Talk:Islam/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Iman

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{main|Aqidah|Iman}} needs to be replaced with {{main|Aqidah|Iman (concept)}} - 58.8.15.66 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Please give a reason below, and then change {{tn|editsemiprotected}} back to {{editsemiprotected}}. Thanks, 58.8.15.66 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done (sorry; didn't understand at first) 58.8.15.66 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 58.8.15.66 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

www.submission.org

• Can this site be included in the External links? It is, in my opinion highly reliable and informative. It's one of the most comprehensive Islam related sites I have come across. Thoughts? Tahmid Tariq (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Shahab (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I personally think that submission.org is not a reliable source. It is far to bias and it is also rather anti-jew and anti-christian. You'll see that if you read the pages linked under the given catagories. --Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This web site represents a tiny group within Islam whose ideas are not representative. So using it as a general source is not ok. 05:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• IN ISLAM IF THE WIFE TRYS TO IMPRESS HER HUSBEND BY LOOKING NICE E.G GETTING HER EYEBROWS PIERCED, MAKEUP ETC WITHOUT PERMISSION IS THAT WRONG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.75.190 (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say its fine if the wife does so. However the appropriate place to ask this question would be the humanities desk.--Shahab (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Islam what does Islam means?

What does the word Islam means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.72.66 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh). Gavin (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In regard to this I have heard that because it contains the characters SLM that it may reference the word "salaam" (peace) within as well. If there are credible references to such a thing from qualified linguists that would be interesting (assuming that it's not just a linguistic myth). Peter Deer (talk)

Correction

Another technical meaning in Islamic thought is as one part of a triad of islam, imān (faith), amal (action) and ihsān (excellence); where it represents acts of worship (`ibādah) and Islamic law (sharia).[15]

Another technical meaning in Islamic thought is as one part of a triad of islam, imān (faith), and ihsān (excellence); where it represents acts of worship (`ibādah) and Islamic law (sharia).[15] --Tenrai 05:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenrai (talk • contribs)

Population

Hi I have changed the sentence of the population from "between 1 billion and 1.8 billion" to "approximately 1.8 billion" + or - 800 million is almost 14% of the world population which is a big margin for error. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You made the error worse (not by %), by stating a certain amount, rather than leaving the range. Why would you take an unknown amount & make it definite? That's fabrication.68.180.38.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

How about 1.3 billion to 1.8 billion? Its hard to find sources citing a lower number than 1.3 billion.Opticals (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall I change it then?Opticals (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ORIGINATOR OF ISLAM!! 6/14/2009

THERE IS A MISGUIDING INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE STATING THAT MUHAMMED(SAW) IS THE ORIGINATOR OF ISLAM. IF THAT WERE TRUE THEN HE WOULD BE THE FIRST MESSENGER, NOT THE LAST. THE TRUTH IS, IS THAT ISLAM MEANS "SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF ALLAH" AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF ISLAM(SUBMITTING TO THE WILL OF ALLAH) SINCE DAY 1, BEFORE MAN EVER EXISTED. THE FIRST HUMANS TO PRACTICE ISLAM AND SUBMIT TO ALLAH'S WILL WERE ADAM AND EVE. THE FIRST MESSENGER TO BE SENT BY ALLAH IN THE NAME OF ISLAM WAS NOAH(ALAIHIS SALAM). SO SAYING THAT MUHAMMED ORIGINATED ISLAM IS A SMALL BUT SERVERE MISGUIDANCE AND CONTRADICTION TO THE FACTS OF ISLAM. I WOULD DEEPLY APPRECIATE IF THAT WERE CLARIFIED IN THE ARTICLE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE OR I WILL REPORT THE ARTICLE AS A MISGUIDANCE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HameedKhalil (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Muslim point of view is clarified in the second paragraph:

They (Muslims) do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

The article takes a general approach to the origin of Islam (how Islam originated thought in general around the world) and is not centered on the Muslim belief of the origin of Islam. Regards--Shahab (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I APPRECIATE THE NON BELIEVER OUTLOOK THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROMOTE BUT YOU HAVE JUST AS MUCH NON-BASIS FOR THAT "GENERAL POINT OF VEIW" THAN MUSLIMS HAVE ON THEIR SIDE OF THE ARGUEMENT, THEREFORE THIS IS A MISGUIDING ARTICLE AND I WILL REPORT IT. WHAT MUST BE REMOVED IN THE 1ST PARAGRAPH IS THAT ISLAM ORIGINATED FROM THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMED, AS HE IS THE LAST AND NOT THE 1ST MESSENGER IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. YOU MIGHT AS WELL CALL US "MUHAMMADANS" IF HE (MUHAMMED) WAS THE ORIGINATOR OF ITS TEACHINGS.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HameedKhalil (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is about the difference between theological teachings and verifiable historical fact. Historically, as an organized religion, Islam started during Mohammed's lifetime. For a parallel in a different article, see Jesus; the article doesn't say that he was the "son of God", though that is what most Christians believe, it just says that that belief is a central part of Christian theology. Whether Jesus was God's son and whether Islam started with Adam and Eve (and, indeed, whether Adam and Eve existed) are simply not verifiable truths, and it would be inappropriate to treat them as facts in a secular, neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Please ask if you have any more questions, and remember that there is no need TO SHOUT YOUR COMMENTS. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I am not promoting anything. I pointed out that both points of view are given in the article. (What I personally believe is besides the point here. On wikipedia we use factual info and not our beliefs, just like Jesus doesn't state that he was the son of God). Secondly I have no idea where you will report the article. You are welcome to report it wherever you wish. Finally there is no need to shout.--Shahab (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Then separate your opinion from islam's. MAKE THE FACT DISCLOSED THAT YOUR OPINION IS USED AGAINST ISLAMIC OPINION BECAUSE VERIFIABLLE FACT ISNT 100% FACT BECAUSE THERES STILL FACT THAT PEOPLE CANT AND WILL NEVER VERIFY, THAT JUST MEANS HISTORIANS ARENT AS SMART AS THEY THINK THEY ARE NOW ARE THEY? .... AND IM NOT SHOUTING... JUST MAKING SURE YOU HEAR ME. THANKS..! P.S., THE FURTHER AWAY FROM TIME WE GET FROM ADAM AND EVE, THE LESS WE WILL EVER KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THE 1ST TWO HUMANS ON EARTH KNEW THE TRUTH... NOT US. AND "ADAM" DID EXIST, ITS VERIFIABLE BECAUSE ADAM MEANS "MAN"... AND NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, LOGICALLY, WE CAME FROM ADAM, THE 1ST MAN WHOEVER HE WAS. SO BY YOU SAYING YOU DONT KNOW IF ADAM AND EVE EXISTED ITS SILLY AND I THINK YOU NEED TO LOSE YOUR RIGHTS TO PROMOTE WHAT YOU BELIEVE AS "FACT"ET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT SIR... I AM MUSLIM BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN IM NOT HUMAN... HUMANS GET UPSET AND YOU'VE MADE ME UPSET WITH THAT NON FACT OF A STATEMENT... THANKS ANYWAYS...

As Shahab pointed out to you above, the Muslim view is addressed in the article. The second paragraph of the reads:

Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, God's final prophet, through the angel Gabriel, and regard the Qur'an and the Sunnah (words and deeds of Muhammad) as the fundamental sources of Islam. They do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Islamic tradition holds that Jews and Christians distorted the revelations God gave to these prophets by either altering the text, introducing a false interpretation, or both.

The Muslim point of view has been addressed, in spite of your LOUD, REPEATED assertions to the contrary. Please have a look at Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral points of view, verifiability, and civility. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

lol thanks, you just made me upset by saying Adam isnt a verifiable fact, thats like saying youre not sure yet if you really exist. and we had to start from one man, counting starts at one, not 20. exerything starts at 1. Adam=Man... your "facts" are slightly off... but i see what your saying... thanks.HameedKhalil (talk

Well, actually, there's no proof that there was ever one human. Because logically, in the theory of evolution, evolution does not instantly occur, i.e. there was never a baby born where one could say: "okay, you're a human but your parents are not." but I suppose you were referring to the theory of creationism? --Île flottant (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you get upset because someone says one of your beliefs is just a belief then you need to step back and reconsider whether it is appropriate for you to be editing this article. Try to maintain a balanced point of view. I mean, from my perspective Muhammad was a heretic but that is purely my belief. If I was to get offended when other people said he wasn't or so on then how would I be able to edit constructively? We need to detach ourselves sometimes. It isn't always easy ofcourse but it is necessary. Gavin (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In The Koran 2:30-34, Adam is not described as the first man, but as a vicegerent sent by Allah to the angels on earth. Some angels on the earth respected Adam, and some did not. Among the latter were the unbelievers, for example Iblis (from "Diabolis"). Was this the original religion which Muhammed came to restore? St.Trond (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you read the story right or are missing something. Humans as a whole are all viceregents on earth, the quran uses the word khalifa, of which Adam was the first. Also that part of the narrative is from before the "fall".

Ladies and gentlemen, remember that this is not a forum for discussion of Islam in general, and any discussion of the subject matter should be related to the article and how it can be improved with reliable third-party sources. Our differing opinions on the interpretation and teachings of Islam are, without reliable third-party citation, generally irrelevant. A lot of this seems like it should be discussed more on the Islamic View of Adam page instead anyway, but that's just my perspective. Keep a cool head folks. Peter Deer (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd sentence

Can someone explain the following sentence: "In Islamic theology, divine preordainment does not suggest an absence of God's indignation against evil, because any evils that do occur are thought to result in future benefits men may not be able to see." If anything the two ideas (that God remains indignant about the existence of evil, or that God allows evil because it leads to future benefits) seem contradictory. Sestibel (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi point taken, this sentence is very ambiguous, so I have removed the sentence temporarily, can we make it read as "In Islamic theology, divine pre-ordainment does not suggest an absence of God's indignation against evil, because any evils that do occur are thought to result from man exercising free will" NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 06:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd wording of first paragraph

I'd like to make a suggestion for an edit of the first sentence of the article. Split it in half. "Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔislæːm] ( listen)[note 1]) is a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion based on the teachings of the Qur’an, a religious book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh), and the Islamic prophet Muhammad's personally demonstrated examples (collected through narration of his companions in the volumes of Hadith) for implementing them." Change the bolded section to read: "religion. It is based". Overall, the entire first paragraph is extremely difficult to read, and I think that it should be revised. I noticed the same problem with Christianity and Judaism pages. While I agree that most of the information presented at the top needs to be presented at the top, it certainly could be reworded or moved around within the top. Also, do there need to be citations at the top? Shouldn't citations be moved into the interior of the article? For example the sentence that explains the word islam and notes that it is a homograph. EVEN the Etymology and meaning section doesn't state that the word is a homograph. Why is the intro more specific than the sections? One particularly confusing sentence that shouldn't be in the top: "The word Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.237.136 (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph states that Islam is and "Abrahamic religion and SUPERSTITION"! Superstition? Islam forbids superstition and if it is a superstition than so would be Christianity and Judaism. Wikipedia does not state these other religions as superstitions and should not label Islam as a superstition. In fact, wikipedia mentions that Christianity forbids superstitions!

Friedman and Lewis References

Friedman and Lewis has been referred extensively in the article but when I checked the ref tag I can only find the authors name and the page number, there is no mention of the book(s) that it is quoted from. Does anyone know the name(s) of the book(s), which are used here? Unless the names of the books are provided we should replace these references with different ones. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 07:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Breast / intelligence

In the Etymology and meaning section, Netmonger has changed the translation of an extract from Al-An'am (6:125) from "expands his breast" to "expands his intelligence". The new version is nonsensical when restored to the context of the ayah, which goes on to explain that Allah constricts the breasts of some people contemplating Islam "as if they were climbing/ascending skywards". This is a lovely poetic play on the still-common perception of the torso as the seat of feeling and thought ("heartache", "gut feeling") via the physical sensation experienced in the chest when attempting to climb a steep hill. Using the word "intelligence" utterly destroys this image, and indeed the whole concept of faith as something beyond mere intellect. Please, can this be reverted to "breast", or "chest"? David Trochos (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of dissent, I've now reverted the translation to "breast". David Trochos (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@User:David Trochos. Just an aside: This verse is considered to be one of the many scientific miracles of the Qur'an. After man was able to fly and go up in the upper layers of atmospheric air, he discovered that the higher he went up, the less oxygen and atmospheric pressure there would be, which would cause a great difficulty in breathing and constriction in the bosom. That is what the verse has stated thirteen centuries before the flight of man. →This would be noted when climbing to altitude, particularly for older people or people with lung problems. Simple observation of an air filled bladder going into water will tell you this. No miracle needed. RJ245 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't really comment on the 'intelligence' vs 'breast' debate though, however I must say that being the rich-language that Arabic is known to be, a word could have several meanings depending upon its context. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Israr Ahmad's Theory of Revolution

Mr. Fawad Ali Lauhany has presented an eleven staged process of revolution in his M.Phil thesis, entitled, "A Critical Analysis of Dr. Israr Ahmad's Views on Islamic Revolution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawadlauhany (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

14 months and counting

Stifle originally locked this article against anonymous edits on 16 May 2008. While I appreciate this is a hot button issue right up there with Judaism and Kurt Cobain, I cannot see the catchphrase of Wikipedia's anyone can edit slide by without noting that it has been over a year since anonymous edits have been allowed on this article. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate forum to raise this issue is WP:RUP--Shahab (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To anon: so get an account. Zero^talk 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To Anon, if you have a specific change you would like to make then currently you can propose that here on the talkpage; However when wp:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions is introduced you will be able to protected articles, though your edits won't appear to the readers until they've been patrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular edit to introduce at this time. I have a problem with "temporarily" locked articles that are locked beyond good sense. I have posted the same thing to chocolate and Judaism - X months and counting. If an article is, in the community's evaluation, best served by an indefinite lock then do so. Do not mishandle the temporary lock in order to "protect" sensitive articles. Silver does not equal gold. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

number of verses in the Qurʾān

There is not ONE fixed number of verses in the Q. because there are several traditions of counting, the best known difference being: is the basmala counted or not. There are many different end-of-ayas, not always resulting in a different end number, but often doing so.

