Talk:Islam/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Islam Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:12, 11 January 2007 editAAA765 (talk \| contribs)22,145 edits →What I believe is biased claims ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:47, 11 January 2007 edit undoArrow740 (talk \| contribs)7,908 edits God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it!Next edit →
Line 1,162:		Line 1,162:
	In the ] there has been some discussion regarding whether ] should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I just set up a ] as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register a vote in ] please do so.		In the ] there has been some discussion regarding whether ] should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I just set up a ] as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register a vote in ] please do so.
	--] 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)		--] 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

			== God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it! ==

			Watt's claim that historians <u>must</u> accept that Muhammad received revelations is clearly false, so there is no reason to include it. Similarly, there is no reason for him to conclude that we must all conclude that Muhammad did not create the Quran with his conscious mind. This is rendered even more ludicrous by the fact that Watt himself did not believe the sahih hadith had any value to historians. If he had been present at the time and was a trained psychologist, maybe then it would be worth listening to this. Watt is widely known, but it is clear from these quotes of him alone that his writings should be taken with a grain of salt. The other historian's point of view that Muhammad believed he was sincere is more reasonable. ] 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:47, 11 January 2007

Religion NA‑class

	Religion portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

To-do list for Islam/Archive 24: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Priority 1 (top)

Islam NA‑class

	Islam portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:PastACID

Islam/Archive 24 was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 11, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Template:V0.5

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Islam/Archive 24 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

There is a request, submitted by FaustX, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "".

Template:FAOL

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Topical Archives
External Links

Preparation for Article Improvement.

x-posting to the Islamic Wikiprojects. It looks like Islam is going to win the ARCAID on Sunday(and if you haven't voted yet, please do so), so, to coincide with it, I would like to request your help. This Sunday, take a book on Islam from your shelves (or borrow one from your library). It doesn't really matter what book. Then spend a few hours flipping through it and reference Islam. Either reference facts that are already on the article, or add new ones that you find. It doesn't matter how much information gets dumped on the article, we can always move it off into more appropriate articles. Just find a fact, and give a reference. If we all do that, Islam could reach FA by Christmas. Anyone with me on this? Dev920 (Please vote here) 14:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone actually intend to do this? Because I've chosen No God But God, by Reza Aslan, but I'm not going to do this alone. Dev920 (Please vote here) 18:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will be a bit busy, but I'll see what I can do. BhaiSaab 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

i have access to the EoI article on 'Islam' so i will try to contribute as much as possible with it, although i too am to be busy for a week or two. ITAQALLAH 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest to delete the following sentence from "Criticisms": Notable modern critics include Evangelical leader Pat Robertson, who stated that Islam wants to take over the world, that radical Muslims are "satanic", and that Osama Bin Laden was a "true follower of Muhammad". It's ridiculous to quote such statements. They are generalised, and clearly biased and have not academic value, having been made by a non-expert. --Arabist 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even though Pat Robertson is clearly a whacko, he is listened to by a substantal number of people in the United States, some of whom have been President. As such, it's probably appropriate to keep his views here, if only to better-illustrate the unfortunate way some Americans feel about Islam.

Atlant 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ill. But yes I will have to accept this. --Arabist 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to change this... Spencer and Pipes are far more notable critics than Robertson, who doesn't have an ounce of scholarly pretension in him. - Merzbow 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition of ethymology

I'm going to add the meaning of the word Islam in the first sentence, inside the pronuntiation parenthesis. Any objection?

Well, the meaning that was given in this Talk Page was "Submission (to the will of God)". I really cannot give references for it... --euyyn 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look below the introduction, you'll find a section under its own "Etymology" heading. I commented it out and am planning to look over a few sources over the weekend so I can verify its content. BhaiSaab 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

i had a go at attempting to rewrite it but it was more difficult than i had thought, especially as i am still learning the arabic language. i found in the EoI article however that "Islam" is the masdar of the root variation IV (aslama/istisilm; see above lexicon) of the triconsonantal root S-L-M. that's all it says about the etymology, the rest is about the forms and instances of the word 'aslam' that occur in the primary texts. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Itaqallah is right. S-L-M means "peace." Translating it as "submission to God" is a loose translation, although doubtless that is how many Muslims think of the word. Personally, I think the etymology has no place in the introduction. More important for the introduction are the core beliefs and a quick word about the origins under Muhammed, and where the largest concentrations of followers are found.HeBhagawan 05:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

S-L-M does not always mean 'peace', different variants have different meanings. Islam is from the fourth variant of S-L-M, and is derived from istisilm and aslama which literally means to submit, so "submission to God" is the most accurate rendering here. this is supported by lane's lexicon, as linked to above. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider editing S-L-M. --Striver 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

New structure

This article should be rearranged. I propose this structure:

Contents

   * 1 Beliefs
         ** 1.1 Tawhīd (Oneness of the God)
         ** 1.2 Prophecy (Prophet#The Islamic concept of prophet)
                o 1.2.1 Muhammad
                        o 1.2.1.1 The Qur'an   
                        o 1.2.1.2 Hadith and Sunnah
         ** 1.3. The day of the Resurrection
   * 2 Sharia
         ** 2.1. Five Pillars of Islam
                 o 2.1.1. Shahadah
                 o 2.1.2. Salat
                 o 2.1.3. Zakat
                 o 2.1.4 Sawm
                 o 2.1.5 Hajj
         ** 2.2. Other practices
                 o 2.2.1 Dietary laws
                 * 2.2.2 Jihad
   * 3 Symbols of Islam
   * 4 Denominations
         o 4.1 Sunni
               + 4.1.1 Salafi
         o 4.2 Shi'a
         o 4.3 Sufism
         o 4.4 Others
   * 5 Organization
         o 5.1 The caliphate
         o 5.2 Islamic law
         o 5.3 Mosques
         o 5.4 Islamic calendar
   * 6 Islamic knowledge
         * 6.1 Muslim theology / Kalam
         * 6.2 Muslim juricprodences (Fiqh)
         * 6.3 Tafsir
   * 7 History
   * 8 Contemporary Islam
         o 8.1 The demographics of Islam today
   * 9 Islam and other religions
         o 9.1 Related faiths
   * 10 Controversies
         o 10.1 Islamophobia
         o 10.2 Islamist
         o 10.3 Criticism of Islam
         * 10.4 Woman in Islam
   * 11 See also
   * 12 References
   * 13 Bibliography
   * 14 External links
         o 14.1 Academic resources
         o 14.2 Directories
         o 14.3 Islam and the arts, and other media

Sa.vakilian wrote this. Dev920(Mind voting here?) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this structure. The current structure is fine as it is and need not be added to. In fact, I would suggest that in the current article we delete Islamophobia and Symbols of Islam, which aren't really related to the religion. What do other editors think?

However, the afterlife seems an important thing we haven't got in the article - I will see what I can put together. Dev920(Mind voting here?) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to introduce concept of prophecy in Islam at least in one paragraph. Another important issue is Sunnah which is related to the Prophet and it's one of the basis of Islamic jurisprudence.

Practices shouldn't be a seprate part. I mean it includes Salat, Zakat, Sawm and Hajj too. --Sa.vakilian 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Length

I would have said before that a reduction of "Islamophobia" is needed but now the criticism section is ridiculously long. BhaiSaab 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the last two paragraphs. It's a perfect example of recentism and mentioning minor characters like Ali Sina whereas significant scholars like ibn Taymiyya or Rumi are not mentioned is not appropriate for this article. BhaiSaab 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, either the Salafi section needs to be made smaller, or the Sunni section needs to be made larger. Right now the Salafi section is larger than the Sunni section. BhaiSaab 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've cut down Salafi, deleted Islamophobia, and am fine with your reductions of Criticism. Your thoughts on Symbols of islam (which seems to exist to say "Islam has no symbols")? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that, there needs to be an Islamophobia section, shrunk, maybe, but still present. Further, the details clipped from the salafi one are the most important. I'm of the opnion that the salafi one should remain as is, but the sunni one increased (Explain some basics concerning Imam Malik, etc). --Irishpunktom\ 17:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to be there? And what bits of Salafi are important that I deleted? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements

Practices/Islamic law

Should we add Hijab to "Practices"? I think it's a notable practice these days. BhaiSaab 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian has deleted teh section, so I'm guessing that's a moot point now. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather put Jihad, Hijab and other relevant issues under Islam#Islamic law--Sa.vakilian 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The hijab I think is largely irrelevant to the article, but I would agree that jihad should go in there somewhere. But I don't think it fits udner Islamic Law.Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If we resurrect Other Practices, we can put jihad, dietary laws and Islamic calendar in it. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree with this:

     *Sharia
        1. Five Pillars of Islam
                o 2.1.1. Shahadah
                o 2.1.2. Salat
                o 2.1.3. Zakat
                o 2.1.4 Sawm
                o 2.1.5 Hajj
        2. Other practices
                o 2.2.1 Dietary laws
                * 2.2.2 Jihad

Islamic knowledge

I really do not think Islamic knowledge should continue as a section on the article. It is mainly links, breaks the flow of the text and really does not add to the article I think maybe some links added in Sharia could help, but as a section shouldn't be there. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we either delete or merge Islamic knowledge? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Islamic knowledge is too important. We can debate about the best position for it.--Sa.vakilian 19:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's evidently not very important if it's a bunch of links. Justify your inclusion first. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sharia isn't a part of Islamic knowledge. It's a part of religion beside beliefs and tariqas.--Sa.vakilian 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a mistake in The Islam article. It says "Muhammad Abraham upon..." where as it should read Muhammad came upon.... Thankyou for your time.

Current edit

I've deleted Islamic symbols, and I think the article as it stands, including Islamic knowledge (though I think it needs a better title), is now fine. Does anyone else have any other sections they wish to add? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Islamic symbols is not necessary in this article. BhaiSaab 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Salafiyyah

Would anyone be opposed to be giving Salafis once sentence under the "Sunni heading." Right now, I think Salafis are being given too much attention in this article as they are a minority. BhaiSaab 23:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also agree. Sentence should mention Salafis' importance in Saudi Arabia. Itsmejudith 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

Please add facts whenever you can , if you want make a good article.--Sa.vakilian 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Why are there no criticism sections in Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, or Zoroastrianism? There are only criticism sections on Islam and Christianity, and Islam already has a section dedicated to terrorists. At most, the other articles link to an article in "See also" with a name "Criticism of ." BhaiSaab 05:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess why? It is because the name of "Islam" in west is associated with "criticism". If there is no criticism section in say Buddhism, nobody feels there is something lacking here. But when it comes to Islam, of course there should be. In my dictionary this kind of prejudice is called Islamophobia. --Aminz 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wht is it that whenever someone is hateful towards another person, it is a phobia? Homophobia, islamophobia, zenophobia... these aren't fears, they are feelings of hatred. Fear and hate are not synonymous.

I have filed a peer review. Interestingly, Christianity is also being peer reviewed, so it will be a good opportunity to see whether one should have the section and one not, or both, or neither. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also filed an RfC. Islam, like Christianity, have hundreds, if not thousands, of books criticising them. One does simply not get that with religions like Buddhism or Shinto. Criticism of Islam is therefore far more relevant to the article than criticism of Sikhism is. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain it's not because Christianity and Islam are the world's first and second largest religions, respectively?Proabivouac 07:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is. I fail to see why this is an argument for not including it. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 08:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Islam has been ~~criticized~~ villified much more than any other religion. Just check, critics say "Islam allows slavery" , well every other religion does. Mark Leopold, senior associate member at St Antony's College at Oxford University, states that: "The easy association of slavery with Islam throughout much of the earlier literature (found especially but by no means exclusively in Christian missionary writings) is one aspect of much wider, and perhaps currently more dangerous than every Western demonization of Muslim faith and its believers." Now see . --Aminz 08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just compare Christian polemic against Islam with Muslim polemic against Christianity. Christianity is the first world religon, isn't it? Shouldn't it be reverse? --Aminz 08:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Common. Please have a look at the first pages of Carl Ernst's book (Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World). Islam has been usually viewed at with a kind of hostility and fear. --Aminz 07:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

STOP ACCUSING ME OF ISLAMOPHOBIA. I am NOT Islamophobic, many of the writers in the criticism section are not Islamophobic. For goodness sake, there are valid criticisms of Islam that can not be put down to ignorance! Not every writer who says that Islam oppresses women and promotes intolerance and Anti-semitism can have their views discounted because they're "hostile" to Islam! Have you never considered they are hostile to Islam BECAUSE they have criticised it, and not the other way round? Please stop slapping anyone ypu don't like with a Islamophobic label - it's not TRUE! Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 08:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! Who accused you of Islamophobia?????? I am just saying Islam has been under focus in west, historically. That's it. I am not talking about you or any other editor here. --Aminz 08:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, go back to the beginning. Should Islam have a criticism section? Yes. Why? Because it has been regularly criticised, just as Christianity has, over the course of several centuries. Yes, I don't care whether you persionally feel this criticism is unjust, or whether you feel Islam has been unfairly villified. The fact is that it HAS been criticised and it is our duty as an encyclopedia to document that fact. And the massive amount of criticism that exists means it should be mentioned on the article itself. just like Christianity. Please stop confusing attacks on Islam with the workings of Misplaced Pages. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with others that a criticism section should be part of this article even though there is a separate article for it. Though I think it should be brief and to the point, linking to other articles for most of the detail. Lethaniol 14:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not that against having a criticism section, but it is not without problems. Criticism of what? Of the beliefs and tenets of Islam or its religious practices, or customs of people who follow Islam, or practices of states that call themselves Islamic, or what? Bundling together these very different kinds of criticism that have been made over more than 13 centuries is not likely to lead easily to a readable or useful section. To make the process easier, Dev and any others who want such a section, could you say here what you think the best and most relevant sources would be for the section. Thanks. Itsmejudith 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the criticism section was inserted by an anon in July. I don't think there was any discussion at that time about its insertion. Considering that this article has both a section for terrorists and criticism of Islam, it is being much more negatively slanted than any other article on a major religion. BhaiSaab 16:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Points taken Saab. I have some sympathy with the view that there should be references in the article that will enlighten those who are reading about recent conflicts. For example readers may want to know whether the Taliban in Afghanistan represent a mainstream Muslim view. What is fundamentalism, or jihad? Are the laws in Saudi Arabia the same as those in Iran? I think therefore that the article would be strengthened by short paragraphs on the relationship between Islam, the State and politics. Another thing currently missing is Islamic and civilisation and culture. Islamic art, architecture, festivals ... Itsmejudith 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take this last statement quite seriously, because the previous criticism section suffered from some grave problems, especially comparatively. Christianity is the only major world religion with a criticism section, and its criticism section is focused on theological arguments and not historical manifestations or practices. In my opinion the difference between the criticism section of Islam, as it was until now at least, and this Christian criticism section speaks to some deep problems that reflect a lingering colonial academic heritage that attributes different significances to the West and to the Other. Christianity is dealt with in a mainline Protestant manner in which the religion boils down to its core theological concepts, and mostly these matters of "belief" become the subject of criticism. Yet Islam is not given this essential theological nature, but is treated through various historical manifestations, some of which are very geographically and historically specific. Archived recently, I wrote about this in the discussion hoping that someone would take it seriously. There should be a consistency in criticism sections, or else someone will always cry foul. On that matter, I think part of the problem is with the Christianity criticism section being too theological, and clearly the responsibility does not lie on us here to mimic them entirely. But we need to be conscious of Misplaced Pages as a whole, and of "religion" as an umbrella category. I would not suggest removing the section. However, I do suggest (ontop of being conscious of "religion" as a larger category) to refrain from being seduced by the contemporary fervor in criticizing Islam. Islam, like many other religions, has existed for quite some time, and the current barage of criticisms do not reflect a history of similar criticisms. Lets not be so arrogant as to assume that our current era deserves an inordinate amount of attention on the page about Islam as a historical religion. This leads me to a related point, that criticisms need to be contextualized adequately, which requires sensitivity in separating what may be prejudice, hatred, or Islamophobia from other forms of criticism. For instance, you wouldn't and shouldn't put the history of European anti-semitic folk customs in a "criticism of Judaism" section. The Islam entry deserves the same treatement.

