Talk:Islam/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Why is there nothing on the talk page?

WHY????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure inuyasha (talk • contribs) 19:39, July 15, 2006

Because Fayysal archived it all. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

With the recent additions of "Political and religious extremism" as well as "Criticism of Islam", I don't think this article is very neutral anymore, because there is no coverage of positive aspects or recent positive developments. I plan to add such items soon. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have a section dedicated to apostasy in Islam - why is that we do not cover other areas of Islamic law in such detail? I question the relevancy of the section. I must add though, that it is well written (thanks Pecher). BhaiSaab ^talk 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, criticism of Islam is being used to neutralize what is otherwise seen as pro-Islam. But... criticism of Islam is supposed to be a discourse about criticism.... not "this is bad about Islam" which... is what it has turned into. Criticism of Islam should be the opposite of Islamic apologetics--an article that should talk about Ahmed Deedat... just like we have an article about pre-suppositional apologetics for Christianity. We have failed at making many of our articles value neutral. Cutting off hands should not be written about as less acceptable than any other activity. The article's not too great... but, it's just as good as Britannica's article. Also, the criticism of Islam section is horrible. It tells us nothing about the criticism of Islam as a discourse. Instead it says "Criticism of Islam has existed since the beginning of Islam"... you don't say... gren グレン 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Link spam

We need to be careful lf linkspam. DMOZ has most of the links and we don't need to link to 20 various and relatively insignificant sites. Some of the most important sites will be on the Sunni Islam and Shia Islam pages. gren グレン 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the use of the directory. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Criticism of Islam" section

I fixed it up. Because it is such a heated issue, I propose that any further major changes made to that section should be reviewed here. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The user with the IP address 68.41.197.130 seems to be inserting POV in the "Criticism of Islam" section. Looking at his contribution history, it appears that he has made numerous edits to that section, as well as adding a "Criticism of Islam" external links section [1]. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed this section, because you left out some major important detials, and your changes are one sided. An article should show both sides of the issue, not just the pro-islam side. I changed this section, because you left out some major important detials, and your changes are one sided. Also, I noticed that you changed my quote of your verse from your sited source was changed with your explaination. A quote would be more reliable. .68.41.197.130 , 04:12 19, July 2006

Can someone please make a neutral summary of what the original article says (of course the parts of that article that are not disputed). --Aminz 08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part related to the criticism of Muslims rather than criticism of Islam. The edit summary was from Edward Said, not me :P --Aminz 08:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I intend to show both sides of the issue. Please see WP:AGF. I am sorry if that section of the article does not meet your requirements, 68.41.197.130. However, I would also like it to meet my requirements as well, and my requirements are that it will be

• In a neutral point of view
• Explain both the Critic's claim and the Muslim response
• Be brief; we don't want to have the entire Criticism of Islam article there. Just an intro as to what exactly critics debate about.

--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, as long as there is the claim that the Noble Qur'an states Muslims must do these things, then it is criticism of Islam, not criticism of Muslims only.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That whole criticism is Original Research. Please have a look at the war and violence section in the criticism of Islam article. --Aminz 08:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think that section violated WP:NOR, but I was only trying to present both sides. And, your option, to present neither side, is fine with me. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirbytime, I can see you were neutral. Also, please note that in wikipedia we want excellent quality and not just something acceptable. I know there are those criticisms around, but we need academic sources making such claims. --Aminz 09:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But you see here, I am not the one that made those claims. It was that anon ip editor that even added those claims in the first place. I, assuming good faith, thought he was giving a valid contribution to the article. Thus, I decided to NPOV it by providing a Muslim response to the criticism which that user brought up. I referenced all of my responses with sources. I believe you may have thought it was me that was writing for both sides. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but you know, http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/mainarticle.html and http://www.muhaddith.org/Islam_Answers/Terrorism.html are not reliable sources (WP:RS). I have seen these websites sometimes make strange arguments, they don't cite their references, etc, etc. They are not peer reviewed... Also, please note that Qur'an itself is an original text, we can not directly add it to the article together with an interpretation of it, even if the interpretation is quite obvious. I think we should say: Scholar X in his commentary of Qur'an under the verse.. (the verse is quoted) states ... . But anyways, you did a good job. Thanks. --Aminz 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't using those sources except to show that "some Muslims respond to X by replying with Y, (here's a link as an example)" I wasn't saying that it was a peer-reviewed source, nor was I saying that "X is wrong and Muslims say Y and it is true because of facts ABC and I think the Noble Qur'an mean LMNOP in verse ##:##". I understand your concern, and I believe it is quite legitimate. But I still think your thoughts was misguided. In any case, I don't see much a of a point to this discussion since that section is nonexistent at the moment. ☺☻☺ --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kirbytime, I know you were working in good faith. I personally think those "some Muslims" should be renowned Muslim scholars/commentators. Also, I personally think that quoting one verse of Qur'an is not enough to prove a point since all verses of Qur'an together with Hadiths are used together (e.g. see the punishment for Apostasy in Islam), so the Qur'anic verse should not be quoted alone. But that's what *I think*. BTW, John Esposito has addressed issues like the rise of militant Islam, the veiling of women, and democracy in Islam and he is sympathetic towards Islam. His books are available online for free at books.google.com and amazon.com; He is an reliable academic source. Just thought it might be of some use sometime for me. Cheers, --Aminz 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Video clips showing criticism of Islam are valuable links. Links are needed for the criticism section. I entered a link showing a debate (pretty one-sided favoring the critic of Islam) on Arabic TV (al-Jazeera, I believe) with English sub-titles. Someone deleted the link without any comment on the Talk page. Reading above, I see someone is asking for academic sources making claims critical of Islam. That is a bogus standard that is not accepted on any other article. While I think criticism from Muslim scholars is fine and should be accepted, criticism from other corners of the world is also acceptable. RonCram 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism of Islam section is ridiculous. Almost all of it is original research. The paragraph is titled "Criticism of Islam", the subsequent sentences must point to criticisms. Ibn Ishaq isn't a criticism, and the allegation that the Banu Quraiza incident amounts to a matter widely critisized cannot be substantiated save through the opinion of the editor who authored that sentence. Read WP:OR and WP:V. The Aisha matter is sourced using an article that only once mentions that Hrsi Ali recieved condemnation based on a single remark of hers regarding Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. This isn't enough to validate the sentence in the article that precedes it. The rest of it is totally uncited. This isn't an editorial page. His Excellency... 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very important to include examples from the quran that critics often use to critize islam, even if Muslims don't agree with them. Why?Because people use these verses to critize Islam. Sefringle 1:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The section you added makes very broad assertions, then links to sections in the Koran without explaining what aspects of those sections support the assertions. You're going to have to do a bit more research than that. You simply dismiss that counter-argumentts as claiming that they statements are taken out-of-context; context is extremely important for ancient religious texts. You can make similar arguments about the Bible or Torah (i.e., that those text advocate "immoral acts" or make "anti-scientific" statements). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While these verses are taken out of context is up for debate. They may be, they may not be. However, they are still used by critics to critize Islam through the quran and therefore they must be included in the article. There are many critics who use the quran to critize Islam. Just to name a few: Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Theo van Gogh. Wikipedia should mention these verses, say that many critics have used them to critize Islam, and that many muslims claim these verses are taken out of context. Let the public pick come up with their own opinion on whether or not the verses are out of context.Sefringle 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever keeps editing this section should explain why.Sefringle 20:22 23 July 2006

This article appears to have been sanitized to emphasize only the positive aspects of Islam. Does the Wikipedia article on Christianity avoid controversy? Hardly. There are not even any external links to websites by authors who have devoted their entire lives to studying Islam and have produced very thorough, albeit highly, critical bodies of work such as:

FaithFreedom.org (Ali Sina)

ProphetOfDoom.net (Craig Winn)

Not including these links is tantamount to censorship. Freedom Fan 14:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not tantamount to censorship because those two sources are not reliable at all. We don't need to link polemical websites. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the last paragraph in the "Criticism" section, as it didn't give any facts or references, but was basically just a collection of weasel words: "However, most of these are either misunderstandings and misenterpretations of the religion based on cultural and religious bias, or deliberate misinformation in order to demonise and discredit the faith, mostly by non-Muslim religious fundamentalists in an effort to spread their own religion."

"Most of these"? Which ones in particular? "misunderstandings/misinterpretations"? Which ones, and how? "deliberate misinformation"? Where, by whom? etc., etc... --Frescard 02:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Perspectives of Islam section

I would like to add a link of a Christian perspective under external links, but I am apprehensive about calling it "Christian Perspectives of Islam" as I feel it may be invitation of anti-Islam criticism. The link I would like to include is not an anti-Islam article so much as an article geared towards reconciliation. Could we perhaps create an external links section titled "Miscellaneous articles on Islam" or something to that affect? Loosestring 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it lacks relevancy. If that website were to be put up then other "so and so religion's perspective on Islam" would also be justified. It might already be in the directory that's linked. See here. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it would be appropriate to an extent. It's not in the linked DMOZ list. I suppose it may belong under Comparative Religion, but I do think it relavent to be under Islam as well. Please review the article(s) and advise where you think it belongs. Here is another article on the same site that is not linked on the previous linked page. The articles certainly are not the norm coming from a Christian group.