One should add "some" or "according to the second Kufan system of counting" or something of the sort. 85.178.90.41 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jihad

you said that:

jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to universalize Islam.

for the expansion of Islamic state. this is totally wrong. jihad in warfare is to take back not to conquer. please change it. this would almost said that Islam is a religion that ask the believers to declare war with other countries.-a caring muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.121.180.248 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph does go on to state "Most Muslims today interpret Jihad as only a defensive form of warfare"- and historically there are issues like the military takeover of the Iberian peninsula. David Trochos (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Islam is not a superstition

{{editsemiprotected}}

The first paragraph states that Islam is and "Abrahamic religion and SUPERSTITION"! Superstition? Islam forbids superstition and if it is a superstition than so would be Christianity and Judaism. Wikipedia does not state these other religions as superstitions and should not label Islam as a superstitions. In fact, wikipedia mentions that Christianity forbids superstitions. Can the term “superstition” be excluded from Islam’s definition, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salma robs (talk • contribs) 10:30, 31 August 2009

Please change "Abrahamic religion and SUPERSTITION" to "Abrahamic religion" (remove superstition) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salma robs (talk • contribs) 10:33, 31 August 2009

Already done Welcome and thanks for pointing out this vandalism. Another editor had already noticed and reverted the vandalism before your posts, but perhaps you are seeing an earlier version because the page is cached somewhere between wikipedia.org and your browser. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Islam vs. islam

"According to Islamic doctrine, Islam was the primordial religion of mankind, professed by Adam" islam with a lower case i means a way of life, Islam with the Capital I is the religion, likewise muslim with a lower case m means one who submites themselves to God (EX: Jews, Christans, Muslims), Muslims means one who practices Islam (Beleves there is no god But God, And Muhhamed is his prophet). in that scence, Adam could not have been Muslim. sorry for any misspellings75.69.241.180 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your saying, but I suggest you read up on Islamic views of the Prophets (Peace be upon them all) & Adam & Eve. But if this is just a case of spelling then I'm not sure. And Islam is not really a way of life, it means submission to god, and a Muslim is a Submitter. But to be honest with you, I’m a Muslim and I am really not sure what you mean. Wait for someone to come along who does. --Azhar Badr (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think by the word islam the poster is referring to the general message of God which Muslims believe that God's earlier messengers brought to mankind (their varying traditions and laws are different in technicalities but fundamentally the same) and by the word Islam he is referring to the law established specifically by Prophet Muhammad (which is what the religion means to most people today). Similarly the difference between muslim and Muslim. I have not seen a reliable source which describes this difference by the spelling of the first character of the words, hence unless any reliable source is available I recommend not tampering with the status quo. Regards--Shahab (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1.57 billion Muslims i the world in 2009 (according to The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life)

A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 1.57 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion. [1] --Ezzex (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can read abouth this subject on the the Conservative Fox News' site: [Nearly 1 in 4 People Worldwide Is Muslim].Agre22 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Should the topic of Icons and Symbols be addressed?

This is a a rather good article -- but one thing I felt was missing, was a section on how Islam stacks up in the way of iconic or visual symbolism -- or the general lack thereof.

For example, many people assume the star-and-crescent is a symbol of Islam -- but this article doesn't mention it. Shouldn't the whole bit be explained that while this symbol is on many flags of Islamic countries, it really was spread by the Ottoman empire and is not strictly an official Islamic symbol?

Likewise, one could mention the reluctance to really use visual symbols among Moslems, and how this relates to the avoidance of idolatry (graven images). Even that Moslem filmmakers generally will not even show Muhammad (or even Jesus) on camera directly, out of respect.

In other words, Islam really distinguishes itself from the other five or six biggest religions in the reluctance to use (or scarcity of) symbols and images. Seems to me an introductory article should have at least a paragraph on this. Before I jump in, want to know if others agree or disagree, or if someone else wants to do it!

--Tim Musgrove —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Religious biases in Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia

While Google Translate is far from perfect, I couldn't help but notice that religious biases are entrenched in both the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedias (Hebrew having a Jewish POV and Arabic having a Muslim POV, naturally). For example, Google Translate renders the relations between Judaism and Islam in the Arabic Wiki (in the article on "Islam") as

Islam and the Jews

يعتبر اليهود في القرآن أعداء للمسلمين بل هم الأشد عدوانا للمسلمين: ﴿لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا ۖ وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُمْ مَوَدَّةً لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ﴾ [34] و من السيرة النبوية والتاريخ الإسلامي يتضح ذلك من المواقف التي حصلت مع النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم محمد بن عبد الله و يهود يثرب وجاراتها والتي انتهت بإقصاء ثلاثة مراكز لهم وهم بنو قريضة وبنو النضير وبنو قينقاع , وكذلك مشاكل الخيانة التي تكررت منهم في العهد الإسلامي [35] [36] . The enemies of the Jews in the Koran for Muslims, they are for the most aggression against Muslims:) for the most people find their enmity to the believers and the Jews who have been involved and find the nearest in affection to those who believe, who say that the Christians are priests and monks and they are not proud ([34] and the biography of the Prophet and History Islamic evident from the positions obtained with the Prophet, may Allah bless him and peace of Mohammed bin Abdullah and the Jews of Yathrib and its neighbors, which ended in excluding the three centers for them and the children and the children of Gereida Alender and children Kinka, as well as problems of treason, which were repeated in the Covenant of the Islamic [35] [36 ]."

Meanwhile, the Hebrew Wikipedia, in its article on "Islam", doesn't talk about relations between Islam and specific religions, but a few paragraphs (in the section on Sharia) are rendered by Google Translate as

Above all, Muslims must maintain five major team, called "Five Pillars of Islam". מוסלמי אשר אינו מקיימן, ספק אם הוא יכול עדיין להיקרא מוסלמי. Cayman Muslim who does not, it is doubtful he can still be called a Muslim. דבר חשוב הוא, מפני שאדם שנולד מוסלמי וחוזר בו מדת האסלאם נקרא מֻרְתַדּ (مرتدّ) ודינו מוות. The important thing is, because a man is born a Muslim and returns a religion called Islam Mrtd (مرتد) punishable by death. בפועל, לא מקובל לגנות מוסלמי שאינו מקיים את המצוות באופן סדיר, אלא אם הוא מתריס כנגד הדת. In practice, not acceptable to condemn a Muslim who observes the commandments on a regular basis, but if he defiantly against religion. הרוב המכריע של המוסלמים אינם יכולים לעמוד במסע למכה, וגם העיר עצמה אינה יכולה לקלוט מספר גדול כל כך של עולים לרגל, כך שהמוסלמים מקבלים בהשלמה את העובדה שמצווה זו אינה מקוימת על ידי רוב המוסלמים. The vast majority of Muslims are unable to journey to Mecca, and the city itself can not absorb such a large number of pilgrims, so that Muslims are resigned to the fact that this commandment is not fulfilled by most Muslims.

יש זרמים באסלאם, שמונים מצווה נוספת כמצווה עיקרית שישית, זוהי המלחמה בשם הדת, ( ג'יהאד جهاد). Streams have Islam, eighty additional commands obeyed sixth major, is the war name of religion (Jihad جهاد). מלכתחילה נקראו מלחמות מוחמד ותומכיו בעובדי האלילים הערבים "ג'יהאד", והמתים המוסלמים במלחמות אלה נחשבו כמי שזוכים לגמול מיוחד בעולם הבא (סורת אאל עמראן, 188). Wars begin with Muhammad and his followers were called pagans Arabs "Jihad", the dead were Muslims, these wars as receiving a special reward in the afterlife (Sura Aal Imran, 188). כיום הפרשנות למצווה זו נרחבת מאוד ונושאת אופי פוליטי. The interpretation of this mitzvah is very broad political nature. טווח הפרשנות נע בין הגדרת "ג'יהאד" כמאבקו של אדם ביצרו הרע ותו לא, וכלה בהגדרתו כמלחמה כוללת בכל מי שאינו מוסלמי. Range of interpretation between the definition of "Jihad" in man's struggle merely cemented the bad, to the definition in all-out war who is not Muslim.

מושג חשוב אחר באסלאם הוא " שהיד " (شهيد - המשמעות המילולית של המילה היא "עֵד", ויש חוקרים הסבורים שזהו תרגום של המילה היוונית "מרטיר", שמשמעותה זהה). Another important concept in Islam is a "Shaheed" (شهيد - literal meaning of the word is "up", and researchers believe that this is a translation of the Greek word "Martyr", meaning the same). שהיד הוא מוסלמי שמת למען הדת או תוך קיום אחת ממצוותיה. Shaheed is a Muslim who died for the religion or the existence of Commandments. מוות תוך כדי תפילה, בזמן המסע למכה, תוך כדי שליחות דתית וכדומה מעניק למנוח את התואר "שהיד". Death while praying, while the journey to Mecca, a religious mission while giving the deceased so the title "Shaheed". גם מי שנהרג בג'האד מכונה "שהיד". Even those who killed Jihad called "Shaheed". בארצות ערב מקובל להשתמש בתואר "שהיד" גם לגבי חיילים שנהרגו במלחמה. Arab countries acceptable to use the title of "Shaheed" is also about soldiers killed in war.

על פי התפיסה המוסלמית, העולם מחולק לשני חלקים: דאר אל-אסלאם (دار الإسلام) - בית האסלאם, האזור שכבר מוחזק לאזור מוסלמי, כמו ערב הסעודית וחלק מהמזרח התיכון, ו דאר אל-חרב (دار الحرب) - מקום המלחמה, האזור שבו מתגוררים אלו שאינם מוסלמים, כמו אירופה . According to the Muslim perception, the world is divided into two parts: Dar Al - Islam (دار الإسلام) - House of Islam, the region has already held a Muslim region, like Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, and Dar al - Sword (دار الحرب) - a war, the area where These non-Muslims live, like Europe. הקמת מדינה לא-אסלאמית באזור של דאר אל-אסלאם מהווה בעיה קשה בהשקפת העולם המוסלמית, ויש מוסלמים הסבורים כי אי אפשר להשלים עם מצב כזה, אלא באופן זמני ומוגבל. No state - Islamic region of Dar al - Islam is a serious problem the Islamic world view, and Muslims believe that it is impossible to accept this situation, but temporarily limited. השריעה מטילה מגבלות על לא-מוסלמים החיים במדינה מוסלמית. Sharia imposes no restrictions on - Muslims living in a Muslim country. רק בני דתות מונותאיסטיות (ובעיקר נוצרים ו יהודים ) רשאים לחיות במדינה מוסלמית והם מוגדרים כ" בני חסות " החייבים במס גולגולת ונתונים להגבלות. Only religions monotheistic (especially Christians and Jews) are allowed to live in a Muslim country and they are defined as "dhimmis" taxable skull and data limitations.

Perhaps if Jews learned more Arabic and Muslims more Hebrew, both Wikipedias would be more NPOV. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Many Israeli schoolchildren are taught Arabic as a school subject. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I doubt that it's much different for English-speaking articles, speaking as a white-as-the-driven-snow American myself. Each article language is going to reflect more the editing biases of the people editing them, it's unfortunate but it just means we have to watch ourselves carefully. Now I don't know the situation with the Arabic and Hebrew wikis, but depending on the topic there might be serious vandalism and edit warring going on and there are some pages that simply won't get the attention and care (there are plenty of those here too, and often the same subjects). So, in regards to THIS article, and THESE editors, what do you propose be done? Peter Deer (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Distinction between Sunni and Shia

The artcle spells out only modereately this fact, but you should really make it more clear what the main premise is between sunni faiths and the shia faiths. This is especially so because they are the main two factions of Islam's sub-branch casuing too many wars in the world. One farther point is to state that Muhammad (pbuh) is the main pillar of prophethood in both streams of modern Islam. I think this section could well be better explained/documented for the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.24.129 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

About the picture in the top of the article

The first picture in the article "A Muslim prays during the Hajj pilgrimage at Mecca", this is actually not praying. This Muslim is doing Dua which is different than praying. Please, someone change it. --XXx Mouri xXx (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How about changing prayer to supplication--NotedGrant Talk 13:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Performs Dua" would also seem to be appropriate. Peter Deer (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Excess of primary source citation

It seems that a lot of the sections are falling into the big no-no's of citing primary sources, the etymology section being particularly guilty, as it seems to rely almost entirely on primary source analysis. To quote the policy; "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source". Sadly this seems to be a commonality in this particular article, as the reflist will readily show.

I'd just remove them per WP:SYN, but I don't want to gut a mostly stellar article when they are technically sourced (albeit improperly). I was wondering if I could get advice and help in this regard. Peter Deer (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the primary source, i.e. the Quran is in the public domain. What is then the problem, other than that the quote to some extent has to relay the content? St.Trond (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not a copyright issue, it's a policy issue regarding synthesis of primary source material. Thus, domain is not the problem. Peter Deer (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also see WP:PSTS-Shahab (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So fellas, what's the game plan on dealing with it? Peter Deer (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I support not removing any improperly sourced sentences. I suggest that we hunt up secondary sources instead and gradually insert them. Any important issue can be debated on this discussion page. Lots of people keep this page on their watchlist and if a proper source is not being found and this is indicated here I am sure they will come forward and provide the sources.-Shahab (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As much as I hate ad-hoc citation, that's probably one of the better ways to go without disrupting the article. Tell you what, how about I tag a bunch of the stuff and give it a couple weeks, that way folks who see the article will get the opportunity to adhoc cite it and the stuff that is still an issue after that time will be visible to be dealt with. How does that sound to you guys? Peter Deer (talk)

Sounds good to me.-Shahab (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Becomes?

"These disputes over religious and political leadership would give rise to schism in the Muslim community. The majority accepted the legitimacy of the three rulers prior to Ali, and became known as Sunnis. A minority disagreed, and believed that Ali was the only rightful successor; they became known as the Shi'a.[80]"

this needs to be rewritten.. Sunnis are the Sunna followers and they are known by that name long time before accepting Ali as caliph.. hoping you got my point23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression (though I cannot cite my sources on this matter currently, which is why I do not add them in myself) that Shi'a comes from a term meaning "Party of Ali" and before the division they were all known simply as Mu'minun or Muslims. I'll need to cruise by the reference desk at some point and see if I can help out in that regard but that's just what I have on that. Of course, if you have appropriate sources in regards to your point you can cite them. Peter Deer (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

Fatimah, Mary and the Divine Feminine in Islam

Fatimah, Mary and the Divine Feminine in Islam

-- 88.75.193.56 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fatema Mernissi

Chronological Overview of books by Fatema Mernissi I do wonder why none of her books has been mentioned.

-- 88.75.193.56 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If they are suitable reliable third party sources then I see no reason why you yourself couldn't cite them. Peter Deer (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where to add this but as to what i know (What i have been practicing all my life) "Articles of faith" the 2.2 and 2.4 are not centered on islam, its all the religions of god (Allah), and all his prophets starting from Adam (PBUH) and ending with prophet Muhammed (PBUH).شحم —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.148.252 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Image of written name of Allah

Allah would be written: الله, however, in the image it is written لله, without the initial hamzah al-wasl. This actually changes the meaning from beginning simply the name Allah, to a construction showing ownership - the lack of this hamzah (also referred to as an alif) indicated a doubled (mushaddad) lam, or in English, "L", which is referred to as a Lam Milkiyyah, indicating ownership. Since I don't know how to work with images well, I thought I would bring this to attention of the general public, hopefully someone can fix this. Supertouch (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a properly spelled "Allah" image on the Allah page and "borrowed" it. IF anyone objects please discuss here. Supertouch (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out.--AYousefzai (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for help

i am facing a lot of problems with the article "people of the book"

i keep changing the article to the proper neutral form but there are users who keep vandalizing the article.

i would like someone to place a permanent lock on the article. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

the correct place for such a request is WP:RFPP --NotedGrant Talk 15:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fastest Growing?