If there is one thing I would consider most here it is putting criticisms of "Islam" to the test of what they are actually criticizing. Are they criticisms of Islam as a religious category transcending local and historical variation? Are they criticisms of major aspects or components of Islam? Are the criticisms of fringe groups, persons or activities? Are they criticisms from within Islam? From without Islam? From a specific perspective? We need to contextualize more adequately than before when all we had was a dubious presentation of criticisms as being "secular.PelleSmith 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The section that existed was created entirely from the "historical" and "modern" critical sections of Criticism of Islam: Thus it covered all of history not "current hysteria", and was drawn from an already existent wikipedia article. It seems to me that general consensus is that a section should be there, the debte is in what form it should take.

I would also like to point out that the fact that there is a section on terrorism does not mean that slam should not have a criticism section. Every article must take into account contextual circumstances - Islam must include terrorism, just as Baha'i faith includes a section on persecution by Islamic states. It is on this basis of individual consideration that I have argued for a Islam criticism section in the fist place. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this section was deleted in the first place because Bhaisaab thought it was unfair that Judaism did not have a criticism section. Well, it does. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That section is only critical of Judaism's development. BhaiSaab 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have readded he section. The answer is to evaluate its contents, not remove it and scream Islamophobia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) .

I support this whole heartedly. Keep the section there and work with it. Presenting known criticisms in appropriate contextualizations does not amount to hate or fear--I'm sure we're all agreed on that. Every religion article should have an adequate criticism section. However, we still need to keep in mind balance, and the larger picture in terms of the presentation not only of Islam but of religions on Misplaced Pages.PelleSmith 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Every religion article should have an adequate criticism section." Judging from my recent conversation with Dev920, she does not agree with your position. BhaiSaab 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be true. I do not feel there is sufficent criticism, if any, of, say, Baha'i or Sikhism, to warrant such a section. However, as I do not edit these articles, and have no intention to edit any other religion's article, my opinion on them is irrelevant. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ive just read the critisism section (and the article) and think it generally reads well. The critisism section, developed in the same scholarly vein, is an excellent defence against islamophobia (i.e. ignorance) by presenting intelligent arguments for and against which are generally absent from the media discussion of islam. Keeping a critisism section in this article presents islam as a religion that is mature enough to deal with critics - also a part of the character if islam generally not acknowledged in the media and nessesary for people who want a complete picture of the religionFyntan 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Either all articles on all religions should have a section on criticism or neither should have. We can then discuss how this section should be written.--Aminz 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Aminz, though I believe that all religions should have a criticism section, this is not a practical way to go about this discussion. You are talking about making a decision that affects 10's of pages - where should we discuss such a thing (if you know of such a place then maybe we can take discussion there)?

Generally we can only discuss one article at a time (though that can include its sub and closely related pages). We should (like the Christianity article has done) discuss the issue - make a decision, and that could be used as precedent for other religious article editors. Many thanks Lethaniol 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will add, that the current criticism section does need a lot of work. It seems to focuses heavily on Western/Judeo-Christian criticisms. We should add further information from other religions e.g. Hinduism and ] come to mind, as well as controversy/criticism from Islam itself. Cheers Lethaniol 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is appropriate to have a section on critisism. The aim is not to judge the value of these criticisms, prove one religion has more or less critics than another, show islam is or isn't 'mature' (isn't that kind of patronising anyway?). This web page is not the soul of Islam it is an encyclopedia. Its job includes describing critismims of Islam because these criticisms exist. How can people learn about relgious differences or the 'current hysteria' in the west if its elements are not described? --Just nigel 13:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss this issue in the manual of style talk page. Once we add it there, we can start working on this section. I don't say that all other religion articles should have one, just in letter there should be one. --Aminz 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If one can codify in the Manual Style that the articles on religions should have a criticism section, then i would have no objection to this section. Otherwise, it should go away. --Aminz 08:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Why not having a section on "Islam from the eyes of West"? --Aminz 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Outside views of Islam" or "Non-Muslim views of Islam"? There have been plenty of favourable non-Muslim writers who could be cited. Itsmejudith 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Even, Even in medieval times, there has been such writers though in minority. Judith, all I am asking here is to treat Islam exactly as other religions are treated in wikipedia. No better, no worst. --Aminz 09:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll give my opinion on this for what it's worth. I personally see no problem with having a criticism section in any article concerning religion (or any article dealing with beliefs/ideas for that matter). By definition, criticism does not have to be negative though in practice it usually is. Perhaps a disclaimer stating that the criticisms should be considered as opinion and maybe even break down the heading into 2 categories: "Criticism by those who follow/practice Islam" and "Criticism by those who do not follow/practice Islam" so the proper point of reference can be established and the proper weight given to each statement. If a Rabbi speaks out against Islam, I'd tend to ignore him. If the same statement came from an Imam, I'd probably take it more seriously.

I'll also point out (still my opinion) that most negative criticism of Islam will not be toward the religion itself since most opponents of Islam don't try to understand the religion. The criticisms will more than likely be toward actions performed "in the name of" Islam (whether or not the actions are supported by Islam should not be in dispute, just that it happened) and maybe this should also be mentioned within each statement. ––Mike S. 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic concept of God and tawhid articles - urgent action needed

It looks like there was discussion about merging these and consensus to merge, but no action taken. This should be sorted out quickly before the collaboration on this article finishes. Itsmejudith 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tawhid is different from concept of God. It is the concept of oneness of god and his abilities uniquness. Hence both article should exist seperately. However, many things from Tawhid should be moved to Islamic concept of God. --- ALM 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "concept of God" have that "Tawhid" does not? How are they different? Examples? --Striver 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary fork. The two should be merged. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The section should be called "concept of God." Within the section, discuss the meaning of Tawhid. HeBhagawan 23:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. Both are needed. Tawhid is a sub-article of Concept. believing in tawhid is obligatory for all Muslims, but Concepts vary not so little. --Striver 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Referencing

I have nominated Islam at the Misplaced Pages:Article Referencing Drive. It needs three votes to stay, your votes would be appreciated. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You should wait and reevaluate the article after the improvement drive. BhaiSaab 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Article never gain references during an improvement drive. I'm setting up for the next big obstacle (If it wins the reference drive, it will start after the improvement drive has ended). Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would articles never gain references during an improvement drive? BhaiSaab 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through some of the past improvement drives, and drives tend to deal with structure and weak prose, and copyedit, more than reference. This is why I am so concerned that the editors here get some sort of referencing programme going - hence my attempt at a simultaneous referencing drive on Sunday. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. BhaiSaab 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just where did dietary laws and Jihad go?

Halal and Jihad are two notable aspects of Islam. I'm sure maybe the latter got deleted as a controversial subject, but there are two forms of it afterall. Wiki-newbie 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Halal got deleted by Sa.vakilian, although I think it should be in this article. I don't remember Jihad being in this article. BhaiSaab 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise not sure about Jihad, but why are standard practices "not important to maintain" (as that edit summary said)? Should they be added? In a condensed form?PelleSmith 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should contain about 2-3 sentences on halal, and a paragraph on jihad. Jihad is a controversial topic, of course, so we should include both views (that it refers primarily to inner struggle, and the other view that it refers primarily to actual military struggle). HeBhagawan 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Struggle (Jihad) goes this way:

Struggle For the sake of God
- Internal Struggle , ie anger managment, be nice to your spouse, pray better and such
- External Struggle , ie fix your community, build a school, give charity and such
  - Military Defensive Struggle, ie defend your community from aggressors
  - Military Offensive Struggle, under the command of a Imam. All Muslim regard some prophets as Imams (Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, per Qur'an). On top of that, Shi'a regard Shi'a Imams as imams, while Sunni give their Caliph the same power. All three alternatives are not available. Ill let OBL talk for himself.

--Striver 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"...so we should include both views (that it refers primarily to inner struggle, and the other view that it refers primarily to actual military struggle)"

The latter is a minority opinion. BhaiSaab 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in English it isn't. I Googled the word "jihad", and out of the first 20 related websites, about half were about violence, about half mentioned both meanings, and none were only about non-violence. Compare how Misplaced Pages treats the opposite word "crusade", which has a similarly duplicate meaning. Several of the first 20 Google entries like this one were strictly non-violent, yet Misplaced Pages's crusade article is over 90% about the violent sense of the word. Art LaPella 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that is because "Jihad" is most often taken as "holy war" in the west? A google search doesn't tell you what scholars think about Jihad Al-Asghar and Jihad Al-Akbar. You will have to read sources about fiqh to find the various opinions on this subject from Muslim scholars.BhaiSaab 05:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jihad is extensively used in Qur'an for military compaign, spiritual Jihad is only inspired by a few hadith only, which are even thought to be doubtful by people like Ibn Taymiyya. I think article Jihad can be useful in this respect. TruthSpreader 03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But I would also strongly recommend inclusion of Sharia#Customs_and_Behavioral_laws with dietry laws (if included). TruthSpreader 03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

done! TruthSpreader 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

I'm really happy with the expansion of this article, however, I suggest you guys don't let it go past 80KB. Once an article goes past 80KB, a lot of Featured article candidate reviewers ask that the article be trimmed. Right now it is 72KB so that means we need to prioritize and decide what is critical and what is not critical to this article. BhaiSaab 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph in Muhammad section

The last paragraph in the Islam#Muhammad section seems to me to be a mess. The paragraph is begun by stating that "All Muslims believe", but this statement is quickly followed by a statement in the second sentence saying that the subject is not beleaved by a specific sect (Sunni's). I'm not sure what the actual meaning is supposed to be (although i'm going to study some in an attempt to figure it out for myself), so the best thing I can do right now is to simply call attantion to the problem. --Ohms law 08:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The disagreement is not about Muhammed's sinlessness, it is about how the idea found its way into Muslim belief. At least, that was my understanding. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I carried out a minor edit of this paragraph, because I thought the distinction between the two positions was not clear enough, I added a summary of theological reasons why each side holds it's view (theology in case of sinlessness, historical instances in case of it's opposite). Hope this is satisfactory! Alexander.Hainy 13:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghamidi mentions in Mizan (Principles of Determining the Sunnah) many hadith (which are mainly Sunni hadith collections but Shia also believe in them to some extent), which says very clearly that Muhammad never bound people to follow him in worldy matters. His obedience was only in the sphere of religion (see ). Hence, he is fallible in worldy matters but infallible authority in religion. And I think no Muslim would disagree with the latter statement. What about changing this section with more generic informaiton, as it is also mentioned under Sunnah section in the article that Mawdudi also differentiates Muhammad's action as a prophet and also as a normal human. TruthSpreader 14:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the key issue is what different theological schools believe about the Prophet, and these views should be represented (whether they are correct interpretations or not is beyond the scope of this discussion). Although I agree there is a potential for overlap between this and the section on Sunnah; how would you suggest to make it more generic?Alexander.Hainy 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think discussion on the prophet's innocence is quite philosophical and can be very complicated, and the other problem is that we are not discussing this issue with reliable secondary sources. I would suggest stating (as per the source given above and related hadith), he is considered fallible in worldly matters but infallable authority in religion. For example, Muslims are not obliged to travel on camel but they are bound in certain action e.g. customs and behavioural laws, which have already been discussed in the article. TruthSpreader 16:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is a complex subject, afterall it has fuelled hundreds of years of theological debate between scholars of all persuasions. However, I believe that the terminology of "worldly" and "religious" affairs is too ambiguous, as a similar division exists within Islamic Law between acts of worship ('Ibadat) and social acts (Mu'amelat) and using such broad terms might confuse this discussion.

In addition to this, I believe we are confusing two seperate subjects. The one to which you have referred falls under jurisprudence, which is what categories of the Prophets behaviour and actions have a "proof" value (hujjiyyat) for the derivation of Islamic codes and laws. The on to which I am referring is theological, meaning whether or not it is plausible for a Prophet in general (and Muhammad in this instance) to commit sins or make mistakes. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me like all Muslims agree that the Prophet is somehow protected from such lapses, but that they disagree as to the scope of this inerrancy.

But I am also in agreement with you that we need to use better secondary sources, and so I have collected a couple of authorative books on the issue to reference.

I think that in order to comprehensively address the issue of infallibility, that we should systematically mention both major opinions and reference them to the best of our ability. This will prevent us from overlapping with the above mentioned jurisprudential subject (indeed it will clarify this theological discussion from that), and at the same time satisfy the need to explain the various viewpoints.

With your consent I will attempt to redraft the paragraph in a more suitable fashion.