I think it would be more appropriate at Christianity_and_world_religions or Christo-Islamic. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the section allowed to linger for so long?

Its gone now, but why was it there in the first place. Iam putting my guess on simple mere vandals. But then why was it allowed to stay well iam putting my guess in your hands please enlighten me people.

PS. God I hope theres no need for me to explain why I removed it no I need you to tell me why was pages of discussion wasted debating somehting that was supposed to be NUKED from the start.Kara Umi 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Criticism of Islam section? Why should it have been nuked from the start? BhaiSaab ^talk 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't put there by mere vandals. This is an encyclopedia article about Islam which means that all views about Islam are to be presented. If you are a Muslim, then you know the value of respecting other people's views about any given topic. I am a Muslim and I have no objection to keeping that section in the article. Don't be so quick to remove things that you don't like. That is not what WP is about. To gain satisfaction, bear in mind the last words of sura 109. Thanks. MP (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No I accept criticism I belive it makes the difference between people accepting the information as Honest or false. What I question is how poorly it was written. Criticism makes the differnce I know this all to well but things like this "Midieval Christians circulated stories that he died while drunk, or that he was killed by pigs, while others claimed he was a renegade Catholic cardinal who decided to invent a false re..." Just dont fly to me as Criticism but rather "Jesting" Or simply poking fun hahaha which is amusing but is in no way Criticism. As Soon as I saw thi I began immediatly writen a draft version of the section with the intention of putting it back up revised. perhaps Iwas to over zealous in my attempt but non the less you must agree it is lax in its Criticism Kara Umi 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is very poorly written. In fact, it gives no references to the claims. So in that sense, I support your deletion of the section. Now that you've said you're working on a new verison, I look forward to seeing it. Thanks. MP (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking creating an audio version of this article per FaustX's request

Wish me luck--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article changes too often to have a long-lasting audio version. Personally, I think audio files should only be created for featured articles. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The only part that is currently being changed a lot is the "Criticism of Islam" section. I'm thinking about omitting it entirely from the recording. I've currently recorded up to the sentence "The legislative meaning is to submit to God by singling Him out in all acts of worship {Monotheism}, to yield obediently to Him and to free and disassociate oneself from Polytheism and its people." --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing of "Criticism of Islam" section

Someone continues to vandalize the "Criticism of Islam" section. Removing valid links that support the criticism is considered vandalism, unless it is discussed on the Talk page and others agree. I have restored some of the deleted material. Editors who continue this type of vandalism are subject to being blocked or banned. RonCram 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The addition you made was far too specific to belong in this article. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reaction is does not meet wikipedia standards. Comments on the Talk page have requested links to specific criticisms of Islam. Not every criticism has to be listed here, but making generic, unspecified or unsourced criticism is not helpful. You must remember, the purpose of the article is to provide information to readers, students and researchers. RonCram 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My reaction doesn't meet wikipedia standards? Okay...

Of course the article is meant to provide information but if we start making a list of "so and so critic states that..." and "the current situation of so and so critic is..." the criticism section will be longer than the rest of the article. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly space consideration is important in an encyclopedia. The purpose of any criticism section is to provide a brief overview of the main criticisms, those criticisms that are most noteworthy or relate to current events. Criticisms that are obscure or that few readers will care about are best left to the full Criticism of Islam article. If you are concerned that a particular entry is phrased inaccurately or comes from an anti-Islam POV, feel free to attempt to change the wording. The entire entry and links should not be deleted wholesale. I am restoring the entry that deals with criticism of the prophet's call to fight against those who do not believe in Islam. This criticism is central to the debate going on inside Islam. Not including the criticism in some form would violate the wikipedia standard against POV. RonCram 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting into specifics requires context. I felt the Wafa Sultan thing seemed too abrupt and didn't imply a precise criticism. If it can be agreed upon, a general statement reflecting the understood reasons of criticisms can be expressed without the need for mentioning particular events.That way we can keep the paragraph succint without sacrificing flow or readability. I took a shot at it, and I think it conveys the message as most sees it. His Excellency... 04:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. For a criticism section to be credible is must name the critic and provide a link to the source so students and researchers can learn more about the critic as well as the context of the criticism. Providing these sources is one of the most important services of an encyclopedia. As it currently reads, the criticism section names Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, British writer Salman Rushdie and the European Court for Human Rights. However, the information regarding Wafa Sultan and the link to her criticism has been deleted. Let me state this again: Deleting links and source information without providing a reason is not accepted wikipedia policy. Please do not delete the entire entry mentioning Wafa Sultan again. You may certainly change the wording if you believe the entry is not supported by the link or is POV. If you wish to retain the criticisms by these other people and the European Court of Human Rights, please provide links. Otherwise they are subject to being removed.

The comment that the Wafa Sultan entry "is too abrupt and narrow to imply a criticism" is bizarre. The entry is pasted below.

Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan has pointed out that the prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his Messenger." Sultan has called on Islamic teachers to review their writings and teachings and remove every call to fight people who do not believe as Muslims.[2] Dr. Sultan is now in hiding, fearing for her life and the safety of her family after appearing on the al-Jazeera TV show. [3] Muslims for a Safe America opened a dialogue on some of these issues. [4]

Please explain how you could understand this as anything but a criticism and a call to change. RonCram 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because nothing in that paragraph explains how the religion of Islam is significant. Are Muslims generally angry? Did anyone issue an Islamic fatwah? An encyclopedia doesn't leave the reader to decipher what the criticism precisely is. His Excellency... 17:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by the phrase "how the religion of Islam is significant?" Sultan is saying the prophet of Islam, the founder, said "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his Messenger." From this statement and the following sentence, it is clear Sultan is saying Islam needs to change, the writings and teachings need to change - Islam cannot fight or teach people to fight against those who do not believe the same as Muslims. The criticism is quite clear in the link. Did you watch the video clip? RonCram 17:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Worthless criticisms

The criticism section contains this line: "Other critics have expressed differences with the content of the Qur'an, the character of Muhammad, and the traditions and beliefs often associated with Islam." The criticism is too generic, names no critic and provides no link. It provides no information for readers. I suggest we delete the line altogether, unless someone wishes to correct these problems by naming a critic and providing a link. RonCram 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have named 5 critics names in the "criticism of Islam" section of this talk page. I will add their names. If anyone disagrees with their names being added, please explain why before you delete them.--Sefringle 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sefringle, my main concern is the deletion of the criticism by Wafa Sultan. A clear and specific criticism was replaced with the above line which names no one and has no link to support it. I have restored the earlier entry and believe this generic entry that says nothing should be removed. Do you agree? RonCram 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree. Now then, about the names of critics who used the quran to critize Islam. Who deleted them, and why? We should probably re-add them. What do you think?--Sefringle 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please source criticisms, but to start a list of critics here is pointless. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if it's been discussed already but I strongly suggest that the Criticism of Islam section contain some sort of valid rebuttal muslim point of view to each criticism mentioned - I'm sure it was there earlier but seems to have disappeared. Also, some of the critics are way too obscure to even mention them here (who are Jerry Falwell and Wafa Sultan?). And to be honest there seems to be little in the way of criticism against the religion of Islam anyway, most appears to be against it's adherents (Muslims) which is a different subject altogether. Wikipidian 00:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is called "Criticisms and controversies." I believe the Jerry Falwell section is there because his comments made the news and he was so embarrassed he had to apologize. Wafa Sultan is an Arab American woman. Her comments were during a debate (pretty one-sided due to the way the clip is edited) on al-Jazeera TV. The link goes to a video clip of the debate. It is very informative and no one can say she did not make the comments. She is now in hiding because of threats to her life. The threats to her life certainly add to the controversy and are relevant to this section. Wafa Sultan's crtiticism seems to be deemed the most damaging to Islam because editors keep deleting it without reason or explanation. RonCram 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I hold that the Islam wiki-article should be a comprehensive overview of the world's second largest religion, of it's beliefs, it's Prophet (peace be upon him), the Qur'an, it's philosophy, history, culture, architecture and literature. I don't think in the light of history anyone will care that unknowns like Pat Robertson made unobjective comments calling muslims 'satanic' or Mr Jerry Falwell called Muhammad (peace be upon him) a 'terrorist'. The article really needs to focus more on the so-called criticisms rather than personalities making them.

Don't forget that Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik are notable individuals who have questioned the accuracy of the bible but don't make the Christianity article. Wikipidian 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, any worthless and personal criticisms do not belong here. Please clean that section as soon as possible. (216.99.56.27 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Page Protection?

Shouldn't editing this page be limited to registered users, at least? There have been 3 instances of blatant vandalism in the last half hour from non-registered users. What is the process for making that request? Richardjames444 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See the protection policy. Simply adding {{sprotect}} does not protect the page, as it is merely a tag stating that the page is protected. Isopropyl 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

got it. So editors can request the protection but only admins can place one that works. It's funny though, having the tag there, even if ineffective, did stop the vandalism. Richardjames444 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Laws of Islam

How do we work in the 3 main laws of Islam with regards to "kaffirs"?

Muslims are required by law to:

• Convert the unbeleivers
• Tax the unbeliever if they refuse to convert
• Kill the unbelievers if they refuse to pay the tax

This is fact. The Koran states "Slay the unbelievers where ever you find them". Why is this not included? The very fact that we're all targets because we refuse to pay a poll tax or convert speaks volumes of this religion and its followers.