I'm not certain that the term "the fastest growing religion in the world." can be used as that is a very subjective statement, thus making the statement a possible violation of WP:NPOV As the article that statement is linked to suggests, "fastest growing" differs based on criterion that is being used. I see that the article is extremely well-sourced, including that particular statement, but I don't believe any religion can be said to be the fastest growing. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that. In percentage terms, a religion which grows from two to four members is growing much faster than Islam, or any other "mainstream" religion. David Trochos (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's confusing. I trust they meant fastest growing in absolute numbers (number of people), rather than relative numbers (percentages). Which makes more sense if it's one of the "mainstream". --  DasRakel  ✍  15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

“ Islam... is the world's fastest growing religion and will soon be the world's largest. The 1.2 billion Muslims make up approximately one quarter of the world's population, and the Muslim population of the United States now outnumbers that of Episcopalians... ”

Source PBS: Islam Today

--119.73.0.119 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course! Depends on how "soon" is defined. See Major religious groups. It only requires the moslem population to somehow grow by 0.8 billion people in an overpopulated world. The article is too kind to accept such an extraordinarily biased statement, adding "arguably". I think that if a hypothetical religion ftongo (just an example) increases from 1 high priest to 1 high priest and 4 adherents, then ftongo is growing the most, by percentage. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles of faith

In the current article it says: "...all of God's messengers since Adam preached the message of Islam — submission to the will of God."

According to the Quran (3,33), the will of God is currently brought to the nations by the descendants of Ibrahim and Imran. Proposed addition after the sentence above is:

"According to Islam the will of God is currently brought to the nations by the descendants of Abraham and Imran." —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Islam, (derived among other things from Quran 30:30, and interpreted through Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Numbers 441, 467) every human being is born in the state of being a Muslim. (What is defined as a Muslim might not be the current usage of the term.) All Prophets starting from Adam preached the same message. Your personal interpretation of the Quran is misleading because you are not taking it in the proper context (& I don't just mean the lines above; rather the larger context). The Prophet explicitly prohibited personal interpretation, due to various reasons. For a novice to correctly understand Quran it is better to follow the orthodox opinions obtained from Islamic theologians. This does not neccessarily exclude independent understanding of the Quran. (For details on the last sentence check the link) Regards--Shahab (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To Shahab: The difference between the Christians' reading of the Bible and the Muslims' reading of the Quran, seems to be that while the Bible may have been distorted before it was written, the Quran is distorted after it is read. St.Trond (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the page on "Allah" the Quran is quoted. The sentence is now restricted to the Quran in stead of Islam. 88.89.126.212 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and this is not the place for personal discussion of Quranic interpretation. Furthermore, the supposed meanings of Quranic verse should not be an issue, as they should not be included except by a reliable cited source. Introducing primary source material to advance a point is improper synthesis. Now, as to the sentence in question, it is not cited with a reliable third-party source, and neither is the sentence after that. If no one objects (please provide basis) or finds sufficient citation, then I shall consider myself at liberty to remove the offending sentences. Does that seem acceptable to everyone? Peter Deer (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Some Errors in the Articles of Faith

As a matter of fact, articles of faith are not God, Quran, Angels, Muhammad, Resurrection & Day of Judgement and Predestination and free will. They are:

Oneness of God;
Revealed Books of God;
Angles;
Prophethood;
Resurrection & Day of Judgement; and
Predestination and free will.

This error must be corrected. Bhaur (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. the first Tawhid.. is literally the oneness of God. Belief is not just in the Quran, or Muhammad. It is a belief in divine guidance, through the reveled books (of which Quran, while special is the final and uncorrupted version) and prophets (of which Muhammad is the last and for all mankind vs. for a nation or age). As an encylopedia the headings need to be technically accurate descriptors, and should be able to read off correctly as bullet points in this case. As it stands, the articles of faith listed are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

- "Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to universalize Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, un-Islamic leaders or states which refuse to submit to the authority of Islam.[64][65]"

This statement is sourced to page 17 of Jihad by Reuven Firestone (1999). I checked the page because I found the claim a bit suspicious, so I checked the reference. Firestone makes absolutely no claim about the global ambitions of Islam, or violent Jihad being the primary or even legitimate method of propagation. The second source I could not find online, although seems legit. This is a fairly egregious abuse of a source, so I'm going to give anyone who wants to defend it a week to post an argument as to why I am mistaken, and if there is no action by then I am going to take it down. Maxkbennett (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced to Encylopedia of Islam also, probably the most reliable source we have. - Merzbow (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see some bits of it derived from EofI and bits from Firestone. But it does not neutrally represent either. For example, that page (17) of Firestone starts with "There are therefore many kinds of jihad, and most have nothing to do with warfare." That's a flat-out contradiction to our text. The list "apostates, rebels, ..." in our text is extracted from the same page of Firestone, but Firestone gives them as examples of jihad against Muslims, again contradicting our text. The text of EofI is closer, but quite a bit more nuanced than our text suggests. For example it notes contrary opinions, the fact that jihad in Shia is suspended in the absence of the Imam (i.e. forever in pratice), etc.. A rewrite is needed. Zero^talk 07:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because there are many types of something doesn't mean that a single type is not predominant, and it does seem clear that jihad as warfare is what Islamic jurisprudence (which, like most legal traditions, is conservative by nature and changes slowly, as opposed to popular opinion among Muslims, which the section does address) primarily sees it as. We also have to be careful not to give undue weight to minority views (for example, Shia are only 15% of Muslims). - Merzbow (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What we have to do is to fairly report what the sources say. If we don't follow the source, we are doing original research. Btw, given the importance of Iran in global politics today, the Shia viewpoint is indeed important. Zero^talk 03:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon reading the article from the encyclopedia of Islam, I see that the statement is not as unfounded as I originally thought, but it is still a significant departure from both sources, and I agree with Zero, it needs to be re-written, reflecting the broad, and sometimes vague, spectrum of belief on this subject (as depicted by the sources). Regarding the Jurisprudence vs Muslim popular opinion though, a clearer definition of "Islamic jurisprudence" is needed in this context as in Islam (in my opinion), the distinction between who is an authority on religious matters, and who is not, is often unclear, particularly in contrast with other religions. Just to clarify though, I am not disputing the legitimacy of the sources, but rather the selected passage's representation of them. Maxkbennett (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points. No text is immune to improvement, but due to the controversial nature of this topic and the length of time the existing text has stood, I would suggest that anyone attempting a rewrite please run it through talk first (and referencing a couple of additional, rock-solid sources would help also). It is certainly a tricky topic. The lines between "established Islamic law" and "mainstream Muslim thought" and "what most Muslims believe" do exist, but are often not clear-cut. Many popular English authors on the subject of Islam have an unfortunate tendency to gloss over them without letting the reader know that such distinctions exist at all (often to push a particular agenda, "pro" or "anti"). - Merzbow (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing an important point. Jurisprudence deals with laws. As such it only covers the aspect of Jihad which needs to properly regulated, i.e. violence. Islamic Theology, however will deal with all the moral and philosophical aspects of Jihad as well. This is not a question of popular opinion, but simply that no law will be in place to regulate the exhortation that one must strive to be a better muslim. One will however exist on how one may contend with external pressure that prevents one from being one, without "exceeding the bounds" (quranic phraseology). Any number of muslim texts and treatises, throughout history exist telling the Muslim to be better and make the world a better place and equating it with Jihad. The jurisprudence, posts the limits on how this may be done. With that in mind, I am sure both firestone and Eofl will make more sense, and if that is not clear and one needs to go read the sources to get it, then there may be an issue with the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism and violence

• Why doesn't this article discuss the fact that Islam is a violent, hateful religion that oppresses it's people through threats of violence and terrorism? If we look at the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, we can clearly see that it is NOT a religion of peace. These people react to anything that does not agree with them with blatant acts of violence and hatred. Killing people, burning down schools, burning cars, destroying stores, etc. These are the supposedly peaceful acts of Muslims?

  Additionally, in many Islamic countries, the people are violently killed for being the wrong version of Islam. Honor killing, maiming, acid attacks, suicide bombings, the list goes on with the types of inhuman behaviors Muslims wreak upon both themselves, and those who disagree with their religion.

  So why does this article not include any of the truth? Islam is clearly a violent religion.76.112.36.143 (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• YOU KNOW>>> YOU SHOULD READ THE QUORAN ONCE AND THEN YOU'D UNDERSTAND... ISLAM DOES NOT PREACH VIOLENCE. NO RELIGION DOES. YOU INTERPRET IT AS A VIOLENT RELIGION< THAT'S YOUR BLOODY MISTAKE. AND NO I'M NOT ISLAMIC, I"M A HINDU MYSELF. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• There are plenty of verses in the Koran that talk about doing violence on unbelievers. Additionally, there are many Imams who preach violence and hatred to their followers in the name of Allah. These are not isolated occurrences. That's why whenever something happens that Muslims do not like, they react with violence. Is your daughter too western? Run her over with a car! Did a newspaper make a comic you don't like? Threaten to kill everyone involved! Violence is a very common part of Islam. 76.112.36.143 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Additionally, just because you don't like my question doesn't mean it's not a valid question. Reverting it as a rant, or saying it's forum talk or whatever does not cut it. It is a valid question that pertains directly to the article. Why does this article avoid making any ties between Islam and violence? 76.112.36.143 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • • Please, all participants, DO NOT let this discussion drift off into flamage and bad language. If you disagree with anything, please add a counter-argument. And, for the incidents and other statements alleged, please quote references (in line, not using <ref> ... </ref>, as this is a talk page). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Gentlemen, regardless of your opinions regarding Islam, you should endeavor to keep a neutral tone and cite sourced information. In response to the initial question. In response to the editor of the article, it is my experience that there is extensive coverage of articles relevant to Islamic terrorism (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many many many more, some of which are referenced from this very article) the reason why the concept does not predominate the article is mostly relevant to Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight. Regardless of how you feel about Islam, Wikipedia is there to produce a neutral description, not commentary. Peter Deer (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• I have again undeleted this section. Remember: WP:FORUM: this page is not a general discussion forum about the subject, but only about what matter to include in article Islam or its related pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

            Hello there... First of All Islam isn't preaches to kill any innocent peoples.. AS in the Quran "whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind" Ch#5,Verse#32....

Islam is not only for simple person but also for Army troops and other defensive forces (i.e. Police) its preaches what in the Quran..you should read those verses in their textual and historical context. Hate is not good for any person. I want to assure you that we Muslims also do not hate non-Muslims, be they Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist or followers of any religion or no religion. The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder,(…Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.) (Al-An`am 6: 151). If Islam preaches hate and Violence, then why i'm a peace loving person?

Note:- Sorry I'dont know where to reply, So... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.14.13 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Expansionism

Why is there no mention on this page of the fact that it is considered the duty of the adherents of this religion to spread the religion to all so-called "unbelievers" and make them adopt their beliefs and follow their "laws" by any means necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michele3.1415 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Because what you say is not true.--Shahab (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's alright then. Phew, I thought history was littered with this behaviour. Turns out I interpreted it wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.137.172 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even though I strongly discourage placing in the main article, Michele is more right than wrong. Check out these direct sources from the Qur'an. Qur'an 2:216, 4:65-81, 2:190-193, to state a few. These unfortunately are not taken out of context and are not mentioned in the website you provided. --Bddrey (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it can be argued that they are taken out of context as well. But the point to note here is that the Quran is a primary source. Primary sources are always open for interpretation. I know some people who point out verses in the Bible and conclude that it is evil. Such conclusions are at best immature & at worst venomous. WP guidelines ask for relying primarily on reliable, third-party published sources. As far as my knowledge goes, no major school of thought within Islam forces non-believers to convert by any means necessary. It is not part of the Islamic law. If I am mistaken and it is so then please use the secondary and tertiary sources from canons of Islamic law etc to add the relevant info.--Shahab (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to this (sorry, I don't know how to log in and what not), I would say that the Quran (this is going to come from the 'primary source' idea of different interpretations) needs to be considered as a whole. Much like you can't take a sentence out of context, I would argue that you can't take these sentences away from the context of the entire book. The Quran is very clear that forcing religion and conversion is not allowed. It also states that even when defending oneself (fighting is only permitted in self defense), if the other side desists, you must desist as well. The quotes you brought forth should be understood as such. 2:216 Jihad isn't an offensive war of aggression. It is inteded to always be response. 4:65-81 I'm confused by what your problem is. The first part discusses those who say they believe, but really don't. "If God asks them to sacrifice what they have, they will hesitate and not desire to do so". The defensive nature of a war is emphasized with 4:76 stating, "And how could you refuse to fight in the cause of God and of the utterly helpless men and women and children who are crying, "O our Sustainer! Lead us forth [to freedom] out of this land whose people are oppressors, and raise for us, out of Thy grace, a protector, and raise for us, out of Thy grace, one who will bring us succour!"".

Your last quoted verse, 190-193 starts off like this: "AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.* ".

Of course this isn't me making up my own interpretation. A lot of it comes from Leopold Weiss. In the end we must remember that people's action do not necessarily sync with what they state they believe. I wouldn't be surprised if most people in the world who claim to be part of a religion haven't even full the book. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't even read 1/2 the book, or even a 1/4th. So if we want to discuss what the religion actually says vs what people's action are, we need to be very clear about this. --User:A Person 10:13 AM 7 July 2009

Unfortunately, the words also state that if someone persecutes a Muslim, they are to slay them. Not adamantly attempt to work with them and convince them to think otherwise. So basically it says, 'if someone insults you, kill them', at least that is the consensus where i found it. However, this is a talk page, not a general conversation forum. Lets try to keep these sort of conversations to a minimum. --Bddrey (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly there is a big jump you are making from persecution (which in the historical context of the Quran refers to mass, and often violent, systematic oppression: see Taif, Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans etc) to insult(which you seem to imply as through mere mockery and words). Secondly as I have already said we need to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. In particular read the section here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#References. Here is a secondary source: The Quran by Oliver Leaman (see page 491). Finally, as noted by A Person above we need to consider the Quran as a whole. This page here has some more input (particularly the last few paras) although this shouldn't be taken as a source for adding info to the article.--Shahab (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation are by definition interpreted. To the protagonist there will always be good from interpreting it better, and the antagonist will find bad from interpreting it better. Unfortunately we do not know which one is the truly better interpretation for absolute truth. Therefore, one is to presume all well performed interpretations as equally truthful. This is unless one has a predetermined ideology that one is more acceptable than another, in this case interpretation is taken as factual and assumed as a natural truth instead of the correct ideology that it is an interpretation of the truth, where the defined truth is unknown.

