , then 4-5 more users attack Islam page with all their stuff . Then U blame others for vandalisn , white washing , blanketing Islam , & leave your seeds around .

Try improving your reading/surfing habits . Hope that helps ,

Farhansher 21:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have studied Islam for quite some time, I have studied the Qu'ran in detail many times and have written a thesis on its spiritual message. The problem is what I found out was not a spiritual message but a primitive superstition destructive to individual self determination which never really enters the realm of spirituality. At best its a set of ambiguous metaphors which are highly prone to mis-interpretation. I think that anyone who reads the Qu'ran with an open mind would notice that this book is a call for enslavement , not for freedom.

Yes there are good concepts in Islam , its not all bad, but nevertheless there are also bad ones. You have to be willing to take a broad view if you want to see what is there. It does not help when people can only look at the good side of a subject, which is obviously your case. It is not until you look at the good and the bad that you begin to see the picture.

I have tried to state what I observe in an NPOV way, which at once gets shot down by people like yourself who take personnaly any challenge to their religion and who only will allow the good side to be presented about their faith. That is not what I call balanced.

There is a hell of of lot of atrocious things that have occured in the world , and which are still occuring where Islam is very much implicated. But in your eyes, it has nothing to do with Islam. Just like today, you would probably say that there is no genocide going on in the Sudan, and you would also say that it certainly has nothing to do with Islam.

I do not know what can be said of that except denial, if not cover-up. As far as I am concerned, I believe that it is up to free people to speak up and denounce evil when they see it, and I wonder why you do not do this, why do you turn a blind eye to the evil commited in the name of your faith, and label anyone who speaks up as an Islamophobe.

I never read the Christian Missionary/ site that I refered to in the slavery article , I just googled it to give a quick reference for Yuber who wanted a quick source on Slavery and Islam and this page seemed like a good compilation of the subject. I should have been smarter about that, I should have realized that the Islam zealots would pull out the "oh its a Christian site , no wonder they are saying all those bad things about islam. and therefore we can throw that out". But then again I doubt if certain editors are even willing to look at any topic like this.--Aldowi 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, this is the Islam section of Wikipedia. This has no need for your pointless vandalism and anti-Islamic POV. In any case, all of the so-called information you have linked to is completely irrelevant to your point. You can not expect viewers to believe your lies simply because you have linked to christian missionary sites. SLAVERY, if any, was in NO way was as severe in Islam as it was in christianity and that is proven to the mid 19th century; don't even try to dispute that.

One common christian misconception about Islam is the notion that it gives sanction to slavery. In fact, the very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could. The Prophet (pbuh)also directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. So, don't try to shove any of your propaganda in to this article as the Qur'an and the Hadith are both against slavery.

Before you try to present your anti-Islamic views and completely useless links, go look at other religions such as christianity which have actively performed slavery because ISLAM WAS COMPLETELY AGAINST IT. And in any case, this is the ISLAM section of wikipedia and this, like all other religion sections, is not the place to put this material. Why the heck do you anti-Islamic idiots have problems with realizing the basic facts? Or quite clearly it is just a sad attempt to try and make your own troublesome religion look "good". --Anonymous editor 20:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't were Muslim or Christians better with slaves... the Afrikaans were different from the Quakers and the Nigerian Muslims different from the Indonesian... Islam doesn't have a ruling that every in every time has agreed on with slavery... Yes, Muslims allowed slavery... and so did Christians... and then some Muslims didn't and so didn't some Christians... Muslims today (just like Christians today) are pretty unanimously anti-slavery... so... it's not revisionist Aldowi and it's not that Islamic societies have been perfect in this issue Anoymous... it's that this article is not a place to ramble about countless cultures and their different views on slavery... and to generalize by saying "Islam supports slavery" or "Christianity supports slavery" is ludicrous... different societies and schools have all viewed this differently throughout time... so in Islam and slavery feel free to address the different fiqhs, societies, etc. about this issue. gren 02:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did Islam sanction slavery and is it mentioned in its scripture? yes. So lets say so. Different Islamic school of beliefs may have differing opinions, but the fact remains , it is integral to the the "perfect and immutable" Qu'ran. Do a search in the Qu'ran and the Hadiths for the word slave and what you see. Do you need me to list every verse where it is mentioned or will you be able to run the search yourself?--Aldowi 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, mentioning and sanctioning are two different things. Slavery was a reality of pre-Islamic culture and the Qur'an deals with that reality. That is how it is seen by most people, there are some who claim like you but they are typically dismissed as bigots and there opinions will not be found in most publications of repute. I think maybe you should read another encyclopedia's article about Islam and find out... You are not going to teach me anything about slavery in Islam, I know what it says and the theories on it. It is not going to go on [[Islam]] because it does not belong here and I pray you can mention it in a NPOV manner on one of the historical pages or Slavery + Islam page . gren 08:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, how ignorant are you? NOT once in the Qur'an is slavery mentioned in the negative way that you described it and neither is it sanctioned. Here are a few examples:

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. (Quran 002.177)

Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom. (Quran 053.010) NOTE: In this case, slaves refers to people not in a "slavery" sense of the word.

So, I think frankly that you have trouble reading or maybe you are just too biased towards Islam in the first place. In any case, you have NO PROOF to support your statement that Islam sanctions slavery. Secondly, you said you have an "open mind". How can you have an open mind when clearly you are nothing but an anti-Islamic POV extremist who tries to use the fact that the word "slave" occurs in the Quran as proof that Islam allows "atrocities" against slaves! And it does't matter what you have written on the topic of Islam and what studies you have done if you were biased against the religion in the first place. You are nothing but close-minded and you think that by coining phrases like "primitive superstition" and calling everyone who proves you wrong an "Islamic zealot" you can get a point across.

This is an another low for anti-Islamic bigots and I wouldn't be surprised that you are just another right-wing christian trying to give a bad name to Islam simply because you need a scapegoat for the problems with your own religion. I know all about this because I was taught to try and degrade Islam (in particular) by my church before I converted to Islam. Why do you and other bigots insist on bringing your pointless vandalism to all Islam-related articles?