More Islamic text about slaying everyone: http://www.newwave.net/~haught/Koran.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.73.21.146 (talk • contribs) .

These are hardly the laws of Islam. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I organized your comments a bit. But, you must understand that what "scriptures say" doesn't mean that the majority religious opinion is anything near that. Plus, frankly, most readers get contradictory claims out of scriptures. The three "laws" you state--even if religiously true--have always been altered because of political realities. So, it's much more complex. gren グレン 12:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

please don't take those out of context. That was from a time when most non-muslims were trying to kill off islam. not everything in the bible is done. do christians cut off their hands when they masturbate? Pure inuyasha 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gren, Pure -- FYI, the three "laws stated" are more accurately understood as "paranoia stated." Unless of course we've got a mainstream scholarly cite somewhere suggesting that all Christians and Jews who live in a settled 'non-Muslim' nation are supposed to pay jizyah. (Which is what Anon is apparently arguing.) Love to see such a cite if it exists. Otherwise, Anon might consider trying the decaf. BYT 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While these points along with others may be taken out of context as some have suggested, I think they're worth pointing to although one can do so by also putting them in context. However, if the Qur'an is immutable then it is immutable. If it isn't and people admit that then those same people, especially Muslims, can be taken more seriously when they say, "Things were different back then." This is an admission that Islam (i.e. interpretation of the Qur'an) changes in direct relation to societal changes and that scriptures cannot always be taken literally, an inherent contradiction when one wants to also believe in those scriptures' immutability.

And yes, the same criticism applies to Christianity and is valid. It's a very good thing that the ancient law which saw rebellious children put to death by stoning is now readily accepted to be socially intolerable. One has to see or be pointed to the next logical step, though, which is the conscious admission that some laws, even laws believed to be revealed to man by an almighty god, can and should change. Immutability is thus fantastic and illogical.

In short, if you're going to at once say a scripture is immutable but likewise not acceptable for a certain culture -- contemporary culture -- then you are contradicting yourself. To put that in context, the objectionable and violent principles commanded by the Qur'an for believers to follow are applicable and open to criticism for as long as the Qur'an is taught and believed both consciously and subconsciously to be literally immutable. Islam will thus be socially acceptable when it waters itself down with social responsibilities just as Christianity did. MrT 03:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well pardon me for asking, anon, but it's very intriguing that you don't even bother to give any backup for your claims. How are we supposed to take these "laws" at face value when you have no sources for them? Especially since, (and as a Muslim for 20+ years, I think I have the background to both make and substantiate the following claim), none of those "laws" exist in the Noble Qur'an. The closest match to your first "law" would have to be Sura 9, verse 5, but that's only after totally destroying that actual meaning of the verse (and, given your "source", it is likely that you don't know what Tafsir is).

And responding to the person above, Islam does not need to be "watered down" at all. It is fine just the way it is written in the Noble Qur'an. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing those laws speak about is the writer not the folllowers. Im a Christian and I can assure you not every word is followed by most people. I wouldn't really consider myself a true christian but I was raised one, so I know, most people don't follow every word in the Bible. August 29th 9:39 pm

Relevant information about Human Rights & judgements by European Court for Human Rights

I added a paragraph on the tension/conflict between conservative ('orthodox' / 'mainstream') tendencies within Islam and the Universal Human Rights as established in the relevant UN declarations, and the recent condemnations by the highest European court of the Sharia (judged as being incompatible with democracy).

Another area of criticism is the denial of universal human rights by the more orthodox interpretations of the Islam. Many more democratically minded Muslims as well as non-Muslims have criticised the Sharia's denial of rights (as the freedom in religious choices, including the right to leave a religion, the equal rights for people from different beliefs, equal rights for both genders etc.). Because of the contradictions between such an orthodox interpretation of Islam, and modern, secular democracy, the European Court for Human Rights has even condemned Sharia as incompatible with democracy (judgements from 2003 and 2004).

This paragraph was deleted, without any explanation at all. I consider this vandalism. It is awesome that even very fundamantal decllarations from the UN (the UDHR), and judgements from the highest European court are censored here. --Rudi Dierick 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to summarize the information. The criticism section is way too long with all that inserted. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What you consider vandalism isn't necessarily relevant. The content on the UDHR is a misinterpretation of facts. The content suggested certain Muslim nations refused to ratify the UDHR. That's misleading, considering NO country ratified the UDHR- the document is not international law. What could be said is that some Muslim countries disagreed with it or took exception to it. If you read the details as to WHY some Muslim countries refuse it, it has less to do with Muslims not believing in human rights and more to do with Muslims feeling that former Western colonial powers don't have the credibility to be lecturing the world on Human Rights. Agree with that or not, this difference is more than just a religious one. I imagine the differences on 'freedom of religion' are also there, but those claims need to be cited and sourced. They haven't been so far. The EU court statement does not cite a precise source that can be easily verified. If you could share the document, that'd be something. We need to know the context of that judgement, and its specifics. I doubt a body representing the EU would categorically condemn Islamic law. His Excellency... 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear, all nice, but why then do you not respect th Wikipedia guidelines on resolving a difference like this? Wikipedia clearly says that when you do not agree with something, that this FIRSTLY should be discussed in this Talk page, inviting others to contribute, allowing time for discussion, and then only, AFTERWARDS? one might delete parts of somebody else's contribution. You did something completeley different: you brutallly cut away everything that apparently you don't like. Such a brutal DELETE is not a friendly, not a Wikipedia-alike invitation for a miutually respective contribution. Therefore, I'm not very much motivated to reply to your censorship, except re-inserting the vandalised text! And after you apoligogised for such behaviour, we might exchange some further clarifications. --81.82.131.245 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to logon. The previous reply was mine. --Rudi Dierick 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I must add that the suggestion that this information should be added to the artcile with more detailed information appears to be quite bizar:

# Due to frequent vandalism, that page is currently unaccessible.

# In any case, the core of the argument is crucial for this issue, so deleting everything about the contradiction between universal human rights and islamic POV is certainly not the right way. --Rudi Dierick 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the burden is on the person who includes the content. The burden is on those who want to keep it there. WP:V. WP policy is quite clear that unverifiable content can be immediately deleted, where the person who added it in needs to justify its inclusion. The language of the content suggests a strong POV motive on the part of the person who added it in, with insufficient research to provide context or even thorough factual relation of the documents he/she had used. Given consensus was never expressed towards including the content, I doesn't seem cogent to me that consensus would now be required for removing it. His Excellency... 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lack of Compassion

I find it troubling how compassion, understanding, and mercy is non-existant in this article. It mainly deals with the different schools and history rather than ethical tennants such as mercy, justice, compassion and so on. These are basically some of the important tennants of the faith apart from basic beliefs, some saying equally important to belief in Allah, the Qur'an, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikailMoolla (talk • contribs) .

More importantly, the article lacks a section on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), his character, teachings and life. Wikipidian 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed has his own article. Pure inuyasha 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but having a section on him in this article would be quite appropriate. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect this article for I wish to add to it a section about how peace, justice, compassion and equity are equally important as the belief of Allah, the Qur'an, etc. I eat cake! :->

You should be able to edit soon - new users can edit s-protected articles 4 days after they register. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Peace, justice and compassion do not exist in Islam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.175.219 (talk • contribs)