Spread by the Sword

Can't this issue, of interest to many people, be included? I remember reading the Encyclopedia Britannica stating the Islam was spread by the sword. You say that today, and you are at the very least politically incorrect. But wasn't it in fact spread by the sword? It took Christianity 300+ years to be accepted by the Romans. In 100 years Islam was at the gate of the realm of the Francs. Didn't Mohamed say "Submit, and you will be Safe."  ?? How about an honest discussion of this? Cutugno (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

"During this time expansion of the Muslim world continued, by both conquest and peaceful proselytism";

"While the Muslim-Arab elite engaged in conquest";

"Muslim conquests"

and so on. No attempts to whitewash history here. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No arab Muslim converted Malaysia or Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim country in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackswan2 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never read of "peaceful proselytism" associated with Islam. I believe the choices were - fight us, convert to Islam, or pay the tax to keep your religion (with accompanying acceptance of social inferiority). Cutugno (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many nations invited the Muslims over, as their rule was much, much better then the normal rulers of regions, and they made many improvements. Most Muslims only fought for self defence, conquering the lands that were attempting to invade them. 86.172.91.241 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

About as much as Christianity was spread by the sword under the Romans and the Gun in colonial times. It's a rather outsider cultural bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Islam was spread in Indonesia without sword but through trading —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitampansakti89 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Just an addition) It was spread with trading and the inter-marriages between already a Muslim state with non-Muslim states. In medieval times, when a ruler converts into other religion, most of its people will also convert to the same religion their rule embraced earlier. Kangxi Emperor (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A good point. Many Muslims in India and Pakistan were converted in this way. When a ruler (of a small state in medieval India) converted to Islam, the subjects followed suit-Shahab (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the Mughals forcefully converted the population after they had conquered each region. warrior4321 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Spread by the Sword

Can't this issue, of interest to many people, be included? I remember reading the Encyclopedia Britannica stating the Islam was spread by the sword. You say that today, and you are at the very least politically incorrect. But wasn't it in fact spread by the sword? It took Christianity 300+ years to be accepted by the Romans. In 100 years Islam was at the gate of the realm of the Francs. Didn't Mohamed say "Submit, and you will be Safe."  ?? How about an honest discussion of this? Cutugno (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

"During this time expansion of the Muslim world continued, by both conquest and peaceful proselytism";

"While the Muslim-Arab elite engaged in conquest";

"Muslim conquests"

and so on. No attempts to whitewash history here. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No arab Muslim converted Malaysia or Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim country in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackswan2 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never read of "peaceful proselytism" associated with Islam. I believe the choices were - fight us, convert to Islam, or pay the tax to keep your religion (with accompanying acceptance of social inferiority). Cutugno (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many nations invited the Muslims over, as their rule was much, much better then the normal rulers of regions, and they made many improvements. Most Muslims only fought for self defence, conquering the lands that were attempting to invade them. 86.172.91.241 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

About as much as Christianity was spread by the sword under the Romans and the Gun in colonial times. It's a rather outsider cultural bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Islam was spread in Indonesia without sword but through trading —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitampansakti89 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Just an addition) It was spread with trading and the inter-marriages between already a Muslim state with non-Muslim states. In medieval times, when a ruler converts into other religion, most of its people will also convert to the same religion their rule embraced earlier. Kangxi Emperor (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A good point. Many Muslims in India and Pakistan were converted in this way. When a ruler (of a small state in medieval India) converted to Islam, the subjects followed suit-Shahab (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the Mughals forcefully converted the population after they had conquered each region. warrior4321 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

In Etymology and meaning, please change "Whomsoever God desires to guide, He expands his breast to Islam." to "Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam."

In Articles of faith, please change "The Qur'an states that all Muslims must believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment".[19]" to: The Quran states that God calls on muslims to believe in him, his messengers, and his books: "O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray." [19]"

In Angles, please edit: According to the Qur'an, angels do not possess free will, and worship God in perfect obedience.[40] to:

According to the Quran, angels may possess two, three or four wings, and that they glorify God night and day with no intermitting.[40]"

your suggestions seem to replace neutral text with POV text. --anonymous 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your comments --anonymous 16:10, 25 december 2009, and I now ask for a neutral administrator to look into the edit request.

This looks a bit to me like the user is pushing the particular interpretation of the primary sources ahead of the current (and, I assume, cited) interpretations discussed in the article. Without reliable sources provided for these interpretations are supplied, they won't be added, per WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:POV. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. There seems to be some disagreement with the requested changes. Please reach a consensus here or through the usual dispute resolution paths before reinstating the request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Zaik Nakir

A user is attempting to use a photo of Zaik Nakir on this Islam. I think this is a horrible idea - every person will then begin to post there own favorite religious figure perhaps resulting in unnecessary conflict. I am firmly against the inclusion of the picture of any person of this page as that would imply that that person is representative of Islam as a whole. Supertouch (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, it's Zakir Naik. He is the first person in Islam's history to start a 24-7 global Islamic channel, and is helping spread the teachings of Islam to all mankind. I think you should learn who he is before you start commenting.--AYousefzai (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unconcerned with who Zaik is or his alleged significance. There should not be picture of any individual on this page regardless of how "great" that person is in the eyes of his followers. Supertouch (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put Zakir Naik's picture to show I'm his follower. I did it to help improve the Islam article.--AYousefzai (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

and how does his picture improve the article please?-Shahab (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree Shahab. This is a discussion brewing on User:Peter Deer, hopefully he will move it here. Supertouch (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh whoops, I thought one of you was gonna do it. Sorry bout that....Peter Deer (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture discussion transcribed from User talk: Peter Deer

I would like your feedback on the new discussion regarding the Islam page. Do you think the page needs a picture of Zaik Nakir or any other religious figure on the page? In my opinion it will just lead to differing along sectarian lines... What do you think? Supertouch (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's Zakir Naik. He is the only Muslim in Islam's 1,400 years history to start a global Islamic TV channel. He is the most recognized face in the Muslim media. Also, he doesn't represent any particular group or sect. All I'm trying to do is help improve the article, and by putting his picture it also adds information about how Islam is spread today by media.--AYousefzai (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you should ask me, considering I'm not vastly familiar with his work nor do I have any particular opinion on it (though I suppose that helps in one regard). From what I gather Zakir Naik is an extremely prominent media figure in the Muslim world and in relations between the Muslim world and the international community. I looked at the Islam article to see if such a person had a particularly relevant place in that article, and try as I might I did not see a place that seemed particularly appropriate. On the Muslim page, however, which is sorely lacking in imagery (and could use some expansion as well) it seemed a choice place for such an image. Does that seem reasonable? Peter Deer (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter, if I might make a suggestion, perhaps this discussion should be copied to the Islam/talk page. Just for the record, I am very unfamiliar with current Islamic lecturers/speakers myself, but I don't object to WHOSE picture is placed on any page, I object to the picture of any individual or group or center being posted in a manner that implies that that individual, group or center is representative of an entire religion. Even on a page like Muslim I think it is inappropriate. A choice picture in my mind would be one of numerous Muslims at the Ka'bah or on Hajj or in a big Masjid or something along those lines. Supertouch (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My position is somewhat similar to above. Moreover Zakir Naik is nowhere representative of even the Indian Muslim community. (Also see this). (He is an Indian BTW.) He is just an Muslim evangelist, I'm not even sure whether he has any real scholarly works to his credit.-Shahab (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection should anyone wish to copy this conversation over to the article page.

As to your points I completely understand what you mean. While he's not particularly controversial or polemic that I'm aware of, it would be similar in principle to putting up a picture of Pat Robertson on the Christianity page, something which many Christians would undoubtedly find objectionable as a representation of their religion.

The difficulty in this regard is Wikipedia policy is not absolutely explicit from what I've seen, and the question comes down to the main one: does this make the article more encyclopedic? The conclusion I come to in that question is that Zakir Naik's image seems like something that I could entirely expect to read in a Brittanica article for instance. The issue, as I stated above, seems that it doesn't seem as appropriate for placement in this article, simply because of the article's content and layout. Peter Deer (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The only persons whose images I could imagine being appropriate for this page would be great figures from Islamic history. Being widely known, even very famous, in 2009 doesn't make it. That's my opinion. Zero^talk 21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It just seems like this article lacks an appropriate place for it to me. If there were a section like "Islam in modern Media" (for example) it seems like that would be entirely appropriate. As it is currently, not so much. Peter Deer (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think his picture should be placed in the section "Modern times" sub-section "Islamic revival and Islamist movements" because Zakir Naik started his campaign to revive Islam through the media. That's what he himself always says on TV. His general appearance, style and line of work deals directly with Islam. He is friendly towards all religions as well as athiests. He doesn't even joke about non-Muslims, so you can't get any better example of a Muslim than him. The comment about Pat Robertson is also irrelevant because Robertson was not the first to start a global Christianity TV channel. For those who don't know Peace TV, it's a 24-hour Islamic TV channel that is broadcasted to most parts of the world and you see Dr Zakir Naik in it all day long. Even most of the ads show him in it. He owns the Channel and appears on it along with a number of other Islamic scholars. So basically he is bringing Islam to your living rooms and teaching you all about it.--AYousefzai (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Pat Robertson comment is irrelevant at all, and also the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, as well as nearly a dozen other high-profile Christian organizations, and one could make the same argument on the same basis. I think that inclusion of him in the Islamism section is not only inappropriate, but misleading.

I am not arguing at all that this individual is not significant and famous and well known and notable. I am just saying, as I have said, that I do not feel that his inclusion is appropriate specifically for this page, and I would suggest having him on the Muslim page instead, where it's more relevant to the point. Peter Deer (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The two main reasons I objects to the inclusion of this picture were: 1. It contributes nothing to the article and 2. It reeks of promotion of an individual. The latter is confirmed by the zeal with which this user is insisting on the inclusion Zakir's picture and singing his praises. Also, beginning a television show or channel or whatever hardly qualifies one as significant. Strange logic. Supertouch (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that we add Zakir's image because it helps the article. I don't care about your personal feeling toward Zakir. You can't help it to accept facts, that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and soon will be the largest.[2] Thanks to people like Dr. Zakir Naik for this. If you want to hide this truth then be it, but it will not stop Islam from spreading. This article should explain all there is about Islam. It looks to me that you want to hide something. A person should be respected for his great accomplishments. If Pat Robertson has contributed more to Christianity than any other Christian then I don't see a reason for not having his picture in the Christianity article. The point on doing this is to help readers understand fully about the religion.--AYousefzai (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Zakir Naik is that much accompalished that you can credit him for making Islam the fastest growing in the world. I think you have not presented any neutral source so far. BTW Zakir Naik is an Ahl-e-hadith (or salafi) and has promoted this point of view by on occasions. (This is not relevant, but I think that you said that he doesn't belong to any sect.)-Shahab (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't understand Urdu, Sikh language, Hindi, etc. Second, Youtube references are not allowed in Wikipedia. Zakir Naik doesn't belong to any sect, he's not Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadyia, etc. If he said that he is Salafi that is not a sect. You have the right to hate Zakir Naik but you need to show us an important person who speaks against Zakir. You also can't show another Muslim who has done more than Zakir in "modern times" which is the section we're dealing with. --AYousefzai (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

AYousefzai, I understand your feelings in this regard, and the prominence of his influence in modern Muslim media is not an argument. But I feel like you're not taking into account the things that I've been saying on the matter. Peter Deer (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned that much about his picture in the article but a little about him should be mentioned in the "modern times" section. Before there were images of Muslim street children from India in the article. I removed them and decided to put important figures of Islam, like Zakir Naik.--AYousefzai (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, value judgments...I won't presume to lecture you on the anthropological significance of ordinary members of a specific group or society as opposed to overemphasis on certain celebrities, but I will say that the changes you're making should reflect consensus. Peter Deer (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't hate Zakir Naik (and in no way identify myself with the title of that video, if that's what led you to do that conclusion.) And the sect part means that he is an Ahle Hadith, (which is similar to the Salafi's in the Arab world, with the exception that they reject the Imams (Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafai etc) and directly derive their jurisprudence on Hadith etc. This is very much a distinct group in India. (For example their way of offering namaz includes saying takbir loudly by raising hands to the ears when going into Ruku' and Zakir Naik has given statements stating that this is the appropriate way.) Also I don't know whether this is important but fatwas have been issued against Zakir Naik in India.[3][4] So some so called important people have spoken against Zakir Naik. But all that is not the point. (As I said that this isn't relevant). The important thing is there are no sources to show that he has done wonders for Islam, through his TV lectures. I am not sure of what he has actually accompalished so I am not claiming anything, but you are and due to WP policy you ought to post some neutral sources for support. Your claim that Zakir Naik is partly responsible for making Islam the fastest growing in the world, is something that cannot be accepted without neutral proofs to back it up. If you post sources then I have no objection.(P.S. The sources should be neutral otherwise they are not reliable.)-Shahab (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you have no valuable information and I don't feel like arguing. If you don't hate Zakir then why you posted a hateful Youtube clip about him? Forget it. I watch Zakir all the time on Peace TV, don't teach me who or what he is. He does not belong to any sect, meaning he's not a Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiya, NOI, Sufi, etc. He prays as a Hanafi (the way of the Prophet) as stated by him. WordPress is BS blogsite. The other (mypopkorn.com) is another unreliable source.--AYousefzai (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

-Original fatwa-Shahab (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell me with that link you found online? An annonymous person from Afghanistan asked a question about Zakir Naik at a BS blog site if Zakir Naik is Muslim and the answerer said Zakir doesn't dress as a Muslim so people shouldn't take him serious. This is getting really ridiculous. Zakir Naik has 2 popular Islamic TV channels (Peace TV and Peace TV Urdu) which are so far being watched by over 20 million people world wide and the numbers are growing fast. May Allah bless him and his family for the great work he's doing. Sorry to say it again but you have no valuable information.--AYousefzai (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The fatwa was issued by Darul-uloom Deoband, and the original fatwa link refers to its site and not the blog site. So that's not an unreliable link. The other fatwa has been issued from Lucknow. Personally I have no opinion regarding these fatwas and only posted them because you asked me to show you an important person speaking against Zakir Naik. I do not reject or accept these fatwas. Please understand I have no personal grouse against Zakir Naik. (I have only seen one or two of his lectures, anyway). If I have inadvertently hurt your feelings I apologise. However please understand that my position is not that I am opposed to Zakir Naik's picture in this article at any cost, rather that I would require you to post neutral and credible sources showing that he has impacted a large number of Muslims, and non Muslims. As I said before as soon as credible sources are available I will withdraw my objection. I believe that this is a legitimate requirement. Regards.-Shahab (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I respect your belief and opinion. Do you have any idea how many people hate US President Barak Obama or former President George W. Bush? I'm sure you'll agree that many people hate them around the world and many fatwas were issued against them. But all that doesn't really mean anything unless Presidents or leaders at the UN start complaining about them, only THEN, we can accept that they (Bush and Obama) were not so great. So, you have to do similar for Zakir Naik because he has over 20 million viewers around the world and just because someone doesn't like him or his dress style that doesn't really mean anything. We don't even have any significant Christian, Jew, Hindu, Athiest, speak against Zakir. His Peace TV channel claims to have over 20 million viewers around the world, I think that's a significant number. If you get to know him more then you'll clearly understand that his mission is to revive Islam by media and this is why I wanted to have his picture. But I've decided to hold it off for now until more people realize this and agree with me, then we may go ahead and do so. This will help all people to know where Islam is today.--AYousefzai (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming very unnecessarily prolonged. While concensus cannot be claimed, just looking over this talk it becomes clear that three people disagree with the posting of this individual's picture and are able to present intelligent discussions to support this position. The dissenter simply repeats over and over again how great and special this speaker is without discussing any further why his picture should be included thereby representing an entire religion to the readership of Wikipedia. I say we end this discussion here with a "Wikipedian's understanding" that the picture should not be included. Supertouch (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that I still support the inclusion in either the Muslim page or in a possible future section on Muslim media. Peter Deer (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are neutral sources to show his contribution or impact, I would still object though.-Shahab (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To User:Supertouch, you are the one who couldn't even spell Zakir Naik. That shows your intelligence. Anyway, I said I don't feel like arguing with you and User:Shahab so why are you extending this discussion? I don't even understand your argument, I wasn't trying to make Zakir Naik leader of Islam but only wanted to place his image in the appropiate section "Modern times" where his name is mentioned. [5] Consensus did not take place and you can't end discussions because others may leave comments in the future. I agree with Peter Deer because he seems nuetral, we'll wait for a possible future Muslim or Islamic media section.--AYousefzai (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have disagreed with you AYousefzai, that does not at all justify your insulting me and questioning my intelligence.I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia etiquette Wikipedia:No personal attacks and also with etiquette of your religion which I assume you belong to judging by your user name. Supertouch (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My intention is not to insult you, I was saying that since you didn't know Zakir Naik it proves your argument was not intelligent. So please don't feel hurt.--AYousefzai (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to correct something, Zakir Naik's Peace TV has 50 to 75 million viewers.[6] I previously said 20 million.--AYousefzai (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A general opinion: of course his pic should not be in this article (imagine a slight emphasis of irritation here). If anyone it should be Muhammed, the founder himself, but since images of him and his family are not acceptable according to many islam traditions, the current situation with images of holy places and buildings is very much preferrable. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You actually want us to add an image of Muhammad from 7th century in the section "Modern times (1918–present)"? I proposed that we add Zakir Naik's image there since his name is mentioned in the sub-section (Islamic revival and ...). Not only that, he's the only Muslim that is doing something very important for Islam in modern times which is attempting to revive Islam through his Peace TV (watched by upto 75 million people world wide).[7]