Lastly, as both muslim and non-muslim editors have stated, this section is about the religion of Islam, not slavery. Religions do NOT need a dedicated "slavery" section. So stop your vandalism and do research on Islam that isn't simply gathered propaganda from anti-Islamic sites. --Anonymous editor 20:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues, Hello. I have been watching this article for some time, and I am sad that there is prevailing a thorny problem at the moment about slavery in Islam. Aldowi, since I am a sheltered Christian from Arizona, I don't know anything about the teachings of the Koran, and I would appreciate seeing the specific verses that most quintessentially represent the positive attitude of the Koran toward slavery. I would be interested in passages equivalent to the Mosaic law sections dealing with slaves that give tacit permission in the Old Testament. Please give the passages along with their references. I will let the Muslims here verifiy for me that your selections are correct. Thanks. Also, may I know exactly what you would like to be sure the article says? Tom Haws 20:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Slavery in the Qur'an. - Mustafaa 22:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response, Mustafaa. Tom Haws 23:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let me weigh in here on an NPOV issue (I have no intention of editing this article, however). Our modern idea of slavery is just that, relatively modern in the last 2 centuries. All cultures did it for a whole variety of reasons. Slavery has no more connection to the Koran whether mentioned in the book or not than slavery does in the bible. If an individual had slaves, one can express it on that page, like Thomas Jefferson. But I see no unique connection between slavery and this page. Put it on the right page, not on this page.

--Noitall 05:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wow , now that is liberal education gone wild. Are you kidding? Have you even studied Islamic History or the Qu'ran?? Islam is a system of slavery , one for its followers and two for those it dominates. The whole black slave issue that has scarred the history of African Americans in the US began with the capture of slaves by the Islamic slave traders , acting out of the tenets of the Qu'ran. But we won't mention that fact , now will we, lets just perpetuate ignorance of history . Now did other societies also have slavery , yes indeed , many cultures had slaves and this should be mentioned in their respective pages, just like it should be mentioned on this page. My objection is the REFUSAL to mention it on this page along with the REFUSAL to mention any other unsavory historical events. By the way did other alleged religious prophets also have slaves? My knowledge of other religion's history is limited

--Urchid 11:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moon Cult Roots

Something about Islam descending from a pagan moon cult should be included here.

MSTCrow 04:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should be mentioned, since it is an accurate historical fact but there are a bunch of anti-freedom of speech Islamic supporters continuously monitoring this page who do nothing but tear down any changes they do not want presented to the world.--68.130.206.88 12:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should. It's a shoddy theory, one that has been disproven over and over again by Muslims and non-Muslim historians. Go see Talk:Allah on that, its not worth mentioning.

mr100percent 01:42, Jun 6, 2005 (EST)

I have heard a lot about Christianity descending from worshipers of Sun godess Eshtre ( from where Easter originated ), & some others that I cant remember . Should that be included in Christianity too . And what about Jews worshiping the Cow , when Moses went to Mount Sinai . Farhansher 08:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A religion that regards Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as prophets cannot be descended from a moon cult. Unless those people were part of a moon cult.Yuber^(talk) 20:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Christianity evolved from a number of cults in the region, including an Egyptian Sun cult (Son of God and all that) and a fish cult (fishhead, prominince of fishes in the New Testament, etc). So yes, the cult origins of Christianity should be included. I don't know much about the origins of Judaism, ie how much was taken from cults and how much was original, but I do know they incorporate a good deal of what was around them into it as well. If it is not true that Islam evolved in part from a Moon cult, then it should be at least mentioned in the article that it is a topic of controversy, and that some believe it did, while others it did not. We can't let the fear of PC stomp out the search for truth.

MSTCrow 22:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Persistent POV problems and unsourced edits from 68.130.206.88

Plus I get the feeling he's a fan of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which is problematic in and of itself. BrandonYusufToropov 12:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you seem to be very keen on stoking the fires of religious hatred by pushing the gitmo flush the koran in the toilet scandal. Its not POV , the info is sourced and you can check it for yourself, only you cant stand the truth .--68.130.206.88 13:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, though, what's your favorite MMST3K episode? We're big fans at my house.BrandonYusufToropov 13:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to blow your bubble but I have never seen any of those shows, can't help you there.--68.130.206.88 13:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conversion rates in Africa