Criticism of Wafa Sultan

According to wikipedia standards, criticism of people, religions or movements should be specific and sourced. That means the critic should be named and a link provided so readers, students and researchers can learn more about the critic and why they are/were critical. The entry on Wafa Sultan meets these standards and is a model of how a critical entry should be written. Editors have been deleting this section for POV reasons. This has to stop. The page needs to be stable. Let's see if we can get this article up to a standard where it may be nominated for a featured article. RonCram 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Will someone reading an article on Islam really care if someone else named Wafa Sultan is in hiding? How is that relevant to this article? BhaiSaab ^talk 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the controversies over at Christianity, it's all rather general, but it's still sourced. That's how the section on Islam should be too, because you can only dedicate so much space to the section. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact Wafa Sultan is in hiding is important information because it relates to the controversy. The section is titled "Criticism and Controversies." The Christianity article should also follow the standard of naming the critic. Just because it does not, it no excuse for this article not to meet the standard. RonCram 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not such a notable "controversy", nor does it directly relate to any major controversy of Islam. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a notable controversy and it relates to the criticism that Islam is populated by violent radicals precisely because the founder taught his followers to fight against those who do not believe like Muslims (the very criticism Wafa Sultan names). RonCram 18:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you also agree that it's one of the most notable controversies in the history of Islam? Because it should be, to be on this page. I don't think anyone else would agree with you. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You should take a look at Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just been accused of vandalism because I removed it. someone should put up a warning that it's being disscussed. Zazaban 19:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, Yes. I believe her criticism is the most significant criticism Islam has had to face. I believe the criticism is one that has been valid for several hundred years, since the very beginning of Islam. I believe it is a criticism that may well be significant for a long time to come, unless Islam heeds her call to change. I do not know how one can underestimate the importance of her criticism. Any attempt to delete her criticism appears to be an effort to protect Islam from criticism. While you may consider that a worthy goal, it is contrary to wikipedia policy. RonCram 19:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you reliable provide a source for making the claim that it is the most significant criticism Islam has had to face? BhaiSaab ^talk 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RonCram, please stop calling this vandalism. just because you don't aggree with it doesn't make it vandalism. unless you think BhaiSaab is a vandal too, even though he has got to be one of the best editors on wikipedia. Zazaban 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly "one of the best editors on Wiki..." but thanks for the vote of confidence. RonCram, you may not accuse others of vandalism if their edits are in good faith. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you're one of the best I know :) Zazaban 19:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. The criticism by Wafa Sultan is historically significant because it relates to the founder of Islam. Her criticism has been valid for several hundred years and may be valid for a long time unless Islam heeds her call to reason. Any attempt to delete this entry will be considered vandalism. Regarding BhaiSaab, I have discussed this entry with him in the past. He accepted the entry and only deleted the section on Wafa Sultan being in hiding. I restored that portion because it is relevant because this is a "Controversies and Criticisms" section. The fact she is in hiding is controversial. For some reason after hearing this, BhaiSaab deleted the entire entry claiming that the entry gave undue weight to a current event. I explained that the criticism is valid since the founding of Islam. This is not a criticism of a recent change in Islamic thinking. With that explanation, I do not expect BhaiSaab to delete the entry again. RonCram 19:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You should have explained when you added it in the first place. not after a revert war. Zazaban 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree with you, Ron, and I will delete the passage unless you can find a reliable source that indicates what I've said on your talkpage. Whether or not you call vandalism is irrelevant; you're very close to violating 3rr. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And please stop trying to label me a vandal. Zazaban 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, BhaiSaab still does not want the entry in the article, even though it is historically significant. Please tell me why. Is criticism of the founder of Islam not allowed? Or is it just women who are not allowed to criticized the founder? Or is it the video clip that you do not want wikipedia readers to see? It is pretty clear you do not want readers to have access to this information but you have not explained why. Please know that I consider a blanket revert of this entry as nothing but simple vandalism on a small scale. If you truly wanted to make the article better, you could state your objections here and seek to make some change to the entry to make it better. But a simple blanking of the entry will be considered vandalism by many editors. RonCram 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between blanking and a edit dispute. this is a edit dispute. accusing the other side of vandalism is not assuming good faith. Zazaban 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Zazaban, blanking an entry that is informative and well-sourced without any comment on the Talk page is not an edit dispute. The entry has been discussed and debated here but you were not a part of that discussion. If you wish to modify the entry, please make some comment here that explain your reasons. You have still not explained why you deleted the entry.RonCram 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entry because the talk disscussion had not ended. you just re-entered it before a consensus was reached. I looked at the talk page here before making any changes, and saw nobody had agreed on anything. Zazaban 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me try to explain it once more. If I were to say "I don't like Hitler" does it warrant a mention on the Hitler page? Of course not, Hitler is significant, but my criticism of him is not, however I may word it, or whatever my reasoning of my dislike may be. In the same way, I object to Wafa Sultan's criticism being on this page. It is not notable enough to be here. What we need in the criticism section is a sourced summary of whats in the Criticism of Islam section - not "so and so person said that..." and that "so and so person now lives in...or is in the condition of..." Who would care about that when they're reading the Islam article? It doesn't have that much relevancy. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, I agree that your generic statement "I don't like Hitler" is not significant or relevant. However that is not what Wafa Sultan said. She recited a statement by the founder of Islam. She tied that statement to violent teachings by Islamic teachers. She gave a specific call to Islamic teachers to go through their literature and make changes necessary to make Islam into a religion of peace. She has launched a significant effort to bring reason and rationality to countries like Iraq. Her statement of criticism is backed by her work. Her criticism is highly specific and has hit a sore spot as seen by the fact she now has to work while in hiding. If you do not think Wafa Sultan is significant, you do not know enough about her. I suggest you start by reading the wikipedia article about her. RonCram 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think that this is important compaired to the 1400 year history of islam. also, this seems to be mainly an american thing. Zazaban 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Zazaban. Ron, I was just giving an example. The specific content of her criticism is irrelevant. All that matters is it a notable criticism of Islam, and is it, as you say, the most notable criticism of the past 1400 years? I don't think so, and unless you can provide a reliable source that proves that or consensus on this article to insert that passage, please do not do so. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RonCram seems to have misunderstood what historically significant means. he seems to think that since what she's criticizing is historically significant then the whole thing is historically significant. Zazaban 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait! Hold the phone! Are you guys telling me that you do not think the history of Islam has been dramatically influenced by the founder of Islam's words to fight those who do not believe as Muslims? Is that really what you are saying to me? Do you really think only Americans are interested in this criticism? You don't think Europeans are concerned about this? You don't think Israel is concerned about it? You don't think moderate Arabs are concerned about it? Okay, so let's think this through. What you are saying is that you agree with the founder of Islam. You think I should be killed because I don't believe as a Muslim. Is that correct? Is that really what you are saying? RonCram 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Please read this call put out by the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society.[5] This is put out by people who have Muslim origins, like Wafa Sultan. Violence against non-Muslim citizens of Muslim countries is a recognized problem historically. You guys cannot be uninformed about this. Read this. [6] The criticism Wafa Sultan brings up in historically signficant... and has been for 1400 years. Sultan is just the most eloquent of Islam's critics. RonCram 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

nonsense Ron, you are needlessly escalating a perfectly reasonable debate. I have no opinion on Wafa Sultan, but with this comment of yours, you are seriously in WP:POINT territory. Keep a cool head, even if you don't always get your way. dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, Dbachmann. There is nothing reasonable about siding with the founder of Islam regarding violence against non-Muslims. As a non-Muslim I take that personally. RonCram 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not permitted to start hostilities, so that recently inserted criticism was not very balanced or true. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

BS. somebody questioned the notability of Wafa Sultan's opinion to our Islam article, and you replied "is that a death threat?": all I can say at this point is WP:DFTT. Nobody claims the history of Islam is free of violence. That doesn't make your opinion that "Sultan is just the most eloquent of Islam's critics" automatically true: you can take that as personally as you like, but that would be your own problem (get a grip!). dab (ᛏ) 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad was telling muslims this when they were at war with pretty much all the non-muslims they were in contact with. is it reasonable to have not said that it the context of the time? Zazaban 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may chime in, most of those wars were caused by Muhammad in the first place, his beliefs on the issue of war wasn't exactly for defenders only.... Homestarmy 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How were those wars started by muhammad? he was pursecuted because of his teachings. if you're talking of wars after the capture of mecca, the arabian peninsula was united and really was better off. anything beyond the arabian peninsula was after muhammads death. and even then the arabs were welcomed as liberators from opressive governments. Zazaban 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ugh...... I just read one of the comments RonCram made on me. no I don't think you should be killed, but I do think you need therapy. violence was not taught by muhammed, but it was taught by wahabbi, some nutzo 18th century scholar who more or less founded terrorism. he was a loon yes, but don't mix his teachings up with muhammed's. he was chased and pursecuted by total barbarians, and his followers were in dire peril. what would YOU do if you were in a "with you or against you" situation? totally reasonable to ask people to defend themselves. do christians cut off their hands every time they masturbate? Zazaban 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zazaban: "I do think you need therapy".

I do think you need to read these policy pages: Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Frescard 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Nom Comments

I've dropped by to review the article and have some concerns. One is the stability of the article. There seems to be quite a bit of back-and-forth between registered users here and an NPOV flag up. Are the NPOV issues resolved to everyone's statisfaction?

Also, there are a number of fact tags that need to be cleaned up. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given the article pending status to give you all some time to work things out here. May I suggest that, since several editors have conflicting opinions on issues, that proposed changes be brought here and discussed before back-and-forth editing goes on.

I also reread the article. I am very impressed with the respectful, yet neutral tone of the whole work. This is well done. I really want to promote it, but I need to see stability and some more inline cites.

Not related to the GA, I think it would help to work on smoothing out the language a little. A few less passives would make it much easier to read. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation

"I bear witness that there is no God worthy of worship but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

This translation is just plain wrong. Where are the words "I bear witness that"? Where are the words "worthy of worship"? And how is "Allah" not "God"? The literal translation, I believe, is "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God". Comments?Timothy Usher 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your translation Timothy. While it is debatable whether it should be '...but God' or '..but Allah', the first 'god' should not be capitalised as it isn't being used as a proper noun, according to English-language capitialisation rules. Ashmoo 04:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sourced, so just find a new source if you want to change it. The words "I bear witness that" are "ašhadu 'an." BhaiSaab ^talk 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to "I bear witness that there is no god but God; I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of God." per the new source I provided. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

the word 'god' alone is only seen once in the shahada, La Ilaha il Allah, it would be more accurate to say there is no god but Allah, if you want an asbolutly direct translation that is..becasue allah does not translate to 'god' in basic - 'allah' is two words, 'the god' and 'lah' is one word - 'god'. I am suprise no arabic speakers have spoken on this/ Crono 03:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, i believe that "diety" should be used instead, so it would be like this: " there is no diety but God, muhammed is the messenger of God". thoughts? -ludman

The shahadah is (transliteration) 'Ashadu-an laa ilaha illallaah. Wa ashadu anna Muhammad ar-Rasulullah'. There are many translations of this and the most common and most contraversial debate is over the translation of the word 'ilaha'. This is most often translated as 'god' or 'deity'. But a more accurate translation of the word is 'deity worthy of worship'. This would translate the shahadah to- 'I bear witness, there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. And I bear witness, that Muhammad is the the messenger of Allah'. This makes sense of the Shahadah (and negates claims of groups who join partners in worship of Allah/God) and fits into Islam's charachteristic of 'negation and affirmation (/exception)', which is found on many occasions throughout the Qur'aan. http://www.islamtomorrow.com/9points.htm, provides a good explanation of the whole shahadah. Muhammaduddeen 22:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rashad Khalifa

I don't think he's notable enough to warrant mention in this article, nor are the Submitters sizable enough. We could just say that there are various groups of Muslims who proclaim to follow the Qur'an only and reject hadith. Comments? BhaiSaab ^talk 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the specific example should be brought up, but it shouldn't have that much detail (which is what I edited in that section). --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Islam/Archive 15 has failed, for the following reason:

This article has a great deal of promise, but simply is not stable. It would help if editors would discuss changes here and achieve consensus before changing the article itself. Please bring it back when things are quieter here.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it REALLY sad that people have to try to turn this into a hate rant constantly. -_- Zazaban 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Islam a religion or is it a system of governance?