People of every religion have friendly debates with him, a sign that they like him. However, a tiny minority Shias fear Zakir Naik simply because he's a Sunni with the power to exposing Shias in his Peace TV but Naik clarified this and said he doesn't want to do things like that.[8] Shias argue that since Zakir Naik stated on one of his programs "may Allah be pleased with Yazid", this makes him a nonmuslim in their opinion. The reason for this is that Shias claim Yazid killed Hussain (son of Ali) but they have no proof whatsoever, and Zakir Naik stated in his programs "that whoever is the real killer of Hussain (RA) I curse him".[9]--AYousefzai (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Although you have not yet supplied any neutral sources yet to show that Naik has done anything for Islam and deserves a place here, please explain why should he be given any preference over other contemporary (& probably genuine) scholars and media personalities like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Jamal Badawi, Hossein Nasr etc. This ties in with the objection Supertouch raised earlier.-Shahab (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But I didn't say Shias are claiming Yazid personally killed Hussain, why did you bring this up? Shias hold Yazid responsible for Hussain's death but the record for that particular event explains that the followers of Hussain (Shias) fled the battle of Kerbala and abandoned Hussain, resulting in his death. The adding of Zakir Naik's image to the Islamic revival sub-section has nothing to do with the events of the battle of Kerbala and Hussain. Zakir speaking about pigs in America is not idioticity. Scientists and medical experts today can prove to you that you are what you eat, and I believe that's what Dr. Naik was trying to address. I've been going to America in the last 25 years very often and from what I've seen over there it's true that most Americans eat pork (pig) and that most Americans don't mind if his lover sleeps with another person. If you don't believe this then you need to study American culture more thoroughly, and in no way is that denouncing other religions as you falsely put it because he didn't mention Christians.

Let me remind you again, Zakir Naik is the only Muslim in modern times who is reviving Islam with his Peace TV (watched by upto 75 million people globally). This is why I believe he qualifies for putting his image in the section Modern times (1918–present), sub-section Islamic revival and.... You keep avoiding this specific part. Zakir is a world-wide Muslim figurehead while Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is only known in India. Don't be confused, we're not looking for the best scholars here but someone who contributes more to Islam. Jamal Badawi is shown on Zakir's Peace TV, which puts him below Zakir. Hossein Nasr is only a book writer of Iranian Shia background, and Shias are only about 10% of Islam but the majority 90% Muslims oppose Shia works. You are a believer in Sufism which is why you are putting this long argument because Zakir opposes all sects and groups.--AYousefzai (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted all that argument because that is not conducive and relevant to wikipedia. I have absolutely no wish to argue over the greatness of this person with you. If you really want to know I watched a Christianity vs Islam Naik show on Peace TV and found Naik finding errors in the Bible as terrible offensive and immature, & that's what I alluded to. Perhaps I am wrong but anyway, arguing here will serve no purpose for this article.

I'll clarify my stand again: Please provide neutral sources stating that Peace TV is watched by 75 million people(and by neutral I mean not Peace TV site itself), please provide neutral sources stating that these 75 million people watch only Zakir Naik on peace tv, please provide neutral sources stating that millions of people have been highly influenced by Naik, please provide neutral sources stating that Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is known only in India and is less influential then Naik, please provide neutral sources stating Hossein Nasr has influenced fewer people then Naik, please provide neutral sources stating that Jamal Badawi has been less influential then Naik, please provide neutral sources stating that Zakir Naik is a scholar recognized by any well known Islamic institution/seminary. Until you do so, all you say remains mere empty words. Hope you understand.-Shahab (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't understand you but yes I know what "neutral" means. So what happens after we see a 3rd party's confirmation that 75 million people do watch Peace TV? Why do you doubt Peace TV's information regarding the number of viewers? Information such as that can very easily be verified through the satalite providers and I don't think Peace TV crew would be that stupid to lie knowing very well it would discredit them. Another way is to be realistic by acknowledging that there are about 1.5 billion Muslims along with around 6 billion nonMuslims in the world so why wouldn't there be 75 million who watch Peace TV? This argument is going no where because you are once again ignoring my point and talking about scholars, influental people, historians, book writers, and etc. I'm pointing out that Zakir Naik came up with a brilliant idea, something no other Muslims ever did, to start a global Islamic TV channel and use it to spread the message of Islam. Why ignore this information and hide it from the public? Since my words are empty to you it means you are not here to understand but probably have an angenda to censor information in this article. I usually come across many people who use dictionary.com to help them with words when writing messages here but their over-all argument makes no sense. I guess we'll leave it like this until someone else can help us find a solution.--AYousefzai (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly its not just about 75 million viewers of Peace TV. You make a lot of claims like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is only known in India, Hossein Nasr is less influential then Naik, millions of people have been influenced by Naik etc. These is purely surmise and conjecture. As for Peace TV claiming that it has 75 million viewers and hence Naik is most influential it is standard WP policy that self-published sources should 'never (emphasis mine) be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.(WP:SPS) So my asking for 3rd party verification about Naik is only in that regard.-Shahab (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor Grammar

In the section Duties & Practice -> Five Pillars -> Sawm is a sentence "Some Muslim groups do not fast during Ramadan, and instead have fasts different times of the year". It should be altered to something such as "...instead have fasts at different times of the year." (alteration italicized) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesopenko (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Budhist Nam-Rupa & Islamic Allah are similar

Buddhism is the world’s first and very ancient atheistic religion.Islam,on the contrary, is a monotheistic religion.According to the Buddhist philosophy Naam-Rupa or cosmic energy governs the universe.the cosmic energy is formless and invisible.the visibility of this formless cosmic energy is experienced by human beings through the forms of living and non-living things.The forms appear and disappear but the cosmic energy is eternally present in the cosmos constantly governing ,destroying, creating and organizing. It neither shrinks nor expands but it constantly changes which brings dynamism,rhythm and order in nature.Man has no control on nature. Allah in Islam,apart from all-pervading is omnipotent,omni-present and omniscient which means all powerful,present everywhere and knowing everything.Allah is the creator of the universe. Nothing happens without his will. He is the cause, he is the effect of every thing.supreme force is formless, not having an image.Such a supreme power Allah is formless and still gives birth to different forms — living and non-living.(Dalit Voice 16.1.2010)--Nrahamthulla (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea.-Shahab (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a very sensible idea for a page that is as heavily edited as this one. I heartily approve. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The bots should start in the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish in the lead

Currently, the lead states:

The word Islam is a homograph, having multiple meanings, and a triliteral of the word salaam, which directly translates as peace. Other meanings include submission, or the total surrender of oneself to God (see Islam (term)). When the two root words are put together, the word 'Islam' gives the meaning 'Peace acquired by submission to the will of God'.

This is all nonsense, and the link cited is broken:[10] It would suffice to state (though probably not in the lead) that Islam literally means "submission," as is adequately explained in the section Islam#Etymology and meaning.98.203.142.17 (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken links may be checked via the wayback machine and so may not necessarily be useless. Regards-Shahab (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Size of images

The images should be as small as possible in this article. Thanks!--AYousefzai (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted comment

This is the place of a now deleted series of comments by a proselytizing user, so understand the following few comments in this context. I removed them on the grounds that they clearly violated WP:FORUM and as the article describing policy on talk pages suggests, perhaps that user would be better suited to his own blog. Supertouch (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Notice - I don’t see any suggestions for improvements to the Islam article in this thread. Possible talk page violation in regards to WP:FORUM, but I will wait for other users input. --大輔 泉 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Without a doubt the above three sections by User:Nasireddin are inappropriate for the article as they are primarily unreferenced - the references presented are from primary sources - and are written in style that best be described as pontificating. On a talk page these comments by this user are taking up space unnecessarily and could very be in violation of the policy you mentioned WP:FORUM. I was biting my tongue unless that user moved these comments to the article itself. Supertouch (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and you should just remove it.--AYousefzai (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Picture On the Top of the Title

The picture which is on the top of the "Islam" title is the Arabic word of God. It will be better if that piccture was a Moon, which is the symbol of Islam. Becausethe religion pages in Wikipedia has their symbols but Islam has Arabic writing. Religion shouldn't have a language, if we want to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.232.67 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam is now the largest religion in the world

Could someone update the article to reflect as of 2009 Islam is now the number 1 religion in the world. As reported by fox news and AP Sunday, March 30, 2008 the Vatican confirms. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343336,00.html

Thanks Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elextrixman (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean what you think it means. Islam (with all its sects/denominations) is greater than Catholicism, a sect/denomination of greater Christianity. The comparison doesn't very much make sense. --Ari (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Since when is Roman Catholicism a religion? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 06:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Islam in America

Why is there nothing on Islam in America? I have access to journals at my school containing information about it. How can I add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rommette (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually a better place to add information would be in the Islam in the United States article. Regards-Shahab (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisment

Every time I logged in more and more controversial topics (but nonetheless important for any religion) are removed and replaced with want-to-believe POV versions if at all. maybe cap the amount of religious sympathizers editing the articles? Shiftadot (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) note - don't delete this edit , this is very constructive and related to the article. Shiftadot (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I mean it.

It would help if you would provide examples as to what is the POV material you are referring to that has been inserted-Shahab (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Community

The following sentence is from the lede: "Religious practices include the Five Pillars of Islam, which are five duties that unite Muslims into a community." (cite from Esposito). Probably there's nothing misleading about the sentence, but it seems to confuse two things. Muslims follow the Five Pillars and other practices. Yes, they share these practices in common. But from a social science standpoint, communities are created through identity and perception by those inside the group and those outside the group. Does anyone else agree that this sentence could use a little work?--达伟 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please delete the word 'poetic' from "The Qur'an is divided into 114 suras, or chapters, which combined, contain 6,236 āyāt, or poetic verses." since the Quran is not a poem of any sort and it was called a poem by the early arabs as an insult. This is from chapter 2.2

thank you Kabamaro (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Peace?

User:Peaceworld111 has been aggressively trying to add "Islam means peace" to the meaning and etymology section. This problematic for a number of reasons:

1. It contradicts common knowledge of the Arabic language—see for example the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic
2. Even if he were to add this with a reference, that reference contradicts much more reliable references such as the above
3. The reference is not a reliable source as it is the website for an organization and a POV organization at that as it is a website for the Ahmadiyyah sect
4. the user misunderstood what that source was saying: Islam means peace is NOT a linguistic definition but a proclamation that Islam is peaceful religion

--Supertouch (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, to be re-added we'll first need a reference to a proper etymological work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Five Basic Institutions of Islam

Tawhid is the eternal message of Islam. The central concept of Tawhid is “Allah is One and He likes Unity”. Its formula is Laa Ilaaha Illa-Allah, there is no sovereign except Allah. Its corollaries are one, Ummah – one world fraternity of mankind and one world kingdom of Allah.

Islam is the Ordained World Order, of allegiance to Sovereign Allah, to the World Government of Allah, run by the muttaqin to serve, and not to rule, mankind in His world kingdom.

One Sovereign – There is no Sovereign except Allah (Al-Qur-aan, 37:35/47:19)

Note: ILAH – Sovereign. “There is no sovereign except Allah”, this is the great formula of Sovereignty in Islam. In fact, this is the message of the Eternal Qur-aan – the core, the essence, of the revelation. The Sovereignty of Allah is the rallying point of world humanity as is the march past around the Qabah at Makkah.

One Humanity – Humanity is One brotherhood (Al-Qur-aan, 21:92/23:52)

One World – The indivisible kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs to Allah [The Sole Sovereign of this indivisible kingdom] (Al-Qur-aan, 3:189)

There are five basic institutions on which the world edifice of Islam is reared up –

1. Imaan – Motive force to heroic performance in allegiance to Sovereign Allah, to attain world unity, world peace and plenty for all. Innal lazeena aamanu wa ‘amelus salehat therefore means ‘indeed those who have activated the motive force for heroism and perform heroic deeds to attain Islam – to attain world allegiance to Sovereign Allah and thereby attain world unity and world peace and plenty for all in the world kingdom of Allah.

About Imaan, we have this guidance from the prophet: ‘Whoso from amongst you sees an outrage being committed, he should prevent it with his hand (using force); if he cannot do it, he should use his tongue to prevent it; if he cannot do this even, then at heart, 9he should treat is as abominable and shun it). But this is a case of the weakest Imaan.

Imaan fires enthusiasm inspirits the will to conquer and inculcates contempt of death to reach the target of world unity and world peace.

The belief in the Universal Sovereignty of Allah and the Uswa-i-Hasanah, that is, the ideal life-pattern and life-examples of Muhammad, (sm) the Messenger of Allah, to show mankind the effective way to implement this Sovereignty.

2. Salaat – The forman service of allegiance to Sovereign Allah and of self-dedication to the World-Order of Islam.

3. Siyaam – Practice of self-abnegation, self-purgation and self-purification through services of allegiance and rigid fasting during daylight hours, and thereby receive inspiration for more and more welfare services to promote unity, peace and plenty.

It is the ordained process of self-purification to keep the body and sould in a state of perfect trim.

4. Zakaat – The compulsory state levy at prescribed rates on the annual net savings after meeting all kinds of liabilities and expenditures.

Unused and un-invested surplus (al-‘afw), however, is to be surrendered to, and to be collected by, the state of Islam, which guarantees security of means and employment on a world basis to all. These measures have been enacted to finance the welfare programme of the state to eradicate and banish poverty, ignorance and all kinds of maladies from the world.