The source being in Arabic is not the problem. The quote's accuracy, reliability, and relevance is. In reality, the 6 million a year figure is given by a guest on an al-Jazeera talk show, one Ahmad Al-Qataani of Libya. He gives no sources for this figure, as far as I can see, and, from his alarmist tone ("667 Muslims a minute!") I suspect him of simply trying to drum up funding for his own missionary efforts. The quote thus has no credibility. Find an almanac or some other reasonably trustworthy source. - Mustafaa 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For non-Arabic speakers' benefit, a translation has apparently been provided, at a rather odd place: User:TheConversionArticle. The source's credibility may be judged by statements such as "Concerning Zanzibar, there was a priest by the name Julius Niriry, president of Tanzania, who annihilated 20,000 Muslims (male and female) with a military force lead by a chicken thief. This thief was imprisoned for being accused of stealing chickens; he was released and asked to command the military brigade that annihilated 20,000 Muslims." - Mustafaa 00:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read the part about the conversions , do you not believe the speaker's numbers ? We are providing the source , let the reader assess the weight of the data. Look you seem to accept the dubious statistics about the growth of Islam , which in my view are blatantly exagerated or unreliable extrapolations then the Al-jazeera article statistics can provide an alternate POV.--Urchid 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I don't believe the speaker's numbers. Why should I? He's not a demographer; he's just some Libyan sheikh. He provides no source for his numbers. Do you believe him saying "A Belgian missionary by the name of Sabeh came to Somalia and purchased 30,000 Muslim youth"? As for the stats about Islam's growth, they are from considerably more trustworthy sources - mainly, in fact, from the US State Department. (See Islam by country.) - Mustafaa 00:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I do not believe the stats about Islam's growth considering there is no head count available and all the numbers are extrapolated. And considering that most muslims in the world do not have a choice in being a muslim ,if they were born a muslim in a muslim country, since they would suffer painful consequences if they freely stated that NO they do not want to be a Muslim . Also the quote about there being 5 million or more muslims in the USA does not match what I have observed in travelling the US. That would mean that 1 out of every 60 people we see in the Us is a muslim and I know that this is not the case. --Urchid 00:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the latter issue, you may or may not have a point: Islam in the United States indicates that estimates actually range from 1.2 million to 7 million, which indicates some uncertainty to say the least. The stuff about most Muslims not "having a choice in being a muslim", though, is irrelevant as well as highly speculative. Only God knows people's hearts; all that a demographer can or should deal with is what people claim to be. - Mustafaa 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your "800,000" is unsourced, as are your claims about the definitions used. 1.2 million is the minimum estimate listed in Islam in the United States, to which Islam in Canada's 580,000 has to be added. The source linked on "African Muslims converting to Christianity" comes from an interview full of statements so ridiculous that even you aren't prepared to defend them, while speculation about the motives of those claiming that "Islam is in growth" or "Islam is ebbing" is uncalled for and not relevant here.- Mustafaa 02:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let the reader be the judge about the source. Just like we can let the reader be the judge about the growth of Islam around the world. I like Zora's approach, it presents a diversity of views and they are sourced. We should not take it upon ourselves to only selectively present information that we personally prefer but present both sides. Its the wiki way.--Urchid 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was inclined to agree with you before I read the source... this man is not someone even remotely linked to a profession that would give him credibility in assessing populations. At least the growth of Islam sources are. We must not select inane sources and there are so many sources on various issues that it is up to the editors to select certain ones. gren 04:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you personal view is Gren, we should provide diverse views as per wiki policy. I do not for instance share your opinion on the growth of Islam sources however I do not try to nullify them on that account.Wiki NPOV policy is clear is to provide both views.--Urchid 12:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Step back and consider this a second. The goal here is to write an encyclopedia that meets the highest academic standards, not to provide a soapbox for every rant. Do you really think that citing some random sheikh on a talk show meets any kind of academic standards at all? There are plenty of professional demographers out there; if you want statistics on converts from Islam to other religions, then that would be the place to look, and if they turn out to be significant in number, it would be appropriate to add them here. - Mustafaa 17:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Writing from a NPOV, does not mean representing every view, that would be impossible. Nor does it mean giving every view represented equal weight. We have to make editorial judgments, not every source is equally credible. Paul August ☎ 06:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Guys there is no point in this dialogue . These people ( with multiple IDs ) r all brain slaves of Sina & Spencer , both liers hypocrites . Their sites R a new version of Missionary sites, with the added charm of " I was a muslim once ". I dont know if U have figured out uptli now , but for me its as clear as 0 & 1 . There sentences , logics , choice of vocab , phrases , R a perfect match of the brain slaves of these 2 as**oles . If U dont believe me , checkout their site . They arnt here to improve WP . They R here to give links to their site to increase their hitrate , & to defame Islam . Hope that helps . Farhansher 05:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something tells me Farhansher is not a moderate Muslim but a radical islamist, future recruit for al-qaeda? .--Urchid 12:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL ...Something tells me U R gona be the recruits of the new Adolf Hitler , Very soon U guys will come up with something like Protocols of Elders of ...... !!! . Be creative , I have seen your gurus trying the same reverse psychology tactic on muslims . Try something new . Farhansher 13:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Farhansher, this sort of exchange has no place on Wikipedia. Cut it. dab (ᛏ) 13:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Similarly "Urchid", you can not call everyone you disagree with a "radical islamist". This is a common tactic used by anti-Islamic editors like you. If you were to say this, then you are likely a member of the Ku Klux Klan. --Anonymous editor 02:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Demographic Trends be added?

Just a question: shouldn't continuing demographic trends be added to this? Such as the below info:

"The world population is growing at about 1.10% per year, but the percentage of Muslim population is increasing by 1.4% per year due to both converts and growth rates. It has been stated by many that statistics show that within the next century Islam will outgrow Christianity and become the largest religion in the world."

The reason is simply because it indicates the growth of the religion and I believe should be added to a "Future of Islam" section. I have seen this material on several NPOV sites and various statistics and am willing to cite my sources if needed.

So what do you think? --Anonymous editor 06:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

the point is that the numbers are disputed, and it is almost impossible to get reliable statistics from the relevant states. Also, even naive interpretation gives Islam overtaking xtianity only in the 2070s, and only very naive statisticians will extrapolate current growth rates into the 22nd century (we'd litterally be stacked, by then). So while current growth rate estimates should be included, the "overtaking" thing is simply idle speculation about future events ("WP is not a crystal ball"). dab (ᛏ) 13:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fine with readding the first sentence ("The world population is growing at about 1.10% per year, but the percentage of Muslim population is increasing by 1.4% per year due to both converts and growth rates.") if a good source is provided. The second, however, seems to me to violate the principle that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." - Mustafaa 17:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I will append the first portion of the statement. Got info from religioustolerance.org. --Anonymous editor 19:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

REMINDER TO ALL EDITORS OF THIS PAGE

There appears to be an extreme intolerance of alternate views on this page being perpetuated by a small clique of editors who have been attempting to monopolize all edits on this page. Wikipedia is a colloberative endeavor not a tug of war between zealots. IF you have any questions on Wikipedia's NPOV policy go here. WIKIPEDIA NEUTRALITY POLICY . Thank you for your cooperation.--Urchid 00:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there is no monopolization. You can not simply understand that the material that you want to add is illegitimate and is no more then POV. Regardless, this is the ISLAM article, not the conversion article. I don't see other religions with info like this on their section. Perhaps you should get factual statements rather than put anti-Islamic views onto the religion section. By the way, if we were to mention something along those lines, we would have to mention the many millions more who convert/have converted TO Islam (like me). I know the truth hurts you.