(I'm sorry I don't know how to add a post, but here is my comment.) Is Islam a religion or is it a system of governance? (governance of both temporal and spiritual aspects of adherents, without a dichotomy of the two as there is in Western European traditions) Just as the fact that Moses did not reach the Holy land has had an enormous influence on Judaism, and as Jesus was crucified rather than become the king of the Jews has greatly influenced the Christian experience, the fact that Mohammed died both a prophet and a leader of a state should likewise influence Islam, no? There is no distinction between religion and governance in Islam, in fact Islam provides a guide for governing as well as spirituality. So does Islam provide guidance in all aspects of the lives of adherents, being both a religion and system of governance without any dichotomy of the two? Perhaps the West's view of Islam as a religion (with all the baggage of the term) does not fit with Islam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.103.252 (talk • contribs) .

there you go. to answer your question, you really have to be ignorant of the religion to think it's just a system of governance. just read the article. IMHO thinking it's only system of governance is totally insane. Zazaban 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive, 24.18. I'd never quite thought of it that way. Thanks for the food for thought.  :) Kasreyn 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

About criticism...

All i can say is, it is best for all of us to preferably keep any criticism of islam in a seperate page but not the main page. I'm not a muslim, but with the current misconceptions about islam it is best we keep such things out of the main page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leaflord (talk • contribs) .

It would seem to me that if there were "misonceptions", it would be simple enough for anyone to reference-bomb any "incorrect" feelings about Islam with proper sourcing against whatever criticism comes along. Homestarmy 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A renegade Christian wrote the Qur'an.

A priest that was influenced by Arianism dictated what Mohammed should write in the Qur'an. He was kicked out of the Christian church for heritical views on religion.شيطان

Extreme minority views do not belong in this article, Shaitan. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And by "minority," Shaitan, it's nothing implying in the ethnic sense. Dumbass.I eat cake! :-> 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Jack Chick is a credible source. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Muslim growth in the United States of America

In the preface of the article, it is "purportedly" stated that:

"At current rates, Islam will soon become the second largest religion in the United States, [4]"

I challenge this point on the grounds that it is the Church of the Latter Day of the Jesus Christ that is growing the fastest in the United States. [7]. Please go to this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Religious_affiliation) for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.59.198.67 (talk • contribs)

It's considered a part of Christianity, which is of course the largest religion in the U.S. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By whom is the Church of Latter Day saints considered Christianity? Themselves. I would say most Christians believe them to not be Christians at all since they believe in an entire different book which is quite different than the bible (which is also teached, oddly enough). As when they die, their heaven is a planet to which their family on earth that is "sealed" to them is waiting in the afterlife. That isn't christian, my muslim friend. gamegrid ^talk

Number of Muslims who have a choice?

discussion moved to Talk:Demographics_of_Islam#Voluntary_Muslims --Frescard 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Covenant

Is there a concept of the Covenant in Islam?

Your question is a bit vague, but these two sources might help you get a bit further:

• http://www.islam21.net/pages/charter/may-1.htm
• http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/abdulwahab/KT1-chap-60.html

Frescard 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahadah Mistake

Currently the transliteration of the Shahadah in the Islam article is listed as: "ašhadu 'an lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa ašhadu 'an muhammadun-r-rasūlu-llāh". If I am not mistaken, that is not the shahadah. The shahadah as I know it is written: "lā ilāhā illā-llāhu; muḥammadun rasūlu-llāhi" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahadah). If I am correct, I find this mistake appalling.Starwarp2k2 02:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The more sites I check, the more variations of the Shahadah I find. What's the deal here? Can someone more knowledgable than me clarify these differences?Starwarp2k2 03:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- the first transcription is in fact the shahdah ("I testify that there is no God but God, and I testify that Muhammat is the Messenger of God.") The second transcription is a smaller chunk thereof known as the Kalimah ("There is no God but God, Muhammad is the Messenger of God.") The first transcription is what you say to become a Muslim; you also repeat it at a key point in the prayer. The second transcription has many variations, and shows up dozens of different ways in the Qur'an. Variation #2 has less specific formal/ritual importance, and is probably more common as a dhikr (remembrance) of God. (Think "mantra" or "litany.") BYT 02:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification!Starwarp2k2 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The shahadah is (transliteration) 'Ashadu-an laa ilaha illallaah. Wa ashadu anna Muhammad ar-Rasulullah'. There are many translations of this and the most common and most contraversial debate is over the translation of the word 'ilaha'. This is most often translated as 'god' or 'deity'. But a more accurate translation of the word is 'deity worthy of worship'. This would translate the shahadah to- 'I bear witness, there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. And I bear witness, that Muhammad is the the messenger of Allah'. This makes sense of the Shahadah (and negates claims of groups who join partners in worship of Allah/God) and fits into Islam's charachteristic of 'negation and affirmation (/exception)', which is found on many occasions throughout the Qur'aan. Muhammad ud-Deen 19:53 28/08/2006

This is sickening.

This is one of wikipedia's most vandalised articles. what is with people. why must there be so much hate in the world? Zazaban 17:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The chances of it being actual hate are really rather low, it's not just religious articles like Islam or Christianity or Jesus or Buddhism that get vandalized, things like RuneScape or World of Warcraft get vandalized in similar large, random manners, after all, alot of vandals are probably just jokesters in the end. Homestarmy 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that a World of Warcraft vandalizer is slightly less likely to be politically or dogmatically motivated than an Islam vandalizer... unless, I suppose, he got a nasty rejection letter after he applied to work for Blizzard. :P Kasreyn 02:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Alot of em just want attention or an ego-boost, and somehow, vandalizing a religion article is probably higher up on the scale for many of them than just an MMORPG I figure heh. Homestarmy 14:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is very sickening. Just shows how much hatred is in the World around us. (216.99.56.27 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Vandalising a wikipedia page Vs. torching an embassy, declaring jihad on all non-muslims, and beheadings. /sarcasm Yeah, this is sickening hatred this vandalism is. /endsarcasm

touche my friend...threating genocide on israel is pretty serious, but i think we should clen up wikipedia first.

The guy who is above the guy above me is what i'm talking about. people like this just come to try to preach hate, and should be blocked from editing wikipedia. Zazaban 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen worse, and that's not even a personal attack. How about instead of blanking his comments, you disprove them, I know if some guy game over to Talk:Christianity and said things like this, i'd give em a heaping dose of counter-reply alright, rather than just censoring him. Homestarmy 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fastest growing religion?

The intro says: "Islam is the second-largest religion in the world and claims to be the world's fastest growing religion." So, uh, how exactly does a world religion "claim" to be anything? I've tagged it with {{fact}} and suggest rewriting it in the style of "... according to ...". Sandstein 19:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time this fastest-growing thing wasn't a problem with this article. We keep taking it out and ideologues keep putting it back in. As Islam is ludicrously decentralized, it's hard to imagine its "claiming" anything. I believe there was once a citation of some kind that backed up the second-largest-in-the-world designation; the fastest-growing business is unverifiable, as far as I have been able to tell, and should, IMHO, be removed every time it appears. Which is about every fifteen minutes. BYT 20:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

According to GWR 2006: Islam is the fastest growing religion. How about this for a source? (216.99.56.27 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

OK I will try saying that again: Islam is the fastest growing religion according to Guinness World Records 2006 Edition. There should be no objection in that, the source can not get any more reliable. Any feedback? (216.99.60.250 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Mohmd

I think this user may be a bot. Zazaban 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ibnil Kharra, look where it redirects

This is your prophet.Crazy Christ 00:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A deleted article? Homestarmy 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For those who cannot read Arabic, "Ibnil Kharra" literaly means "Son of shit". This is a clear case of hatred towards this article by a Wikipedia User. (216.99.56.27 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

More controversy about "controversy" and some hopeful criticism.

Having read the discussions about the Controversy and Criticism section, and viewed its volitile history I am still stuck with some conerns that were emediately apparent upon reading the entry (in its current form). I hope editors consider the following possible problems.

1) Only one other entry on a "major"* world religion has a criticism section (Christianity), and as such that section deals with theological issues and other less controversial matter. This is not to suggest that all entries on religions should comform to the same formatting (though that is not a bad suggestion at all), but that in light of this it makes the presentation of religions in Wikipedia seem at least partially unbalanced.

• By "major" I only using a convention to mean those religions usually identified as such by textbooks on "World Religions"--this identification is usually on traditional grounds and/or due to the demographic scale of adherents.

2) The criticisms themselves are not properly criticisms of Islam the religion, but of aspects attributed to it BUT actually embodied in specific people, nations, or subsets of belief and/or practice. This may explain the difference between this criticism page and that of Christianity, whose tame criticisms are of a more general theological nature. No amount of reference to the Qur'an disproves this assertion, they only prove that such criticisms are of the Qur'an and/or specific sections of that text (however central this text may be to the beliefs of most Muslims). As with any religious scriptural canon, the Qur'an is also interpreted and actualized in practice in a variety of ways within the umbrella that is Islam as a religion.

3) The idea that these are "secular" criticisms of (specific aspects of) Islam is dubious at best. Are these "secularist" criticisms of Islam from within majority Islamic communities? Are we identifying the "secular" as a global community, or conversely as a state of mind possible to anyone as an analytical point of departure? In other words what does it even mean to call them secular? This is further problematized by the fact that some of the criticisms (again I'm arguing not of Islam as a religion) are held within the religion, and by those explicitly trying to express the POV of another religion.

Given the volitile atmosphere at present, regarding Islam, we should be even more sensitive to the language we use and the inferences we make. Lumping Islam, or Muslims, wholesale into the criticisms listed on this page, as if they are criticisms of Islam itself can be viewed as buying into the rhetoric of ideologues who use specific examples of self-professed Muslim extremists as indicative of the nature of the religion. This is no different from placing criticisms of the Spanish Inquisition into criticisms of Christianity (or criticisms of self-identifying "Christian" white power advocates for that matter), criticisms of extremist Hindu Nationalists in India into criticisms of Hinduism, or any number of other examples. I hope you consider these problems as you continue to improve upon this entry, as many of you have already done.PelleSmith 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism on other religion pages is by no means restricted to theological issues. If you look at the Roman_Catholic page you will see a huge chapter just on their sexual misconduct with children. And not only that, but there are all kinds of other critical issues brought up on there (yes, inluding the inquisition), so that the critical part takes up nearly a quarter of the page.

And while it is true that most of the criticism on the Christianity page is theological, it is not restricted to it, as the entry about "cultural imperialism" proves.

But it doesn't really matter all that much what other pages on religions contain. Islam is its own religion, and it has its own issues. As you state yourself, there is a lot of controversy going on regarding Islam. But the response of an encyclopedia should not be to censor and suppress information about those controversies, but to document them, independent of whether they're valid, justified or based on misunderstandings. If these controversies are popular enough to be well known and documented, they deserve to be listed here.

Another point to keep in mind when you feel that Islam is being treated unfairly is that Islam is much more political by its own definition than most other religions. If Islam wouldn't be mandatory in a lot of countries, or if countries' laws wouldn't be based on the Qur'an's writings there would be a lot less controversy. But as soon as a religion becomes law and is enforced with state powers, criticism will cover the political aspect as well. --Frescard 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism on other religion pages is by no means restricted to theological issues.[...]"

True, and those are criticisms of activities that have been directly associated with the widely recognized institution of Roman Catholicism, YET they are not of Christianity itself. Don't confuse criticism of Roman Catholicism (an aspect of Christianity) with criticism of Christianity. And that is exactly my point.

"And while it is true that most of the criticism on the Christianity page is theological, it is not restricted to it[...]"

The comparison here may be of apples and oranges, but others (not me) should be the judge of that.

":But it doesn't really matter all that much what other pages on religions contain. Islam is its own religion, and it has its own issues.[...]"

I agree wholeheartedly, and I would not suggest striking the section by any means, nor am I suggesting censorship of any kind. I also think it has undergone significant improvement. The main problem I've tried to point out is not with listing them as controversies but how they are listed as such.

":Another point to keep in mind when you feel that Islam is being treated unfairly is that Islam is much more political by its own definition than most other religions.[...]"

There are problems with this statement and they go to the heart of the critique I'm offering. What do you mean by Islam is much more political by its "own defintion"? Such a statement could be read many ways, but literally it is meaningless given that Islam cannot offer us a definition of itself. In fact, to use the faulty Roman Catholicism comparison, Islam doesn't even have a institution that can offer an "official" definition of what it is. The connection between the practice of Islam, the life of its prophet, the Qur'an, or any number of other aspects and politics is clearly important, but it is also complex, variable, and historically changing. The idea that Islam is policitcal by its "nature" is a gross overgeneralization that has little merit without an understanding of the hows, whens, wheres, and whos of the matter. Would you call Sufism politcal by its nature? Isn't there a difference between various schools of Islamic thought and Islamic law? Isn't there a vast difference between how various countries manage the tensions between Islam and politics? Isn't there a vast difference in this very tension in fact?

The solution could be as simple as making the explicit point of these controversies being both "current" and of specific phenomena associated with, or falling under the auspicies of Islam (particularly in terms of self-identification). I don't know. You be the judge. I doubt I will respond again, but I wanted the make sure that the criticism itself was understood. I hope it helps.PelleSmith 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Contemporary expressions of Islam have become politicized over the past thirty years or so, in direct proportion to the number of dead Muslims the (supposedly stable) European nation-state model has generated without shame or apology. The response to this has, not surprisingly, been increasingly political. It is now both political and dangerously unbalanced.

• Today's "criticisms" and "controversies" (from non-Muslims) about "extremist" elements supposedly hard-wired into the faith conveniently ignore the role of social trauma in producing extremism, and ignore the role of non-Muslim interests in bringing about those traumas and increasing in brutality their resulting pathologies.

• Somehow these "criticisms" of Islam and "controversies," about its tenets, so prominent today, weren't Global Topic A in the half-century before the founding of the state of Israel or the rise of oil-driven industrial economies. How debilitating could these (supposed) internal problems with Islam have been?

• And why are millions of people so eager today to move toward, not away from, this religiously-based social standard we call "Islam"? Do we have room, in this article, for their "criticisms" of consumerism and secularism, and the resulting "controversies" concerning the brand of life based upon these principles?

• Let's face facts. This "what's wrong with Islam" game has only arisen when large numbers of Muslims have been unfortunate enough to live on patches of dirt that non-Muslims, for various reasons, have decided they should control. The reason the section of the article under discussion feels strange is that it ignores the role of economic and political exploitation from non-Muslims in creating the (undeniable) pathology of extremism. As long as we ignore that process, we're leaving a huge hole in the article.

• My guess is there's going to be a hole in the article for a while. BYT 01:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

" Do we have room, in this article, for their "criticisms" of consumerism and secularism, and the resulting "controversies" concerning the brand of life based upon these principles?"

Criticism of Consumerism and Secularism would probably be more appropriate in the respective articles.

Other good places to bring up these issues would be Imperialism, Colonialism, and, of course, the ever popular Foreign relations of the United States...;) --Frescard 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said ...BYT 11:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Secular" Criticism?

I don't want to get into an edit war regarding the references, so I'm suggesting we discuss the matter here.

• The resource Muslim Women's League (regarding women's rights) may be a Muslim organization, but that doesn't mean the criticism is theological. If you read some of the articles on that site you will see that they address pretty much the same issues as the Geneva Humanitarian Forum. And criticism from Muslim women themselves is a very valid and important reference.
• The link regarding free speech does point to a theological site, but as proof that the suppression of free speech is indeed official policy in Islam (at least when it comes to criticism of Muhammad).
  --Frescard 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Muslim Women's League is clearly not a secular organistion. I tried removing the limit, and thus allow their inclusion, but was reverted. A better source is thus needed. Islam is not a monolith, so you should never make sweeping statements such as "official policy in Islam". The only 100% Official policy in islam are the five pillars, almost everything else is up for interpretation. I've included an Islamophobia aside to the criticisms section, and sourced every point made therein, as it relates directly to its section. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• A lot of the links, BTW, point to the incidents which secularists (alone?) apparently are critical of, they do not point to the criticism, thats why they need a new source. Altough keeping the sources is fine and dandy, they should compliment the articles which contain the criticism. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, just because a critic is religious that doesn't make the criticism theological. But if it makes you happier we can remove the "secular" tag.

And if you think references that support the criticism are missing that still is no reason to remove references that documents the situation itself.

A side note to any admins reading this - it looks like this user has been placed on parole for a year, just a week ago. To me at least, these edits look very much like parole violations. --Frescard 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I tried removing the word secular, and was rather quickly reverted! I have not removed the references that document the situation itself, just the ones that are explicitly non-secular. I have been particularly careful not to revert more than once any article within a week (indeed, thats why the "secular" remains), but, its nice to see that you'ld have have me blocked than try and improve the article. From the above statement, are you agreed to remove the secular, and the limitations that brings?--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do whatever you want with the article. You guys win.

I guess fanatics have a lot more patience than people who's only motivation is to create balanced articles. Bye. --Frescard 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you say "suppression of free speech is indeed official policy in Islam (at least when it comes to criticism of Muhammad)." The thing is, nobody today can actually call statements about Mohammed criticism. Whenever somebody references the Prophet, it can only be called a personal attack. That is what Islam preaches, that members of the religion are not to attack Him. People can criticise his teachings, but to attack Mohammed is offensive and improper.

The reason that "secular" is used to describe the criticisms is that theological criticisms can be stated as well. "Secular" is used to be specific about the type of criticism the article deals with. Including theological criticisms wouldn't be a good idea, because it is all opinion based and therefore doesn't belong on wikipedia. Markovich292 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may chime in, even if something is compleatly opinion based, if it's sufficiently notable, then I would say an encyclopedia would be lacking not to include said opinions. And actually, some statements about Mohammad aren't directed against him personally, but rather against some things he did, which isn't exactly the same all the time. Homestarmy 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea that criticism of a theological nature is any more or less based upon "opinion" than criticism of a non-theological nature is a rather absurd statement. Both types of criticism represent a differnece in point of view on some matter, and as such any POV difference is no more or less "factual" as one position opposing another. Criticizing the treatment of women, religiously based terrorism, fighting for free speech, etc. are just as much "opinions" as arguing over a point in theology. How much editors value their importance, as opposed to "theological" criticisms is a matter of the POV of those editors. Please do not try to argue for a specific structure of an entry based upon your POV. There may be other reasons for not inculding or focusing on theological criticisms, but the justification given is highly problematic.PelleSmith 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that "secular" and "theological", while perhaps categories that do not generally accomodate each other, are not exactly a naturally opposed pair of concepts. Theology is simply one aspect of some religions, and I'm assuming the usage of secular here is to generically refer to that which is not religious. For instance, there can be religious critiques that are ethical, "moral", etc. without being at all "theological". It is not enough to prove that "theological" criticism shouldn't be included in order to justify the use of "secular". A larger issue is as to what "secular" is really refering and whether it is actually a useful discription of the criticisms (please see my third criticism above).PelleSmith 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ASKMUSLIMS.COM

It's a good site for non-muslims to learn about Islam.

[8]

Why does that site contain spelling irregularties, for example, it uses: Muhammed, Mohammad, Muhammad under the same heading. :?? (206.126.82.31 23:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Cartoon reference in relation to free speech

In response to Subhash bose, I wanted to say that my removal of the Mohammed Cartoon issue wasn't because I feel wikipedia should be bound by Sharia. I removed it because in the context of that statement, it implies that criticism to the Mohammed cartoon was based on suppression of free speech. The outrage was because out of respect, Mohammed it not supposed to be depicted anywhere, so this implication is incorrect. Markovich292 23:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't just about outrage.Pakistan, a country with mandated Islamic Law (some of it anyway) blocked wikipedia because it printed the meshuggah cartoons. That is a violation of free speech because Wikipedia is about free (albeit sourced and verifiable) speech.Shiva's Trident 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly can't be said that it was 100 percent based on protecting Mohammad and nothing at all was given to denying the right to publish the cartoons, especially because many of the protests focused particularily on murdering all those whom publish anything with the prophet's likeness.....the cause might of been mainly for "respecting Mohammad", but the effect nonetheless is to restrict what people these days consider to be freedom of the press. Homestarmy 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you have a point, it had the effect of limiting freedom of speech. In all fairness though, when Islam was established that kind of blatant lack of respect probably wasn't expected. The tenets restricting speech about Mohammed and his depiction were probably not intended to be an issue of free speech, but about respect.

Anyway, I'm just going to suggest that the following be reworded and split into seperate bullet points in the article: "The suppression of free speech. [33]. Also, during the Muhammad Cartoons controversy[34],Pakistan blocked internet sites where the caartoons were depicted or discussed [35]." Content-wise it seems fine, but the wording looks "clumsy" when all together. Markovich292 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that Pakistan a few weeks later banned the movie "The Da Vinci Code" at the protest and request of Pakistani christians out of respect for Jesus. India was th first country to ban Rushdie's novel "the Satanic Verses". These incidents are not related to Islam any more than they are to hinduism as a religion perse.Omerlives 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Indian govt banned the Satanic Verses because Muslim orgs threatened violence and the loss of the Congress vote bank if they didn't. However, so many copies were sold in the good ol' black market that the ban was completely irrelevant. Most bans in India are irrelevant. Even Taslima Nasreem's Lajja, banned in West Bengal, sold more copies on College Street in Calcutta than any other book in recent years. India has fredom of speech due to the sheer incompetence of the government, and that's how we like it. Hee Hee.Shiva's Trident 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Most bans in most countires eventually are irrelevant as for example the abundance of banned literature in Pakistan, movies, even porn. That's exactly the point.Omerlives

These are political decisions responding to political pressures within individual countries. We don't argue that Christianity "restricted free speech" in the 1970s because the British press, in obedience to the "clerical establishment" there, refused to print the name of the band The Sex Pistols, whose crime was criticizing the head of the Anglican Church. (i.e., the Queen of England). Different societies have different levels of crap up with which they refuse to put. BYT 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 10:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I THINK IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LINKS.

What are you people trying to suggest? (206.126.82.31 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Islam's fundamental tenets

Do all Muslims affirm the basic beliefs of Islam or are there groups who may disagree but consider themselves Muslims nonetheless, as there are such groups in Christianity with regard to that faith? I ask this because I noticed that under the "beliefs" section, it states that "Muslims (implied all Muslims) believe..." Is this actually the case?Jlujan69 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are small groups similar to how sects in Christianity work, the Muslim Brotherhood I think is one example, and I know there's several more really tiny groups out there besides Shia and Sunni. It's just people probably don't notice them very much. Homestarmy 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 10% of Muslims are Shia, and Shias are the largest sect outside of mainstream Islam (Sunni). --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by the basic tenet of Islam but all muslims of whatever sect believe in the 5 pillars of Islam.Omerlives

Both Sunni and Shi'a would agree with everything written in the beliefs section. Only Ahmadis, who probably constitute just a few million people, would contest the part saying that Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the last prophet, but I don't think we need to note the exception because 99.9% of people who call themselves Muslims would be fine with that statements that are already there. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, perhaps one sentence (about 1% of the article) should be mentioned regarding the Ahmadiyya position on the meshuggah.Shiva's Trident 04:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Add: There is already a sentence on the Ahmadiyas, but perhaps their views on the meshuggah should be there also. Just a suggestion.Shiva's Trident 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did that. Keep the meshuggah stuff to yourself. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some criteria which seprate Muslims from others.Although Muslim may have different interpretations about them but if somebody doesn't beleive in one of them he/she goes out of Islam. Although Shia and Sunni and other minorities have some differences but all of them beleive in basic principles of Islam.--Sa.vakilian 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Refering to Qur'an

I propose adding some links to Qur'an in each part. For example in the case of Beliefs we can refered to 2-5 Ayats of Baqarah. So we can make this article more reliable.--Sa.vakilian 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam spread by military conquest?

'Islam rapidly spread by religious conversion and military conquest'

I feel this statement (paragraph 3) is misleading and is actually contradictory to the reference given. It should read something like 'Islam rapidly spread by religious conversion, contrary to the general misconception of spreading by the sword'.Muhammaduddeen 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what does the reference say? Homestarmy 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the reference says: "One must remember that we are talking about the Muslim expansion, not Arab conquests. The expansion of Islam was as much, or perhaps much more, a matter of religious conversion than it was of military conquest." This quote clearly indicates that the spread of Islam was a matter of religious conversion rather than forced conversions by the so-called "sword". As a result, someone should change that line to 'Islam rapidly spread by religious conversion, contrary to the general misconception of spreading by the sword'. (216.99.56.27 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Most, but not all, predominantly Muslim areas are precisely those that were conquered by Arabs and later by Muslim Berbers and Turks. Dhimmi living in a Muslim-run society are often given strong practical reasons to convert. This is not instantaneous, but a slow erosion of once larger dhimmi communities. Muslim spread in areas like Indonesia and sub-Saharan Africa thanks to traders and Sufis, but this is not the case in most areas. Trying to erase the connection between conquest and the spread of a religion is censorship. It could be pointed out that this holds for other religions too -- many of the "world religions" were spread by conquest. Zora 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)'

At least other religions were legal, in Pre-reformation europe you'd be put to death if you wern't a Christian. Zazaban 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a gross exaggeration to me, most of the executions were of particular groups the church didn't like which were in a geographic area rather than of a particular ideology. Homestarmy 01:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK.. We know that you are a Christian and will always try to go on the defensive with whatever BS or twists to achieve it. There is no sense arguing with the likes of you. (216.99.57.194 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

So then I win? Wow, I wish it was that easy to win real arguments.... :D Homestarmy 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You wish :p (216.99.57.194 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Eh, I can dream, can't I.... Homestarmy 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are too many books which discussed this issue for example "Islam in Iran" Which is written by Petroshefsky. The territory of Caliph expanded by sword but it takes 2 or 3 centuries for most of the people to accept Islam. So we can describe these two events separately.--Sa.vakilian 03:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Related Faiths

Some one needs to check some facts hear their is a difference between a religion being started in an islamic country and a religion being a sect or related or part of another religion. just putting it out there for you guys to fix- User: Farzon Lotfi

Please don't just put your comment right on the top of the page. Please learn more about the Baha'i faith, it recognizes muhammad, and says Islam was the last of god's revalations before The Babi faith. Definatly related. Zazaban 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was the criticism and controversies section deleted?

Would somebody please explain to me why the criticism and controversies section was deleted.--Sefringle 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored it, but it remains to be seen if the user won't just delete it again. Homestarmy 06:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Population

A figure of 1.4 billion currently underestimates the Worldwide Muslim population. 1.5-1.6 billion is more reasonable. What do you people think? (216.99.58.69 01:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Source? Zazaban 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's actually less because Muslim countries don't follow rules or count minorities for their own gain. That is a fact. I would say less than a billion.شيطان 02:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What does that even mean? How does not counting minorities inflate figures?PelleSmith 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

With a name like Shaitan Al Mahdi, do you honestly expect your comments to be taken seriously by Muslims? I chose a source that stated 1.4 billion for the intro because its in the middle of other sources that claim 1.2-1.3 billion and 1.5 to 1.6 billion. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then we should mention that the actual muslim population is disputed--Sefringle 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop Vandalizing my USERPAGE!

I know it's someone from here.شيطان 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're yelling at one IP address who vandalized your page in july? :/ Homestarmy

What a waste of time

Islam, eh? All that praying. All that chanting. All that constant wailing about Muhammed. What a waste of a life. All for a dead God. I think it's a shame for kids unlucky enough to be born in Muslim countries. Poor mites have it drummed into them from the cradle. Hey-ho. Life goes on. -195.93.21.70 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You should read this. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this anon is trying to attack theism in general, rather than "hating" on Islam specifically. Homestarmy 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden share a very similar mindset, although they happen to have been born into opposing faiths. However, while there are huge number of genuine Christian "moderates" (Christians who don't really believe in most of the nonsense in the Bible and never go to church) it seems that even the most "moderate" Muslim usually believes, literally, every word of the Qu'ran: even if they don't all go around slaying pagans and non-believers in their everyday lives as commanded by the Prophet. Only the "fundamentalists" do that - the only real difference that they act on their beliefs. Of course, both Muslims and Christians are deluded (often because they have been brainwashed since the cradle), but the delusion of Muslims is usually more total and uncomprimising. I think, in part, this is related to the uncomprimising nature of the texts. The Bible is too regularly self-contradictory/wishy-washy/absurd (compared with the Qu'ran) to lead (Christians) quite so naturally into the fundamentalist fanaticism that grips virtually all Muslim countries. -195.93.21.70 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what, the Bible doesn't influence fundamentalist Muslims at all, and besides, it has no contradictions :). (Oh, and if you meant to say the Qu'ran, most Islamic scholars seem to have a consensus on a theory of abrogation, namely that later passages supercede others due to it's supposed nature as a progressive revelation to Muhammad that Muhammad somehow wrote down incorrectly at first or something, just something to keep in mind) Homestarmy 13:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-read. I have made that last sentence clearer for you. -195.93.21.70 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, here in the west, it mostly starts with Genesis thanks to people accepting Evolution, but you know in the middle east, i'm fairly certain teaching evolution is still basically outlawed, along with any other ideas which contradict the Qu'ran. Homestarmy 13:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a rationalist, and so traditional religion is mostly an anathema to me. Yet I'm starting to think that something in human nature makes it inevitable that most people will be religious (billions of people seem to need these odd beliefs). So, for people who prefer faith over reason as the center of their worldview, I try to get them involved with paganism. It's hard to get the same kind of fanatical polarization if everyones picks and chooses between a thousand different god/goddesses. Failing that, I suggest Buddhism. If the world was dominated by pagans and Buddhists (rather than Christians and Muslims), I doubt the religious warfare would be half as bad. However, I think faith is an inherently bad choice of approach in the first place. -195.93.21.70 14:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, it's not just evolution that makes Genesis a problem. A literal reading of Genesis would lead us to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. That puts the creation of the world sometime after the agricultural revolution, according to archeologists. It is patently absurd in many other ways too that I see no point of going into. If people want to believe in it, they will, no matter how crazy it is or how much it contradicts any evidence. -195.93.21.70 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, "according to archaeologists" is the key phrase, believe it or don't, but their dates are always estimations, and are often subject to change. But it's not Christianities fault that the Qu'ran is just so easy and inviting to take literally in the places it influences, and of course when things get literal in the Qu'ran, (especially if you believe in the theory of abrogation thing, so the "nice" verses in the beginning are superceded by the horrid verses near the end) bad things happen to basically any religion in proximity to middle eastern areas, you know, they've attacked Buudhist shrines once or twice too. Homestarmy 14:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Right, "according to archaeologists" is the key phrase" - lol. However you twist and turn, you are still alleging that the world was formed sometime after the middle of the stone age. Kudos to Anon for stepping into the lion's den (or should I say the loony bin.) -Neural 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, you want to believe it, so you will always find justifications. It is useless me trying to get you to doubt Genesis because you have chosen to believe it. Faith rather than reason is at the very center of your worldview. The absurdities cannot impact on you because you are commited to believe in it, no matter what. My approach is to start from zero assumptions/beliefs about reality and use logic/reason to discern what is most likely to be true. I am sure that if you did the same, in a totally objective way, you would find Genesis (for example) ridiculous. You falsely assume that you already know the truth and spend all your efforts trying to justify bizarre mythologies. Btw: I happen to think that Islam is an even worse religion than Christianity, so your efforts to make me focus on the negative aspects of Islam are misguided. If every Muslim lost his faith, I would be even more overjoyed than if every Christian decided that sanity and rationality were more important than blind faith in the religion they happen to have been born into. -195.93.21.70 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, unless you have something to discuss this particular article, then please move this discussion to a forum. -- Jeff3000 15:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection.

This article is a magnet for bias and POV. Perhaps it would be better if people went here instead of trying to get there Jihad watch edits in without consensus. Zazaban 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to imply or suggest? Please make it clearer. (130.113.226.6 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

That this article is overrun by people trying to add their POV to the article. Zazaban 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Any changes to this article should be discussed before their approval. This should be no major concern. (206.126.82.31 23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Branches of Islam?

Why are there branches of Islam written in the main article???? Islam has got no branches. arn't there any muslims who are editing this topic? Islam has got no branches. Islam is meant to combine people not divide them. this whole section is a propaganda.

Yes, anyone who has a minor understanding of islam will know there is divisions. shia and sunni. Zazaban 14:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can't speak English there are other versions of Wikipedia you can use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citicat (talk • contribs)

There are indeed different schools of thought in Islam; this article should recognize them. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(This isn't really related to branches of Islam, but it probably has more place here than elsewhere...) There is an interesting chapter written by Najib Ghadbian, that comments on the inherent differences between 'Political Islam', and the real religion of the Muslims that is 'Islam'. I think it's important to clearly make this distinction, not only in this article but others (such as the fascism article). Political Islam (the adherents of which are known as Islamists) calls for implementation of the Sharia in the public as well as the private realm. Even this does not necessarily lead to violence. So there again, you get a differentiation between those Islamists who emphasis Islam's capacity for nonviolent power sharing and those that advocate violence. I think this is important and should be stressed more. (Ghadbian, Najib. 2002. 'Chapter Five: Political Islam - Inclusion or Violence?' In Violence and Politics, ed. Worcester et al. London: Routledge.)

P.B.U.H

Why has the author not put 'P.B.U.H' (peace be upon him) after Muhammad's (P.B.U.H) name. It seems to me to be the most correct and respectful thing to do.

Well, first of all, Wikipedia isn't written by just one editor, secondly "PBUH" is a very uncommon term to most people in the west and would probably arouse confusion, and what happens if some editors don't want peace to be upon Muhammad, what do we do then? Homestarmy 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not do respect. --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration. It's also fair to note that we Muslim editors wouldn't instinctively refer to, say, the Pope as His Holiness when mentioning him in an article, or to Peter as a saint, even though some people would hold that kind of usage to be gestures of minimal respect to Catholics. Perhaps they would be respectful gestures, but this is a secular encyclopedia, and consensus matters on these kinds of issues. Current consensus is that (pbuh) is not appropriate for WP.
• You tell me, though, why we have an article called Saint Peter. Not everyone considers that title appropriate, just like not everyone wishes peace on the Prophet. BYT 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

Putting P.B.U.H after Muhammed's name would be like putting H.R.T.S.O.G.H after Jesus's name (He's Really The Son Of God, Honestly). It is only Muslims who are likely to demand such respect of this historical figure, and Wikipedians are multi-faith and/or secular. The Pope should be The Pope, not "His Holiness the Pope", and Muhammed should be Muhammed. -Neural 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the HRTSOGH doesn't sound like a bad idea..... :D Homestarmy 12:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

HRNTSOGH sounds even better  ;) (130.113.226.6 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Hmm, that seems more like an african tribal sneeze than an acronym..... Homestarmy 18:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, seems like the truth to me ; ) lol (216.99.60.250 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Because Muhammad (pbuh) does not need to be praised by non-Muslims. You can add it in yourself when you read it privately. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As an addition to what has been said, you can refer to Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) where many Muslim and non-Muslim editors have participated and agreed about a few points. You can post this same message there to be more relevant. Also, don't forget that Orthodox Jews use "Peace be upon him" after Moses as well. However, we don't see it on Moses' articles. -- Szvest 12:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)