I hope that you find this agreeable. Alexander.Hainy 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, and with references to classical theologians! Hope you like it! :) Alexander.Hainy 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting passages

In the last paragraph of Islam#Qiyamah is this:

all men and women will fall unconscious. Muhammad is the first to awake and he sees Moses, who may or may not have awoken prior, holding up the Throne of Allah at the mountain of Tur. On the other hand, those who truly believe in Allah, and are pious, the Al-Ghurr-ul-Muhajjalun, due to the trace of ritual ablution performed during their lives, repent their sin and return to "jannah (the Garden) beneath which rivers flow,". The world is destroyed. The dead will rise from their graves and gather, waiting to be judged for their actions (Qur'an).

A direct transcription/translation of the Qur'an itslef? If it is, could it be made more clear that it is so? I'm wondering, isn't there a style guide somewhere on how to quote printed materiel? --Ohms law 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I copied it straight from Qiyamah. If you think it should be rewritten, go for it.Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not from qur'an. I've never heared this before. I prefer to put some first verses from Sura Haj and Waqia --Sa.vakilian 18:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ah, you caught me mid edit. I changed the formatting of the text to be block quoted. not knowing (and having been led to beleave otherwise) I added the template for Quran references. I'm clueless as to where to actually look for more appropriate material to reference, however. If you could find an appropriate reference and edit the page Sa.vakilian, I'm sure others would appreciate it. --Ohms law 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

semi-protect?

what's the procedure for getting a page semi-protected? this is getting somewhat rediculous. --Ohms law 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What is? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

anon vandalism. Looks liek one of the admins came along and did sprotect the page. Everyone should note that semi-protection only prevents anon editing. if you have a UN and are signed in, you can still edit the article without problem. --Ohms law 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"is" vs. "was"

A slightly unclear point in my mind which hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable than myself might be able to answer. In the intro the line, "According to Muslim belief, Muhammad was God's final prophet " currently reads "was".... is it more accurate to say "is" thusly, "According to Muslim belief, Muhammad is God's final prophet"? I realize this might seem a minor point but I've seen both ways of expressing this and wondered which was more predominant? Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. From a purely gramatical point of view, I would think that using the present tense "is" would be preferable to the past tense "was". The subject of the sentance is Musim belief, so unless Muhammad is no longer considered "God's final prophet" the word should be changed. My admittedly limited understanding of Islam leads me to believe that Muhammad is currently still considered "God's final prophet" to Muslims. Therefore, I have been bold and changed it. --Ohms law 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it is "was". Any ideas? --Djihed 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about Islam, but the subject of the sentence is "Muhammed". Since Muhammed is not around anymore, many people would argue for "was." "Belief" is actually the object of the preposition "to."

Custom and Behavioral laws

The customs and behaviours, which were discussed in this section, are universally accepted in all Islamic societies around the world. Even so, Sunnis and Shias even agree on these basic customs as part of the religion. I think Ummah wide practice of these customs definitely deserves place on wikipedia. All the customs were taken from a writing of ghamidi, who is a member of Council of Islamic Ideology. TruthSpreader 04:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

. TruthSpreader 07:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ah, i see what you are refering to now. That should certainly be put back, in my opinion. I find that it's removal without any prior discussion is bad anyway, so it should probably be reverted just on general principles. --Ohms law 07:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious that how can we improve its presentation, so that the "reason" why it was removed can be addressed. The information can't be changed, as it is already very concise, but maybe the presentation or words. TruthSpreader 07:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

well, the edit summary for that revision is: (→Customs and behavioral laws -Badly written and with little theological support. Removing customs section.). I believe that the "little theological support" point is very arguable, and you yourself have provided some great counter points. As for the badly written portion, I tend to disagree with that as well. As you said, it is already very concise. perhaps some of the individual points could be rewritten, but those would only be small edit's really. I'm left wondering if the editor left some other reason for removal unsaid. --Ohms law 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

done! TruthSpreader 08:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I should have addedI find it bloody irritating when people add random sections to an article I'm attempting to improve. You said that as I took it out without consulting the userpage, it should be put back, but truthspreader put it IN without mentioning it either. What to do? Basically, I oppose that section because it is bullet point format and it does not seem relevant to the description of the religion. I know truthspreader is trying to be concise, but really, bullet point sections are frowned on in good articles. Dev920 (Please peer review here.)

Well! this section is there just because "Dietary laws" are there. It is all about the impact ,what the religion has on its adherents. You've got the point that Bullets are frowned upon. Let me see, if it can be put in a paragraph format. TruthSpreader 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that it was a reacent addition to begin with. Regardless, I have rewritten the opening of that section and the festivals section. Both are referenced, and do seem to be adding to understanding of the subject in my opinion. Perhaps the materiel should simply be rewritten and even moved into other categories, rather than simply removed? I understand what you are saying Dev920, in terms of this aparently being reacently added, but I'd think that adding without discussion is much preferable to removing without discussion. At least adding information seems to be a constructive act to me. --Ohms law 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

the other relevent discussion on this subject is at Talk:Islam#Just_where_did_dietary_laws_and_Jihad_go? --Ohms law 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the bullets. I hope that it looks a little better. TruthSpreader 09:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

humm, I don't think it is, but i'll leave this up to you and Dev920. --Ohms law 09:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you've inadvertantly reverted an edit I made to a couple of the ex. bullet points. I think that the manner in which I edited them before you removed the bullets themselves was more natural. The way that the points currently read seems awkward to me. --Ohms law 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

When the section is already very concise and to the point, how can we improve it further. The last version of the section was:

Customs and behavioral laws

Practitioners of Islam are generally taught to follow some specific customs in their daily lives. Most of these customs can be traced back to Abrahamic traditions in Pre-Islamic Arabian society. Due to Muhammad's sanction or tacit approval of such practices, these customs are considered to be Sunnah (practices of Muhammad as part of the religion) by the Ummah. It includes customs like saying Bismillah (in the name of God) before eating and drinking and then using the right hand for the purpose, saying As-Salamu Alaykum (peace be upon you) when meeting someone and answering with Wa alaykumus-Salam (and peace be upon you), saying Alhamdulillah (all gratitude is for only Allah) when sneezing and responding with Yarhamukallah (God have mercy on you), and similarly saying the Adhan (prayer call) in the right ear of a newborn and the Iqama in his/her left. In the sphere of hygiene, it includes clipping the moustache, shaving the pubes, removing underarm hair, cutting nails, and circumcising the male offspring; cleaning the nostrils, the mouth, and the teeth; cleaning the body after urination and defecation, and also abstention from sexual relations during the menstrual cycle and the puerperal discharge, and ceremonial bath after the menstrual cycle, puerperal discharge, and Janabah (seminal/ovular discharge or sexual intercourse). Burial rituals include bathing a dead body, enshrouding it in coffin cloth, and burying it in a grave.

Notes

Quran
History Waḥy First revelation Asbab al-Nuzul Historicity Manuscripts Samarkand Kufic Quran Sanaa manuscript Topkapi manuscript Birmingham manuscript Codex Mashhad
Divisions Surah List Meccan Medinan Āyah Juz' Muqatta'at
Content Quranic counter-discourse Self-referential discourse of the Quran Quranic cosmology Punishment narratives in the Quran Prophets No compulsion Women Animals Legends Miracles Parables Science Eschatology God
Reading Qāriʾ Hifz Tajwid Tarteel Ahruf Qira'at
Translations List Ahmadiyya Bengali English Hebrew
Exegesis List Hermeneutics Esotericism Abrogation Biblical parallels Related persons Mentioned by name
Characteristics I'jaz Inerrancy
Related Criticism Attempted imitations Quran and Sunnah Quranism Shi’a view
Category Islam portal
v t e

Quran
History Waḥy First revelation Asbab al-Nuzul Historicity Manuscripts Samarkand Kufic Quran Sanaa manuscript Topkapi manuscript Birmingham manuscript Codex Mashhad
Divisions Surah List Meccan Medinan Āyah Juz' Muqatta'at
Content Quranic counter-discourse Self-referential discourse of the Quran Quranic cosmology Punishment narratives in the Quran Prophets No compulsion Women Animals Legends Miracles Parables Science Eschatology God
Reading Qāriʾ Hifz Tajwid Tarteel Ahruf Qira'at
Translations List Ahmadiyya Bengali English Hebrew
Exegesis List Hermeneutics Esotericism Abrogation Biblical parallels Related persons Mentioned by name
Characteristics I'jaz Inerrancy
Related Criticism Attempted imitations Quran and Sunnah Quranism Shi’a view
Category Islam portal
v t e

Sahih Bukhari 1254
Sahih Muslim 943
Ghamidi(2001), Customs and Behavioral Laws

--TruthSpreader 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is conscise, yes, but it is not prose: it is a list. The section needs to be more prosey. :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That much I will certainly agree with! --Ohms law 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

is it that bad to have a bullet-point list? I don't think any attempt to prosiefy (yet another addition to the variations from prose :-p) it would make it clearer than a bullet point list. In my opinion either leave it the way it was, or remove it all together :) --khello 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:MOS - "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted." Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good addition. Some of the points (like saying Bism'allah before eating) is just "recommended". Others are obligatory. I suggest we split the recommended ones from obligatory ones. --Aminz 04:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The list is not implying that whether it is obligatory or recommended, but all of these are coming to us through Sunnah and perpetual adherence of Ummah. :) TruthSpreader 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, but It might be better to make this also clear. --Aminz 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people may think that it is recommended, others like me, might believe that it is obligatory (as stated in hadith literature). Hence I think, we should not discuss that whether these things are obligatory or recommendary. The important point is that there existence in Islamic society is universal, which we all agree. TruthSpreader 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that according to some, these are considered obligatory. Interesting :) --Aminz 05:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone can tweak the paragraph alittle more, I think it should be ready for primetime. TruthSpreader 10:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is now divided into three sections: Customs (or maybe utterances), hygiene, and burial rituals. TruthSpreader 10:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was brilliant prose, but that's absolutely fine. Nice and prosey. :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pruned links

People had been adding proselytizing links and I removed them. If you want your site covered, make sure it's in DMOZ. Zora 23:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an as not being independant source

Can it be explicitly written on the article that Qur'an needs the interpretation from hadith literature, as it will imply that qur'an is not an independant source. For example, Sources of Islam and Maliki school of thought considers Qur'an and practice of the Ummah to be independant source and hadith to be a dependant source. TruthSpreader 08:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And also from the very nature of hadith, it has been criticize, scrutinized and collected in a period of time. But Qur'an is considered by Muslims to be accurate and practices that can be related to the prophet have very high probability of genuinness. TruthSpreader 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

. TruthSpreader 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Qiyamah

The story regarding Qiyamah is completely lacking sources. If it is taken from Qur'an or hadith, atleast a reference and a reliable secondary source should be there in the article. TruthSpreader 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point is that only widely accepted beliefs by mainstream Islamic community should only be there. Such beliefs must have support from primary sources i.e. Qur'an or hadith and also from reliable secondary sources. TruthSpreader 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found it in the Dummy's Guide to Islam... Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And also details are too many and seems to be copied from some eschatological book, whose acceptance can be questioned if not supported properly by Qur'an or Sahih hadith. TruthSpreader 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found it in the Dummy's Guide to Islam... Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 11:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would doubt that dummy's guide to Islam is a WP:RS and WP:V compatible source. Because such sources rely more on popular culture and not on its actual significance in the religion. TruthSpreader 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend removal of this part of the section, which is under discussion as it will not make much difference. TruthSpreader 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at it? It was written by a Muslim. It's perfectly acceptable as a source.[http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781592572724,00.html} Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dummy's guides are definitely not acceptable sources for anything in WP. The encyclopedia would become a laughing stock. Itsmejudith 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a valid reason not to use "Dummy's guides". The reason outlined by Truthspreader (talk · contribs)'s earlier are very valid (that the books are more pop culture than reference works). This reply seems to be more of a personal attack, and at the very least is not constructive. --Ohms law 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked about this section briefly earlier, when I was attempting to clarify what exactly was a quoted statement from the Qur'an, and what was commentary about it. There needs to be something referenced from elsewhere to support the topic, certainly. I have maintained from the beginning that a better (or at least a clearer) source should be used. --Ohms law 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Consolidation.

Over the past five days, I think more has been added to this article than was in the past five months. Which is brilliant, because it probably needed it. However, we are now approaching 80kb sizewise, and I think it's time to consolidate what we've added. Aminz has been doing a marvellous job of referencing his contributions, and, as before, I think this is something we need to continue to work on. Additionally, focusing on nice, concise, readable prose should be another goal. Reducing the size of the text without losing facts is important for an FA. I also think that, in a few days, once the article has stabilised, we should renominate for GA. I think it's beginning to deserve it now. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

removal of sourced text

The text which I included in resurrection section is completely sourced by peer reviewed sources. Secondly, the information is true regarding Islamic beliefs whether someone believes that sin will earn hell or not. It is Vandalism to remove sourced text. TruthSpreader 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:And since when including Islamic beliefs in Islam article constitutes WP:NPOV problem? TruthSpreader 06:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anybody care to discuss changes here before implementing in the article

User:Opiner, please use Misplaced Pages:Sandbox if you want to practice. Read Talk:Islam_and_slavery#GA_review before removing the quotes template for Quranic verses. Secondly, removing sourced text from peer reviewed sources is vandalism. This is Islam article, you have to respect WP:RS and WP:V sources and presenting some opinion on any religion within that religion article is not violation of WP:NPOV but censoring of information. Is there someone to explain this basic fact to User:Opiner TruthSpreader 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We have been discussing this matter for a while now in Talk:Islam#Qiyamah and someone just comes from nowhere and starts removing properly referenced material. I think someone needs to address this issue on this article. TruthSpreader 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GLorious awe-inspiring Qur'an say GIANT QUOTE blah blah blah GIANT QUOTE then saying GIANT QUOTE blee blee blee GIANT GUOTE. GIANT QUOTE infidel Muslim GIANT QUOTE GIANT QUOTE Allah prophet bleh bleh bleh GIANT QUOTE. PLEASE stop using Misplaced Pages as vehicle for preaching of religion and start discussing things in the sober academic way.

Starting with using NO giant quotes. Would that be okay for you?Opiner 08:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Those quotes are not giant and there is no reason not to do that. You can NOT revert since you don't like it. --Aminz 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Theyre bigger even then the words inside them! Why too the GIANT INDENTS? WHy the BLUE? You are SHOUTING the Qur'an verses from the rooftop like the muezzin.Opiner 08:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The quotes say something and it is sometimes good to include them. --Aminz 08:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah SOMETIMES its good. Thats it its about sometimes. When is it needed for the article and when is the article just the excuse to preach the Qur'an because we like the Qur'an and think people should hear it? Ask that.