You are zealous about your opinion perhaps you should be more tolerant and stop your persistent vandalism. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 02:14, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The truth about Islam

Anyone with a remote knowledge of the atrocities being constantly carried out by Muslims in the world today must speak out. These horrible attacks on truth by Muslims who would hide it are not acceptable. Muslims murdered 2,000 on September 11, 2001. Islam is responsible for the heartless murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. The term "Islamic extremist" should not be used because all Muslims are a threat. Even Islamic clergy are now encouraging and promoting murder of "infidels". Islam is an evil religion that enslaves women, turns men into bloodthirsty monsters, and calls for the murder of those not stuck in its stinking, rotting quagmire. Muslims are even now trying to infiltrate the U.S. bringing their foul, scum of a religion here. There is no love in Islam, only hate, a vicious murderous hatred. The crusades were entirely necassary. If the Christians had not driven out the Moors, Europe might today be the living hell that the Middle East is now. There is not a shred of honor, not one iota, in Islam. It would have been better if Mohammed had never been born. Osama Bin Laden is one of his monsters, blood-thirsty and murderous who masterminded the NYC mass murders on 9/11 nearly 4 years ago. Islam is no religion of "peace", whatever people like Cassius Clay may call it. Muslims are a lost people, floundering in the darkness, following a distant, unloving god, and trying to get to Heaven by murdering Christians and Jews. Jesus came into the world to redeem mankind; to save us from our sins. Muslims' only hope for happiness, a changed heart, and eternal life is to give their lives over to the one who truly loves them, Jesus Christ and to make him their savior and Lord. Therein lies true freedom. 4.158.211.175 01:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should probably get a blog. This sort of "truth" is better expressed in that medium than in an encyclopaedia. Grace Note 01:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, like... do we put that all in our article?????? gren 01:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel tempted to get rid of above user's editorial comments, but it is too humorous to bear. Perhaps a section on the distortion, or myths of Islam is prudent (for one, in response to the op ed--there is no such thing as a peaceful Abrahamic religion. Each has nuances of peace, harmony and love, and each has its nuaces of hatred, dispair and violence.) One could figure out where the misinformation is coming from and that would be a truly powerful addition to this article. Well, my opinion at least.

User 4.158.211.175, a possible sockpuppet of Urchid, is nothing more than a bigot. It is not uncommon to hear people like him commit racism against muslims, because frankly they fear so much that christianity is losing against Islam in terms of conversions and growth. It is not uncommon to hear stuff like this being taught in christian extremist churches, I know because I was once evangelical. Truly shows how misinformed they are when they say that 'muslims follow an unloving god', when it is the same God that christians worship. LOL.Perhaps this user should also look through history and see that if it was not for Islam, Europe would have never made it out of the dark ages and into the renaissance that is the foundation of modern western civilization.

How about you mention the numerious atrocities that christianity committed with other religions and still does to this day? How about the hundreds of thousands of civilian Muslims and JEWS slaughtered ruthlessly during the crusades? Or how about how the United States bombing muslims in Lebanon on false grounds? This is bound to get retaliation, my friend, and although I do not agree with extremism, 9/11 was bound to happen.

Maybe you should also mention how christian evangelization led to the death of thousands of africans or how evangelicals were smuggling orphan children out of Indonesia after the tsunami in order to convert them?

Frankly I don't find it necessary to debate about this anymore right now because clearly you are nothing more than a bigot and and it is your own POV and attempt at recruiting more zealous christians for your pathetic cause. It goes against everything that WIKIPEDIA stands for. And yes, you can believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is "lord and savior", but you and I both know that is nothing more than a dying fad and people with half a brain are leaving christianity as we speak.

Praise be to Allah that I converted to Islam. It is only through him that we wake up and see the reality. --Anonymous editor 03:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

No I am not that user 4.158 however I do agree with the general premise about Islam posed above minus the references to Jesus.--Urchid 03:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your agreement with that 'general premise' truly shows your credibility and true nature. Maybe since now that you seem so NPOV, we should listen to everything you say. (sarcasm ofcourse) --Anonymous editor 03:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor , you do seem so full of hatred, deceit and intolerance of other POVs that you certainly make a poor example of a Muslim , if I was a muslim I would be embarrased by your behavior.--Urchid 03:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racism, as you call it, can go both ways. Please do not forget that. I did not and do not agree with many of Urchid's posts and edits but your response to him is just as bad. Neither of them constitute NPOV in my book. If you were to call Christianity a fad in that article I think there'd be more problems (and rightfully so) than Urchid has created. gren 03:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gren, generally I agree with you and I was definitely counter-POVing not NPOVing in this case. I am saddened that it has come down to something like this. Truly wikipedia is no place for stuff like this.In response to urchid: Man, I am not what faith you are and I am still embrassed by YOUR behaviour. I suppose you are very tolerant? --Anonymous editor 03:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am tolerant,uh? oh I am intolerant because my opinion does not match yours? I inserted edits that obviously reflect my POV. I have sourced and discussed these. Embarrased by MY behavior? Lets make something very clear, I am not that Christian editor you seem to confuse me with. The trouble here is that whenever someone expresses a different opinion than yours you blow your top and act like those zealots ranting in the streets of Pakistan about their little book. What 19 people killed for what? on hearsay ?--Urchid 03:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

_ _ _

Okay first things first. THIS article is NOT a POV debate. It is not my POV that should go there and it is not yours. It is a factual article, one can NOT say their POV. Frankly, who cares what others think about Islam??? That doesn't change what Islam is, does it? Why can't you understand that?

Secondly, you are the one who called me intolerant simply because of my POV. see your message above. The fact that I responded to you by saying that "I suppose you are very tolerant?" is simply in response to your assertion.

You are not making anything better by claiming that those people on the streets of Pakistan were "zealots ranting about their little book". Is it wrong to respect one's religion? Would other religions not protest if their holy book was destroyed in such a manner?

Lastly, you are misinformed about Islam in accordance with the facts of Islam. In reality, do you really think that you can come close to factual information about Islam better a muslim who clearly knows the tenets of the religion? The fact of the matter is that one who clearly practices the faith is more likely to know the facts about it better than someone who doesn't. It is just like a communist is more likely to know communism better than a non-communist.