5. Hajj – The Annual March Past of humanity around the ‘Kabah and the Annual World Moot at ‘Arafah, and Muzdalifah and the Annual Campaigns and the Annual Social Dinners at the plateau of Mina to demonstrate and keep alive the sense of unity of the human race. The Hajj is an institution which inspires mankind to live as world citizens.

The World-Order is the goal of the forward spirits of the 20th century. People should, therefore, study the Eternal Qur-aan and the Uswa-i-Hasanah – the ideal implementation of the universal principles of the Eternal Qur’aan – minutely for this grand purpose. For, Islam, according to the eternal revealed principles in the Qur-aan, is the World-Order.

[Excerpts collated from ‘The Clarion Call of the Eternal Qur’aan’ (1991), by Muhammad Khalilur Rahman].

Md. Nasireddin Ghani (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading photo caption.(?)

The caption under the picture of a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf states that Islam forbids women to show their hair in Public, shouldn’t this be clarified more? Qur’anic scholars have debated whether the book truly says this, and also some sects of Islam state that Women do not have to cover their hair and would argue that Islam does not prohibit it. Thoughts? --大輔 泉 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Allah says in Surah Al-Noor Chapter 24 Verse 31 "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof And let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms And not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers..."

So to clarify: 1. In public Muslim women have to cover their body except their face, hands, and wrists.

2. At home they are allowed to dress more freely (appropiately of course) to ONLY their family members and the full list of applicable family members is described in the verse because the family will not look at the women with "evil eyes" or bad intentions as opposed to going out in public where, as we all know, people (mostly men) have bad intentions when women expose their body as opposed to women that don't.

And to note: Men are also instructed to lower their gaze when a women attracts them or to prevent impure thoughts from entering their minds- Surah Al-Noor chapter 24 Verse 30 "Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts That is purer for them Surely Allah is Aware of what they do"

So the men "hijab" is given before the women "hijab"

I hope I clarified it for you and for anyone else who reads this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahminh (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahminh, nowhere in the sura you cited doesn it mention hair, face, hands or wrists. The only body parts explicitly mentioned as private parts and bosoms. The sura also gives fathers and husbands as the only exceptions, but in practice the whole family is included (as well as doctors in most places). So, obviously, it is open to interpretation. Indeed, I have spoken to many women who consider themselves Muslim, but believe that completely covering the hair is not required, but that the sura only asks for modesty. Ashmoo (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashmoo, it does mention the hair "head-coverings over their bosoms"-the head has hair on it so it does mention hair. Please give references as to what you said- you did not provide a single reference (pertaining to doctor and "whole" family). I understand what your experience with Muslim women has been (as to what they told you) and I agree that the surah speaks about modesty-however it does not ask. Nowhere in the surah is the word "ask' to be found- Allah says to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) "And SAY..." . Also Allah says to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Surah Al-Ahzaab Ch.33 Verse 59 "O prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad)...". I know that many people have different opinions but Allah gives a general dress code for women when they are abroad. Some women cover EVERYTHING including their face, hands, and wrists; while others don't cover their face or hands or wrists-just because some do things differently does not mean they are wrong but they should stick to the general dress code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahminh (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well my actual point was that different Muslims interpret the surahs differently. Wikipedia doesn't allow interpretaion of primary texts. This means that the article can't include pronouncements about what surahs 'actually' mean, but only sourced interpretations by 3rd parties. Ashmoo (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sects are NOT part of Islam

The section about Islam having sects is very misleading and wrong. Islam PROHIBITS having sects; Quran Surah Al-Anam Chapter 6 Verse 159 "Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them. Their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did."

There are no sects in Islam; those who make them are wrong and are not following the Quran- thus it is not part of Islam and SHOULD be removed as it is very misleading.

Just to clarify:

Islam has no sects- no Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi, or anything else And I quoted from the Quran to prove that.

PLEASE REMOVE IT!! Many people use Wikipedia and see it as a reliable source and when they see that part in the "Islam" article they will believe that there are sects in Islam.

NO SECTS! (one more time :D) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahminh (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Denominations section? If so, the Quran may prohibit them but they obviously exist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I would like to add a comment at the beginning of the denominations section AND at the beginning of the article stating that sects are not part of Islam; Quran Surah Al-Anam Chapter 6 Verse 159 and Surah Al-Imran Chapter 3 Verse 103.

Islam forbids sects and I am aware that there are many sects which Muslims are part of but they are wrong and I am trying to do my part to help them realize that sects ARE NOT part of Islam. Many of the people just listen to their parents and preachers that they must be (for example) Sunni or Shia or Wahabbi; however there may be a dispute and someone may want to visit Wikipedia (like the rest of the world nowadays) to see what the article says or anyone who wants to research Islam may use this article and I just want them to see the truth.

{{editsemiprotected}} Not done:

You need to state the exact wording of the text you want to add. "Sects are not part of Islam" is not nuanced enough and won't fly because they obviously exist. Note that the article should not rely solely on the Koran or other religious teachings to describe what Islam is - it also has to describe what has actually happened. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay the exact wording is: "Although sects are part of many Muslim communities, they are not actually part of the fundamental teachings of the Quran/Islam (whichever word looks better). (And then the source and I wont write the entire quotation here but it would be on the actual comment) Surah Al-Anam Chapter 6 Verse 159 and Surah Al-Imran Chapter 3 Verse 103."

That comment could go in the beginning and at the denominations in the article. Actually (speaking peacefully not matter-of-fact) Islam is SOLELY based on the Quran and Hadees/teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)-it is a religion not a current event and its teachings will never change; Islam is best described by the Quran not current events because that gets into the POV area (based on the reporter). I agree that it should have what has happened (sects etc.) but I wanted to add the comment to show people that sects are not part of the Islamic Religion even though Muslims are part of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.178.86 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've paraphrased the text found in Islamic schools and branches and inserted into the two areas you specified. Not sure if it belongs in the opening paragraph but other editors can weigh in on that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Neill, you should realize that there are hadiths which assert that there will be 73 sects in islam. i made such an edit but it was removed. Maybe you could find an appropriate reference and insert it onto the 'islam denominations' page. thanksJigglyfidders (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks it looks pretty good unless someone wants to suggest some more things. Once again, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.178.86 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference #15

Is not working. Somebody should remove it. AnandVisho (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: AnandVisho has been blocked as a sock of IslaMuslim.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It says the article will be published soon, maybe we should wait, but it seems that it is refering to Foreign Policy? Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how soon? AnandVisho (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: AnandVisho has been blocked as a sock of IslaMuslim.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The link does lead to Foreign Policy where it announces that the article is coming soon. Since the information the FP article is citing for is also supported by a few other references, perhaps we can just comment out this particular reference until the article is actually published.--Supertouch (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Supertouch.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

cia factbook = sunni =

{{editsemiprotected}} https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html this peer-reviewed article claims sunni's make up 75%. i think the Islam page asserting over 85% Sunni was written by a boastful exaggerating biased sunni.

i think 75% sunni proportion makes more sense, because if Salafis, quranists, shia, ahmadiyya, sufis etc. add up, they are unlikely to ony make up nearly 10% of muslims, which is what the islam article says.

the following percentages make more sense shias, 15% (mostly iraq, iran) salafi 5% (mostly saudi arabia) sufi+ quranist+ ahmadiyya = 5% (widespread) sunni 75%

could someone make this change please on the following pages; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs)

I didn't read this, but you are an autoconfirmed user, you can edit semi-protected articles. Why are you using this template? --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jigglyfidders

"I think" is not scientific basis for statistics or what "makes more sense". Salafists consider themselves sunni, and are largely considered to be part of the sunni fold- the others I would beleive are seperate...but you need to back them up with something more...furthermore there are many statitics Pew Reserach is the latest (quite reliable) one. and by the sounds of it you yourself dont seem to be far off these "boastful exaggerating biased sunni"...BPOV works both ways and unless something of substance is provided changes are not likely to stay for long--Elbasan101 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How about marking it 75 to 85% or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DraconianDebate (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Too small movement to be mention as a major group.Islamuslim (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account your disruptive anti-Ahmadiyya edits, other than your personal disagreement I do not see any reason why we should be removing a large amount of content. Wait for further editors to discuss (even if they bother to entertain such a proposal!) before removing verifiable content. --Ari (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sects that are way bigger than ahmadis like ibadi and others are not mentioned with that much emphasize seems to me another case of Islam-phobia. Islamuslim (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How did I not see the obvious connection that including a sect of Islam in the Islam page was a clear case of Islamophobia...? Appealing to a conspiracy theory is not a sufficient reason to remove cited content. Please stop removing this cited content on such flimsy POV reasons. --Ari (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved ahamdiyya under othersIslamuslim (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you again removed the section. --Ari (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Ari on substantive point.Given the comments by Supertouch below, I change my !vote to neutral on the substantive issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ahmadiyya sect should not have its own section here based upon WP:UNDUE. A quick scan of the Ahmadiyyah page (and its reference for India—as the number is not mentioned in the text of the article) shows the number of adherents to this sect is less than 10 million; this sect then constitutes less than a whole number percentage point of the entire population of Muslims. Based upon the number of adherents to this sect, were we to include them we would then be compelled to include a number of different Islamic and pseudo-Islamic sects: the Nation of Islam would have to be included, as would the Moorish Science Temple, the Five Percenters, the Bahais, the Quran-onliers, the Ibadis, the Druze, the various sub-sects of both the Sunnis and the Shiites until this page becomes a list of groups. Brief in-line mention is the extent of mention any groups other than Sunni or Shiite should have—at least in my opinion. P.S. hello to Epee.--Supertouch (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

i agree with Ari. ahmadiyya probably has more members than the Pakistani Government gives them credit for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Based upon WP:UNDUE we should give other same preference. 200 million is not a sourced figure. Seems to me a case of dubious claim.AnandVisho (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: AnandVisho has been blocked as a sock of IslaMuslim.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community claims adherents as high as 200 million, but in some cases 160 million. But the point is that there is no clear define number, since no defined data has been collected on behalf of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. But clearly, 10 million is an underestimate, if the 'publicity' of the Community is considered. Also the adherents for Nation of Islam,Five Percentersand others is considerably lower compared to a 10 million figure. Kind Regards. {moved comment as Epeefleche advised} Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The figures you have mentioned is unsourced even if the number you have given is clear to you. The Ahmadiyyah group should NOT be included per WP:UNDUE.--Supertouch (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Ahmadiyya does not have as high as adherents as Sunni or Shia, but at the same time I think that it should not be completely removed, as if it has a tiny minority like Quranists etc. Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, with four cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Islam (Not-Known Facts)

Islam is the most respected,most old and most following religion. Although many people describe it badly but,Islam is indeed better. Islam teaches not to expose themselves(Private Parts),To Be truthful and live peacefully. And,Many terrorists are Muslims but why are you talking badly about his/her religion. Live peacefully and remember,Please: In this world,There are not Bad Muslims,Nor Good Muslims,Not Bad Hindus,Nor Good Hindus,Not Bad Christians,Nor Good Christians,But Only Two Type of People:"Good and Bad". There is no word before the above lines("Good and Bad"). Please remember.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RukhsarFaiz (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Zorostrianism has a longer history than Islam, being tracked in history to almost 3 millenia ago. And sayings its the most respected is POV for sure, and sources are needed for saying its the most followed. 206.75.198.6 (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Islam's history did not just begin when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) introduced the Quran. Allah's first human prophet on this Earth (according to Quran and Muslim beliefs) was Adam (PBUH) who was the first human and Allah gave him guidance (teachings also). Just because science has not found evidence of Adam's teachings does not mean they do not exist. People thought the world was flat-that changed; people thought the earth was the center-that changed; people did not believe in black holes-that obviously changed. Just because they traced Zoronstrianism does not mean it is older than Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahminh (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based upon science not religion and thus do not recognize Adam as the "first human". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to this is not necessarily true, to quote WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." Correct me if I am wrong, but the practical application of this would be: "The adherents of such-and-such religion believe that..." or "the text of any given religion says..." just as: "Dr. scientist say the theory of such-and-such is true because of..."--Supertouch (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in that the article could state "Followers of Islam believe that their religion is the oldest..." (with a cite to a scholarly source). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not matter, as any religion from before around 3000 BC would still be older even if this were to be the case, as I believe that Islam shares the belief with Christianity and Judaism that the earth was created around 5-6000 years ago. I could be wrong about that though. --DraconianDebate (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are religions in which lesser gods worshiped the creator god before the first human was created, so those religions must predate Islam. --99.254.8.208 (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Islam was introduced by the Prophet (pbuh) but the teachings were always there, during his time though, Christianity and Judaism were forgetting the concept of the oneness of God, the Arabs were worshiping idols, gambling, drinking, doing prostitution. He is a Messenger because he spreads the message of God, just as the previous prophets were sent to help their people who were in trouble, except he was sent to all mankind, he IS the best prophet in our belief. Sure we deserve freedom of choice in religion, but at the end of the day, there can only be one truth, and Islam is the most practical one, it's the one religion which everything has a reason and an answer. You believe there the religion that says lesser gods worshipped the creator God, just cause they said so? What, did they find glowing skeletons or something, we were given holy books with the answers, did God ever mention lesser gods? No one else would know. Anyone who is a Muslim and studies about Islam, wouldn't have a doubt in the world that it's the right one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watzi2ya (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism and Islam

Dear Hindus, Muslims and others, I have worked very hard and practically completed the article on Hinduism and Islam, almost from scratch. Please see the article and give comments and suggestions. I have kept the language simple and explanatory, so that the article does not remain only for rocket scientists of religions, but is understood by the common man. The style I used is explanation of each concept and then comparison. I have kept NPOV to the best of my knowledge and abilities, and a respectful tone for both the religions. As of now, I could not get any citation(s), because I don't have the time for it. If you all can provide some citations by looking at the text, it would be great. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, "Theology and Concept of God" second paragraph, I made a little correction. The 99 names or attributes of Allah can only be used by humans after the word "Abd" (slave). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watzi2ya (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Islam for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ive dont a bit of work on it. Can it be featured now ? Any feedback would be great. Thanks and regards. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

i have left the denominations page as it is to avoid giving undue weight to any sect in accordance with their size. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you have improved it, but more still needs doing. Thanks anyway! Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Quran

I want to report a mistake in the article on Holy Qur'an which is specifically in the following sentence: "From textual evidence Islamic studies scholars find that the Qur'an of today has not changed significantly since it was standardized [39][40]"

This sentence contradicts our fundamental beliefs as Muslims because we believe that Holy Qur'an has neither changed and nor will change as it is protected by god "Allah". Any sayings other than this are false and could be due to misinterpretations of Islamic literatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.89 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam means Peace

In addition to the sources I will add - I will use some logic; Islam doesn't correspond to one meaning or understanding. As it is the case with many words in every language, Islam also has more than one meaning associated with it. It does mean submission to the will of God, but it also means Peace: When muslims greet each other, whether they are muslims or not, they are meant to send a Salution of Peace - [in Arabic] Assalam-o-Alikum - which literally means Peace be upon you, not submission upon you, which doesn't make sense. Salam means Peace, which derives the word Islam too. Is there no space for logic in Wiki? Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the word "Islam" contains two concepts- "peace" (or "wholeness", so we're talking about a particular, personal type of peace here) AND "submission"- there is no single English word of equivalent meaning. David Trochos (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

no islam means submission i know i am arabic . it means submission to god--Nader ecl (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know Arabic as well, it means both. Assalamualaikum can't possibly mean "Submission to you", when we say bye, we say "wa alaikum assalam". The word is used in different types of greetings and contexts, they're all to do with peace.Watzi2ya (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that"wa alaikum assalam " is a reply to assalamualaikum ,it is not said to say bye bye maniqadir —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

FSU not Russia

I haven't yet read the whole article, looking forward to that, from the start I noticed that are mentioned Moslem populations in Russia but my guess is that the numerous predominantly Moslem states from the Former Soviet Union are meant here, Russia -when not atheistic- is definitely Orthodox Christian! ok for the correction? Hope&Act3! (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Denominations

According to most sources Sunnis make up 85-90% with the remaining as Shittes.[11] [12] [13] Is there any sources that contradict this information?--WKTU (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you are biased by taking a look at this [14] recent edit of yours where you bundle all denominations besides Sunnis into a tiny 10% of the muslim population and then quote; "the remaining 10% are Shia Ahmadiyya or Kharijite. "

The source you gave does not say that and until you can get a source saying such a thing i think you should refrain from making edits that violate neutral point of view policies. Do you have any sources which include all denominations listed? because the sources listed only give Shia and Sunni populations and not other denominations.

Hopefully you can find sources with all denominations listed because these references only mention Shia and Sunni Islam while Ibadi, Ahmadiyya and others are left out. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the Ahmadiyya or Kharijites. [15]--WKTU (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The information you have added is already present under [16] this section of the article, and thus is inappropriate for a paragraph containing other denominations. If you help find a source with percentages of all denominations then it might be appropriate. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. Before I came to edit the Demographic section said Sunnis are 87–90% and the Denomination section said they are 70%.[17] How come you didn't bother to fix that then?--WKTU (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that this article was in the middle of being cleaned up by me (for FA status) and i havent got around to it yet, as you can see from my edit history over the past week. Your problem (WKTU) is that you are neglecting the other denominations as in your edit summary you say "Sunni and Shia are the only sects" and then you give only their percentages. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If User talk:WKTU was truly concerned about correct sources, you have to wonder why he deleted a source which says 75% here and changed it to a source which says 90%. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The source you're referring to is the CIA World Factbook estimate on all religions, which states "Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population... That source doesn't state Sunnis are 75%, they say Sunnis are over 75%.--WKTU (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If a source says 'above' or 'below' they mean that the number is about that much but cannot be calculated exactly or that it is rounded. It never means that it can be much more (as in 10-20 percent more)

Alek2407 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. In such cases we use the words "approximately", "about", "around", and etc. CIA's usage of "over 75%" for Sunnis means anywhere from 76% to 90%.--WKTU (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit-war has been reported too this board and later moved to here

Terrorism? Picture of Mohammad?

Shouldn't this article have a prominent section on terrorism since most terrorists are followers of Islam? Also I noticed that there is no rendering of the prophet Mohammad. I think it would serve this article well to have some classic paintings of the prophet. thanks guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.122.41 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because this is covered in seperate articles. And considering this is the article on Islam and not Muhammad pictures of him are not needed. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Most rapists are men; that doesn't mean the article on men should feature a prominent section on rape.131.111.243.37 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but rapists aren't a prominent feature of men as a group. Terrorists are a prominent part of islam, however if I am correct. In terms of ratios I believe that rapists/men < terrorists/muslims by several orders of magnitude. Maybe by 10^6 I'm speculating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.122.41 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your figures seem wildly out (maybe you are hugely underestimating the number of Muslims?). There are 3 billion men and 1.5 billion muslims in the world, so if the ratios were exactly the same then there would be 1 terrorist attack for every 2 rapes. This is clearly not true: there are thousands of rapes in an average country every year, making millons across the world, whereas terror attacks on civilian targets occur maybe a few times a year. Even if you insist that every single bullet fired against coalition forces counts as "an act of terrorism", you still don't get anywhere near an even ratio. If anything, the ratio is far closer to 10^6 in the other direction.

It is true that modern public opinion relates terrorism with Islam, but this is a passing trend. A quick scan of the last century finds the Tamil Tigers (Hindu), the IRA (Christian), the militant Zionists (Jewish), and many others. They all certainly believed they were doing God's work or similar, but these groups are not mentioned on the pages of their respective religions because we recognise that it was only the actions of a few and not a "prominent feature of their religion" to anyone but themselves. If we mention terrorism here, our children will read it in ten or twenty years and laugh at our racism (even as they develop new prejudices of their own).

To conclude: it is ridiculous that an entire quarter of all living people have been associated with terrorism due to the actions of a truly tiny minority. We cannot change public opinion, but I vote in the strongest possible way against this misrepresentation being included in an encyclopedia.131.111.243.37 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree in retrospect that the 10^6 number is ridiculous when taken literally. However, I feel that terrorism is asked upon every Muslim by Quranic suggestion. And I feel that this should be included in the article somewhere. Mohammad himself preached and practiced violent conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, in a fashion which would be considered by most today beyond terrorism but rather, acts of war. This must be included somewhere in the article.

Of the 1,500,000,000 Muslims in the world, at least 99.999% are not terrorists. They were not terrorists before 9/11, and they will continue not being terrorists long after the War On Terror is over. It therefore seems wrong to suggest that terrorism is in any way integral to Islam. If the Quran talks of violence then that belongs on the Quran page; it doesn't belong here, because this is a page about Islam as a practised religion and the practice is overwhelmingly non-violent. The same can be said of the Old Testament: it contains some pretty horrible stuff and has been used by extremists to justify all sorts of horrific crimes, but it's irrelevant to discussing Christianity as understood by ordinary Christians. 131.111.243.37 (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are, and speculation is fine, but if you want to make such a claim here on Wikipedia, you need to substantiate it. So find a suitable definition for terrorism and what qualifies as an act of terrorism, and then find reliable sources as to how many Muslim terrorists there are, and if the proportion matches your standard for significant, come back and we can talk about it. Frankly though I think your quest will come up negative, because all those terms are subjective, and reliable sources for that sort of thing are hard to come by. Additionally, in my personal experience, claims that terrorism is an intrinsic factor in Islam itself, are generally just the superficial impressions of those who do not know much about the religion or the character of modern terrorism. Or maybe I'm just speculating.Maxkbennett (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fellow Muslim speaking: I'd just like to point out that I find it pretty annoying that people relate terrorists to Muslims. First of all, not all Arabs are Muslim. By the way, terrorists can't be Muslims, cause they commit suicide which is the stupidest thing and not a single Muslim in the right mind or with the smallest bit of mind wouldn't do it, it's a one way, express ticket to hell. They kill people too, which obviously isn't allowed, especially to other Muslims. We are all taught that Islam isn't forced, you can't force people to accept Islam. By the way, there can't be pictures of the Prophet (pbuh) because there are none, and you can't make up a face and call it the messenger of God, and some say that's like trying to create people (if you created the face) and so is forbidden. I doubt they even painted. Hand-made pictures of living things are not allowed (like a statue of a man). It is said that the Prophet's (pbuh) body is still in perfect shape in his grave, in case you wanted to know. One more thing, you accused the Prophet (pbuh) of violently bringing people into Islam, but it's the opposite, he was a poor man (chose to be), he was always tortured and tormented, including his followers, rocks were thrown at him (by a 'certain' tribe), through all the trouble, he never complained or thought about quiting, and the wars were started by the Jews and Quraysh and whatnot. He never even interrupted a non-muslim and let him finish talking and asked ("Are you finished?" before starting to talk. He is known for his patience and resolve, the ideal role model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watzi2ya (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Since terrorism has nothing to do with the Islamic faith, then of course not. Greedy religious leaders get money from corrupt political leaders to disseminate fake hadith and fake Qur'anic passages or parts of Qur'anic passages amongst the poor. These poor people have no education or means of money so they think that killing themselves "in the name of God" will help them. Moreover, these religious leaders give some of their money to the poor person's family after he/she kills someone. This is not the teachings of Islam. This is like how people took the great idea of "natural selection" from Darwin's theory and applied it to Imperialism, how National Socialists (Nazis) took the idea of eugenics from a cousin of Darwin's and applied it to a scarring, cruel Holocaust, how Crusaders hijacked the meaning of the Bible and Jesus' (peace be upon him) teachings, or how Zionists hijack Judaism and Christianity to allow for an Israeli state. Terrorism does not equal Islam and is not a part of Islam, so it shouldn't be in this article. Peace. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not the founder of Islam but Islam's final messenger.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not the founder of Islam, however, he was the final messenger on which the religion (din) of Islam was completed. The article says:

"He was a religious, political, and military leader who founded the religion of Islam"

...which is wrong and should be edited. Moreover, in the beginning, the article says that:

"Islam is the Abrahamic religion"...

And then to say that "Muhammad is the founder" is clear contradiction.

The usual misconception is that people think Islam is just 1400 years old religion and this misconception is due to another misconception that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. In fact, Islam is there since the first prophet, and is completed on the last prophet i.e. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazharhashmi (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First attempt made ... David Trochos (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you check the article about Christianity, it also says that:"Christianity began as a Jewish sect[8][9] and is classified as an Abrahamic religion.[10][11][12]". Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are bundled together by religion scientists, because they have somewhat of a common origin. So, I don't see anything wrong with that. But, if you want it to be changed you need to provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Muhammad/Archive 2#Founding Islam, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#Founder?, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#Founder ?, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#My edits to "Muhammad the founder of Islam?", Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#More on "Founder", Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#Pause for a Moment, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5#Muhammad as Founder section, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#Founder (continued), Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#Was Muhammad the founder of Islam? - update, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#Founder, yet again, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#"Founder" again, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6#Reliable sources for "founder" debate and there is probably more that I missed. Also see how Muhammad is described in the opening of his article. something lame from CBW 11:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fellow Muslim speaking: For the first speaker, you are somewhat right, and somewhat wrong. He didn't exactly create Islam, but there was never really an Islam before that either, the previous messengers only guided the people to the right way, Prophet (peace be upon him) introduced Islam. The first Muslim (Khadijah) was at his time, and this fairly proves my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watzi2ya (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just pasting what I said in a different discussion page, but here goes. Islam means "submission to the will of God/Allah" (or "wholesome peace" if you track its root S-L-M). The arguement Muslims make is that every prophet submitted to the will of God, and since the first prophet was the first man, it makes sense to say that Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) was a Muslim or "submitter to the will of God." Christianity literally means "worship of the Messiah (peace be upon him)" and a Christian is a "follower of the Messiah (peace be upon him)." Technically, Islam is the first religion ever, but IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE NO MATTER WHAT THE ANSWER IS NO. Islam came in 610 CE when Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) recieved a message from the Angel Gabriel. The Islam referred as today is the Islam as told by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and in the Qur'an. Since Paul created Christian theology before Muhammad (peace be upon him) even existed, we Wiki editters should go with the fact that Christianity came before Islam. END OF STORY HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Of Jihad

Include that Most Sunni Muslims agree that Jihad (in the military sense) is absolutley unallowed except when a Muslim is threatened by an immediate danger, and when that happens, anyone innocent of any act of threat is considered unlawful to harm. Only a very small group consider doing anything beyond that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denakarim (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source on that? Because you can say most sunni moslems agree that jihad is absolutely unallowed with no source, just as I could say that most sunni moslems believe that jihad against infidels is mandated without listing a source. Without evidence, who is to be believed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.122.41 (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Qur'aan is our proof, Jihad is to fight for Islam, when there's a threat against Islam. If you're thinking about terrorists, they're not doing Jihad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watzi2ya (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, why are Shias left out? Shias are Muslims. I am a Muslim and a Shia. Anyway, I don't have a citation for this, but I study Islam avidly (Hadith: "Increasing knowledge is an obligation on every Muslim and Muslimah"). Jihad is allowed in these circumstances: 1. Within oneself against desire/nafs/dunya 2. One is attacked first

  2a. Eye for an eye--don't go overboard on the returned attack
    2ai. If war declared against you, win "by any means necessary" (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabbaz :-))
  2b. Someone attacks Islam or Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
  2c. Someone attacks you
  2d. Someone attacks innocent people/poor people/oppressed people
  2e. Someone attacks your family
  2f. Someone attacks your nation/your home

3. Fight for the cause of Allah--not in anger or hatred 4. Show mercy if possible 5. Reconcile afterwards with opponent to prevent future warfare 6. Do not fight in the Sacred Months 7. Do not persecute others wrongfully

Allah does not love aggressors! The Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said so. Peace brothers and sisters. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Muhammad?

Hi all, I think a little section giving a balanced summary of what we know about the Prophet from other historical sources around his time would be good for this article. It would be in keeping with articles on other faiths. Any historians in the house?81.148.252.44 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way to look at the Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) life from his own time is through the descriptions of his enemies, the descriptions of his Sahaba, the descriptions of the Ahl Ul-Bayt (peace be upon him), his actions, and his hadith. The Pious Muhammad (peace be upon him) that you may think is biased towards a pro-Islamic range is the REAL Muhammad (peace be upon him). There were ridiculings of him from the Quraysh, the idolators, the Jews, and the Christians, but all of them are not true. You can't take the Islamic and pious part from Muhammad and call that Muhammad. That does not work. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

wp policy requires balanced articles that means including some opposing opinions, no matter how saintly he is unto your eyes the majority of the inhabitants on this planet do not share this vision of yours and did bring more unbiased data so please add them, an encyclopedia is not a religious propaganda (one sided) publication Hope&Act3! (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR collaboration

In addition to the points highlighted at review, I will probably note down a few things which I feel could do with discussion.

One thing I have noticed is an extra section called 'Cultural Muslims' which I don't think is appropriate in the light of what the section aims to cover - you won't find any classification of sects (Sunni, Shia, etc.) with this item in any scholarly texts - because it isn't a 'sect'. It's pretty much like making a section for 'Religious Muslims'. The citation used is to a web page with Ruthven's publications but this isn't enough to assert the significance of the topic. ITAQALLAH 23:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to update with progress - I have found that a lot of sections/passages had become a bit bloated, especially the intro and the denominations section. A lot of repetition, extraneous, or poorly sourced material I have cut. One example was the Ahmadiyya section which was as big as the Sunni/Shia section - the relative volume of text dedicated to the topic should reflect its significance (WP:UNDUE) - so very small sects should either be omitted from a very general article like this or discussed very briefly. I have opted for the latter. With the intro, I think it's better we focus on improving a FA standard intro than trying to rectify an intro which had got a bit bogged down. Some of the cuts might not go down too well but I think they are necessary in ensuring all aspects of the article are FA standard. ITAQALLAH 20:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok so it seems there's a few areas which may need some discussion, namely: the intro, and the Hadith/Arabic sections.

Regarding the intro, I'll outline a few points in a minute.

Regarding the Hadith and Arabic sections, then most of the relevent stuff about these two topics is already in the article. Hadith is not a serperate article of faith according to sources in general, and is in fact connected to Muhammad - which is why the last para of that section is all about hadith. Thus this section introduces repetition and was definitely not part of the original featured article. Arabic has some significance in Islam but it can be (and is, if I recall correctly) covered quite briefly. Minor details about Arabic being language of jannah etc. don't really belong in an article which is supposed to be a very brief overview. The clergy section as well seems a bit weird - there is no heirarchical clerical structure in Islam and while you have scholars etc. I suspect this can be incorporated into a general section on education or something.

Specifically to Iwnttoeditthissh: You said in your edit summary that these sections were discussed somewhere but I was unable to locate it, perhaps you could clarify what your thoughts are about these sections. ITAQALLAH 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hadith important enough to be included?

The user Itaqallah twice deleted hadith paragraphs with headings but i think it is important enough to be included in this article. Any feedback? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Many Muslims (Incorrectly) follow the Hadith, so it’s perhaps worth a mention in the article. Depends on what it is though. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

He left a detailed edit summery of why he removed the section - “see talk re: Hadith/Arabic sections; these passages are generally poorly sourced and contain a lot of repetition which makes them unnecessary here. Hadith is also not a distinct article of faith”

However, he did not seek any form of consensus for such large content removals, and seeing as we have objections this should now be a course of action. I have no opinion on it either way. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified above, but to reiterate: the Hadith section is poorly sourced and does not meet FA standards. It repeats content which is (and I stress) already present in the Muhammad section and is thus unnecessary. The layout of the Beliefs section is under six headings to reflect the six articles of faith in mainstream Islam as covered generally in the academic texts. Hadith is not a seperate article of faith but is part of recognition/obedience to Muhammad, hence its mention in the relevant section. So we are not debating whether Hadith should be included in the article - it already is.

Secondly, the content removed is actually relatively recent as compared to the rest of the article's content which was approved at FAC and has remained in the article in the years since (this includes the paragraph on hadith in the Muhammad section). The question of consensus doesn't really come into it in my view, it's a question of removing material which repeats content already present in the article and is itself below par. The other content I removed re: the denominations section has been discussed above. Regards, ITAQALLAH 16:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Islam- Submission or "Submission to god"?

The article states: "The word Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m, and is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit." Thus, Islam means acceptance of and submission to God, and believers must demonstrate this by worshiping him, following his commands, and avoiding polytheism. " To me, this seems potentially troublesome. The article states islam is derived from an arabic verb meaning to submit (et cet) and then claims that due to this, therefore is used, islam means acceptance of and submission to God. This causual relationship isn't clear. If there's another reason for the claimed meaning, then it would seem that it should be noted or the consequential language removed. Second: I would think it wise to clarify whether islam is claimed to mean submission to god and acceptance of god presently or whether the etymology establishes this as the original or historical meaning of the word. For example, while "christian" may mean "related to christ / of christ" etymologically, arguendo, the modern english meaning of this word is not this but rather that adjective which describes a relationship to various chruchs considered christian, that believe in the divinity of christ per various bibles and other sources. Third: Can anyone comment on the merits of the claimed meaning of acceptance of a monotheistic deity and submission to the same for the word "islam"? If the word would historically be simply "submission" et cet and develop later connotations of submission to god et cet through association with the religious orders use of the word, then I would think this should be noted. Hopefully these thoughts are clear enough and found relevant by others. let me know.--Δζ (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence is the religious context of what aslama entails. I get your point about how understandings or meanings of words may change over time - this is particularly true of English. But probably not as true for Arabic in this context - Islam, aslama, istisilm etc. have remained relatively unchanged in their applied meanings from classical to contemporary discourse. The first line or so in that section is about etymology as you might find in Lane's lexicon etc and the rest of the section is about the applied meanings in the religious context. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Biblical scholars "islam" originates in The Old Testament and means "were finished" (with the building of an altar). See p 168 and following pages of: [18]. St.Trond (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Christoph Luxenberg's theory on the Syriac origin of words in the Qur'an is interesting, but not widely accepted. See: The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran#Academic_reviews. ITAQALLAH 22:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A Syriac origin of the Quran was not a foreign idea to Sahih Bukhari, from the Hadith: "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." [19] St.Trond (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I gotta say that this article really goes to show that

When you have no one who knows anything about islam they should be writing the wikipedia article on it

0_0

~~---Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.33.52 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The article says "Star and Crescent is the symbol of Islam" Is it so?

Is "Star and Crescent" the originial Symbol of Islam, or is it Turkish flag which have been used as the Symbol of Islam since Turks became Muslim?Kavas (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Things are more complicated than that, but it certainly is considered a symbol of Islam—there's lots of info at star and crescent. /ninly_(talk) 23:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong facts in Etiquette and diet

It is wrong to sea that all meat must come from herbivores in Islam. All seafood is considered halal including omnivores, carnivores, and even the dead. Some one should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.192.22 (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Muslim according to Quran

The article states that according to the Quran, Muslims are those whose ancestor was Abraham. But then it logically follows that many Prophets of Islam, such as Adam are not Muslim. This is an apparent contradiction, and this is not how it is understood by Muslims.(see for exampleA young Muslim's guide to the modern world by Hossein Nasr, Page 4 and Islam for beginners by Murray Titus, Page 16 which explicitly state that Adam was a Muslim). The cited source for the fact that the Quran defines Muslim as a person whose ancestor was Abraham is a primary source and is not being interpreted correctly. Hence I am removing the relevant sentence from the article. Regards -Shahab (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Prophets have got a special section where their particularities belong.

It does not follow from the removed sentence that the Prophets do not hold the Islamic faith. Neither is it mentioned explicitly in the Quran that the mentioned Prophets are indeed Muslims. The Quran does not even state that Abraham did include himself among those he named Muslims.

In stead of removing the sentence, the basis for being a Muslim according to the Quran should be clarified. A new sentence should also be added to explain that the current use of "Muslim" is defined in the Amman Message and not in the Quran. Proposed new text (see also the entry on "Muslim"):

According to the Quran, Muslims are the descendants of Abraham, by Abraham's covenant with God. Most adherents of Islam use the meaning of "Muslim" defined by the Amman Message and not the meaning defined in the Quran. St.Trond (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what about the people who were not born muslims but have adapted islam as their faith ? Please note that islam is not a race but a religion open to all. The most ideal definition would be that person who belives in Allah as the only God, and Mohammed (PBUH) as his last prophet. That means that the other prophets born before (like Jesus ) are though worthy of respect, but what they said cannot be hold as same weight as what Mohammed said or wrote i.e. Koran is the final authority in any case.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo by "Etiquette and Diet" section

Request: in the Article section: Etiquette and diet (please remove the picture of the strange man with the long beard, because that picture creates an offensive stereotype) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.159.197.21 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the picture is the problem- the caption is weird. I've changed it. David Trochos (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that's a wedding?--AllahLovesYou (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The original name of the image is "Nikah 018"; there's food on the table in the background. Reference back to Flickr shows that the photographer works in the Birmingham (England) area, but one thing we don't know is that the people shown are "British Pakistanis"- the main character at least is young enough to have been born and raised a Brummie. David Trochos (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nikah is not a wedding, it is an Islamic Engagement (a promise to get married). The people in the image are likely to be British Pakistanis, they don't look Middle Eastern, African, Central Asian, White or Indonesian Muslims. I can also tell by their clothes.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As this discussion could have continued for quite a while, I think on balance you were right to remove the picture! Cheers. David Trochos (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"breast" is wrong, should be "chest"

Please change the word "breast" in the 17th reference to the word "chest". This is the right interpretation.

Whomever Allah wills to guide he will open his "chest" - meaning "heart" - for Islam.

Thank you

Moustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.233.25 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Breast" is used in this sentence as a poetic version of "chest" to imply a spiritual opening rather than a surgical one. David Trochos (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

inaccurate/misleading information

"Resurrection will be followed by the judgment by God of those given the knowledge of the Quran."[38]

This sentence is misleading - it implies that only "those given knowledge of the Qur'an" will be judged by Allah when in fact every human being that ever lived will be judged. I also think its strange that the citation is to source called something like "Challenges to Islam" (I can't remember exactly the name and don't want to navigate away from this page to check, but you can), anyway, that doesn't really seem to be an appropriate source for our non-biased Wikipedia. Also, more details could be added to this section (and the entire article, actually). Ex. Everyone will be given a book of their deeds on the Day of Resurrection, and that no one will be wronged. Also, the following sentence discussing sins isn't not completely accurate - instead it should say that Allah says in the Qur'an that He can/possibly will forgive whatever sins He pleases except the association of partners with Allah. Shirk (association of partners with Allah) is the only unforgivable sin.

In general, I wish this article was available for edits because I think there is still a lot of work to be done and a lot of information (which is currently missing) to be shared.

Katakimo (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question, as the source does not seem to support it. It is a RS, however. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Obscure vandalism reverted

I reverted vandalism to the Assessment summary, restoring it to the last credible version. These subpages arent included when one is watching a page, are they? That seems odd. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Farhan000, 16 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Islamic belief primarily consists of 2 main branches (Sunni and Shi'a) with several sub-branches. The largest sub-branches include the Khawarij and Mu'tazilites. I see that the page lists 'Ahmadiyya', which is a very small minority branch stemming from Sunni Islam, as a distinct sect. An unbiased approach would be to have this branch listed under the 'Other' category, and list the Khawarij and Mu'tazilite sects with a brief description of their beliefs.

Mu'tazilite - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu'tazili Khawarij - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij

Note: the Ibadhis are the modern-day theological descendants of the Khawarij.

Farhan000 (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done I appreciate the input, but this is mere suggestion. You need to be more specific of you want something changed/added. Please format your request in the form of "change X to Y" or "add X between Y and Z. Feel free to continue the discussion about this, however. It's a good topic to talk over with involved editors. Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 14:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Relocate 'Ahmadiyya' to 'Others', Give 'Mu'tazilite' sect a section

Farhan000 (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC) The four main historic sects have been the Sunnis, Shi'as, Kharijites and Mutazilites. The Sunnis have historically maintained a super-majority, ranging between roughly 80%-95%. Shi'a communities have historically ranged between 5% to 20%. The Khawarij never gained a sizable majority, but were significant for their historical and political impact on the Muslim governments. The Mutazilites ranged between 10%-15% and gained both theological and political prominence due to their views on the nature of Allah. Though their ideas have faded from the Muslim world, their positions influenced both Sunni and Shi'a beliefs. Sunni theology was often presented as a counter to Mu'tazili theology, while Shi'a theology sought to reconcile the issues the Mu'tazilite theologians differed upon.

There are dozens of other sects of Islam, but most other sects never amounted to more than small communities. Ahmadiyya, like the other sects, is a super-minority. Therefore, it is a misplacement to create its own section in the main Islam page. I suggest relocating it within the 'Others' section, along with the countless other esoteric branches of Islam. Specifically, the 'Others' section should read:

Others

• The Kharijites are a sect that dates back to the early days of Islam. The only surviving branch of the Kharijites is Ibadism. Unlike most Kharijite groups, Ibadism does not regard sinful Muslims as unbelievers. The Imamate is an important topic in Ibadi legal literature, which stipulates that the leader should be chosen solely on the basis of his knowledge and piety, and is to be deposed if he acts unjustly. Most Ibadi Muslims live in Oman. There are communities of Ibadis that took refuge in the Mzab oases in southern Algeria, the Nafusa Mountains in western Libya, and in Djerba Island (Tunisia), in order to avoid persecution in certain periods of history. Ahmadiyya is an Islamic religious movement founded towards the end of the 19th century, originating with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908), who claimed to be another [[Prophets of Islam][Islamic prophet] after Muhammad, and are generally regarded as heretical.
• There are also Muslims who generally reject the Hadith, often called Quranists.

Conversely, I belief that the Mu'tazilite sect deserves more prominent section in this page. For example, a sub-section under the Shi'a branch, with a brief description of their theology and beliefs.

As a point of clarification, if we will add the 'Ahmadiyya' branch, should we also add the countless other subbranches in Islam? For example,Atba-i-Malak Vakil, Mahdavi, Aga Khan, Sulaimani Bohra etc, etc? Many of these branches have at most only a few million adherents. Or, is this section reserved for only the sizable major sub-branches? Please let me know, I would like to contribute.

Islamic civilization

The term "Islam" is used too casually to refer to both the religion, and the societies historically associated with the religion.(Hodgson, Venture of Islam, V1 p57) Lewis identifies Islamic civilization as the third meaning of the term Islam. Islamic civilization necessarily includes non-Muslim and even non-religious aspects.(Lewis, The Jews of Islam, p 5-6).

Hodgson and Lewis address this issue early-on in their works, by way of exposition, as it is a distinction needed in order to discuss the remaining material. Wikipedia makes no such attempt.

Islamic civilization has no project page, or article, on Wikipedia. Instead, it disambiguates to Islamic Golden Age, Muslim world, and Caliphate.

Whatever ambiguity may exist in this term, there can surely be no dispute as to whether an Islamic civilization has existed, and exists today. It certainly includes the Islamic Golden Age, the Muslim world, and the Caliphate. It must also certainly include the science, art, politics and cultures of a vast number of people.

What is an Islamist? What is Islamic art?

Let's put up a project page and an article for Islamic civilization. Categorically speaking, Islamic civilization is surely a subset of Islam, with an extensive overlap. Sorting it out won't be easy. But let us take steps to resolve this question in our own minds, otherwise we will never get it straight in our articles.

Aquib (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Your idea is great, but we must take into account that Islamic civilization is not an independent civilization, and it is formed by mixture of many other civilizations like Persian, Turkish, and etc. So defining a border for this civilization is not an easy job. --Aliwiki (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Your make a good point. Let me first address it from the perspective of Marshall Hodgson.

Civilization is a somewhat arbitrary term, often narrowly defined by language. This obviously has its limits. On the other hand, the more broadly you define a civilization, the more subgroupings it must include. Eventually, we come to see civilizations as groupings useful for the purpose at hand. And ultimately, civilizations, like religions, are self-defined.

Hodgson considers the lands of Islam to constitute a world civilization. He calls Islam a world civilization in the title of his book The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization.

For another perspective, I can turn to H. Patrick Glenn, in Legal Traditions of the World, speaking on tradition and identity. Not all is arbitrary in the definition of a tradition, or civilization.

Glenn quotes Fernand Braudel, who speaks of an "underlying structure" of civilization; "those elements of a civilization which could not be changed without a fundamental change, or more probably disappearance, of the tradition itself." Applying this criteria to Islamic civilization, one immediately understands that structure to be the religion of Islam.

To summarize: looking at the lands of Islam, with its concept of Umma, the shared traditions, the shared Arabic religious and often secular language, and indeed the shared religion of Islam, it seems logical to fall in with those who perceive the outline of a world Islamic civilization.

Aquib (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The points you mentioned are correct except two things: first, Islam, like other religions, is a universal religion not an Arabic one; Second is that a religion doesn't have land or territory and can not be discussed by this issue. Religions like Islam, Christianity have affected the whole human history since their establishment in both positive and negative points. I believe with these consideration, we can go on about Islamic civilization.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider and respond to my suggestion. Regards -Aquib (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have created a project proposal here here. Support and discussions are needed. I see this as a long term objective, rather than an intense, short-term effort. Aquib (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)