Its never good to have the giant blue quotes. Theyre always ugly and shouldnt be existing on wikipedia.Opiner 08:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

do you mean the cquote template? --Aminz 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The {{cquote}} template is a commonly accepted quotation template on wikipedia. it was not created specifically for this page. If you actually read that section there is no "preaching" occuring, and I find it difficult to believe that an article about Islam could be written without mentioning and especially referencing the Qur'an. The entire article has been at least as NPOV as any other religious article in wikipedia, pretty much from the beginning from what I can tell. Furthermore, as has been mentioned there is already a discussion ongoing abot the Talk:Islam#Qiyamah section. Could you please look to see if something is being discussed before simply removing materiel? --Ohms law 08:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The template page ITSELF is saying 'For long quotations in the text, the Manual of Style recommends using the HTML blockquote element.' Only for the 'pull quotes' and regular articles arent full of pull quotes. SO abuse of the template.Opiner 09:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some examples there in the template. I can see something in the words you quoted: "for long quotations..." ;) --Aminz 09:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my edit

In addition to grammatical corrections, I changed a quote attributed to Yvonne Hadad and Jane Smith: "May of the details..." to "Many of the details...". I don't have the original book, but it doesn't make sense with "May". The word "consists" is also likely to be a misquote, but I left it alone.

I also corrected (I hope) a Qur'an quote, by matching it more carefully with the link already provided, to 3 translations of chapter 17 of the Qur'an. The words "think that" are in the original scripture according to the Qur'an link, so I added them to Misplaced Pages. The quote mark I added isn't duplicate - one quote mark is needed to balance a quote mark in the scripture, and the other quote mark ends the entire scripture quote. Also, the scripture quoted is from verse 49 to 52, not 51 to 54 according to the Qur'an link. Art LaPella 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All of it got reverted without explanation, and I can't tell how much of it was unintentional during a revert war between Truthspreader and Opiner. Even the word "will" is now misspelled. I'll let someone else take a turn correcting or at least answering the above. Art LaPella 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you edits and your edits were helpful. I've put back your edits. Cheers! TruthSpreader 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The current version has unbalanced quote marks: “Many of the details of the Fire, as of the Garden, are reminiscent of the New Testament; others reflects on occasions the tone of early Arabic poetry. On the whole, however, "The picture afforded by the Qur'an is uniquely its own, articulated in a generally consistent and always awe-inspiring fashion." The quoted portions should be enclosed in an even number of quote marks, and the capital letters and periods adjusted to match where the sentences should start and end. Art LaPella 16:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Also I would correct "reflects" to "reflect" if it weren't an inaccessible quote. Art LaPella 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is Islam article, definitely Islam POV will be here plus a few tweaks

That is the quote from Truthspreader edit summary. Its unacceptable attitude to neutral encylopedia. The giant quotes are symptom of the problem. Goal is to use the pages to 'spread truth' of Islam. Thats why every sentence saying what WILL happen on judgmenet day. What Allah DOES want and WILL do. Why any neutral language will be invisible behind the GIANT QUOTES from the Qur'an.

Not neutral at all! Instead 'definitely Islam POV'.Opiner 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mate! instead of removing a scholarly opinion, why don't you present another opinion from a WP:RS and WP:V compatible source, so as to neutralize it i.e. XYZ says that the descrition presented in Qur'an for judgement is not impressive at all etc. Censoring information is not the way. TruthSpreader 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you should specify sentences which you think are not neutral and find reliable sources having different views and add it. --Aminz 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

SORRY but the quote that Qur'an is 'awe-inspiring' is NOT 'information.'Opiner 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's part of the information. ;) --Aminz 08:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is a quote but pray tell what it is supposed to mean:

"On the whole, however, the picture afforded by the Qur'an is uniquely its own, articulated in a generally consisted and always awe-inspiring fashion."

Unless I assume that "consisted" should read "consistent" it is nonsense. If my assumption is correct, please correct that error (BTW, I find remarkable and annoying that constantly one has to clean up language behind certain editors.) However, even then I still have a hard time deriving meaning from the bit about "awe-inspiring". Str1977 09:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made some helpful (mainly punctuation) edits which remove the POVness but don't change the meaning.Abtract

"awe-inspiring" is not helpful, quote or no quote. Why (why?!) is it not enough to say "these people believe the Quran is the word of God". If you believe that, of course it will be "awe-inspiring", I cannot quite imagine people saying "bugger, another message from the Old Man, why can't he shut up for a change, or at least keep it brief". Regarding quality of prose, I think it is justified to revert ungrammatical or garbled additions. If you want to contribute to an article, you should at the very least be able to form a coherent sentence in encyclopedic style without relying on other people to clean up after you and salvage what bits of value may have been buried in your edit. This is at least my view in theory. In practice I find it is mostly less bother to clean up after people after all. dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

were you referring to me there?Abtract 15:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

not at all. dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, there are two editors who are really confused :) Me, and Truthspreader . Would you please explain. The quote in question is describing the differences between hereafter as it is described in Qur'an and the NT. So, it is informative. I don't really get it. Would you please explain. --Aminz 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Moon

An entire article on Islam, and not one mention of Hubal or the Crescent Moon in its history?

Hubal? have you been exposed to any Chick tracts lately? That said, why isn't Islamic symbols linked anymore? dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It was taking up too much space, and a section entitled "Islamic symbols" that then went on to say "Islam has no symbols, they're left over from the Ottoman empire" seemed rather pointless... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolved

Has the dispute over Qiyamah now been resolved? I cannot tell from the messages and they seem to have been split into several sections. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The section looks good. --Aminz 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

O, Dev. The last paragraph which you removed. I think it is explaining the punishments in hereafter which is part of Muslim belief. I think it is relevant. What do you think? --Aminz 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in an section on Resurrection. In Sin, yes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is about how sin(and what sin) is punished in hereafter. The last sentence I think is also relevant. --Aminz 22:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But I agree that it might be better to shortened further. --Aminz 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is what is starting to concern me. We need to strip this article down to nice concise essentials. I think all that needs to be mentioned is that people judged sinners by Allah are thrown to hellfire, and this should be sufficent. Anyone wanting more should visit the relevant article. Do you agree? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dev, I am not the only editor here :) I suggest saying: people judged sinners by Allah are thrown to hellfire; briefly mentioning the different types of punishment; and the important sins. 3 short sentences. --Aminz 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're short... :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is very important to know that what kind of sins are punishable in Islam, as it also shows the psychology of the religion to some extent. If others agree, I can put the paragraph back at the same place, because I couldn't find any place else better than this to put it. :) TruthSpreader 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider putting it in a new subsection at 1.4 Abtract 01:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, try to rewrite it so that its focus would be on Ma'ad. i.e. starting with Ma'ad. The same information can be presented in different forms. --Aminz 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

Resurrection is followed by judgement of all souls. According to the Qur'an, sins that can consign someone to hell include lying, dishonesty, corruption, ignoring God or God's revelations, denying the resurrection, refusing to feed the poor, indulgence in opulence and ostentation, the economic exploitation of others, and social oppression. The punishment is not restricted to fire of hell, but also includes abasement(), denial of water() and of light ().

TruthSpreader 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Maybe details of punishment can be removed i.e the last sentence. TruthSpreader 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?--Sefringle 03:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to put it back, if everyone agrees. Just trying to make the article slim. TruthSpreader 04:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy. Resurrection without any mention of judgment is incomplete. But I have an objection to what you've written. One of the most important punishments is that God doesn't talk with them. (In sura 3, it should be I believe). Separation from God; displeasure of God; ... It is not just fire, ... So, for now, I think it is better to remove it till I find another source which specifically talks about punishments. --Aminz 07:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the most valuable reward is "pleasure of God". It is not only Garden...--Aminz 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

it will be good to mention these as well but the source which i mentioned talks about only physical rewards and punishments, as only physical things can be described in "awe-inspiring" fashion but not others ;) TruthSpreader 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see that the Qur'an stresses on physical punishments, but spritual rewards-punishments are more important. Pleasure of God, Displeasure of God... Thanks for your great work and Cheers, --Aminz 07:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know much about religions besides greek mythology and I dont think it matters too much, but isnt the symbol for islam the crescent moon? If so, why is it not the picture at the top of the infobox where the symbol of the religion should go one that looks like the hagia sophia mosque in constantinople? Judaism and christianity both follow that template. Im probably asking a stupid question not worth your time, but this comes from my perspective as an outsider unfamiliar with the religion. -Clown57

Jihad section?

A central element in the Koran and Islam as a whole is Jihad. It should have its own section. As the article is right now, it barely seems mentioned. (unsigned comments by User:PeaceThroughStrength)

I think indeed Jihad is very important and this article should have section on it. --- ALM 19:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Size

The article is now 76kb in size. Given that Sikhism is 48kb and Bahai Faith 56kb, we have too much information in this article. I'm going to start removing less important bits of information. I would like to remind everyone that it's not about what is relevant to Islam, as recent discussion on Qiyamah and Islamic knowledge has assumed, but what is important. We need to explain the essence of Islam, and give links for the reader to find out more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro

"This means acknowledging the moral injuctions that were revealed to humanity in the Torah, the Gospels and the Qur'an as true and intended by God to further human well-being. This submission is identical to the concept of 'thy will be done' advocated by Jesus in the Lord's prayer. Jesus (held in great reverence by Muslims) and all the Hebrew prophets are regarded as humans who both practised and advocated Islam."

Are you kidding me? I recognize Aminz's editing when I see it. Here are some problems with this paragraph:

"This means acknowledging the moral injuctions that were revealed to humanity in the Torah, the Gospels and the Qur'an as true and intended by God to further human well-being."

This literally means that the word Islam implies the acknowledgement of "the moral injunctions" in the Torah and the Gospels. This completely obscures the fact that Muslims believe (though the Quran is inconsistent about this) that the Torah and the Gospels are corrupted versions of the "real" Torah and Gospels, which came from God, and in doing so presents a view of Islam that is more compatible with Judaism and Christianity than Islam actually is, a typical Muslim propaganda technique.

"This submission is identical to the concept of 'thy will be done' advocated by Jesus in the Lord's prayer."

This presupposes many things about Jesus including that he existed (though I have no problem if the article assumes that he did, as almost all historians believe this) and that he actually spoke the Lord's prayer. Furthermore, it completely glosses the differences between the Christian concept of God's will and the Muslim concept, not to mention the fact that this formulation states as a fact that Jesus was referring to the Muslim idea about God's will. And again, this sentence portrays Islam as being somehow closer to Christianity than it actually is.

"Jesus (held in great reverence by Muslims) and all the Hebrew prophets are regarded as humans who both practised and advocated Islam."

This bit of information does not warrant inclusion in the introduction, and I do not believe that most Muslims even know about many of the Hebrew prophets, as Muhammad certainly didn't refer to them all in the Quran. In my opinion the inclusion of this sentence in such a prominent place in the article is Muslim propaganda, used in much the same way Muhammad used it.

I'm busy combating Aminz's POV pushing in other articles, but I hope that the people in this article striving for NPOV will take my statements into account and work on the introduction. Arrow740 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

accusations of "POV-pushing" are incivil. please cease this disruptive behaviour. instead of objecting on the basis that the text contrasts with your own perception, why not bring some scholarly, reliable sources which establish the exact points you are asserting? verifiability, not truth. ITAQALLAH 13:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not defend this paragraph because you support this edit in principle. A blatently POV paragraph has been added that I intended to remove myself once I had found a more suitable praragraph to replace it with. Additionally, I would like to point out that, per WP:LEAD, a lead section should sum up the information below and not add anything new: the paragraph that has been added obviously does not do that. Arrow has made the point that the paragraph inserted is POV; you cannot call on him to disprove a negative. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a Muslim apology. In that spirit, lets get on with improving the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just looked through the history and discovered Aminz did not add that paragraph, Langdell did. I apologise thoroughly to Aminz. My other points still stand - I have edited the above paragraph to reflect that.

it is certainly not merely an issue about POV weightage. the comments above attempt to explain why the passage is factually incorrect. this is not best done by merely countering it with one's own subjective POV, when we are trying to document islamic beliefs regardless of their being perceived correct or false by editor X. i see nothing factually wrong with the passage bar some slight tweaking. there is no negative proof being requested, as all these points are very simple ones derived from the islamic six articles of belief (has been given virtually no mention in this article: perhaps we could include the other articles in the 'Beliefs' section?). even so, i don't believe this paragraph as it stands merits inclusion in the introduction. ITAQALLAH 16:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. But if we're both agreed the paragraph needs rewriting, lets not argue about it and just drop the subject. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

do you agree that we should also incorporate other fundamental islamic beliefs such as Qadr and the others listed into the beliefs section (i'm not sure what you're saying you disagree with)? ITAQALLAH 16:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten lead

Rewrote lead, taking out the paragraph that was objected to. Not that I had any knee-jerk objection to that paragraph, but it didn't work in the lead. What do people think about the text below for a lead? The only other point that it seems to me should probably be included in the lead would be the Sunni-shi'a distinction.

Islam (Arabic: al-'isl\u0101m<\/i>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"Ar-al islam.ogg"},"classes":}">الإسلام; al-'islām) is a monotheistic religion based upon the Qur'an, its principal scripture. It is the second-largest religion in the world today, with an estimated 1.4 billion adherents, known as Muslims.

Muslims believe that God (Arabic: ]) revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad and that Muhammad is God's final prophet (see: Prophets of Islam). Most Muslims see the actions and teachings of Muhammad, as related in the Sunnah and Hadith, to be indispensable tools for interpreting the Qur'an. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

Today, Muslims may be found throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. About 20 percent of Muslims originate from Arab countries. Islam is the second largest religion in many European countries, such as France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, and the United Kingdom.