So remember that this is not a POV debate. It is a factual article. There is no reason for any POV in this article. It should be all factual statements. People's opinions about Islam do NOT change what Islam is. --Anonymous editor 04:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

To urchid: Well man , if U have any authentic , neutral , non Islamphobe , non-pro-islam source saying anything about conversion rates , it deserves to be on Islam page . What 100-500 people in the world think , isnt important . There R thousands of people who will consider themselves as God , we cant give their names in God page . Christian/non-christian stuff isnt relevent . If a christian brings some authentic info , it deserves to be added . The rest , well .... doesnt matter . Your use of words like " their little book " , " hatred, deceit and intolerance " & by 4.158 "foul, scum of a religion " , "trying to get to Heaven by murdering Christians and Jews" , clearly shows your mindset . But then...i've seen worse . Sorry if I was rude b4 , my exams R goinon , & I am very much irritable . Hope this gets my point across . Thanx for your cooperation . Farhansher 07:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

guys, an anonymous account cannot be a sockpuppet. sockpuppet are accounts used by people who have another, primary account. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

also, you should all try a chatroom. If you cannot discuss the article's wording in a civil, academic, neutral atmosphere, you shouldn't even be here. dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To AE: Why on Earth can't you be more civil! I have gone through a lot of this talk page and all throughout I see your stupid ranting! If somebody doesn't agree with you: "Yell, Yell, Yell, Shout, Shout, Shout, So And So is a bigot, So And So is intolerant, everybody should be tolerant of my ideas but I don't have to be tolerant of anybody else's!" I'm not user 4.158 but I do agree with him for the most part! I see no reason to be neutral about this topic when you can't be. Ratso 19:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

slaves

needless to say, the information in "Islam and slavery" was in the wrong article. After all, we don't have "Christianity and Islam" in the Christianity article, discussing all the good Christians who shipped slaves to America. The names of Muhammad's slaves should go to the Muhammad article. Islamic laws on slavery should go to the Sharia article. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, read it carefully , it is written in NPOV and it presents an accurate representation of those topics , now if you want to add it to those other pages you are welcome to. --Urchid 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As Dab correctly notes, this is in entirely the wrong article, as well as being neither NPOV nor even accurate ("Islamic slave traders over the centuries in Africa were responsible for capturing and selling nearly twelve million indigenous black africans to European traders"?) This section belongs in the article about as much as "Islam and cousins" or "Islam and honeybees" would - both topics are, after all, alluded to in the Qur'an... - Mustafaa 23:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The numbers are accurate , I can tell that you do not like those numbers and want this out of sight , however , this is an encyclopedia and history is history.--Urchid 23:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Care to support that assertion? (Not that it would make the section any more relevant - as practically everyone except you has so far noted...) - Mustafaa 23:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I have provided all the references to support those statements , only you and other fellow travellers keep shooting those down cause you cannot disprove them. This page could use a little more intellectual honesty and less religious Jihadism.--Urchid 00:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, you haven't "provided all the references", or indeed any references. - Mustafaa 00:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, "jihadism", did you just make up that word off the top of your head? Totally shows how misinformed you are when you make up words faster than Foxnews. Clearly, when you write a section in an article where it does not belong and fill it with lies, you are going to get opposition. What exactly are your sources; do you know anything about Islam that is not gathered from right-wing american bigot sites?--Anonymous editor 00:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

So, 12 million blacks were sold as slaves by islamic slave traders to christian slave traders? What does that tell you except that slave trading is apparently independent of religion, and that this factoid (if it is one) is at home neither in the Islam nor in the Christianity (or in both, with the same justification), but in the slavery article. I mean, really, how about "Islam and stupidity" (some muslims are stupid!) "Islam and roadkill" (muslims run over animals on the highway!) or "Islam and ugliness" (some muslims are ugly!). Factuality is one thing, notability is another (slave trade is notable), relevance is quite another thing (slave trade is not relevant to the ship article, in spite of slaves having been transported in ships). This is too obvious to even argue. We do not want either Islam-hyping editors here, nor Islam-bashing one. Unfortunately, we have both kinds now, only neutralizing each other by emission of a lot of unsavoury diatribes. dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good point dab, especially where you say we can't attribute all Muslim action to Islam. gren 20:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are Anonymous editor and Farhansher sockpuppets?

Looks like Anonymous editor is editing Farhansher 's text. A slip up? sock puppets?--Urchid 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol, funny. I was only editing text because I assumed the message by Farhanser was intended for you. Obviously he doesn't mean me and I wanted to avoid confusion by others, thus I wrote 'to urchid:' by his message. Anyways sockpuppetry is your expertise, although you prefer to use non-users. --Anonymous editor 23:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes very funny , cause I believe you were included in Farhansher comment, in any case , I believe farhansher is quite capable of making his own clarifications and you should not go around revising other peoples discussion inserts.--Urchid 11:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His comment was clearly towards you because you are the only one misinformed enough to have made such false statements in the first place. It's sad to see that you take offence to the truth. Perhaps you should follow your own advice before judging others. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Some more references that back up my assertion about growth of Christianity in Africa and the world

Christianity Rising in Africa (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/living/religion/11757061.htm|)

Christianity expected to grow to three billion followers by 2050 (http://www.nytco.com/subsites/nyttv/catalog/christianityrising2.html|)

This throw into question all the assumptions demographics of Islam Today --Urchid 00:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, actually. The first talks of conversions to Christianity in Africa (by pagans? Jews? Muslims? It does not say, although in fact most are by pagans.) The latter says nothing helpful at all; just speculates on future conflict. - Mustafaa 00:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh you are right , all these articles I presented are not real, keep believing what you wish . --Urchid 01:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay so according to your "sources" christianity is growing in Africa. Why exactly does this belong in the ISLAM article??? The concern was never christianity growth in Africa, it was about a unreliable claim that muslims were converting to it. I can quote many sites that say Islam is growing in Africa and that would still be related to the ISLAM demographics section.

Why can't you understand how wikipedia works? If you want to enter this info of yours put it in a christianity-related article. The sources don't even mention Islam! Why should the Islam article incorporate info/propaganda about christianity growth???

Frankly, this Islam article isn't concerned with christianity is it. Btw, you seem rather persistent to enter anti-Islamic, pro-christian material for someone who says that they have no religion. Maybe what you really are is finally showing.--Anonymous editor 00:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Right , I do not share your POV on Islam and that is my right as an editor, Wikipedia is not an Islamic theocracy on the contrary it is the opposite. I have thus been trying to present alternate information in the demographics of Islam Today section , but you folks on your ridiculous religious Jihad have been reverting it everytime I insert anything there. You seem only concerned with your fantasy image of what you wish Islam was and are batting down any contrary facts that are presented. I call that intellectual dishonesty , and of course you and fellow travellers have decided to try to impose your POV by force of revert while no one is presenting information to disprove my insertions , I continue to provide documentation.--Urchid 00:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why can't you understand that there is no need for POV on this article in the first place? This is not a debatable recent event, it is a factual article about Islam.

Why exactly would the growth of christianity be relevant in an Islam article? Why do you want to insert christianity info/propaganda into the Islam article? You can provide all the 'sources' you want but as long as it is NOT related to the article, why does it matter?

You are the only one here who is entering the most disputed material with stuff about christianity when your sources don't even mention Islam. Wikipedia is NOT a christian propaganda site. You seem stubborn on putting in christian material into an ISLAM article; go put christian material into the christianity article. Seriously, even you must realize something as simple as this???

By the way, I AM A MUSLIM. I know what Islam is because I practice it. It is you who has the 'fantasy image' and is being nothing more than a bigot. --Anonymous editor 01:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Man you must be frothing at the mouth, do you have rabies or something? You are quick to call anyone who disagrees with you names and you seem way to confused to understand what I am going to say, so I will answer this for the benefit of other editors who may come to read this.

I am not inserting a POV. I am presenting sourced information. I present a claim and its source. That is what Wikipedia requires.

This article makes various claims about the growth of Islam for instance. Those are only claims based on using sources which are highly disputed. For example all the numbers related to the size and growth of Islam are conjecture and extrapoloation. No one has ever counted the number of Muslims in the world. The numbers are only estimates , extrapolated. There are many conflicting analysises about this . We should present high projections as well as the low projections.

The problem is that a certain group of pro-islam editors will only permit the sources that make Islam look the way they want it to look to be presented, for example they chose to use the Clash of Civilation quote of the fastest growing religion. Anything which challenges this is reverted. I have presented sources that challenge this claim , and at once the insertion gets reverted.

The reason they do this is because they are on a religious Jihad, that is they are doing whatever it takes to make Islam look good, regardless of the facts. Look at the revert history of this page. Its called censure , and it is unfortunately a characteristic of Islam, the destruction of truth. --Urchid 02:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Urchid, what you fail to understand is that the growth numbers you 'cited' from your sources have nothing to do with ISLAM whatsoever. What do christianity growth numbers have to do with Islam in the first place? If you want to put you 'source' and 'claim' in an appropriate article put it in the christianity article.

The only problem here is that you seem to have a problem understanding what this article is about. You are clearly the one who is 'frothing in the mouth' as you are over-stimulated at the idea that you can vandalize a perfectly legitimate article by inserting christian propaganda about christian growth. Truly anyone can realize that is unrelated to this article and does not belong here, why can't you?

The only problem here is your bigotry against Islam. The article tells the truth and you insist that your racist views and totally unrelated claims be added to this article. Every time the editors remove your vandalism you show them disrespect and claim that you are being censured and that the article is a destruction of truth. If you can't edit the ISLAM article fairly and without extreme anti-Islamic POV, go away because your propaganda is not needed here. --Anonymous editor 19:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to include high and low estimates of adherence and growth. And I believe that adherents.com would be a good unbiased source. I quote "Contemporary figures for Islam are usually between 900 million and 1.4 billion, with 1 billion being a figure frequently given in comparative religion texts, probably because it's such a nice, round number. The largest and best known branches of Islam are Sunni and Shi'ite." [11] (http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Islam) Tom Haws 15:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

AE, I guess I agree with you, but if you won't stop shouting, nobody will read what you say. Just let the cooler heads (like Mustafaa and Tom) quote the estimate ranges. The exact number, and the exact growth rate is unknown, live with it. Both Christianity and Islam are growing, because of population growth, and the numbers are extremely unreliable, because the countries with highest growth rate also have the worst level of organization (a.k.a. 3rd World). dab (ᛏ) 19:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you agree with me, Dab. Surely anyone can see that urchid's claims have nothing to do with the article and clearly supposed christianity African statistics do not belong in an Islam article. The controversy was never over growth rates, it was about adding completely unrelated material about christianity. By the way I am not shouting I am clarifying what I mean and urchin can't seem to understand for some reason and enjoys making remarks against editors in general. Thanks for your input in this matter. --Anonymous editor 20:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

AE, by "shouting" dab means entering your comments, presumably for emphasis, in bold and/or in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and the use of repeated punctuation (e.g. ??? or !!!). On the web, that is generally referred to as "shouting", and many people consider the use of more than the bare minimum of such emphasized text to be rude. Just like raising the volume of your voice beyond what is required to be heard is considered rude. Paul August ☎ 20:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, Paul. I already knew what Dab was saying though. I wasn't trying to be rude but I apologize if the bolding/capitalization of my text was offensive to anyone. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:04, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tags not needed

So please stop putting that at the top of the article, Urchid. BrandonYusufToropov 12:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there not a dispute on this page? Are you willing to have my inserts added then?--Urchid 12:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The dispute doesn't seem to be about specifics -- you aren't challenging anything that's there -- it's just that you want to include stuff that you believe reflects badly on Islam, even if it's not particularily germane to the article. I added a link to the Slavery article, in the See also section -- Islam and slavery is discussed there, as part of a discussion of slavery in general. How come you aren't insisting on adding the names of the slaves owned, if known, to every historical figure in Wikipedia? No, you're just interested in making the equation Islam = slavery. You're marking the article POV because it doesn't hew to your POV ... and that's wrong. Zora 12:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Zora. There may be a factuality dispute concerning conversion rates, but that is simply up to either side being able to present credible sources. afaik, no serious estimate has been censored. "I want to insert oblique potshots aimed at Islam in general" is not a content dispute, sorry. Nobody disputes slavery was common, both in Islamic and Christian society. If you must, insert a list of Muhammad's slaves in the Muhammad article (if the list is factual), but it is certainly not pertinent to this article. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General links