Itsmejudith 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That is very short for an article that is 68kb long - could you try and add a bit more? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right but I would rather that other contributors suggest which (completely uncontroversial) points should go in the lead and then I will re-edit for the quality of the prose. There is space to put more in - I suggested the Sunni-Shi'a distinction - is there consensus for that, and would someone like to draft it? Itsmejudith 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very good lead; concise and to the point, without anything controversial! I'm not too sure the Sunni Shi'a distinction fits in the introduction, but if it's a brief one sentence or so I see no problem. Good job everyone :-) --khello 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think we need Sunni-Shi'a stuff in the introduction either. BhaiSaab 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead was still highly controversial, as the phrasing implied that Islam views the relationship between the Quran and the Torah and Gospels the way Christianity views the relationship between the New and Old Testaments, and this is false. Islam believes that the Torah and Gospels are very corrupted versions of the "real" Torah and Gospels, so the sentence was highly, highly misleading. They have to say that, by the way, because the Quran contains substantially altered versions of stories in the Torah, and denies that Jesus was crucified, for example. Arrow740 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you should tag it with and await citations.Abtract 01:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the introduction. There's no need to have a highly misleading sentence there. Arrow740 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who add that but the majority of early scholars believed that the Bible is mainly misinterpreted. It was later that the textual distortion became a main view. --Aminz 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the best course of action would be simply to have the version that Itsmejudith suggested above. That whole statement about the Quran and the Bible etc... doesn't belong in the introduction methinks- it's definitely for the body where a more detailed discussion can be given. --khello 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree . Abtract 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Arrow740 09:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote here and I will re-iterate, Qur'an is an independant source. By saying that Qur'anic interpretation depends on Sunnah and hadith is wrong. If you see by Ghamidi, Qur'an is an independant source and so is Sunnah. If not, indirectly, it also implies that Qur'an is not clear in its meanings. Sunnah is actually comprised of those things which are not told in the Qur'an. For example, circumcision is Sunnah but not told in Qur'an etc. Hadith definitely plays a very important role, but different groups i.e. Shia and Sunnis have different collections. For example, stoning to death is not mentioned in Qur'an and on this basis it is rejected by some Modern scholars, but others consider it part of the Sunnah. Hence Sunnah is also an independant source, and depends that whether you collect Sunnah by which way i.e. scholar's emphasis is altogether on hadith as Shafi or on the practice of people as Maliki(see Sunnah section in the article). Hence, I think instead of "Most Muslims see the actions and teachings of Muhammad, as related in the Sunnah and Hadith, to be indispensable tools for interpreting the Qur'an", it should be written, "Qur'an and Sunnah are considered to be the basic sources of Islam by majority of the Muslims". TruthSpreader 09:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While I can't attest for the over all accuracy of the sentence you want to change, I don't think it implies what you are claiming. It doesn't say that "Qur'anic interpretation depends on" anything. Please discuss the view that Sunnah and Hadith may be tools for interpretation. Do most Muslims believe this? That is the crux of the matter.PelleSmith 12:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Now Islam's teaching even though comes from its principle scripture, Qur'an but still comes from prophet Muhammad. Hence, I don't find a need to tell that on which thing Qur'ans interpretation depends. For example Islahi emphasizes too much on Pre-Islamic Arabian language and less on hadithtic literature in his tafsir, Tadabbur-i-Qur'an. Others might not do that!!! Hence, I felt that we need to put a more NPOV sentence that would be acceptable to all of us, as discussing on which things interpretation of Quran depends can also be discussed in Tafsir section of the article, for example. <;;b>TruthSpreader 13:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I've already written about the independant nature of Qur'an and Sunnah. Hadith is only there to find Sunnah, but itself, it can be criticized, scrutinized or rejected. Hence, I feel that principle of sources of Islam should be there, and not how to interpret the Qur'an.

I also have a problem with the first sentence. Islam doesn't solely depend on Qur'an. This is wrong again. Islam depends on the teaching of Muhammad. And from Muhammad, we receive Qur'an (claimed book of revelation) and Sunnah (deeds of the prophet as part of the religion). Hadith is a tool to find Sunnah. I think we need some changes in Lead section. TruthSpreader 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone please just get that stuff about the Bible out of there. Abtract had a little edit war with me for a while, so I can't do it without my wikienemies pouncing and giving me a 3RR block. Arrow740 10:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion for Lead paragraph

Islam (Arabic: al-'isl\u0101m<\/i>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"Ar-al islam.ogg"},"classes":}">الإسلام; al-'islām) is a monotheistic religion based upon the teachings of Muhammad. It is the second-largest religion in the world today, with an estimated 1.4 billion adherents, known as Muslims.

Muslims believe that God (Arabic: ]) revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad and that Muhammad is God's final prophet (see: Prophets of Islam). Muslims consider Qur'an and Sunnah, practices of Muhammad as part of the religion, as basic sources of Islam. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

TruthSpreader 14:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthspreader. However, I am not entirely sure that the sentence you have added works well in English. Are the Qur'an and Sunna "practices of Muhammad"? I would have thought that the Qur'an is not a practice but a revelation (at least this article seems to say that). And as I understand it the Sunna is a body of tradition and reported statement. It's important to get this bit absolutely right, so perhaps we should look at some more authors. In this case didn't find Ghamidi's wording very clear for non-Muslim readers. (Although I appreciate that he is a serious scholar and a useful source for the encyclopedia.) I will look up what Albert Hourani says when I have a chance. Esposito may have some good wording too. How about Bernard Lewis, Aminz? Itsmejudith 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that there is a problem with wording. Actually, it is just Sunnah which is the practice of Muhammad as part of the religion and not Qur'an as it is the revelation. If it is . confusing (as I now myself think), we can remove the definition of Sunnah. John Esposito also writes that Quran and Sunnah are two basic sources:. :) TruthSpreader 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful if you, Truthspreader, made some more comments on the section in the article on Sunnah, getting it to reflect all the best sources and the different views within Islam. Then it will be easier to summarise it in the lead. The relationship between the Sunnah and hadith seems to be complicated and even controversial. Itsmejudith 16:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting enough, the whole Sunnah section in the article is written by me. The determination of Sunnah is a controversial issue, as written in the last sentence of the section. But the point is that Sunnah essentially is part of the religion, unlike Hadith, which are narrations and which can be criticized and scrutinized, and there is a complete knowledge to do that. For example, Ghamidi believes that only those traditions which came to us through perpetual adherence of Ummah are Sunnah, while Sunnis can even consider Ahaad as Sunnah and Shias even consider deeds of Imams as Sunnah, but there are some core Sunnahs which are common among all Muslims. For example, under "Custom and Behavioural laws" section in the article, all of those things are Sunnah and are accepted by all Muslims. I think a more generic defintion of Sunnah would be, as Ghamidi writes, traditions which Muhammad instituted among his followers as religion. TruthSpreader 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And sometimes, people use the word Sunnah to refer to a certain action of the prophet. TruthSpreader 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How about saying something like:

"Muslims believe that God (Arabic: Allāh) revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad and that Muhammad is God's final prophet (see: Prophets of Islam). Most Muslims see the actions and teachings of Muhammad, as related in the Sunnah and Hadith, to be indispensable in complimenting their of the Qur'an. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

It goes around the fact you mentioned earlier about the Sunnah and hadith not used to interpret the Qur'an per se, while still highlighting the importance of them for most muslims. I admit maybe the sentence may get more long winded, but what does everyone think? --khello 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Above version is not very different to the previous one, as Islam is not totally dependant on Qur'an but Sunnah is also an independant source. How about this one:

Muslims believe that God (Arabic: ]) revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad and that Muhammad is God's final prophet (see: Prophets of Islam). Muslims consider the Qur'an and traditions of Muhammad in Sunnah to be basic sources of Islam. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

TruthSpreader 01:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, I can put the changes in the Lead paragraph. TruthSpreader 10:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have looked up "sunna" in Albert Hourani's "A History of the Arab Peoples", which is a good scholarly source. (A historical source, not a theological one, it should be noted.) Hourani explains the meaning of sunna historically in the context of the growth of the caliphate.

"More systematically that the Umayyads, the 'Abbasids tried to justify their rule in Islamic terms. From the beginning they used religious symbols. The caliph claimed to rule by divine authority as a meber of the Prophet's family. He claimed also to be governing in accordance with the Qur'an and the rules of right conduct, which were increasingly defined in terms of the Prophet's habitual behaviour (sunna)."

So Hourani can be cited in support of the view that the sunna (or sunnah) is the habitual behaviour of the Prophet. Note that he doesn't mention hadith at this stage.

Hourani then goes on to explain - again as history rather than theology - why the Shi'a tradition is somewhat different. "... Ma'mun gave his support to the ideas of certain rationalist theologians and tried to make their accpetance a condition of official service. This attempt met with opposition from those theologians, led by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who held that the Qur'an and the habitual behaviour of the Prophet, literally interpreted, offered sufficient guidance. After a period of persecution, the attempt to impose a single interpretation fo the faith by the power of the ruler was ended, almost never to be resumed. The belief in a unity which includes differences of legal opinion, and the importance of the Qur'an and the practice (sunna) of the Prophet as the bases of it, gradually created a mode of thought which came to be known generally as Sunnism, as distinct from Shi'ism."

I've copied these quotations in case they are of any use, either in the lead or for the section on sunnah, which is still unreferenced. Hourani is a good source, but he is not the only one. As WP policies point out, historians interpretations may differ. There may be more up to date scholarship (Hourani's book is 1991) and works that are concerned with theology rather than history. Itsmejudith 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a Muslim, I know that people use word "Sunnah" extensively for habitual behaviour of the prophet. The problem with traditional Sunnis is that since from Shafi'i, they consider all "Sahih hadith" in Bukhari and Muslim et al. to be accurate and considering everything as Sunnah. But I think, instead of going into detail that how Sunnah can found (a very contentious subject amongst Muslims, although there are some core Sunnahs which are common amongst all of them), the generic definition should be there in Lead paragraph. However, you can add the details in Sunnah section, which you mentioned above. Cheers! TruthSpreader 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fastest growing?

Can you please add that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world according to http://www.adherents.com. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.156.102 (talk • contribs)

I would love to, but it is disputed in Fastest growing religion. TruthSpreader 04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added that it is one of the fastest growing, as that seems indisputable. And adherents.com seems to be a reputable website. Itsmejudith 14:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find your addition in the article! TruthSpreader 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I messed up, an edit conflict I think. I'll try again. Itsmejudith 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Women's status under Islam

Women are not equal under Islam, and saying: "Many Muslims counter the claim that only "liberalization" of the Islamic Sharia law can lead to distinguishing between tradition and true Islam by saying that meaningful "fundamentalism", by definition, will eject non-Islamic cultural inventions — for instance, acknowledging and implementing Muhammad's insistence that women have God-given rights that no human being may legally infringe upon." gives the reader the false impression that women have equal rights to men under Islam. This implication is explicitly not true, though I also agree with the point that many majority-Muslim countries give women less rights to women than they actually have under the Quran, and that Muhammad brought women more rights than they had before him in arabic societies. I inserted "limited" to correct the false implication that women have equal rights under Islamic law. I will reinsert that unless this is clarified or the false implication is removed in some other way. Women are explicitly inferior to men according to the Quran, and here are some citiations from Rodwell's translation of the Quran on www.gutenberg.org: "The divorced shall wait the result, until they have had their courses thrice, nor ought they to conceal what God hath created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the last day; and it will be more just in their husbands to bring them back when in this state, if they desire what is right. And it is for the women to act as they (the husbands) act by them, in all fairness; but the men are a step above them. God is Mighty, Wise." -Sura 2 (The Cow1) : 90

Sura 2 again, 91: "Mothers, when divorced, shall give suck to their children two full years, if the father desire that the suckling be completed; and such maintenance and clothing as is fair for them, shall devolve on the father. No person shall be charged beyond his means. A mother shall not be pressed unfairly for her child, nor a father for his child: And the same with the father's heir. But if they choose to wean the child by consent and by bargain, it shall be no fault in them. And if ye choose to have a nurse for your children, it shall be no fault in you, in case ye pay what ye promised her according to that which is fair. Fear God, and know that God seeth what ye do." Under Islam, men have custody of the children after they are 2 years old in a divorce.

Surah 4 Women: 3: Women are unequal in inheritance; they get half that of men "With regard to your children, God commandeth you to give the male the portion of two females; and if they be females more than two, then they shall have two-thirds of that which their father hath left: but if she be an only daughter, she shall have the half; and the father and mother of the deceased shall each of them have a sixth part of what he hath left, if he have a child; but if he have no child, and his parents be his heirs, then his mother shall have the third: and if he have brethren, his mother shall have the sixth, after paying the bequests he shall have bequeathed, and his debts. As to your fathers, or your children, ye know not which of them is the most advantageous to you. This is the law of God. Verily, God is Knowing, Wise!

Half of what your wives leave shall be your's, if they have no issue; but if they have issue, then a fourth of what they leave shall be your's, after paying the bequests they shall bequeath, and debts.

And your wives shall have a fourth part of what ye leave, if ye have no issue; but if ye have issue, then they shall have an eighth part of what ye leave, after paying the bequests ye shall bequeath, and debts."

4: Women are to be executed or permanently imprisoned for "whoredom" but men may be forgiven "If any of your women be guilty of whoredom, then bring four witnesses against them from among yourselves; and if they bear witness to the fact, shut them up within their houses till death release them, or God make some way for them.

And if two men among you commit the same crime, then punish them both; but if they turn and amend, then let them be: for God is He who turneth, Merciful!"

5: Captured married women who are enslaved may be raped "Forbidden to you also are married women, except those who are in your hands as slaves: This is the law of God for you. "

9: Again, Men are superior, women should be obedient "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourage them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!"

This is probably worth adding as part of the article, though probably not with all these citations just because of size.PeaceThroughStrength 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Add whatever you want to Women in Islam. Then come back here and sum up what you want to put in. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this from a narrow view, at the time it was the most rights that women had and the first insitution to do so. Not only that, there are many arguments that go against and prove the rights of women. You should do a little more research from CREDIABLE sources.

-I have heard, much like Christianity in its beginnings, that Islam was progressive in allowing women rights, but much like strict readings of the Bible women then become bound to literal readings. I think there should be a discussion about where women are allowed not in homes but in the mosques. There is a central division there that we can still see. In many cases, women enter in the back, are not allowed to participate in the religion as publicly. That is an interesting and relevant note that should be addressed.68.74.178.76 18:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)S

Fastest growing again

I've been staying away from this article, being completely burned out after years of trying to maintain a neutral stance and academic credibility on a battlefield topic but ... I couldn't let the "fastest growing" claim stand in the first para.