Anonymous editor, talk about adding edits like that which were previously decided against for doing it. An article of this size and nature should not have arbitrary decisions made by one editor like you are doing and not expect them to be reverted. Discuss it here first and get input. I am not totally against it, I am rather apathetic towards the issue but you are a single editor among many so please discuss putting a "general links" section into the article and which sites it should contain. I am guessing that BrandonYusuf's, yours and Urchids opinion might not be the same in which links to put. gren 19:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Grenavitar. You know ofcourse that I had the best intentions in mind and did not mean any offense. The links I posted were not permanent, ofcourse, and other editors who were willing to insert links that give a factual look on Islam rather than a POV based one are free to do so. The issue I was bringing up is that, although user Zora's efforts in the directory links are well taken, most users will not use the directory for general link service for reasons such as non-apparency, time consumption, etc. Therefore, I proposed that general links that offer a factual insight into the religion should be added much similar to those that can be found in the christianity or other religion articles. I did NOT add them for POV ofcourse and I think that a problem here is that we fear the risk of vandalism by extreme POV editors. We should, like other credible encyclopedias offer factual links to wikipedia users so that if one requires an understanding of the religion or is researching a topic related to the religion, they may access non-encylopedia factual sources. But yes I do understand the controversy over this and if other editors find factual Islamic links they should consider them to this article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:24, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I understand completely and I didn't change it because I thought it was POV. My problem is that when you say "links that give a factual look on Islam rather than a POV based one" that probably means different things to different people... I have no problem with the section in genereal but it did create problems (especially with link spammers) and that's why Zora pruned it (see #Pruning links). Just leave this up for a bit and see what people say and what they can agree on... rushing into changes on a well established article can create problems so if you just let proposals sit on the talk page for a while it helps that I think. Personally on this issue I'm pretty neutral. I don't think directories are too hard to navigate (and as someone mentioned directories can have their own POV) but I think we could plausibly make a balanced general links section... but just let's hear what others say. gren 19:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely fine. I will keep the links at hand until people have voiced their opinions. TO EVERYONE: Should general, factual external links about Islam be added to the article, much like the other religion articles? Please voice your opinions as this is both: to help people find material that gives a better understanding of the religion, and also to add to the professionalism of Wikipedia by adding factual external links like other credible encyclopedias have. Similarly feel free to recommend factual links so that editors may review whether they should be added. Thanks. --

BrandonYusuf, Mustafaa, Zora, Yuber, Dab and Farhanser, you have all been major contributors to this article and your input in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Anonymous editor 20:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll comment on the links issue. Someone else -- I forget who -- proposed the directories solution in response to my effort to clear out the links. Before I started pruning, there were dozens of links, to different sects, to different teachers, and more were being added each day. Anyone who wanted more publicity for his/her preferred version of Islam was adding a link. There didn't really seem to be any way to limit the links without provoking howls of protest at the discrimination. The suggestion to list only directories was received with a general sigh of relief. Having seen the alternative, I would argue vigorously that we keep to this policy for the Islam page. Links have been allowed to proliferate freely on the pages for the various sects/versions of Islam. Zora 20:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skirmishing re first para

I've lost track of who did what, but the first para has been turned into an encomium of Islam as the source of art and science. I don't think that's NPOV, and it's certainly debatable that this is a distinguishing characteristic of Islam. Other religions have also contributed to the arts and sciences. I also removed a phrase re Islam being an Abrahamic faith. That categorization is Muslim -- I don't think I've ever heard an Jews or Christians use it. In fact, I still remember the first time I ran into it, in a National Geographic article on Abraham some years ago. It would certainly not be comprehensible to non-Muslims. Most Christians will refer to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and ignore Islam entirely. The first para sets the tone, and that tone should be NPOV. Zora 21:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait a second, Islam IS an Abrahamic faith, in all senses of the word.Yuber^(talk) 22:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that's an unfamiliar term which is put into the first para with no explanation whatsoever. It may be transparent to you, but most non-Muslims would not understand it. One could link to Abrahamic religions, of course, but it seems preferable to introduce new concepts in the body of the article, not in the introductory para. I don't know whether it's IN the body of the article -- probably should be if it isn't.

After some furious googling, I am left with an even stronger impression that the term has come into general use fairly recently, as a polite term to be used by politicians, academics, and religious figures. I don't object to it -- it seems more useful than Judeo-Christian -- I'm just concerned about comprehensibility. (Shades of jguk's campaign to erase BCE/CE <g>). Zora 23:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, it seems a little hostile to revert to the "Abrahamic religions" version while we're still discussing it. Zora 23:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Abrahamic religion makes sense from the Muslim perspective. The connotation of Abrahamic faith implies the sanctioning of Abraham, not just that they believe they come from Abrahamic lineage. Therefore, Zora makes a good point. gren 23:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you're trying to argue here. If Christianity is an Abrahamic religion then so is Islam, and that description is included in the Christianity article as well in the first paragraph. The definition as I see it basically means that it is a religion that comes from the original religion Abraham followed. Islam isn't just an Abrahamic religion from the Muslim perspective, it's an Abrahamic religion from all perspectives. Judeo-Christian is a totally different concept.Yuber^(talk) 23:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the concept is illegitimate -- it works from even a non-Abrahamic perpective, as simply pointing out that all three major religions share texts and history. I'm just arguing about comprehensibility. But if no one has objected in the Christianity article, then I'll stop fussing about it here. As long as we LINK it.