Sure, Muslims make that claim frequently, but I'm not sure it's meaningful. It can't be interpreted as rate of growth; many of the Christian mega-churches that have mushroomed in American suburbs and exurbs can boast much higher rates. Or for that matter, an storefront church that goes from two members to ten in the space of a year -- 500% growth! So I think that the claim must be that it is adding more adherents every year than any other religion. So far as I can tell, this claim is based on world population statistics. But ... many Third-World Muslim-majority countries have high rates of population growth. All those children are being counted as "Muslims" simply by virtue of being born in a predominantly Muslim country. So, this is something of which Muslims are to be proud? Proof of the validity of Islam? I don't think so. It's a triumphalist claim, one that many religions make. (I did fieldwork in anthropology of religion: I've heard the "fastest growing" claim from Mormons, Bahais, Assembly of God, yadda yadda.) Best to keep such boasts out of the lead para and discuss matters in sober fashion in the demographics section.

We've been removing this claim from the first para for years. It's WP crab-grass as far as I'm concerned. Zora 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The rate of growth issue is highly problematic, and it seems from edits on religion that some people are quite concerned with claiming their religion to have the fastest rate of growth. I never really understood what the big deal is. However, since it was brought up here, I wanted to note a couple of things. None of the statstics referenced on religion for instance, claim that Islam gains more adherents every year. Christianity seems to be clearly in the lead there, but Christianity also has a far higher base population. On the contrary, of the large world religions, Islam does seem to have the "fastest RATE of growth". If one goes to population growth one can easily understand what a true growth rate is in terms of population. It is a percentage growth, and the means of growth really don't matter. Conversion vs. births for instance ... have no bearing on the growth rate. This isn't a value judgment on what counts as growth but a pure demographic figure. Are children born to Muslim parents in these afore mentioned countries not Muslims? Is it because they are not adults? I've seen this argument before and frankly its a bit disturbing. But I whole heartedly endorse leaving these population growth claims out of the opening paragraph and perhaps out of the entry all together. I just want to clarify that it is in fact a "rate" of growth that the claim goes back to.PelleSmith 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

GA

I have nominated for GA. I think its good enough now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there are too many tags on this article for it to succeed. --Ideogram 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To my recollection, they were all placed there for political reasons rather than to improve the article. I have removed them all except the POV tag on the criticism section, which was the result of an actual dispute. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

passes easily. GAs aren't FAs, and this article is close to FA standard. dab (ᛏ) 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Arabic Words

Shouldn't the Arabic words in this article be italicized? Azrak 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note about GA Status

The article seems very unstable, just take a look at the diff for the article around five or six days ago and the article now, and there appears to of been some edit war, but not being familiar with the article, I don't know everything about the situation. Since its just been nominated i'm not going to fail it or anything, but can anyone elaborate on this, does anyone think there will be any more substantial changes in the near future? Homestarmy 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The substantial changes came in a period of massive change - we realised we didn't need many of the sections that we had, but that some important ones were rather lacking. In addition there was an edit war over the criticism section that has been ended and probably won't resurrect given its main proponent has now left Misplaced Pages. The ongoing discussion is about what to put into the lead section, but I don't think this really fluctuates, but steadily improves. I figured five or six days without the article changing substantially was stable; does it have to be longer? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it might help anyone who comes to review the article, since they might end up wondering about stability themselves, and it helps when editors involved with the page have an explanation :/. Homestarmy 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The contradictory section

These three ideas all contradict each another:

'Muslims hold that the message of Islam is the same as the message preached by all the messengers sent by God to humanity since Adam.'

'From a Muslim point of view, Islam is the oldest of the monotheistic religions because it represents both the original and the final revelation of God'

'Islamic texts depict Judaism and Christianity as prophetic successor traditions to the teachings of Abraham.'Opiner 09:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

These do not contradict one another. From a Muslim point of view, Islam the religion was founded by Muhammad in a direct line of succession from Abraham. Previous attempts to reveal Islam were corrupted by man and resulted in Christianity and Judaism. Therefore, although Islam is the descendant of Judaism adn Christianity, it is also the oldest rleigion because it was what Allah tried to reveal originally (and, apparently, failed in doing so). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"and, apparently, failed in doing so" ? What do you mean? Please elobrate unless this is some kind of dumb joke attempt. (216.99.51.244 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

If the message always the same then its not representing 'both the original and the final revelation of God' but actually all the revelations including in between. How can there be the 'prophetic successor traditions' if theyre all the same? Sounding like there are two ideas which are contradicting. One is the message was always the same so Islam is only repeat and 'depict Judaism and Christianity' as corrupted Islam. The other is it got better and better so there are successor traditions and Islam is the next improved successor. Then the idea of the original and final revelations are Islam but the other ones arent which contradicts both the other ideas.Opiner 18:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained above. There isn't a contradiction: however, the theology involved is very complicated, so someone may wish to consider changing it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"the theology involved is very complicated." That's a gentle way of saying it. Arrow740 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Critisism and terrorism

Why is that added to the article, while none of that is included in the other religious articles? Are we going to remove it from here, or add similar sections to all other articles, including adding a Israeli terrorism section to Judaism? --Striver 16:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already had this argument with Bhaisaab, and and as he has left I can only assume that he has asked you to ressurrect it. If you want to try to add an Israeli terrorism section to Judaism, good luck with that, because nt only does Israel not sponsor terrorism, its actions have nothing to do with Judaism and you will rightly be accused of NPOV.

I have filed a peer review over this and discussed it endlessly on this talkpage, and it has been deemed by the community that Islam should have a criticism section. I will say this once more: just because other religions do not have a criticism section (and Judaism does have one, btw) does not mean that Islam shouldn't. There are valid, notable criticisms of Islam and they should be ackowledged in the article I am fed up with having to argue this point, when it has been established by consensus. Please will you quit moaning about it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that he has asked you to ressurrect it Please do not assume things like that. Secondly, we can have link to that article and remove this section from here. Let vote again and check if the concensus still there. --- ALM 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This current criticism section is quite good. I have argued against prior versions in the past quite vehemently, but this one is balanced, clear and concise. I agree that there is still a problem with religion entries as a whole, but I think the over arching issue is that other religions don't include criticism sections when they should, and/or do not include the right kinds of criticisms. Why not set a good example here and work towards having a good NPOV criticism section? Maybe other entries will learn from this one. For instance the criticism section in Judaism (if you can call it criticism and not simply "academic disagreement"), and the one in Christianity (which could be renamed "theological disagreement") should probably look to the one here and not vice versa. Clearly crticisms of religious Zionism, or Christian Fundementalism could be added to both of those pages, if the editors identifying with those faiths and editing those pages were willing to allow it. However, what I suggest here is to lead by example. The flaws of those pages should not affect the attempt to make a good article here. Just a suggestion.PelleSmith 21:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably would be nice to make things more consistant, then, together, all articles involved probably have a better shot at FA since they'll be in a similar kind of pattern. Homestarmy 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not assume things like that. I will if it's true, and your answer confirms it. You know that you're all communicating by email, Ibrahim, and I have the emails to prove it. Let vote again and check if the concensus still there. Given the ex-Muslim Guild's propensity to votestack, I would say that I've already established consensus elsewhere, and don't desire to have an avalanche of Muslim editors descend on the page to agree with you. Votes do not make a consensus. Not all religion articles have the same sections to them - Baha'i has a persecution section, Sikhism has a section on Sikh people etc. Their sections are just as relevant as the criticism section is here - it was added as a matter of encyclopaedic documentation, not to have a go at Islam, and I do wish you would stop bringing up the issue because you personally do not like it (and I further wish you would stop disparaging Jews, Judaism, and Israel as you do it). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I never communicated with Striver on this perticular issue and if you prove it then I promise to quit wikipedia for good. You have capability of not assuming good faith which is really not a good thing. Furthermore, thanks for your insult saying that I disparaging Jews, Judaism, and Israel "in general". I totally deserved that. However, I will continue to criticize a Jew I feel bad and love another I found good. --- ALM 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, please. Let's immediately stop this chain of accusations and counter-accusations. It is perfectly possible to have an NPOV section on criticisms so let's get on with writing it. Itsmejudith 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never said you are communicating with Striver about this issue, I said Bhaisaab has evidently been communicating with Striver because it is Striver is using the very same arguments that Bhaisaab used, and he has never previously expressed any kind of problem with the criticism section before. You only assume good faith when you have no evidence to suspect otherwise - and I have seen the comments on your talkpages to "check your email". If you wish to criticise a Jew, go ahead - I hate Sigmund Freud - but do criticise because they are a Jew, which, by conflating Judaism and Israel, which you obviously detest, you are doing. There's a difference there, and I don't think you've quite realised it. Going back to the criticism section, its NPOV and dispassionate, so I hope we can all get on with improving this article - it would be nice to have it featured on the front page in time for the Muslim New Year, though this is a long shot. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What you call evidence, i call coincidence. I have e-mailed with Bhaisaab, s/he invited me to a new wiki. But i have not talked to s/he about this issue. Me bringing up "the exact same thing" is in my view nothing more than a confirmation that there is a merit in my observation, specialy considering that the above editor agrees with me. I re-state my point: why is terrorism mentioned in this article? In what way is it linked to Islam?`Does Islam promote terrorism in any given qur'anic vere or hadith?

If i create a succesfull organization and start blowing up shit, and claim that i have been prompted to do so in the USA constitution (a great text, really), do we add a terrorism section to that article? Why is there no crusade and which hunting section in the christianity article? A being relevant to B does not make B relevant to A. --Striver 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a "crusade and witch hunting section" in the Christianity article, look for the "Persecution by Christians" section. Homestarmy 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinda makes my point really. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no really. That section ("Persecution by Christians") is presented as historical fact ... as something engaged in by major institutions and not as a criticism of the religion as a religion. This is why the actual criticism section on the Christianity page is quite different. Also, the history described in the Persecution by Christians pertains to activities promoted by major Christian instititions at certain historical periods, and not the activities of Christian fringe groups. There are, in other words, some important differences here. Lets be a bit more sensitive in our comparisons. In your comparison an equivalent section would be more like "Terrorism performed by Islamic fringe groups".PelleSmith 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad himself killed hundreds of Jewish men and sold their women and children into slavery, after they surrendered unconditionally. This is attested to in both Ibn Ishaq and Bukhari. Arrow740 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if that is historically accurate then it would probably fall under "Persecution by Muslims" as a broad historical cateogry (see BELOW). But that has nothing to do with the comparison between CURRENT Islamist affiliated terrorism and the historical persecution of non-Christians which is what the above comment is concerning. Again see below.PelleSmith 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pelle seems to have a good point in a way, a section here should probably be something like "Persection by Muslims" for consistancy :/. Of course, the Christian version addresses all of history, so as the Islam one would presumably do the same, there would certainly be time periods when the Muslims doing the persecuting were certainly not fringe groups. Homestarmy 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that this would be the case. But I would forewarn that if such a section is created it is done with well referenced and academically mainline historical facts so as to stave off the inevitable ideological warfare as much as possible. There are plenty of examples all over wikipedia where the issue of the conditions under Muslim rule, for instance, is hotly debated already.PelleSmith 14:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree that we stick to the historical mainline. Also note that the "Persecution by Christians" section is hardly a model as it contains nothing on the crusades, the Inquisition or the witch hunts and virtually dismisses the Church's contribution to antisemitism. Itsmejudith 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is, the Persecution by Christians section is deliberatly short and lacking in much detail because of summary style, all of the real information is in the Historical persecution by Christians article and whatnot. Is there a similar type of article in the Islamic articles on Misplaced Pages that could be used here with summary style? Homestarmy 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. I originally rewrote the section in summary style using Criticism of Islam - which is why I am baffled as to why people object to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That might be the problem, The Christianity article has both a criticism and persecution by section, the criticsm summarizes Criticism of Christianity, and the other one summarizes Historical persecution by Christians. So there needs to be a Historical persecution by Muslims or Persecution by Muslims article for this to work I think. Homestarmy 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

...Which is bad, because it seems that article has bad references :/. Homestarmy 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that "Persecution by..." or "Persecution of..." sections in articles would be more relevant in the Christian or Muslim articles rather than Christianity or Islam. --Tidaress 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, just a point of information regarding a comparative point brought up in this discussion, in case anyone cares. The "Persecution of" and "Persecution by" sections were removed from the Christianity article. They were put into the Christian entry instead. I don't know what baring that has on anyone's thoughts about this "criticism" page, but there it is.PelleSmith 04:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tidaress moved them after her discussion here and on the Christianity talk page. See her comments above for the rationale. I'm glad of the move towards consistency, but I'm not entirely sure that "persecution by Christians" is either a good section title, or that it belongs in the Christian article. This is because the persecution was not initiated by individual Christians but by State and Church authorities -the Inquisition to give the most obvious example. It would be the same with "persecution by Muslims". To come back to this article, what I think is still lacking is a sense of Islam as the foundation for a vast, centuries-old, international civilisation. It is that civilisation, and not the religion, that, among positive features too numerous to list, also had (and has) some negative features. Itsmejudith 10:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree.PelleSmith 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic funeral

I've created a stub called Islamic funeral that needs some information to be added. Hope you guys can help out there. Idleguy 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good initiative! --Striver 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Women rights

You should read from good sources rather than "Gutenburg Project", which is simply translation of Qur'an and hence a "Primary Source" and also webpages like http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html doesn't fit as reliable secondary sources. Please use WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources. Thank you! TruthSpreader 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding inherence, please read Women in Islam. TruthSpreader 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Inheritance I strongly recommend reading the primary source. Secondary sources that disagree with the primary are simply WRONG. There are many false secondary sources on the Quran; I have recommended some accurate ones above.PeaceThroughStrength 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I really liked, when you said that there are many secondary (I think we are talking about reliable) sources which are simply Wrong. Well! The point is very clear, if you will read the Qur'an yourself, you will only see what you want to see. An expert knows that there are other verses as well which gives women equal share in inheritence, although it explicitly depends on your relationship. e.g. a daughter gets half the amount as son, but parents get the same amount and also in kalalah relationship, there is no difference in gender at all. Hence, you have already seen that what kind of problems we can have if it will be allowed to use Quranic verses directly. Cheers! TruthSpreader 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We are agreed that a combination of secondary and primary sources makes sense? Stating that Women are equal under Islam neglects some critical parts of the Quran, for instance the part about men being superior (4:34). Many secondary sources gloss over or even completely ignore these sections, even though in practical application in Islamic societies, they have a major impact. I have yet to see a truly NPOV article about Islam. Most people who understand Islam either are Muslim or don't like it, though that may be true of all major religions.PeaceThroughStrength 07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely respect your point of view, but the fact is that we are only allowed to use WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources. And the sources, I put on Women in Islam's Lead section, are written by Non-Muslim scholars who suggest that Qur'an see women as equal. TruthSpreader 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And I will re-iterate, if we will read Qur'an, we will see what we want to see. Only experts know that what this verse means in its context and if there are other verses which suggest something differet. Yvonne Haddad, Professor of the History of Islam at George Town University, says very clearly that this subordination is only in family sphere, which I have already mentioned in women in Islam article. TruthSpreader 07:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The quran does not say that women are inferior to men it says that they have different roles. Women always are to be granted the right to keep the children in a divorce matter if she pleases. Does that say that they are inferior? No, so those accusations are unjust. Saudi Arabia treats women as inferior not the religion. Lets stop putting things into religion articles that dont really come from the religion itself. Read the quran.