Which I'll do right now. Zora 00:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aha, it's done. OK. Zora 00:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora is both sympathetic and nice to Yuber, and he still reverts her. Unbelievable. FYI, Christianity is not an Abrahamatic religion. Christianity is a christian religion. --Noitall 00:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. Perhaps you would like to edit out the Abrahamic part on the Christianity page. Yuber^(talk) 01:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a new-ish term, but it's not necessarily POV. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all claim Abraham as the founder of their faith and there is at least one text (the Torah) that is accepted by all faiths (though the Muslims claim the Jewish version is corrupted). Even an atheist hostile to religion could use the term. As for Yuber's behavior -- as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's easy to lose one's balance when the argument gets hot and heavy. Let's ALL try to keep our balance. That goes for me too <g>. Zora 01:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There were actually no hostile feelings towards your edit. So please disregard what Noitall said as there is no huge argument here.Yuber^(talk) 02:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was me who added the word "Abrahamic religions" here . The word was present in Christianity & Judaism's first para . So I thought it should be added here too . In Judaism, this word is present with a link to Islam page. Farhansher 04:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

shahadan

of course you need the second part. Any monotheist would subscribe to "there is no god but God". To be a Muslim, you need the additional belief that Muhammad's testimony is authentic, just as to be a Christian, you need to believe that Jesus was sent by God (not necessarily that he is God, viz. Arianism, Unitarianism). Just saying la ilaha illa llahu says nothing about the status of the Quran, i.e. you may testify that, and still think the Quran is a surrealist poem, which would hardly make you a Muslim. 80.219.219.208 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamic Expertise and Knowledge

I have not yet edited on this article, but am preparing to do so. Of course, as a Christian, I want to have knowledge before inserting my POV. I believe that finding one or two sources on google and reading the Koran text as I think it should read and interpreting it the way I think it should be interpreted should be a good generalization for the entire Islamic world. But it does not really matter because, as User:Mustafaa argues, Muslims can believe anything or nothing at all, so anything I find on google is good and must be accurate and correct. Anyhow, don't you agree that I will soon be an Islamic expert?

Oh, by the way, that was not my opinion, but was User:Mustafaa's argument as to why he can interpret Christian texts and is really qualified with lots of expertise as to edit the Christian interpretation of Abraham. I disagreed and made the argument that I am respectful of other religions and that I am not really qualified to understand all the nuances of the religion to edit on Wiki. Anyhow, if Mustafaa's opinion is the right one, I will really enjoy doing some research and debating you all on what the text and interpretations of Islam mean. --Noitall 02:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand what pisses you off so much about the Old Testament saying Ishmael is the ancestor of the Ishmaelites. Is there some personal reason this angers you?Yuber^(talk) 02:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Noitall still, after ample requests, hasn't explained his actual objection to the suggested wording on Talk:Abraham, preferring the easier course of ad hominem arguments against its author. If anyone other than Noitall thinks that only Christians should be allowed to make Christianity-related edits, raise your hand now... - Mustafaa 02:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have explained it at length, just like I have said that I do not edit THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS of other people's religions, and yet you still think I interpreted the Torah incorrectly (I could not have, since I never ever ever made any statement about it at all except what I just said). But if Mustafaa is correct, then it will be happy editing in all these articles -- I am certain that I can find some good sources out there if I google hard enough. --Noitall 02:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall,why is adding "Old Testament" beside "Torah" (Torah/Old Testament) such a problem on the Abraham article? You have gone way overboard on such a little issue to which you have really not given enough reason. --Anonymous editor 02:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Listen Noitall, the old testament specifically names Ishmael and his twelve sons. This is not an "Islamic view" as you said, it is a Christian and Jewish view. I don't have to google to find sources, it's in the Bible itself [12] (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&version=31;).Yuber^(talk) 02:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK Noitall, you say you've explained it at length. Now could you explain your explanation, preferably on Talk:Abraham? I don't see how your statements connect to the actual text of the article nor what changes you're suggesting - bearing in mind the truism that statements about Genesis are simultaneously statements about the Torah and statements about the Old Testament. - Mustafaa 02:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no time to respond AGAIN, as I spent the last two days responding and listing rationale and detailed explanations and providing the Christian view (to be substituted by Mustafaa and Anon and Yuber's expert Christian opinion). -->But I will re-write the statement and provide rationale for the 3rd time. And expecially I have no time for Yuber. I have to check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to see if the Arbitrators' opinions on the hearing against Yuber are still (4/0/0/0). --Noitall 02:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to my specific questions instead of talking about random stuff. Are you disputing the Christian Bible's view of Ishmael's twelve sons?Yuber^(talk) 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what this discussion has to do with this article? This seems like a discussion concerning the Abraham article. I think this discussion should be moved there. Paul August ☎ 03:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Easy. Noitall didn't really mention his concern clearly on the Abraham talk page and said that he would proceed to edit Islam-related topics until his POV was mentioned. Please see Talk:Abraham for more detail. Hope that helps my friend, as we are both clueless about why someone would do something like this. :)--Anonymous editor 03:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me my "friends." I brought up an issue relevant to this page and Yuber, of course Yuber, immediately change the subject to insert his POV. Now Anon entirely misleads, as pages on pages of rationale over days are not enough for him (but then he probably had to do 4th grade reading class over a few times also). --Noitall 03:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall: What is your issue with this page? Paul August ☎ 03:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

What is the issue? TELL US CLEARLY ON TALK ABRAHAM PAGE. Your issue here has nothing to do whatsoever with this article and should probably be moved. The only issue you raised here is threatening to edit this article. I have been tolerant, respectful and patient with you and so have Mustafaa and Yuber. Can you please mention the REAL issue on the Abraham page, not this one. Refrain from making personal attacks too. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

That is the problem with Anon, he does not read. As far as I am concerned, you can erase everything after my first 2 paragraphs after the header and get back to the real issue. Then I will address it and not have Anon speaking for me (right, tolerant and respectful as a suicide bomber, give me a break!, it is me who has been respectful of other religions and you who are dismissive and arrogant with a religion that you expressly reject.) --Noitall 03:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall: If you are talking about the Abraham article please discuss it there. Paul August ☎ 04:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why are we talking about suicide bombers now?Yuber^(talk) 03:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Islam"