GA review

This article has been placed on a 7 day hold. I can see a NPOV dispute in one section and substantial portions of the text not referenced with inline references. Please sort out these issues before a GA review can proceed. Beit Or 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us what sections you see a NPOV dispute on? Criticism?PelleSmith 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok that was stupid ... you mean the dispute tag on that section clearly. I just wanted to be sure there wasn't another possible problem section in terms of NPOV. Thanks.PelleSmith 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I just want to make it clear that I haven't studied the article in detail, but the issues I mentioned just stand out. Technically, I could fail the article on this basis, but I'd rather see these problems fixed. Beit Or 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

With the issue of references, we're currently the nominated article for the Article Referencing drive, and with all the work everyone has put in over the past few months, there's really only a few paragraphs without references. I think we can deal with this in a week. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Right, lets sort that out then. Does anyone feel that the text in the section is actually POV, or have we settled that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I noticed the Non-Muslim views section has been changed to a criticism section "because not all non-Muslim views are critical." The original section did seem to place much emphasis on criticism, but why not expand more favorable views so that the heading "Non-Muslim views" would be appropriate? I hope that makes sense. Tidaress 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no article "Non-Muslim views of Islam" (and I realise Striver is going to go off and create it immediately now) - there are non-muslim views scattered throughout the article anyway. Additionally, the criticism section has several views by other muslims. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that the article is long, and that there is no merit to this section at all anyway. A link will suffice. I think the entire section should be shot down. Or at least modified to non-muslim views with accouts criticising and others in favour of the religion. To achieve NPOV both views should be presented. --Djihed 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done

I've just been looking through the article for sections that haven't been referenced (I'll write them up later, I've too much work on for a detailed effort now), and it struck me how far this article has come. It is, for the most part, well-written, and in most cases well-sourced. We have really done a good job on this, and I can really see the possibility of it becoming FA this year. Well done guys. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with the dispute

Can someone please help with resolving this dispute by giving you comments Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(expression). I will appreciate it. --- ALM 12:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity and Quality of Writing

This page is not only written in a 4th grade manner- it also is an unpleasant hodgepodge of apology, attack and proselytization. In short, the whole article needs to be rewritten, and substantially decreased in size. Frequently, when discussing the beliefs of Muslims, the page treats them as simply true. In this fashion, matters of religion are treated as matters of fact. At times, the page defends the historical veracity of Islam's claims. In particular, the statement that 'Western historians' don't doubt Muhammed's sincerity is unacceptable. Any such attempt to persuade the reader of the sincerity of the Prophet are out of place here, and cannot be reconciled with an objective presentation of the facts. I don't know what should be done with this article. It may be that this is a case where the Wiki format is going to fail due to the sensitivity of the topic. A 'pedia entry should be detached and objective; this entry is a swamp of technicalities, pieties, and innuendo. Dcowper 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless there has been some drastic changes on thr article since I edited it last, I have eliminated every piece of "piety" I could find. There is nothing substantially wrong with this article besides lack of citation (I admit that Western historians thing has concerned me in the past but I have never got around to deleting it). If you continue to have issues with bits of text, rewrite it yourself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is far from the actual really. There are still all kinds of unresolved disputes about this article. Trying to hide them under the rug and going happy to nominate will do no good in the long term as the arguments will popup again. "There is nothing substantially wrong", so there are some less than substantial wrongs? --Djihed 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Customs/behavioural laws

Excuse my ignorance, folks, but I'm not clear what is meant by "ovular discharge" in this section. Perhaps the solution is to abbreviate the section so that it does not go into so much graphic detail. Itsmejudith 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

lolz! You can put the definition of Janabah in footnote, if you think is more appropriate. TruthSpreader 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll do this. Itsmejudith 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Reason behind the Rapid Spread of Islam?

Hello, I'm curious: what would be the most important reason behind the growth of Islam? Was it because the Byzantine/Persian empires were weak and this gave way for Islam to spread? Was the message popular by persuasion or did Islam "spread by the sword"? I mean no offense, but history is what history is, and no offense intended to Muslims and all other institutions that "spread by the sword." Were the early Islamic armies better than their enemies? Were they good politicians? How did they threat new provinces? Thanks. :) --69.210.130.186 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You may want to ask this at the Reference Desk. Cheers. — Seadog 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You might like to see article Itmam al-hujjah, especially its last section. TruthSpreader 13:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would he consult a couple of quotes from the Koran when looking for history? GavinZac 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading Quranic quotes is upto him. What I am really asking him is to read opinion of Karen Armstrong. TruthSpreader 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You can watch Islam: Empire of Faith by PBS which adresses this question in a detailed way.

GA nomination failed

I have waited for longer than 7 days, hoping that the issues raised above would be resolved. They weren't, so here is a detailed review of the article.

1. It is well written. Fail
(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

The prose is very mundane and monotonous, for example, one can find passages like the last paragraph of the section "Qur'an": "Muslims regard", "Muslims memorize", "Muslims believe".

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

The lead section is too short and doesn't "sum up" the article, for example, it contains not a single word on the history of Islam.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Fail

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

Most of the "Beliefs" sections is unreferenced, the same is true for the "Islamic law" and several other sections. There are several citation requests in the "Contemporary Islam" and other sections.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;

See above.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

Many websites used as sources do not appear to be verifiable or even notable. This is the case for "Encyclopedia of the Orient", "Muslims against Terrorism", doroquez.com, and others.

3. It is broad in its coverage. Fail

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

The "history" section is very thin: it contains very little material on medieval Islam and virtually nothing on Islam on the Indian subcontinent and Southeastern Asia, the areas where most Muslims live nowadays. The section on "Islam and other religions" looks odd: it contains lots of musings on the definition of tolerance (a subject completely irrelevant to this article), but very little information on how Islamic law views non-Muslims, for example, what different categories of non-Muslims exist in sharia, or how Islam interacted with non-Muslims throughout history.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fail
Not to mention a NPOV dispute in the section on criticism, some things look definitely POV, for example:

"Some modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation." OK, but what about the rest? Aren't we entitled to learn about their opinions, too?
The word "prophets" is occasionally capitalized, which is inappropriate under NPOV.
"Jihad has a wider meaning in Islamic literature. It can be striving to lead a good Muslim life, praying and fasting regularly, being an attentive spouse and parent or working hard to spread the message of Islam. Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defence of Islam, the holy war. Despite the fact that Jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occured, as exemplified by early extremists..." A quick look at the article "Djihad" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam suggests otherwise: "Jihad etymologically signifies an effort directed towards a determined objective. (...Certain writers, particularly among those of Shīite persuasion, qualify this djihād as “spiritual djihād” and as “the greater djihād”, in opposition to the djihād which is our present concern and which is called “physical djihād” or “the lesser djihād”. It is, however, very much more usual for the term djihād to denote this latter form of “effort”). In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the djihād consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defence. The notion stems from the fundamental principle of the universality of Islam: this religion, along with the temporal power which it implies, ought to embrace to whole universe, if necessary by force."

5. It is stable. Pass

No problem with that.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Fail

Images are few and far between, which is quite surprising for this topic.

To sum up, much work is still needed before the article can reach a GA status. Beit Or 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jihad, just like referred sources has a POV i.e. Jihad is not supposed to be aggressive, EoI also has a POV and it cannot be considered the final word. Both POVs can be put side by side. TruthSpreader 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've fundementally failed to udnerstand Beit Or's point, truthspereadr. *sigh* This article needs so much work... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

then why didnt you just tell him what his main point was. don't be pompous.

You can delete this as soon as you want, just an observation

I am currently doing a lot of religious studies, and I have to admit, this article is not informative at all. With the Christianity link at least I get a balanced view. This whole article looks like it was written for simply the promotion of Islam, and not the actual reality of Islam. There is little or no true history on Islam here that is of any academic significance.

Please could we have some balanced information in here. Could we also get a real time-line of Islam and its history. Pref. from an objective view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W1z4rd (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Could I asked on how this article is unbalanced? hshiwani 21:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I, too, have noticed this article is rather light on secular views or criticisms. My guess is should any of this crop up, it is instantly challenged or deleted. It is practically impossible to remain level-headed when discussing religion, especially when it's Islam. Most adherents would interpret discussion as an attack.

This is true, but there is also another side to the problem. There are other editors who will label you an appologist, or a pro-Islamic propagandist if you don't buy into their idea of criticism and what they consider "NPOV". This article does need balance, but those who have tried to provide it, like Dev920, quite often get fed up and leave. Its a shame really because Dev920 was doing really good work here.PelleSmith 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Polygamy

I put a link into the category of Islam and polygamy, which was deleted by a bot. So, I guess this is a controversial topic that should be put in here first. Islam teaches polygamy, so I think it should be linked to Category:Religious_organizations_which_tolerate_polygamy. I am not sure why or if that is controversial, so I submit it here for discussion. Fundamentaldan 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Edited to fix this from going into that category! Fundamentaldan 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As this generated no discussion over the last 5 days, I assume it should not be controversial. I added the "Religious Organizations which Tolerate Polygamy" category to the bottom. Fundamentaldan 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it should be controversial. However you should not say that Islam teaches polygamy but instead you can say it allows it. --- ALM 16:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is why I put it in that category. It is religous organizations which tolerate it, not necessarily those which actively promote it. I understand that there are different thoughts on this topic, depending on the sect or branch of Islam. Is that correct? Fundamentaldan 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How about first looking into Polygamy#Islam section! TruthSpreader 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, TS! I appreciate the link. I did not think of looking under the general polygamy section. Fundamentaldan 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

one problem: i don't think "Islam" qualifies as a religious organisation, unlike the way that the other churches/groups in the cat can be classed as religious organisations. Islam is a religion, and a religious organisation would be an organisation or a group basing its values upon (a) religion. applying the term "religious organisation" to Islam sounds a little awkward. ITAQALLAH 08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

rming Dodgy paragraph?

Why is it dodgy? could you please provide details of why you think it should be deleted, before deleting a whole paragraph contributed by fellow wikipedians? It looks very NPOV and references adequently, so it isn't one of the TODO's, it was submitted like that for nomination and the review didn't address it. There are other things to address, this will create yet more problems, keep the article as stable as possible please until resolving all disputes and issues. --Djihed 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm fed up with Muslims endlessly coming onto this article and having a go at me for removing POV. Wallow in your own badly written POV mess - I am never going to edit this article again. I'll remove my name from that disgrace of a WikiProject: do you never wonder why you haven't got a single FA or GA, and your members keep getting blocked? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave a message on Dev's talk page, hoping that she will get over her frustration and come back to the page. This is my view on the paragraph. 1) First two sentences are essential information and should stay, unless someone has a reason for them to go that I haven't thought of. 2) Question of the Prophet's sincerity. Though they are written up from an impeccable source, I find that these points read very oddly at that place in the article. The problem is the leap into the question of sincerity. In general, people who say they receive divine revelation, do so sincerely. Take Joan of Arc (who like the Prophet was also a military leader). She said she heard voices and saw visions and historians don't generally doubt that she did. How could modern historians or even contemporaries be in a position to either to prove or disprove it? So I would suggest that the sincerity question is either taken out completely or moved to a different point in the article, perhaps as a reply to criticism of Islam. Itsmejudith 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Names of Prophets

I must say that I am not Muslim, but it has been my observation that Muslims tend to keep ALL the names of their prophets and important Qur'anic figures in Arabic, or in the Latin phonetic transcription of Arabic. That is why I wonder why whenever Misplaced Pages addresses the Islamic view on a prophet/figure that is common to Islam, Judaism and/or Christianity, the Judeo-Christian name is still used althrough the article/section (with the exception of the first few lines). Is there an answer to this? Case and point:

In the Is'haq article, it says "English: Isaac", and continues using this form. Even though most English-speaking Muslims would say "Is'haq", or "Ishaq", or "Ishaqa" in West Africa.
In the Islamic section of the Ishmael article, he is still refered to mostly as Ishmael, as oppsed to "Ismail", "Ismaila", or "Soumaila" in West Africa.

Most importantly:

In the Islamic view of Jesus article, most of the article refers to Jesus as such, as opposed to what the Muslims, even in the English-speaking world, would refer to him as, namele "Isa", or "'Isa", or "Issa" in West Africa.

So my question then becomes, does Misplaced Pages take the position that in English the Judeo-Christian naming takes precedence over all else? Does that mean that Palestinian Prime-Minister should now be knwn in English as Ishmael Haniyeh, as opposed to Ismail Haniyeh? Or Arab League Secretary General, as Amr Moses, instead of Amr Musa? I am just wondering. Themalau 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but it probably has to do with this being the English Misplaced Pages version. You want visitors (who may know little or nothing at all about Islam) to be able to understand who it is being spoken about. However, when it comes to names of living people, it would be a different matter. Historically, biblical names like Joseph and Mary have been translated or transliterated into other languages, not kept in their original form. For that reason, we have a page titled Joseph and in Spanish one titled Jose. It helps people in that language and culture understand who it is we are talking about. Fundamentaldan 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

I know this is usually a subject best left alone--but. I have just created the "Islam bookshelf on Project Gutenberg. It should serve to collect all books related to Islam and sort them by author or some other means. For a good example of a PG bookshelf see the science fiction bookshelf. I didn't want to just add it ... but, can we all agree that public domain texts about Islam from a reliable and neutral source is a good thing to link to? gren グレン 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I worked on some of those books. They're all pre-1923 and none of them are up to current scholarly standards. If readers are sent there, they should be warned that the texts are old and usually inaccurate or prejudiced. If you're interested in the history of Western thought re Islam, they would of course be essential. Zora 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

rewrote Jihad sect

ok so i looked at the GA comments above and decided that the Jihad section did indeed need a bit of a rewrite (and a slight trim). jihad in islamic jurisprudence ~~almost~~ always refers armed warfare, both offensive and defensive (per above and another authoritative source i have provided). more recently there have been those opining that it is merely defensive, and i have tried to represent that too, though the fact remains that the majority of scholarship has always regarded it as both offensive and defensive. i also took out the reference to itmam al-hujjah, as this doctrine by name i have not seen in any of the scholarly works, and basically the way it has been expressed in its article gives the impression that there is no offensive jihad (and if this is intended, then such a doctrine is not supported by the majority it seems). i also removed the apologetic recentism. ITAQALLAH 12:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mine views on Jihad are similar to yours. I feel so bad when some Muslims say that Jihad-Akbar is self-struggle and Jihad is always defensive. For example few people from Tablighi Jamaat. --- ALM 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH can you please also correct this Jihad#Greater_and_lesser_Jihad and look at whole article of Jihad. --- ALM 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

the whole Jihad article needs a rewrite.. i thought i'd concentrate on the Islam article because it really should be of GA and hopefully at some time FA status. we have so few GA/FA's in WikiProject Islam, so i thought this would be a nice place to start. ITAQALLAH 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

size of the article

The size of the article is getting out of control again. It is now 81 kbs long. Is it enough, or we need to trim or expansion? Any ideas? TruthSpreader 12:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. I was just following the To-Do list. But you are right, it is getting long. But should it? --Aminz 12:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

we shouldn't worry about size for the moment. there are plenty of huge articles (which are FA) which are so simply because it's necessary in order to cover the entire topic. Islam is a massive topic, i wouldn't be suprised if the article went into the 100kb range, and that's only the non-forkable material. currently, there is still more material needed if this article is to be as comprehensive as it should be. once we've achieved a comprehensive coverage, we can focus on making things more concise if necessary. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hadith

The article says: "Shi'a jurisprudence holds that hadith is secondary to the Qur'an, disregarding without further inquiries those hadith that contradict or abrogate Qur'anic verdicts. Also, qiyas and Ijma are not used as tools, while logic is. In contrast to Sunni's, Shi'a only follow the Ahl al-Bayt, or family of Muhammad with regards to fiqh, outright rejecting the views of those Muslims who fought with the Ahl al-Bayt."

Well, I think it is not completely true. I think Shias (at least some of them) believe that the interpretation of Qur'an should be understood through Hadith. One striking example(but not the only one) is the verse on Khums; it is clearly in the context of warfare but they generalize it. No doubt anything that makes people to give more charity is good :P but that verse in its immediate context doesn't support it. So, It seems to me that the Qur'an and Hadith are used in a mixture way. --Aminz 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No information on why muslims don't eat pork

Add why they don't to this article. 64.236.245.243 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Islam gives any reason that why pork eating is not allowed. Allah say it is forbidden hence it is forbidden. However, we could think of different reason. Like pork is not a clean animal or it has very bad sexual habits etc. However, these are all man made logic. I have not yet found any logic provided by Islamic text. However, I do not need any reason because I believe being a Muslim that if Allah has forbidden something then it will be harmful (not good) for me. --- ALM 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My assumption (as an outsider) has always been that people at some point must have observed that:

The same trichinosis parasites infected pork and humans, and
People who did not eat pork did not contract trichinosis.

Therefore, pork was banned and the reasoning eventually became recorded as religious dogma for both Jews and Muslims.

Atlant 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As per ALM, nothing is clear. Atlant's comment is a kind of original reaserch though it may be the real reason. -- Szvest - 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(Which, of course, is why I'd never edit my comment into the article page without an actual citation ;-). )

Atlant 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jihad

Why is that section under "community"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.146.173 (talk)

as the primary meaning of jihad is military exertion, it generally tends to be a community matter. the heading for that sect is not final, if anyone can think up a heading which will encompass all of the other subsects then feel free to implement it. ITAQALLAH 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think Jihad al-Akbar is military exertion instead of spiritual exertion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.146.173 (talk)

Those who thinks that Jihad al-Akbar is spiritual exertion quote a hadith which is known to be weak-hadith. I do not know any other "primary source" that say Jihad al-Akbar as spiritual thing. The Quran as much as I have read never mention spiritual exertion as Jihad and some Ayahs of Quran about Jihad are even came during military exertions or in that context. --- ALM 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jihad al-Akbar is spiritual. 128.122.253.229 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Although a distinction should be made between the greater jihad and lesser jihad, when people (who come to this Misplaced Pages) look up jihad, they are probably looking for the military exertion meaning. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This was just added to the Jihad section:

But in chapter nine verse twenty-nine and verse five it does not distinguish between non combatants and combatants, and therefore are some of the chief verses of Jihad as warfare.

" So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

" Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection"

I am removing it because of a couple reasons:

What is the purpose of including these citations? Not stated. It only says that:

the verses do "not distinguish between non combatants and combatants". How is that relevant in the context of the preceding paragraphs?

It seems like it is just a couple citations thrown in, without academic and reliable sources to explain

Who has deemed them "chief"? And how is the fact that they don't distinguish between non combatants and combatants justification for them being "chief"?

I'm removing this for I think it isn't necessary in such a small section. That kind of material may need to be included in the Jihad page, not the Islam page. Open to ideas. Starwarp2k2 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your removing them. It is just an original research. It is important to use secondary sources to understand those verses and the contaxt they are referring to. --- ALM 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

history section subheadings

it's a good idea and it's something i was considering implementing. i changed the format just slightly to make it flow better (i hope). i might need to change the heading allocations a bit when i get round to (re)writing up the 1200—1500 period and 1500—, but please feel free to alter them as necessary. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What I believe is biased claims

I have removed "Modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation", because I don't see any evidence that there is any consensus among western scholars, that this is the case. We have one reference that argue that, but we got no reason to believe that it speak for all western historian or even the of majority of Western historians. The other claim that "The most recent studies of Muhammad indicate his honesty and profoundly religous attitude" is equally biased. I can mention many books that discuss Muhammad, and which doesn't draw that specific pro-Islamic conclusion. -- Karl Meier 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i think this may have been covered above, but i think the wisest thing would be to totally avoid any discussion regarding intentions or anything like that, primarily because the sects should only be a brief overview of Muhammad/the Qur'an. that he was regarded as a religious, honest and upright person amongst his own people is factual and merits mention here, whatever western scholars conclude about Muhammad (whilst the overwhelming majority do indeed agree that he was sincere and of good character) is something that should again probably be left for the respective main article(s). ITAQALLAH 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, so long as the reputation of Muhammad, which many may not accept as "factual," is ascribed to Islamic tradition.Proabivouac 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant discussion . --Aminz 13:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it seems that Aminz has attributed some of the claims, and while that of course positive, that doesn't change that it is, as it stands now, biased one sided commentary. I believe that Aminz is piecing information together in a way that promotes his own pro-Islamic opinion. -- Karl Meier 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl. I see your concerns but i just don't agree that we have to remove well-sourced and scholarly edits because it is considered a biased one sided commentary as you said above. If there are other sided commentaries on that, just please add them freely according to WP:RS#Aspects of reliability. Refere to related discussion between me and Aminz here. Cheers -- Szvest - 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It can't be my or any other Wikipedian's job to deal with the neutrality and balance issues that Aminz editing create. If his edits is unbalanced and against policy, there should be nothing wrong with simply undoing them, and pointing out the problems to him. If Aminz isn't able to contribute in a responsible, balanced and neutral way, then it is his problem. If he want his edits to be included, then they'll quite simply have to be according to policy. -- Karl Meier 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove your case? I have presented the sourced I had found. --Aminz 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not. I haven't seen any modern scholar who disagrees with this POV. If you have seen any, please show me and I would be thankful. --Aminz 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't believe that there is anyone that disagree with the claim that "the Modern historian must accept Muhammad's sincerety in his claim of receiving revelation"? I suggest that you read the books by Ibn Warraq and accept the fact that the vast majority of humanity doesn't believe that Muhammad received any revelations from God or that he was a prophet. -- Karl Meier 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what i've just talked above. If Ibn Warraq's views re this issue represents the other side of the story than add it. We must present both views, Karl. -- Szvest - 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course all notable views should presented, but it should be done in a way that create a end-product that is fair and balanced. What I believe Aminz is doing, is as mentioned to piece information together to promote his own view and change the articles into a chorus praising Islam and Muhammad. -- Karl Meier 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq???!!! Please see the review of one of his books here . The review is published in JSTOR. Can you please find some decent scholar. --Aminz 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, before I answer that I have one question for you: What do you think of the "reviews" section in that article? -- Karl Meier 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it is published in Journal of the American Oriental Society, a reputable journal, it is a reliable source. --Aminz 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's an acceptable source, but that wasn't really what I wanted to know. What I wanted to know was, what do you think of the "reviews" section that we have? Is it a good section? Does this specific section discuss it's subject in an acceptable way? -- Karl Meier 14:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't added that but that's the only review on his work in JSTOR. So, I think it is okay. --Aminz 14:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys. I know that everybody is accusing the other but this should be stopped. I know WP:AGF is there but hard to be implemented in your case guys. Now, as we do AGREE that the article should present both points of views in order to achieve balance and neutrality, you must agree about scholars and academics that you'll be using as your sources. It is all cristal clear at WP:RS#Aspects of reliability. Once that is done, you can both add your edits to the article avoiding weasel words. I BELIEVE this would be the only solution to this issue. Failing to achieve that, the article would be sent to RfC. -- Szvest - 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq is hardly a reliable source especially noting that on the other side we have decent scholars such as Watt. --Aminz 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Szvest: As I think I have mentioned, I have absolutely no problem with the sources that Aminz is using. What I have a problem with is the way that he is using them. -- Karl Meier 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So what are your concerns about the ways they are used? Do you have suggestions? -- Szvest - 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Cambridge history of Islam here and let me know how it should be used. --Aminz 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

just as a reminder, WP:NPOV should not be misinterpreted as presenting both viewpoints as "equal" or "equally valid". NPOV is where all notable opinions are covered in the appropriate (i.e. unattached) manner, the volume of coverage depending upon the prevelance of that view, else we fall into undue weight concerns. if the majority of scholarly academics endorse a specific view, this must be taken into account and the article should reflect that. ITAQALLAH 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl, I am going to add the sources as you said you "have absolutely no problem with the sources" But you have problem with their usage, so please modify it. Please read the Cambridge history of Islam here --Aminz 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OTT referencing

I'm trying to put the referencing into a more consistent style. Doing this throws into relief the fact that some points in the article are now seriously over-referenced. This is probably a left-over from edit-warring, when we editors have been trying to convince each other by bringing in authorities, but it is not helpful for casual readers of the article. I can't see that any point really needs more than two references, or three at the most, so if people could help reduce these it would be much appreciated. Thanks.Itsmejudith 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The references do need a technical cleanup like I did to Muhammad; I'll do that first, then over time we'll examine them again from a content-oriented viewpoint. - Merzbow 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. If you have any problem with the technical changes I've been making, please do raise it here. Itaqallah is another editor interested in improving this aspect. Thanks, Arabist, too. Itsmejudith 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Two things to note for now... I'm trying to get the cite:encyclopedia template changed to make the title field optional because I think it's better to put the article name in the notes while having just the encyclopedia name in the References (to reduce duplication of information like publisher, ISBN, etc.). If people prefer this the other way let me know. Also, do people prefer the usage of "last=Smith | first=Joe | authorlink=Joe Smith" or "author=]"? I like the former now because it works "automagically".- Merzbow 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

- Merzbow 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll follow any emerging consensus on how encyclopedia references should look, so long as it's consistent within this article and avoids unnecessary duplication. How about in the notes (example) "Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam" and in the references "Encyclopedia of Islam, x, y, z (editors), date, publisher". Like the authorlink magic too.Itsmejudith 12:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so you would prefer the article name to go first in the note? - Merzbow 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is normal for article names to come first, followed by the volume in which they appeared. In these cases, it is the article which is being cited; a volume is, like a journal, merely a vehicle for publication.Proabivouac 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith, I agree with you that there is some overreferencing and differing styles, but I generlly believe that seveal references are better than none. I suggest the best method is to look at those occasions where thee are several references for one point, and to select the necessary ones while removing unnecessary ones. Preference should be given to academically valuable sources, i.e. primary and secondary sources from known authors or organisations/internet magazines. Good luck! --Arabist 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article

In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register a vote in that poll please do so. --Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it!

Watt's claim that historians must accept that Muhammad received revelations is clearly false, so there is no reason to include it. Similarly, there is no reason for him to conclude that we must all conclude that Muhammad did not create the Quran with his conscious mind. This is rendered even more ludicrous by the fact that Watt himself did not believe the sahih hadith had any value to historians. If he had been present at the time and was a trained psychologist, maybe then it would be worth listening to this. Watt is widely known, but it is clear from these quotes of him alone that his writings should be taken with a grain of salt. The other historian's point of view that Muhammad believed he was sincere is more reasonable. Arrow740 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2005/p15a.html
Cite error: The named reference enc_m was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16955
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2800
Teece, Geoff (2005). Religion in Focus: Islam. Smart Apple Media. pp. p. 10. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Vartan Gregorian (2003). Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. p. ix. ISBN 0-8157-3283-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
John L Esposito (2002). What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford University Press US. pp. p. 2. ISBN 0-19-515713-3. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
BBC (2005-12-23). "Muslims in Europe: Country guide". Retrieved 2006-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Office for National Statistics (2003-02-13). "Religion In Britain". Retrieved 2006-08-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Teece, Geoff (2005). Religion in Focus: Islam. Smart Apple Media. pp. p. 10. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Ghamidi(2001), Sources of Islam
Vartan Gregorian (2003). Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. p. ix. ISBN 0-8157-3283-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
John L Esposito (2002). What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford University Press US. pp. p. 2. ISBN 0-19-515713-3. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
BBC (2005-12-23). "Muslims in Europe: Country guide". Retrieved 2006-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Office for National Statistics (2003-02-13). "Religion In Britain". Retrieved 2006-08-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Ghamidi(2001), Sources of Islam
Vartan Gregorian (2003). Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. p. ix. ISBN 0-8157-3283-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Categories: