< Talk:Islam Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 07:47, 11 January 2007 editArrow740 (talk | contribs)7,908 edits God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it!← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:53, 8 February 2023 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors377,349 editsm Fix Linter errors.
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Automatic archive navigator}}
	{{WPReligion|class=B}}
	{{todo|1}}
	<!-- Small templates start here -->
	{| align="right"
	|-
	|{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=top|small=yes}}
	|-
	|{{PastACID|small=yes|November 18 2006}}
	|-
	|{{FailedGA|11 December 2006|small=yes}}
	|-
	|{{V0.5|class=B|small=yes|category=Philrelig}}
	|-
	|{{FACfailed|small=yes}}
	|-
	|{{oldpeerreview|small=yes}}
	|-
	|{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|]||small=yes}}
	|-
	|{{FAOL|small=yes|Hebrew|he:אסלאם|lang2=Portuguese|link2=pt:Islão|lang3=Russian|link3=ru:Ислам}}
	|-
	|}
	<!--Small templates end here, Archive box begins here -->
	{| class="infobox" width="150"
	|-
	!align="center"|]
	]
	----
	|-
	|align="center"|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
			== Rituals of the Hajj (pilgrimage) (HAJJ IS NO RITUAL) ==
			Hajj is not a ritual. it says on the picture of hajj it is. It makes it seem like muslims take part is shamism or something.
	''']'''
	----
	|-
	|align="center"|]
	|}
	<!--Archive box ends here, please post below this line-->
			The meaning of the word Ritual to many people means "Magic and Witchraft"
	== Preparation for Article Improvement. ==
			Please change <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	''x-posting to the Islamic Wikiprojects''.
	It looks like Islam is going to win the ARCAID on Sunday(and if you haven't voted yet, please do so), so, to coincide with it, I would like to request your help. This Sunday, take a book on Islam from your shelves (or borrow one from your library). It doesn't really matter what book. Then spend a few hours flipping through it and reference ]. Either reference facts that are already on the article, or add new ones that you find.
	It doesn't matter how much information gets dumped on the article, we can always move it off into more appropriate articles. Just find a fact, and give a reference. If we all do that, ] could reach FA by Christmas. Anyone with me on this? ] (]) 14:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Does anyone actually intend to do this? Because I've chosen ''No God But God'', by Reza Aslan, but I'm not going to do this alone. ] (]) 18:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, I will be a bit busy, but I'll see what I can do. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	:i have access to the ] article on 'Islam' so i will try to contribute as much as possible with it, although i too am to be busy for a week or two. ] 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			:That's quite a sweeping generalization of what many people think a ritual is. A ritual is something performed by a person because it has some sort of personal or religious value. It mostly applies to religious practices, but even everyday practices can referred to as a ritual. Such as brushing one's teeth and making a cup of coffee can be referred to as your morning ritual. http://en.wikipedia.org/Ritual ] (]) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
	Could I suggest to delete the following sentence from "Criticisms": ''Notable modern critics include Evangelical leader Pat Robertson, who stated that Islam wants to take over the world, that radical Muslims are "satanic", and that Osama Bin Laden was a "true follower of Muhammad".'' It's ridiculous to quote such statements. They are generalised, and clearly biased and have not academic value, having been made by a non-expert. --] 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
			== Diagram on right ==
	:Unfortunately, even though ] is clearly a whacko, he is listened to by a substantal number of people in the United States, some of whom have been President. As such, it's probably appropriate to keep his views here, if only to better-illustrate the unfortunate way some Americans feel about Islam.
			In the "Islam & other religions" box
	:] 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
			It has Jainism and Sikhism; these are basically offshoots of Hindusim which pre-date the two.
	Ill. But yes I will have to accept this. --] 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I've been meaning to change this... Spencer and Pipes are far more notable critics than Robertson, who doesn't have an ounce of scholarly pretension in him. - ] 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
			Islam ought to be compared to major faiths, such as Christianity and Buddhism
	== Addition of ethymology ==
			:Islam is afterall the fastest growing religion. Many are surprised to know similarities between Islam and Chrisrtianity. For instance Jesus Christ, Adam and Eve are messengers of Allah. But in Islam Adam and Eve were forgiven and Adam became the first prophet while in Christianity the two were original sinners! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:48, 15 September 2008</span><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	I'm going to add the meaning of the word Islam in the first sentence, inside the pronuntiation parenthesis. Any objection?
			== Citation for Islam being the largest single religious denomination ==
	Well, the meaning that was given in this Talk Page was "Submission (to the will of God)". I really cannot give references for it... --] 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:If you look below the introduction, you'll find a section under its own "Etymology" heading. I commented it out and am planning to look over a few sources over the weekend so I can verify its content. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	::i had a go at attempting to rewrite it but it was more difficult than i had thought, especially as i am still learning the arabic language. i found in the EoI article however that "Islam" is the '']'' of the root variation IV (aslama/istisilm; see above lexicon) of the triconsonantal root S-L-M. that's all it says about the etymology, the rest is about the forms and instances of the word 'aslam' that occur in the primary texts. ] 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
			The article is locked, but a citation for the missing one at the end of the first paragraph is at:
			http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080330/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_muslims
			--] (]) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
			:That piece has already been included as a reference in the article. ] ] 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	Yes, Itaqallah is right. S-L-M means "peace." Translating it as "submission to God" is a loose translation, although doubtless that is how many Muslims think of the word. Personally, I think the etymology has no place in the introduction. More important for the introduction are the core beliefs and a quick word about the origins under Muhammed, and where the largest concentrations of followers are found.] 05:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
			::Islam is not a denomination. ] (]) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	:S-L-M does not always mean 'peace', different variants have different meanings. Islam is from the fourth variant of S-L-M, and is derived from ''istisilm'' and ''aslama'' which literally means to submit, so "submission to God" is the most accurate rendering here. this is supported by lane's lexicon, as linked to above. ] 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Consider editing ]. --] 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			This citation is not sufficient. The source is from the Vatican, not recognized as an authority on Islam by anybody but Catholics, and not even by all of them . The idea of Islam as "the largest denomination" is questionable on the face of it. First, Islam has denominations of it's own, and is not a denomination by itself. If it were, the word "denomination" would be meaningless in context. Second, denomination of what? Again, the label "denomination" would mark it as a smaller part of a larger religion, divided from others in the same religion by specific articles of faith or interpretation. ] (]) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
	==New structure==
	This article should be rearranged. I propose this structure:
			Islam is not a single denomination. There have for a long time been more Muslims that Catholics. Islam should be compared to Christianity in numbers, not Catholicism <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Contents
			:I just wanted to add that neither the Yahoo link nor the Vatican states that Islam is a Denomination. It clearly says that it is a larger religion than Catholicism. It can be inferred that the Vatican doesn't consider itself a denomination, rather a religion unto itself. mpa|mpa] (]) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
	* 1 Beliefs
	** 1.1 Tawhīd (Oneness of the God)
	** 1.2 Prophecy (])
	o 1.2.1 ]
	o 1.2.1.1 The ]
	o 1.2.1.2 ] and ]
	** 1.3. ]
	* 2 ]
	** 2.1. Five Pillars of Islam
	o 2.1.1. Shahadah
	o 2.1.2. Salat
	o 2.1.3. Zakat
	o 2.1.4 Sawm
	o 2.1.5 Hajj
	** 2.2. Other practices
	o 2.2.1 Dietary laws
	* 2.2.2 ]
	* 3 Symbols of Islam
	* 4 Denominations
	o 4.1 Sunni
	+ 4.1.1 Salafi
	o 4.2 Shi'a
	o 4.3 Sufism
	o 4.4 Others
	* 5 Organization
	o 5.1 The caliphate
	o 5.2 Islamic law
	o 5.3 Mosques
	o 5.4 Islamic calendar
	* 6 Islamic knowledge
	* 6.1 ] / ]
	* 6.2 Muslim juricprodences (])
	* 6.3 ]
	* 7 History
	* 8 Contemporary Islam
	o 8.1 The demographics of Islam today
	* 9 Islam and other religions
	o 9.1 Related faiths
	* 10 Controversies
	o 10.1 ]
	o 10.2 ]
	o 10.3 Criticism of Islam
	* 10.4 ]
	* 11 See also
	* 12 References
	* 13 Bibliography
	* 14 External links
	o 14.1 Academic resources
	o 14.2 Directories
	o 14.3 Islam and the arts, and other media
	Sa.vakilian wrote this. ](]) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			== NPOV ==
	:I oppose this structure. The current structure is fine as it is and need not be added to. In fact, I would suggest that in the current article we delete Islamophobia and Symbols of Islam, which aren't really related to the religion. What do other editors think?
	:However, the afterlife seems an important thing we haven't got in the article - I will see what I can put together. ](]) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			Not sure if this has been brought up before or not, but the main article for Islam contains more Shiite things than Sunni, so is there any way we can clean/discuss this? Thanks <span style="color: Black">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	::We need to introduce concept of prophecy in Islam at least in one paragraph. Another important issue is ] which is related to the Prophet and it's one of the basis of Islamic jurisprudence.
	::Practices shouldn't be a seprate part. I mean it includes Salat, Zakat, Sawm and Hajj too. --] 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			from alsadi: I Agreed with that because according to all statistics Sunnies are more than 90% (refer to the fact book)
	== Section Length ==
			it's like having to mention the communist party in the front article about USA as a major party in USA during the cold war!
	:I oppose this structure. The current structure is fine as it is and need not be added to. In fact, I would suggest that in the current article we delete Islamophobia and Symbols of Islam, which aren't really related to the religion. What do other editors think? ](]) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			the problem with this approach is that it ignores many facts like that Shiites are only found on far places where people don't speak Arabic like Iran I was shocked with many articles here about Islam.
	::I would have said before that a reduction of "Islamophobia" is needed but now the criticism section is ridiculously long. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			PS: Shiites have an organized ways to do vandalism on wikipedia as they pay Khums to fund that.
	::I'm going to remove the last two paragraphs. It's a perfect example of ] and mentioning minor characters like Ali Sina whereas significant scholars like ] or ] are not mentioned is not appropriate for this article. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			Please In any Islamic related article one should ask about valid citations. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			From Pink: I feel that the article for Islam should be much more general, while containing references or links to sections/articles that explain the viewpoints of the major sects (Sunni, Shia, etc.). For example, the "Five Pillars" is treated as if it were common to Shia and Sunni Islam, whereas Shia Islam has its own listing of its beliefs ("Usul ad-Din," 5) and its practises ("Furu' ad-Din," 10). Sunni Islam has the Five Pillars as a reference to core Sunni Islamic practises and also the Articles of Faith (6) in reference to its belief. Perhaps a brief treatment could be made of core Islamic beliefs and practises: 1) Belief in Allah 2) Belief in Prophet Muhammad 3) Belief in the Hereafter; 1) Salah 2) Zakat ("Charity" -> Zakat only for Sunni Muslims, Zakat and Khums for Shia Muslims) and 3) Hajj. Afterward, reference could be made to those points that distinguish Sunni and Shia Islam. This kind of treatment should also take care of DevilAsh's concern, since many topics would contain a general explanation of an Islamic topoic and then divert to Shia, Sunni, and other Islamic sectarian distinctions after covering the generality of Islamic belief/practise/etc. Therefore, it would not seem to contain so many references that specified only the Shia Islamic viewpoint of various topics. ] (]) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Pink
	Also, either the Salafi section needs to be made smaller, or the Sunni section needs to be made larger. Right now the Salafi section is larger than the Sunni section. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			== Islam - not a new religion ==
	:I've cut down Salafi, deleted Islamophobia, and am fine with your reductions of Criticism. Your thoughts on Symbols of islam (which seems to exist to say "Islam has no symbols")? ] (]) 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:: I've reverted that, there needs to be an Islamophobia section, shrunk, maybe, but still present. Further, the details clipped from the salafi one are the most important. I'm of the opnion that the salafi one should remain as is, but the sunni one increased (Explain some basics concerning Imam Malik, etc). --]\<sup>]</sup> 17:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Why does it need to be there? And what bits of Salafi are important that I deleted? ] (]) 18:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			Islam is not a new religion originating from teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) , its revival of teachings of Christ and Moses. Muslims believes in teachings of Christ and Moses and Quran - the Muslim holy book - is the revival of teachings of Bible.
	==Disagreements==
			looking for citation to add this sentence to article introduction
	===Practices/Islamic law===
	Should we add ] to "Practices"? I think it's a notable practice these days. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Sa.vakilian has deleted teh section, so I'm guessing that's a moot point now. ] (]) 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd rather put ], ] and other relevant issues under ]--] 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::The hijab I think is largely irrelevant to the article, but I would agree that jihad should go in there somewhere. But I don't think it fits udner Islamic Law.] (]) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::If we resurrect Other Practices, we can put jihad, dietary laws and Islamic calendar in it. ] (]) 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	Do you agree with this:
	*Sharia
	1. Five Pillars of Islam
	o 2.1.1. Shahadah
	o 2.1.2. Salat
	o 2.1.3. Zakat
	o 2.1.4 Sawm
	o 2.1.5 Hajj
	2. Other practices
	o 2.2.1 Dietary laws
	* 2.2.2 Jihad
			] 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
	===Islamic knowledge===
			:see the second sentence of the second paragraph. ] 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
	I really do not think Islamic knowledge should continue as a section on the article. It is mainly links, breaks the flow of the text and really does not add to the article I think maybe some links added in Sharia could help, but as a section shouldn't be there. ] (]) 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Can we either delete or merge Islamic knowledge? ] (]) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't understand. Islamic knowledge is too important. We can debate about the best position for it.--] 19:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::It's evidently not very important if it's a bunch of links. Justify your inclusion first. ] (]) 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::] isn't a part of Islamic knowledge. It's a part of religion beside beliefs and ].--] 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			Islam was predicted by pagan gods. and the birth of Muhammad (reincarnation of pagan god) kinda messed up. dates back millions of years or something like that --] (]) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	There is a mistake in The Islam article. It says "Muhammad Abraham upon..." where as it should read Muhammad came upon.... Thankyou for your time.
			:First and foremost Mohun, I believe you are mistaken. There are no records of any predictions millions of years ago. Science indicates that modern ] have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years total, and even less in a civilized form. Secondly, if you are referring to the ] of ] (which I would like to state for the record that I do not consider to be ']') it is evidenced that it was created somewhere between 700 and 800 AD, **after** Muhammad, and seems to have been written in a vilifying and accusatory manner, and certainly can't be called a 'prediction.' Thirdly, as I am sure this is ] and that you would not have any ] I fail to see how this conversation can have any bearing on this article. So I must assume, for the sake of courtesy, that I have misunderstood you. If this is the case, could you clarify what you actually meant? - ] (]) 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	===Current edit===
	I've deleted Islamic symbols, and I think the article as it stands, including Islamic knowledge (though I think it needs a better title), is now fine. Does anyone else have any other sections they wish to add? ] (]) 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I agree - Islamic symbols is not necessary in this article. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
			Not only in Bhavishya Purana its also mentioned in Atharaveda, Sama Veda, RigVed, Bhagawat Purana, Kalkis and goes on and on. I think the only refs to claim this would be actual pictures from these Vedas. im still working on it. i gatherd a lot of sources. and so far i can also say that the information you hear about Muhammad and Vedas are all true. i went through some books and the page numbers and chapters that articles listed about Muhammad in Vedas it all matches up so far. and futher goes into more detail. its going to take some time for me, the most i can tell you is that these website that claim Muhammad in Vedas are not making stuff up and the page numbers and chapters seem to be proper. --] (]) 00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
	== Salafiyyah ==
			From Pink: As a conservative Muslim, I feel that it is easiest to treat Islam as its own religion when discussing it in an academic manner, rather than treating it as an original religion from which others branched. One problem in dealing with it as an original and ancient religion is that those qualities that distinguish it from other religions would have to undergo development in academic treatments. For example, the requirement for salat was different under Prophet Moses than under Prophet Muhammad, and it is alsmost certain that the various postures and recitations that comrpise salat have changed over the millenia. In addition, requirements for charitable contribution, pilgrimage, funeral processes, modesty, marriage, etc. have all changed over the millenia. Academically speaking, the primordial "Islam" is not recognisable. Furthermore, Muslims are taught that all are born on the natural path of monotheism - it is likely that this natural monotheism is what constituted the primordial religion of Prophet Adam and his family. It would simply be too confusing and require too much time, energy, and space to treat Islam as the religion that existed since the time of Adam. We Muslims have bigger fish to fry, anyway. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ] (]) ] (]) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Pink
	Would anyone be opposed to be giving Salafis once sentence under the "Sunni heading." Right now, I think Salafis are being given too much attention in this article as they are a minority. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I agree. ] (]) 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Also agree. Sentence should mention Salafis' importance in Saudi Arabia. ] 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			In an encyclopedia, we strive to distinguish between fact and dogma. To take an example from another religion, the early Catholic church heavily edited the texts that became the new testament, but editing does not change the truth (or lack thereof) of the original text. Muslims may take comfort in believing that Islam precede Muhammad, but the fact is that he started the religion, and not a single human "practiced" Islam before him. ] (]) 16:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
	==Citation needed==
	Please add facts whenever you can , if you want make a good article.--] 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			:"Heavily edited" the texts. Wow, goes to show what you know of the Bible in other Churches, such as the Nestorians, Ethiopians and other non-Ephesian Churches. ]] 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
	== Criticism Section ==
			===Israelites as among the first Muslims===
	Why are there no criticism sections in ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], or ]? There are only criticism sections on Islam and ], and Islam already has a section dedicated to terrorists. At most, the other articles link to an article in "See also" with a name "Criticism of ." ] <sup>]</sup> 05:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			alSala'amu alaykum. Since most of our prophets are Hebrews and Aramaics, and looking over to the Qur'an, it is quite clear that ] is a re-birth of a ], especially between the time of Eliyas and that of I'sa. I was hoping the "History of Islam" would make significant reference to the Israelites/Children of Israel before the Muhammadan era.
	: Let me guess why? It is because the name of "Islam" in west is associated with "criticism". If there is no criticism section in say ], nobody feels there is something lacking here. But when it comes to Islam, of course there should be. In my dictionary this kind of prejudice is called ]. --] 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Wht is it that whenever someone is hateful towards another person, it is a phobia? Homophobia, islamophobia, zenophobia... these aren't fears, they are feelings of hatred. Fear and hate are not synonymous.
			:''See ] and Surah Yunus''
	:I have filed a peer review. Interestingly, Christianity is also being peer reviewed, so it will be a good opportunity to see whether one should have the section and one not, or both, or neither. ] (]) 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I have also filed an RfC. Islam, like Christianity, have hundreds, if not thousands, of books criticising them. One does simply not get that with religions like Buddhism or Shinto. Criticism of Islam is therefore far more relevant to the article than criticism of Sikhism is. ] (]) 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Are you certain it's not because Christianity and Islam are the world's first and second largest religions, respectively?] 07:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, it probably is. I fail to see why this is an argument for not including it. ] (]) 08:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:: That's not true. Islam has been <s>criticized</s> villified much more than any other religion. Just check, critics say "Islam allows slavery" , well every other religion does. Mark Leopold, senior associate member at St Antony's College at Oxford University, states that: "The easy association of slavery with Islam throughout much of the earlier literature (found especially but by no means exclusively in Christian missionary writings) is one aspect of much wider, and perhaps currently more dangerous than every Western demonization of Muslim faith and its believers." Now see . --] 08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::: Just compare Christian polemic against Islam with Muslim polemic against Christianity. Christianity is the first world religon, isn't it? Shouldn't it be reverse? --] 08:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	Common. Please have a look at the first pages of ]'s book (Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World). Islam has been usually viewed at with a kind of hostility and fear. --] 07:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:STOP ACCUSING ME OF ISLAMOPHOBIA. I am NOT Islamophobic, many of the writers in the criticism section are not Islamophobic. For goodness sake, there are valid criticisms of Islam that can not be put down to ignorance! Not every writer who says that Islam oppresses women and promotes intolerance and Anti-semitism can have their views discounted because they're "hostile" to Islam! Have you never considered they are hostile to Islam BECAUSE they have criticised it, and not the other way round? Please stop slapping anyone ypu don't like with a Islamophobic label - it's not TRUE! ] (]) 08:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			{{quotation|<b>(84)</b> And Moses said: "O my people! If you have believed in God, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims". <b>(85)</b> Then they said: "In God we put our trust. Our Lord! Make us not a trial for those who are disbelievers".}}
	Gosh! Who accused you of Islamophobia?????? I am just saying Islam has been under focus in west, historically. That's it. I am not talking about you or any other editor here. --] 08:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			Thanks. ] (]) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
	Right, go back to the beginning. Should Islam have a criticism section? Yes. Why? Because it has been regularly criticised, just as Christianity has, over the course of several centuries. Yes, I don't care whether you persionally feel this criticism is unjust, or whether you feel Islam has been unfairly villified. The fact is that it HAS been criticised and it is our duty as an encyclopedia to document that fact. And the massive amount of criticism that exists means it should be mentioned on the article itself. just like Christianity. Please stop confusing attacks on Islam with the workings of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			:It is true to say that the heresy of Islam is not a new religion, it is the continuation of Christianity...at least that is what it claims. However, as Misplaced Pages does not hold the Islam to be true it can only view it from a scientific historical perspective- It is distinct enough to be called a separate religion by Anthropologists and Religious Studies Experts and so Misplaced Pages must comply with these assertions. ] (]) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
			::Bluntly put, Christianity got KO'd so God used a phoenix down, and renamed it Islam. --]] 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
			:::I prefer to think of it as- God revealed the path of salvation to the world...a worried Satan released his final ] and called it Islam. ] (]) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
			::::I prefer to think of it as Cecil, once pure and being corrupted into a Dark Knight, finally finds his true path as a Paladin. --]] 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
			== Necessary Update: Women ==
	:Agree with others that a criticism section '''should''' be part of this article even though there is a separate article for it. Though I think it should be brief and to the point, linking to other articles for most of the detail. ] 14:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			This article makes the statement that a woman recieves half the inheritence a man does, but does not explain why. In Islam, a man is required to provide for his family, and any money he has must be used for the general good of his wife and children. He is also expected to care for elderly parents. A woman's money from any source, however, is hers and hers alone. She is not required to spend it on necessities such as food, adequate clothing, shelter, heat, oil, etc.
	::I am not that against having a criticism section, but it is not without problems. Criticism of what? Of the beliefs and tenets of Islam or its religious practices, or customs of people who follow Islam, or practices of states that call themselves Islamic, or what? Bundling together these very different kinds of criticism that have been made over more than 13 centuries is not likely to lead easily to a readable or useful section. To make the process easier, Dev and any others who want such a section, could you say here what you think the best and most relevant ''sources'' would be for the section. Thanks. ] 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			Please ensure that statments such as this are fully explained. The last thing we need is people using articles like this as "proof" of Islam's negativity toward women simply because they are not complete. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Just an FYI, the criticism section was inserted by an anon in July. I don't think there was any discussion at that time about its insertion. Considering that this article has both a section for terrorists and criticism of Islam, it is being much more negatively slanted than any other article on a major religion. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			:That's true. I don't think it implies any negativity by not explaining, but if you can locate any academic ] expounding upon this then we can decide on how to briefly incorporate it. Further discussion is likely warranted at daughter articles like ]. ] 18:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
			:I would worry about adding any explanation on this page. Mostly these justifications are ad hoc attempts to counter Western critics. And that doesn't mean they're not valid... but it does mean it's hard to represent in the sentence we are giving to the issue. And, fundamentally, for most of the history of Islam it's just how it is and it makes sense. It needs no more justification than any other law. ] ] 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Points taken Saab. I have some sympathy with the view that there should be references in the article that will enlighten those who are reading about recent conflicts. For example readers may want to know whether the ] in Afghanistan represent a mainstream Muslim view. What is fundamentalism, or jihad? Are the laws in Saudi Arabia the same as those in Iran? I think therefore that the article would be strengthened by short paragraphs on the relationship between Islam, the State and politics. Another thing currently missing is Islamic and civilisation and culture. Islamic art, architecture, festivals ... ] 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			::Agreed, and we do not want to add unnecessary complications. The statement made above is not valid in the case of a widow with children, who does often have to use her own money to provide necessities. ] (]) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I think we should take this last statement quite seriously, because the previous criticism section suffered from some grave problems, especially comparatively. Christianity is the only major world religion with a criticism section, and its criticism section is focused on theological arguments and not historical manifestations or practices. In my opinion the difference between the criticism section of Islam, as it was until now at least, and this Christian criticism section speaks to some deep problems that reflect a lingering colonial academic heritage that attributes different significances to the West and to the Other. Christianity is dealt with in a mainline Protestant manner in which the religion boils down to its core theological concepts, and mostly these matters of "belief" become the subject of criticism. Yet Islam is not given this essential theological nature, but is treated through various historical manifestations, some of which are very geographically and historically specific. Archived recently, I wrote about this in the discussion hoping that someone would take it seriously. There should be a consistency in criticism sections, or else someone will always cry foul. On that matter, I think part of the problem is with the Christianity criticism section being too theological, and clearly the responsibility does not lie on us here to mimic them entirely. But we need to be conscious of Misplaced Pages as a whole, and of "religion" as an umbrella category. I would not suggest removing the section. However, I do suggest (ontop of being conscious of "religion" as a larger category) to refrain from being seduced by the contemporary fervor in criticizing Islam. Islam, like many other religions, has existed for quite some time, and the current barage of criticisms do not reflect a history of similar criticisms. Lets not be so arrogant as to assume that our current era deserves an inordinate amount of attention on the page about Islam as a historical religion. This leads me to a related point, that criticisms need to be contextualized adequately, which requires sensitivity in separating what may be prejudice, hatred, or Islamophobia from other forms of criticism. For instance, you wouldn't and shouldn't put the history of European anti-semitic folk customs in a "criticism of Judaism" section. The Islam entry deserves the same treatement.
	::* If there is one thing I would consider most here it is putting criticisms of "Islam" to the test of what they are actually criticizing. Are they criticisms of Islam as a religious category transcending local and historical variation? Are they criticisms of major aspects or components of Islam? Are the criticisms of fringe groups, persons or activities? Are they criticisms from within Islam? From without Islam? From a specific perspective? We need to contextualize more adequately than before when all we had was a dubious presentation of criticisms as being "secular.] 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::The section that existed was created entirely from the "historical" and "modern" critical sections of ]: Thus it covered all of history not "current hysteria", and was drawn from an already existent wikipedia article. It seems to me that general consensus is that a section should be there, the debte is in what form it should take.
	:::I would also like to point out that the fact that there is a section on terrorism does not mean that slam should not have a criticism section. Every article must take into account contextual circumstances - Islam must include terrorism, just as ] includes a section on persecution by Islamic states. It is on this basis of individual consideration that I have argued for a Islam criticism section in the fist place. ] (]) 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			NOTE : One source is the Book "Wemon rights system in Islam" (Nizam-e- Hoghugh-e-Zanan-Dar-Islam) which is written in Persian, by the famous clerick "Mortaza-Motahhari". You can look at it if you want to make sure. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Incidentally, this section was deleted in the first place because Bhaisaab thought it was unfair that ] did not have a criticism section. Well, ]. ] (]) 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:That section is only critical of Judaism's development. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I have readded he section. The answer is to evaluate its contents, not remove it and scream Islamophobia.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
			== Rejection of Ahadith and Sunnah ==
	::I support this whole heartedly. Keep the section there and work with it. Presenting known criticisms in appropriate contextualizations does not amount to hate or fear--I'm sure we're all agreed on that. Every religion article should have an adequate criticism section. However, we still need to keep in mind balance, and the larger picture in terms of the presentation not only of Islam but of religions on Misplaced Pages.] 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::"Every religion article should have an adequate criticism section." Judging from my recent conversation with Dev920, she does not agree with your position. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::That would be true. I do not feel there is sufficent criticism, if any, of, say, ] or ], to warrant such a section. However, as I do not edit these articles, and have no intention to edit any other religion's article, my opinion on them is irrelevant. ] (]) 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			There are many devout Muslims who do not trust the authenticity of recorded ahadith and sunnah of Mohammed (pbuh). There are also many devout Muslims who, regardless of their authenticity or inauthenticity, believe that the Qur'an itself is complete (by its own statment, many many times within its pages) and that ahadith and sunnah are simply unnecessary. These beliefs are definitely worth mentioning, especially since questionable ahadith and sunnah have formed the backbone of many "Islamist" regimes.
	Ive just read the critisism section (and the article) and think it generally reads well. The critisism section, developed in the same scholarly vein, is an excellent defence against islamophobia (i.e. ignorance) by presenting intelligent arguments for and against which are generally absent from the media discussion of islam. Keeping a critisism section in this article presents islam as a religion that is mature enough to deal with critics - also a part of the character if islam generally not acknowledged in the media and nessesary for people who want a complete picture of the religion] 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			Please include a section on these beliefs, as the number of believers who ascribe to them is growing. I will gladly provide any information and documentation that may prove helpful. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Either all articles on all religions should have a section on criticism or neither should have. We can '''then''' discuss how this section should be written.--] 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			:The number of "Qur'an-only" adherents is extremely small when weighed against even other minority sects such as Ibadis or Ahmadiyya. So as per ] I don't think this merits mention, and this has been the general view when this issue came up previously. ] 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
			::Three or so years ago I was supporting the inclusion of some of the Qur'an alone viewpoints in ]--I'm glad I have gained better perspective. But, I do think there is a valid point about skepticism--since skepticism comes in other forms than Qur'an only. There is Sunni-Shia hadith collection disputes. There is Fazlur-Rahman-ish/liberalized scholars who argue more scrutiny is necessary but don't call for rejection. There are Hamza Yusuf types who talk about needing to study matns to make sure they do not contradict the Qur'an--even of sahih hadith. So, I would have no problem if some of that skepticism was worded in... but, I'm not sure it's necessary. ] ] 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
	:In reply to Aminz, though I believe that all religions should have a criticism section, this is not a practical way to go about this discussion. You are talking about making a decision that affects 10's of pages - where should we discuss such a thing (if you know of such a place then maybe we can take discussion there)?
			I understand that the Qur'an-only adherents are small in numbers, but that does not mean they are nonexistent. I have read the "Undue Weight" policy and it has caused me to lose some respect for Misplaced Pages. Failure to mention minority viewpoints after they have been brought to attention is dishonest and misrepresentative. ] (]) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Generally we can only discuss one article at a time (though that can include its sub and closely related pages). We should (like the ] article has done) discuss the issue - make a decision, and that could be used as precedent for other religious article editors. Many thanks ] 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			:The issues of authenticity, as well as the existence and standpoint of ], are addressed in the ] page. On an unrelated note, that Qur'an Alone page is very poorly done. I'll take a look at it myself later, but if any of you would like to take a crack at fixing it first that'd be just fine. ] (]) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
			::The hadith page looks like it could do with some improvement too. ] 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
			:::Indeed it could. Suppose I'll have to actually crack open a book or two. Swell. ] (]) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
			::::I'll be happy to help... I have a few good sources available. :-) ] 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
			:::::That would be particularly helpful. I look forward to working with you. ] (]) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
			Not only are the Quraniyoon extremely small as a sect, they have been summarily dismissed by nearly every other Islamic sect as infidel on the basis of their rejection of the use of the Prophetic Sunnah as a source of Islam. The rest of Muslims view this rejection as a rejection of Prophet Muhammad himself, which is unbelief in terms of Islam. ] (]) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Pink
	:::I will add, that the current criticism section does need a lot of work. It seems to focuses heavily on Western/Judeo-Christian criticisms. We should add further information from other religions e.g. ] and ]|Baha'i]] come to mind, as well as controversy/criticism from Islam itself. Cheers ] 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			== History of Hadith + Quran ==
	:Of course it is appropriate to have a section on critisism. The aim is not to judge the value of these criticisms, prove one religion has more or less critics than another, show islam is or isn't 'mature' (isn't that kind of patronising anyway?). This web page is not the soul of Islam it is an encyclopedia. Its job includes describing critismims of Islam because these criticisms exist. How can people learn about relgious differences or the 'current hysteria' in the west if its elements are not described? --] 13:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			In the sections for Al-Bukhari's Sahih Hadith and the Quran, you can include two photos that I have taken of the worlds first printed copies of them, these are extremely rare and I'm not sure if there are other photos of them on the internet. Photos are below in my Islamic History section, if they will be used I will take my watermarks off them so let me know.
	We can discuss this issue in the manual of style talk page. Once we add it there, we can start working on this section. I don't say that all other religion articles should have one, just in letter there should be one. --] 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	If one can codify in the Manual Style that the articles on religions should have a criticism section, then i would have no objection to this section. Otherwise, it should go away. --] 08:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Hi Arshadhabib. These images would be ideal for the ] and ] articles respectively. Less so for this article because we already have a picture of a page from the Qur'an in the Qur'an ssection, and hadith is covered quite briefly in the Muhammad section which already contains an image of Masjid al-Nabawi. But certainly the other two articles could benefit from these images.
			:Just as a sidenote, it looks like you've taken some photographs of impressive quality. You might wish to consider releasing some of them under a license like ] (or ]) as Misplaced Pages tends to lack high-quality images of this nature and topic. Some may even be of ]. ] 00:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
			== Muhammadans ==
	BTW, Why not having a section on "Islam from the eyes of West"? --] 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			Hello, I noticed when i type Muhammadan it redirects to Islam. Muhammadan refers to (Pagans) that are Hindus and Buddhists that were known as Muhammadans before Islam was created. Note, there was no name of Hindu or Buddhists that time they were known as Muhammadans beacause of the Muhammadan Dynasty that arrived in South Asia. Muhammadan shold be an article about the pagan clans that were with Muhammad and shared all rituals and also described in the sacred vedas by pagan religon. Later, it was already predicted by the sacred vedas that Muhammad will be born as a reincarnation of another god and would be the one to lead the pagans and goes on and on. So its better to redirect Muhammadan to Muhammad article. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:How about "Outside views of Islam" or "Non-Muslim views of Islam"? There have been plenty of favourable non-Muslim writers who could be cited. ] 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Actually no that is completely untrue. Muhammadan is a western term for Muslim/Islamic that has become mostly archaic. You will find that in western terminology predating about 1960 the terms were interchangeable in western society. ] (]) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
			http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=muhammadan
			A Muhammadan is a follower of Muhammad. I'm curious if this means that Muhammadans follow only Muhammad's teachings and dismiss all the dogma that he had nothing to do with the creation of. Followers of Jesus Christ preach of following moral sincerity rather than strictly following religious ritual, so I think I see a comparison here. Also, as a random musing, if Muhammadans are followers of Muhammad that appeared before Islam was codified as it is today, wouldn't that make them a 'pure' form of followers?] (]) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			:Muhammadan is a catch-all. It covers the same people as are now covered by the far more commonly used word in English, Muslim. I think you are trying to read too much into the name. Historically it is based from the fact that Westerners originally came to know Islam as the religion brought by Muhammad and that, they were Muhammadans. It's just a matter of nomenclature and Muhammad has been phased out for various reasons including that some feel it is derogatory. ] ] 10:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
			== Islamic Page Isalamic External Links ==
	That's true. Even, Even in medieval times, there has been such writers though in minority. Judith, all I am asking here is to treat Islam exactly as other religions are treated in wikipedia. No better, no worst. --] 09:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			Why external links don't have eastern Muslims websits are nonMuslims afraid of the truth? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I'll give my opinion on this for what it's worth. I personally see no problem with having a criticism section in any article concerning religion (or any article dealing with beliefs/ideas for that matter). By definition, criticism does not have to be negative though in practice it usually is. Perhaps a disclaimer stating that the criticisms should be considered as opinion and maybe even break down the heading into 2 categories: "Criticism by those who follow/practice Islam" and "Criticism by those who do not follow/practice Islam" so the proper point of reference can be established and the proper weight given to each statement. If a Rabbi speaks out against Islam, I'd tend to ignore him. If the same statement came from an Imam, I'd probably take it more seriously.
			:Rather than play the fear card, try helping the article. Post links to sites written in English whenever possible however, as this is the English language Misplaced Pages. Also, the suggestion you make that only eastern Muslim websites have the truth sounds quite biased. You should clear up any misunderstanding without throwing the 'afraid of the truth' idea around like a common conspiracy theorist.] (]) 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
			I'm not saying that western websits don't have the truth. Eastern sites have more info and has more members. There are many scholars for example see the site islam house. It has 74 languages in English there are alot of article audio books you will not stop learning from the site for years. Though every time I try to post this link the next page say spam i very good site for muslims and other to read as they like to understand is called a spam an no one can benefite from it. 2 April 2008 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:Our linking policy has been to try to present a few basic introductory sites which are not overly pushing a strong religious or anti-religious point of view; a few sites that will have audio, video, and visual art of Islam related works; and, primarily the DMOZ directories. There are far too many sites about Islam to chose which belongs and keep the number of links manageable. This is why we linked to the DMOZ directory which should give a large array of sites of all sorts. ] ] 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
			== Islam is not one denomination ==
	I'll also point out (still my opinion) that most negative criticism of Islam will not be toward the religion itself since most opponents of Islam don't try to understand the religion. The criticisms will more than likely be toward actions performed "in the name of" Islam (whether or not the actions are supported by Islam should not be in dispute, just that it happened) and maybe this should also be mentioned within each statement. ––] 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			"There are between 1.2 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, ---> but the largest single religious denomination."
	== Islamic concept of God and tawhid articles - urgent action needed ==
			What about ]s, Shi'a, Kharijites, etc? The article even has a section on denominations, so the above quote is clearly false hype. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	It looks like there was discussion about merging these and consensus to merge, but no action taken. This should be sorted out quickly before the collaboration on this article finishes. ] 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			:::I agree here 100%. The Pope's use of "denomination" is unconventional and probably says more about how the Vatican considers "Catholicism" than "Islam." It was also clearly not spoken in English but has been translated as such. The conventional use of "denomination," which we have adopted here on Misplaced Pages makes the statement entirely illogical. Why are we publishing this strange perspective in the lead? I'm removing it ... please do not simply revert it because it is "sourced." Please provide a good rationale for including this oddity, and in the lead no less.] (]) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Tawhid is different from concept of God. It is the concept of oneness of god and his abilities uniquness. Hence both article should exist seperately. However, many things from Tawhid should be moved to Islamic concept of God. --- ] 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::I honestly think it's an unnecessary insertion. The ambiguity over religious groups etc. also doesn't really help. Broadly speaking Christianity is still the largest world religion, and the Vatican finding that Muslims have overtaken Catholics to become the single largest "religious group" is more of a footnote really. ] 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
	::What does "concept of God" have that "Tawhid" does not? How are they different? Examples? --] 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::I agree with Itaqallah on this one. It is unnecessary. '''] ]''' 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::This is an unnecessary fork. The two should be merged. ] (]) 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::Agreed, completely unnecessary and very political whether you decide that Islam is one or many. Better to leave it out ] ] 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
			: So why is it still there afer 16 days?] (]) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
			A denomination is a branch of a world religion so you can't really say "single denomination" it's just confusing also there in Islam one of the main reasons it's the largest growing religions is because when your'e born into a Muslim family you become a Muslim even though you may not follow the rules or lifestyle of a Muslim so a lot of the Islamic population is in fact made up of a lot of non Muslims really. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	The section should be called "concept of God." Within the section, discuss the meaning of Tawhid. ] 23:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			== This article +others may need to be updated. Islam now = Largest religion in the world. ==
	I have changed my mind. Both are needed. Tawhid is a sub-article of Concept. believing in tawhid is obligatory for all Muslims, but Concepts vary not so little. --] 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			Islam is now the largest religion in the world as per a few days ago.
	==Article Referencing==
	I have nominated Islam at the ]. It needs three votes to stay, your votes would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:You should wait and reevaluate the article after the improvement drive. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Article never gain references during an improvement drive. I'm setting up for the next big obstacle (If it wins the reference drive, it will start after the improvement drive has ended). ] (]) 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Why would articles never gain references during an improvement drive? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::I've looked through some of the past improvement drives, and drives tend to deal with structure and weak prose, and copyedit, more than reference. This is why I am so concerned that the editors here get some sort of referencing programme going - hence my attempt at a simultaneous referencing drive on Sunday. ] (]) 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Okay, makes sense. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	== Just where did dietary laws and Jihad go? ==
			* - March 31, 2008
	] and ] are two notable aspects of ]. I'm sure maybe the latter got deleted as a controversial subject, but there are two forms of it afterall. ] 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			* - March 31, 2008
	:Halal got by Sa.vakilian, although I think it should be in this article. I don't remember Jihad being in this article. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			* - March 30, 2008 at 2:51 PM EDT
	::Likewise not sure about Jihad, but why are standard practices "not important to maintain" (as that edit summary said)? Should they be added? In a condensed form?] 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			*
			] (]) 07:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
	The article should contain about 2-3 sentences on halal, and a paragraph on jihad. Jihad is a controversial topic, of course, so we should include both views (that it refers primarily to inner struggle, and the other view that it refers primarily to actual military struggle). ] 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
			:See the above section. '''] ]''' 07:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
			No it is not the largest religion in the world. Islam as a whole is now larger than one division of christianity: the catholics. This is including shi'a and Sunni muslims. 33-38% of the world's population follows christianity, whereas only 18% of the world are Muslims, so NOT the largest group or even division, as Catholicism is larger than Sunni Muslims without shi'a muslims. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Struggle (Jihad) goes this way:
	*Struggle For the sake of God
	**Internal Struggle , ie anger managment, be nice to your spouse, pray better and such
	**External Struggle , ie fix your community, build a school, give charity and such
	***Military Defensive Struggle, ie defend your community from aggressors
	***Military Offensive Struggle, under the command of a Imam. All Muslim regard some prophets as Imams (Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, per Qur'an). On top of that, Shi'a regard ] as imams, while Sunni give their Caliph the same power. All three alternatives are not available. Ill let OBL talk for himself.
			islam has atleast 1.2 billion minimum
	--] 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			this bs about islam being only a billion strong, is not true. The cia world factbook, council on american islamic relations, and the vatican all say so they seem like credible sources to me <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			Here are the facts: there are 2 billion Christians in the world and between 1.1-1.9 billion Muslims in the world of all sects. Does that sort out the problem? ] (]) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
	"...so we should include both views (that it refers primarily to inner struggle, and the other view that it refers primarily to actual military struggle)"
	:The latter is a minority opinion. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			ok look im getting tired of beating this to death, until u tell me why the cia, the vatican, and the councl on american islamic relations are all, no your claim that 1.1 to 1.9 does not settle it. How about you provide me with an link to your supposed facts as i will do now #REDIRECT ]
	::Not in English it isn't. I , and out of the first 20 related websites, about half were about violence, about half mentioned both meanings, and none were only about non-violence. Compare how Misplaced Pages treats the opposite word "crusade", which has a similarly duplicate meaning. Several of the first 20 Google entries like were strictly non-violent, yet Misplaced Pages's ] article is over 90% about the violent sense of the word. ] 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			#REDIRECT ]#REDIRECT ] You can also explain this wiki consistancy issue shown in the next redirect, the site titled the muslim world say a far more reasonable estimate of 1.3 billion to 1.5 billion muslims #REDIRECT ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::Have you considered that is because "Jihad" is most often taken as "holy war" in the west? A google search doesn't tell you what scholars think about Jihad Al-Asghar and Jihad Al-Akbar. You will have to read sources about fiqh to find the various opinions on this subject from Muslim scholars.] <sup>]</sup> 05:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Jihad is extensively used in Qur'an for military compaign, spiritual Jihad is only inspired by a few hadith only, which are even thought to be doubtful by people like ]. I think article ] can be useful in this respect. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	But I would also strongly recommend inclusion of ] with dietry laws (if included). ]<sup>]</sup> 03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			Islam, as a whole, Sunni and Shi'ite is now bigger than the single Christian sect of Catholicism. But not bigger than Christianity as a whole, which includes Protestantism, Orthodox, Catholicism, etc.
	:done! ]<sup>]</sup> 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			Islam I believe would not even qualify as the largest single sect in the world, because it is split into Sunni and Shi'ite, and other smaller divisions.
			You can compare Christianity as a whole with Islam as a whole.
			You can't compare Islam as a whole with the single Christian sect of Catholicism, as Islam is broken into sects, and Catholics aren't.
			So Catholicism is still the largest single denomination in the world, and Christianity as a whole is still larger then Islam as a whole.
			:Just my two cents. If the Vatican says that Islam is the largest religion, next to Catholicism, then that pretty much dismisses any arguement. The Vatican is clearly saying that Catholicism is not a sect, denomination or anything other than a pure religion. Why there is so much resistance with grouping together Catholicism and Protestantism, when the Vatican has clearly implied that is not correct, is beyond me. Therefore either the Vatican is wrong, or you guys are right. So I agree that changes will have to be made to this article, and the articles in Christianity and Catholicism. Islam is the largest religion in the world, and apparently that is a hard pill to swallow. MPA 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Article Length ==
			@ MPA
	I'm really happy with the expansion of this article, however, I suggest you guys don't let it go past 80KB. Once an article goes past 80KB, a lot of Featured article candidate reviewers ask that the article be trimmed. Right now it is 72KB so that means we need to prioritize and decide what is critical and what is not critical to this article. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			WOW, you're really pushing for Islam to be named the world's largest religion huh? Here's the jiff for the illogical to understand. Christianity as a WHOLE is bigger then Islam as a WHOLE. If you take denominations of each religion and look at them as religions in themselves, then Christianity (Catholicism) will STILL be the biggest religion. You can't lump ALL forms of Islam together and compare it with only ONE form Christianity. The Vatican was mistaken in looking at Islam as monolithic and without divisions, i.e. the SHIA, and others. If the Vatican gave themselves the same fair treatment to Islam in their comparison, they would realized they are the biggest, EITHER WAY. ] (]) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
			According to wikipedia, and moreover the Oxford English Dictionary, it really depends on one's accepted definition of Catholicism. In theory, there can be different denominations and sects within Catholicism. Although, I do contend that this is merely an argument over semantics. ] (]) 22:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
	== Last paragraph in Muhammad section ==
			== "Dowry" ==
	The last paragraph in the ] section seems to me to be a mess. The paragraph is begun by stating that "All Muslims believe", but this statement is quickly followed by a statement in the second sentence saying that the subject is not beleaved by a specific sect (Sunni's). I'm not sure what the actual meaning is supposed to be (although i'm going to study some in an attempt to figure it out for myself), so the best thing I can do right now is to simply call attantion to the problem. --] 08:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:The disagreement is not about Muhammed's sinlessness, it is about how the idea found its way into Muslim belief. At least, that was my understanding. ] (]) 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I carried out a minor edit of this paragraph, because I thought the distinction between the two positions was not clear enough, I added a summary of theological reasons why each side holds it's view (theology in case of sinlessness, historical instances in case of it's opposite). Hope this is satisfactory! ] 13:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::] mentions in ] (''Principles of Determining the Sunnah'') many ] (which are mainly Sunni hadith collections but Shia also believe in them to some extent), which says very clearly that Muhammad never bound people to follow him in worldy matters. His obedience was only in the sphere of religion (see ). Hence, he is fallible in worldy matters but infallible authority in religion. And I think no Muslim would disagree with the latter statement. What about changing this section with more generic informaiton, as it is also mentioned under Sunnah section in the article that ] also differentiates Muhammad's action as a prophet and also as a normal human. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I think that the key issue is what different theological schools believe about the Prophet, and these views should be represented (whether they are correct interpretations or not is beyond the scope of this discussion). Although I agree there is a potential for overlap between this and the section on Sunnah; how would you suggest to make it more generic?] 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think discussion on the prophet's innocence is quite philosophical and can be very complicated, and the other problem is that we are not discussing this issue with ]. I would suggest stating (as per the source given above and related hadith), he is considered fallible in worldly matters but infallable authority in religion. For example, Muslims are not obliged to travel on camel but they are bound in certain action e.g. customs and behavioural laws, which have already been discussed in the article. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			] states "The groom is required to pay a dowry (mahr) to the bride, as stipulated in the contract". Mahr is not dowry... since it's from the man to the woman. And it's not bride price because it's to the woman and not her parents. And it's not really dower since that has the implications of for after husband dies... but maybe that's the closest. In any case, we should come to agreement and also... the fact that dowry is used makes me wonder how applicable the sources really are. Do they sources say dowry? I hope not. ] ] 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I agree with you that it is a complex subject, afterall it has fuelled hundreds of years of theological debate between scholars of all persuasions. However, I believe that the terminology of "worldly" and "religious" affairs is too ambiguous, as a similar division exists within Islamic Law between acts of worship ('''Ibadat'') and social acts (''Mu'amelat'') and using such broad terms might confuse this discussion.
			:Yes that would seem to be inaccurate terminology. But perhaps this is less of inaccurate understanding of the nature of Mahr and more that the term dowry has come to mean something different in western vernacular than it originally meant. ''<small><span style="color:#85898C">May you go in God's care.</span></small>'' ''']''' (]) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
			::You'll have to explain this and what it would mean for the article... do you think we should keep on using dowry? ] ] 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::I dunno. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines dowry as "Money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband in marriage." What about the term "groomwealth"? <s>there is no such term in English but it may be closer.</s> although groomwealth is paid to the family of the woman and not the woman herself but this seems to be closer to Mahr.--] (]) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::When I studied social anthropology a long time ago there was a basic distinction between 1) "dowry", when the transfer of resources was from the bride's side to the groom's side or the couple and 2) "bridewealth", when the transfer of resources was from the groom's side to the bride's side or the couple. Ideally, we would refer at this point to a scholarly text that discussed the whole question across cultures and proposed a consistent terminology. In the absence of that, can we find a wording that explains the concept without reference to terms like "dowry" which are used loosely and potentially very confusingly. ] (]) 08:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::::Just a quick review of the sources:
			:::::Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world: "''Mahr'' is a gift that the Muslim bridegroom offers the bride upon marriage ... ... In English, ''mahr'' has commonly been translated as "dower." (that's all it says about the English rendition)
			:::::"Mahr" article in the Encyclopedia of Islam: "Mahr: Hebrew ''mohar'', Syriac ''mahrā'', "bridal gift" , originally "purchase-money" , synonymous with ṣadāḳ which properly means "friendship" , then "present" , a gift given voluntarily and not as a result contract, is in Muslim law the gift which the bridegroom has to give the bride when the contract of marriage is made and which becomes the property of the wife." - in the rest of the article the Arabic rendition ''mahr'' is favoured although it's sometimes substituted with "bridal gift."
			:::::"Bridal gift" is also the rendition of mahr given in the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic cultures (Brill publishers) p. 258
			:::::Other sources use "dowry," "bride price," "dower," and so on. I'd probably be in support of using bridal gift because it seems to be the most accurate, but there really is no unanimity amongst the sources on this one. ] 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::::I think we should do our best to explain what it is and not refer to "dowry" or even "bridal gift" as these words do not provide much enlightenment. ] (]) 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::In English, the word "dowry" has several meanings (as Itsmejudith should know), one of which is " a gift of money or property by a man to or for his bride". An online Arabic-English dictionary also translates ''mahr'' as "dowry". ] ] 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			] (]) 08:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)thegeniousumar== Creation ==
	::::::In addition to this, I believe we are confusing two seperate subjects. The one to which you have referred falls under jurisprudence, which is what categories of the Prophets behaviour and actions have a "proof" value (''hujjiyyat'') for the derivation of Islamic codes and laws. The on to which I am referring is theological, meaning whether or not it is plausible for a Prophet in general (and Muhammad in this instance) to commit sins or make mistakes. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me like all Muslims agree that the Prophet is somehow protected from such lapses, but that they disagree as to the scope of this inerrancy.
			When Jibra'el the angel came to tell to Mohammad( SAWS) to preach ,the muslim era didn't start there but it started when Adam(A.S) was sent down to earth. According to the muslim calendar we are in the year 1386. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::::But I am also in agreement with you that we need to use better secondary sources, and so I have collected a couple of authorative books on the issue to reference.
			== New map is better ==
	::::::I think that in order to comprehensively address the issue of infallibility, that we should systematically mention both major opinions and reference them to the best of our ability. This will prevent us from overlapping with the above mentioned jurisprudential subject (indeed it will clarify this theological discussion from that), and at the same time satisfy the need to explain the various viewpoints.
			I'd like to weigh in on the map situation. The new map, put up by Moshino, is much more intuitive than the one we had up previously. That's not to say that the old map was no good, but the gradient of greens from light to dark (low to high) makes more sense than arbitrary colors assigned to the different percentages. Another similar option would be to go between two colors in a gradient, like yellow and red, but I think this one is supurb. I'm going to revert back to Moshino's map and I'd like to hear a good argument for keeping the old one. Thanks.] (]) 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::With your consent I will attempt to redraft the paragraph in a more suitable fashion.
			:Also, if the darker side of the map, with the high percentages isn't clearly distinct enough between some of the groups I'm assuming Moshino can tweak the coloring a bit. That problem does not change the fact that this map is much more informative for what it does and requires much less work to figure out.] (]) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::Yes I agree as well with your comments thanks a lot, plus for the old maps, I have also given links to them on the maps if people are having trouble viewing them.. for all of them. ] (]) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			:You should propbably credit the CIA World Factbook and the other map as a source. I almost disagreed with the change because I thought yours was unsourced until I checked the difference between the two and saw none. ] ] 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I hope that you find this agreeable. ] 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			== Tahrif ==
	::::::: Done, and with references to classical theologians! Hope you like it! :) ] 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			Tahrif is a significant Islamic belief, but not significant enough to be in the lead. A more significant belief, that in the ], would be much better suited. We should also state ] more explicitly (saying that Islam is monotheist is not enough).] (]) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Quoting passages ==
			== Criticism section ==
	In the last paragraph of ] is this:
	<blockquote>all men and women will fall unconscious. Muhammad is the first to awake and he sees Moses, who may or may not have awoken prior, holding up the Throne of Allah at the mountain of Tur. On the other hand, those who truly believe in Allah, and are pious, the Al-Ghurr-ul-Muhajjalun, due to the trace of ritual ablution performed during their lives, repent their sin and return to "jannah (the Garden) beneath which rivers flow,". The world is destroyed. The dead will rise from their graves and gather, waiting to be judged for their actions (Qur'an).</blockquote>
	A direct transcription/translation of the Qur'an itslef? If it is, could it be made more clear that it is so? I'm wondering, isn't there a style guide somewhere on how to quote printed materiel? --] 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I have no idea. I copied it straight from ]. If you think it should be rewritten, go for it.] (]) 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::It's not from qur'an. I've never heared this before. I prefer to put some first verses from Sura Haj and Waqia --] 18:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::ah, you caught me mid edit. I changed the formatting of the text to be block quoted. not knowing (and having been led to beleave otherwise) I added the template for Quran references. I'm clueless as to where to actually look for more appropriate material to reference, however. If you could find an appropriate reference and edit the page ], I'm sure others would appreciate it. --] 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
			A couple of nights ago, I readded the criticism section that had been agreed upon at FAC but it was removed. (I actually closed this at FAR and either missed that the section was gone or looked at a version that temporarily had it.)
	== semi-protect? ==
			The reverting edit summaries suggested that it had been incorporated into the rest of the article. I don't disapprove of moving criticism in general, and I think it's right (usually) to deprecate criticism sections. But looking now I don't see that anything has actually been reincorporated. The best I can find is the last paragraph of Modern times. There's no criticism there—it's a typical, badly done strawman + apologism paragraph. (Side note: which David Duke?!)
	what's the procedure for getting a page semi-protected? this is getting somewhat rediculous. --] 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:What is? ] (]) 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::anon vandalism. Looks liek one of the admins came along and did sprotect the page. Everyone should note that semi-protection only prevents anon editing. if you have a UN and are signed in, you can still edit the article without problem. --] 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			I know if someone comes along and demands criticism it might seem like they have an axe to grind. I don't think I've behaved that way with this article. I sung it's praises closing the FAR—but I missed this removal of information. I find it a little troubling, for instance, that the See also didn't take the link to the criticism article. I don't see reincorporation. Only removal. ] (]) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	=="is" vs. "was"==
	A slightly unclear point in my mind which hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable than myself might be able to answer. In the intro the line, "According to Muslim belief, Muhammad was God's final prophet " currently reads "was".... is it more accurate to say "is" thusly, "According to Muslim belief, Muhammad is God's final prophet"? I realize this might seem a minor point but I've seen both ways of expressing this and wondered which was more predominant? Thanks. ''(]])'' 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	* That's a good point. From a purely gramatical point of view, I would think that using the present tense "is" would be preferable to the past tense "was". The subject of the sentance is Musim belief, so unless Muhammad is no longer considered "God's final prophet" the word should be changed. My admittedly limited understanding of Islam leads me to believe that Muhammad is currently still considered "God's final prophet" to Muslims. Therefore, I have been bold and changed it. --] 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't see why it is "was". Any ideas? --] 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			:It does seem some information got lost in the movement, and addition of loaded descriptors like "idealogues". I think your recent change is an improvement. - ] (]) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	I know nothing about Islam, but the subject of the sentence is "Muhammed". Since Muhammed is not around anymore, many people would argue for "was." "Belief" is actually the object of the preposition "to."
			:I added the see also link. I think it was a while ago that it was agreed that the criticism section should be merged within other parts of the article. '''] ]''' 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	== Custom and Behavioral laws ==
			Some feedback: I have an issue with using inherently unreliable citations, such as Spencer's/Warraq's works or the cite to FPM. Better alternatives such as Rippin's work or the NYT book review have been removed. So I don't agree with replacing good quality sources with poorer ones. You may have mistaken apologism for apologetics, but I disagree with your basic point. The version you inserted is much less balanced, as it includes ~5 claims, and a comment about fundamentalism; and essentially 1 counter claim, with a comment about Islamophobia. There's also an uninformative list of apologists (arguably as loaded as 'idealogues') tacked on at the end.
	The customs and behaviours, which were discussed in this section, are universally accepted in all Islamic societies around the world. Even so, Sunnis and Shias even agree on these basic customs as part of the religion. I think ] wide practice of these customs definitely deserves place on wikipedia. All the customs were taken from a writing of ], who is a member of ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:ah, i see what you are refering to now. That should certainly be put back, in my opinion. I find that it's removal without any prior discussion is bad anyway, so it should probably be reverted just on general principles. --] 07:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I was just curious that how can we improve its presentation, so that the "reason" why it was removed can be addressed. The information can't be changed, as it is already very concise, but maybe the presentation or words. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::well, the edit summary for that revision is: (→Customs and behavioral laws -Badly written and with little theological support. Removing customs section.). I believe that the "little theological support" point is very arguable, and you yourself have provided some great counter points. As for the badly written portion, I tend to disagree with that as well. As you said, it is already very concise. perhaps some of the individual points could be rewritten, but those would only be small edit's really. I'm left wondering if the editor left some other reason for removal unsaid. --] 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::done! ]<sup>]</sup> 08:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			A much fairer balance is stuck in the prior version, where we have two critiques (which aren't straw men, else they wouldn't have remained in the current version either); a recognition that Muslim scholars contest these claims (not a response); a response from some academic scholars and a more informative comment about Islamophobia from Carl Ernst.
	Yes, I did. I should have added''I find it bloody irritating when people add random sections to an article I'm attempting to improve''. You said that as I took it out without consulting the userpage, it should be put back, but truthspreader put it IN without mentioning it either. What to do? Basically, I oppose that section because it is bullet point format and it does not seem relevant to the description of the ''religion''. I know truthspreader is trying to be concise, but really, bullet point sections are frowned on in good articles. ] (])
	:Well! this section is there just because "Dietary laws" are there. It is all about the impact ,what the religion has on its adherents. You've got the point that Bullets are frowned upon. Let me see, if it can be put in a paragraph format. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I hadn't realised that it was a reacent addition to begin with. Regardless, I have rewritten the opening of that section and the festivals section. Both are referenced, and do seem to be adding to understanding of the subject in my opinion. Perhaps the materiel should simply be rewritten and even moved into other categories, rather than simply removed? I understand what you are saying Dev920, in terms of this aparently being reacently added, but I'd think that adding without discussion is much preferable to removing without discussion. At least adding information seems to be a constructive act to me. --] 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:the other relevent discussion on this subject is at ] --] 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			I don't intend to make any immediate changes, but I prefer the previous version with some tweaks (idealogues -> writers) and the inclusion of the sentence about fundamentalism. ] 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I've removed the bullets. I hope that it looks a little better. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::humm, I don't think it is, but i'll leave this up to you and Dev920. --] 09:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Also, you've inadvertantly reverted an edit I made to a couple of the ex. bullet points. I think that the manner in which I edited them before you removed the bullets themselves was more natural. The way that the points currently read seems awkward to me. --] 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			:I realize Spencer is problematic, as he's so polemical. But I would not call him "inherently unreliable." If we flag his opinions as his opinions, I think they are valid for inclusion, given that he has an established and well known reputation on the subject. (Ditto Rushdie—that letter about Islamophobia was in here at one point, and has also been removed.)
	When the section is already very concise and to the point, how can we improve it further. The last version of the section was:
			:As for balance, we need to consider the article as a whole. I find the readded paragraph balanced because, as I say, there's basically no other criticism anywhere. For instance, Family life (a section added during FAC) elides commonly brought up criticisms of polygamy and inheritance. If those were included, I wouldn't see a need to mention Spencer.
	=== Customs and behavioral laws ===
	Practitioners of Islam are generally taught to follow some specific customs in their daily lives. Most of these customs can be traced back to ]ic traditions in ]n society.<ref>Ghamidi(2001), </ref> Due to Muhammad's sanction or tacit approval of such practices, these customs are considered to be ] (practices of Muhammad as part of the religion) by the ]. It includes customs like saying ] (in the name of God) before eating and drinking and then using the right hand for the purpose,<ref>] 1513</ref><ref>] 2020</ref> saying ] (peace be upon you) when meeting someone and answering with ''Wa alaykumus-Salam'' (and peace be upon you),<ref>] 6234</ref> saying ] (all gratitude is for only Allah) when ] and responding with ''Yarhamukallah'' (God have mercy on you),<ref>] 6224</ref> and similarly saying the ] (prayer call) in the right ear of a ] and the ] in his/her left. In the sphere of ], it includes clipping the ], shaving the ], removing ], cutting ]s, and ] the male offspring;<ref>] 257</ref><ref>] 258</ref> cleaning the ]s, the mouth, and the teeth;<ref>] 252</ref> cleaning the body after urination and defecation,<ref>] 45</ref> and also abstention from sexual relations during the ] cycle and the ] discharge,<ref>{{Quran|2|222}}</ref> and ceremonial bath after the menstrual cycle, puerperal discharge, and ''Janabah'' (]/] discharge or sexual intercourse).<ref>{{quran|4|43}}, {{quran-usc|5|6}}</ref> Burial rituals include bathing a dead body,<ref>] 1254</ref> enshrouding it in coffin cloth,<ref>] 943</ref> and burying it in a grave.<ref name="cul">Ghamidi(2001), </ref>
			:On the whole, this article remains clinical and soundly written. It is a strong Misplaced Pages piece and I don't want to mess up sections with he said/she said paragraphs. But it shouldn't be completely absent modern criticisms, as the reader will arrive considering them and NPOV suggests we include them. ] (]) 18:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	===Notes===
	<references/>
	--]<sup>]</sup> 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			::While the current criticism section is better than the pseudo-criticism featured before, it's still problematic in many respects. For example, the section mentions some people who criticised Islam in the Middle Ages, but it doesn't say ''what'' charges those people put at Islam's door. Furthermore, in Abbasid times, there was an extensive anti-Islamic Christian polemical literature (and, of course, anti-Christian Muslim polemical literature), which the article passes over in silence. The recentist focus of the criticism section is also troubling. Modern times have seen much more prominent critics of Islam than Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq; Henri Lammens and Winston Churchill may be the first who come to mind. ] ] 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:It is conscise, yes, but it is not prose: it is a list. The section needs to be more prosey. :) ] (]) 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			:::Of course the polemical literature is mentioned. Did you miss the following in the Golden Age (750-1258) section: "The spread of the Islamic dominion induced hostility among medieval ecclesiastical Christian authors who saw Islam as an adversary in the light of the large numbers of new Muslim converts. This opposition resulted in polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman. In the medieval period, a few Arab philosophers like the poet Al-Ma'arri adopted a critical approach to Islam, and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides contrasted Islamic views of morality to Jewish views that he himself elaborated." ] 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:* That much I will certainly agree with! --] 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::Maybe I missed it because it was buried deep inside in the body of the article? It's funny that the description of this polemics is itself polemical: some early writers do call the Arabs libidinous (not sure where the "subhuman" comes from), but the main points of dispute were, of course, theological. Anyway, my other points stay. ] ] 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::*is it ''that'' bad to have a bullet-point list? I don't think any attempt to prosiefy (yet another addition to the variations from prose :-p) it would make it clearer than a bullet point list. In my opinion either leave it the way it was, or remove it all together :) --] 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::After checking the source (Tolan, John V. (2002). Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. Columbia University Press.), I must say that it is badly misrepresented in the article. Yes, the book says on p. xvi "Medieval Christian writings about Islam contain much that is appalling to the twentieth-century reader: crude insults to the Prophet, gross caricatures of Muslim ritual, deliberate deformation of passages of the Koran, degrading portrayals of Muslims as libidinous, gluttonous, semihuman barbarians.", but "This opposition resulted in polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman." is certainly not a correct summary of the Christian polemical literature, since it contained much more than that. "Libidinous and subhuman" is senationalist cherry-picking. ] ] 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think you need to read ] - "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted." ] (]) 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			:::::Badly misrepresented? I see no misrepresentation of the source whatsoever. Did you bother checking pp. 40-41? "Over time, however, it became clear that the new Muslim rulers were here to stay. Muslims affirmed their power, proselytized among Christians and Jews, and dotted the landscape with new mosques; only then did Christians begin to take Islam seriously as a religious rival and to attempt to define it in Christian terms. Some authors ascribed an apocalyptic role to Islam; its rise and its winning of new Christian converts were proof that it was the religion of Antichrist and that the last days were at hand. Some authors branded Islam as heresy, falsely derived from Christian doctrine. In an attempt to stem the tide of conversions to Islam, they denigrated it using the familiar traditions of antiheretical polemics. A few Christians attacked Islam and its prophet in public, deliberately provoking the Muslim authorities into inflicting the death penalty; thus they became new martyrs whose hagiographers attempted to boost the flagging Christian morale." I think the description used in the article is quite a sober representation of the source and that quote you gave. I fail to see where the "cherry-picking" has taken place. Can you show me where the source makes your claim that there was "much more than that"? ] 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::::You did that for me. Just in the paragraph above, the source cites the theme of Islam being a Christian heresy. Other themes include: Muslim conquests as punishment for the sins of Christians (p. 40), Muhammad being a false prophet (p. 52), Qur'an being full of absurdities (p. 52) etc. Even without delving much into sources, some common sense is enough to see that "polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman" is not an accurate and clinical summary of Christian-Muslim polemics. ] ] 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::No. Your contention was that the main points of the early Christian opposition to Islam were theological, and that the book had somehow been misrepresented by omitting the mainstay of the criticism. None of what you cited were theological refutations, just more examples of polemical accusations. The notion of Muslim conquests as punishment for Christian sin wasn't directly an attack on Islam as it was a blame on Christians. I don't see any point being made except that every single attack the book mentions isn't highlighted in the two-sentence summary (if it were, I suspect the passage would be looking much more "polemical" than it apparently does now). Putting the Christian polemics into perspective with regards to the whole of Muslim history which the section attempts to cover, I think the two to three sentences on this specific issue is fair, and I think the source has been adequately, fairly, and soberly represented. ] 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	This is a very good addition. Some of the points (like saying Bism'allah before eating) is just "recommended". Others are obligatory. I suggest we split the recommended ones from obligatory ones. --] 04:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			::Marskell, I disagree with you on the issue of which sources may be used and when. If Spencer's view is of repute, can't we find an independent reliable source discussing it? If reliable sources aren't discussing it... well it's a good indication that it's probably not as popular as forwarded, and subsequently not noteworthy here either. We did that with Warraq, as we have some of his views covered by ] and the NYT Book review. So we're using reliable sources to provide information about Warraq and his views. ]'s or ]'s works themselves in the ] article to provide examples of criticism. Hence, any source is technically "reliable for its own views," and so long as the source is notable and the comment relevant, it merits inclusion. That's a view I've always disagreed with. If a person isn't reliable in and of themselves (i.e. a polemical writer, for example), then they shouldn't be used as a ''source'' in the article. That doesn't mean their view shouldn't be mentioned, because we can use a reliable source (i.e. mainstream newspaper, journal, book review) that ''has'' mentioned the view, ultimately demonstrating its significance.</small>]
	:Thanks for the comments. The list is not implying that whether it is obligatory or recommended, but all of these are coming to us through ] and perpetual adherence of Ummah. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			::To look at the distribution of article from the perspective of where criticism is present and absent is fundamentally flawed IMO. Encyclopedic, dispassionate coverage about the facts of Islam isn't exactly "pro-Islam" by default. The family life section should give us the facts about the Islamic family structure in a concise manner as per ]. The issue of those saying the Islamic familial system is just, of the natural order/], empowering, or oppressive, misogynist, backward, is all secondary - and really this section isn't the place to discuss it. The counter-balance to criticism here is response. And the focus on negative opinions should be in equal proportion with opposing views, so that the reader is at least shown both perspectives and in equal weightage. I fear that current layout, which is just under half a dozen unanswered critiques and a single generic response about old myths and polemics, doesn't quite strike that balance.
			::I have no issue with mentioning the opinions raised about Islam in recent times and I think it warrants discussion in this article. But I want to ensure the coverage of views about Islam is balanced. Perhaps the next productive step here is to work on a presentation that meets in the middle between the two versions. ] 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
			:If we're not going to have a criticism section, the family life section is the logical place for a short (sentence or two) nod to criticism directed at, well, family life in Islamic religion/culture... - ] (]) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:: I know, but It might be better to make this also clear. --] 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			::"Secularists and non-Muslims have questioned the compatibility of Islam with modern notions of women's rights. Reformist Muslims have not necessarily adopted Western or other outside frameworks in arguing for greater ]. The ability of a man to treat multiple wives equally has been questioned, for instance, with reference to the Qu'ran itself.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Women, Islam, and the New Iraq|first=Isobel|last=Coleman|journal=]|volume=85|issue=1|pages=24-38}}</ref>"
	:::Some people may think that it is recommended, others like me, might believe that it is obligatory (as stated in ] literature). Hence I think, we should not discuss that whether these things are obligatory or recommendary. The important point is that there existence in Islamic society is universal, which we all agree. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			::Will this do? It gives a single sentence nod to outside criticism but then focuses on developments within the religion. ] (]) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::I don't see the rationale behind compensating a more neutral layout (i.e. integration of the criticism section) by adding more criticism. I personally don't believe any further coverage of criticism - especially recentist - is necessary, especially when the perspectives of reformists and Islamists are already covered. ] 11:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::Your argument amounts, then, to having no criticism in the article at all. (And it's clear that the section wasn't ''integrated''—it was simply removed.) How three sentences on the status of women compromises the coverage, I don't know. It's pertinent, widely discussed, and deals directly with the text of the Qu'ran. Hardly recentism, in the sense that that term is used around here. ] (]) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::::I've explained my position in detail above, and it doesn't amount to omitting mention of criticism. The issue isn't about interpretations about the status of women - if you look at the section, that is already given copious coverage. There's a long list of other - ''factual'' - things we can discuss about family life in Islam as related in academic texts, long before giving the nod to individuals who don't just criticise this aspect, but virtually every aspect. The comparison with modern ideals is indeed of recentist and undue focus, as we omit any mention of the comparative status of women thirteen hundred years prior (e.g. Women had the right to independently own property/wealth before and after marriage in Islam, a right which was ]).
			:::::We already cover the issue of criticism, two paragraphs worth in the History section. To say the criticism section was ever removed is just plain wrong. Most of the content from those two paragraphs were simply relocated, as is plainly viewable in the article history and talk archives. Some specific critiques ''were'' removed, so as to maintain an air of balance and adequately recognise that such critiques are indeed disputed; as opposed to a string of undisputed claims opposed by one generally vague dismissal. The paragraph in the Modern times section is something I think needs tweaking, as already explained. Instead of recognising that this aspect needs collaborative work, the focus seems to be more on where else we can add yet more "criticism," as if these opinions are the most important things that can be said about the topic. ] 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::::The entire article, by necessity and nature, has a recentist focus. That's why there is a specific "history" section. The article as a whole focuses on what Islam is in the here and now. So recent debate on the subject is of far more importance that what the situation was 1300 years ago. - ] (]) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::The article should actually avoid a recentist focus for reasons mentioned ]. The history section is about the history of Islam up until today - hence it includes a section on modern times, which ''does'' provide substantial coverage about criticism and recent discourse. The article itself isn't about recentist focus at all, it's about what the academic scholarly texts say about Islam, taking into account the primary texts, the secondary texts, and the institution of Islam as a whole and throughout its history. Whilst "recent debate" is a noted topic, and has been given its own space, it's certainly not significant enough to saturate the entire article by virtue of it being more recent. ] 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::::We should not shoehorn criticism into its own section for the same reasons we should not shoehorn discussion of the "modern-time" debate over these issues into its own section. If you grant one, you must grant the other. This is highly relevant information to today's readers. - ] (]) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::::::::I find myself agreeing with the first part of the statement at least, in regards to there being a criticism section, but I find that Itaqallah has made some good points as well and I think that he is right in regards to the criticisms that were removed, unless I've overlooked something significant. Perhaps it's just me but a criticism section by itself seems like it might be undue weight to individual points of view, where a popular opposition section might be more appropriate, and having these critical viewpoints represent their respective oppositions. Or perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about, that's also a possibility, happens all the time. ''<small><span style="color:#85898C">May you go in God's care.</span></small>'' ''']''' (]) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::::I don't think modern developments have been shoehorned, as discussing them in that section is natural as it's a part of the timeline of Muslim history. But my point is that certain perspectives being more recent doesn't mean they're more significant to the topic as a whole, or that they merit more coverage on that basis alone. The strength of coverage is determined by the ] given to the topic in academic scholarly discussion. The family life section already gives decent coverage to different perspectives in modern times, so I don't understand why more should be inserted as opposed to more content about factual matters, like women's ownership of property/wealth, who qualifies as ], children's role in the family, and so on. The presumption is of course that further coverage is actually needed, and I don't believe that to be the case. ] 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
			== About Prophet Muhammad ==
	:::: I didn't know that according to some, these are considered obligatory. Interesting :) --] 05:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			The article says that Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet, this is untrue. According to hadith the Prophet Muhammad said to the Muslims never to say one prophet was better than another. So please change this <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	If someone can tweak the paragraph alittle more, I think it should be ready for primetime. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			:It says that "Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet", it doesn't say "Muhammad said he was the greatest prophet". So, I think the distinction is clear or I am mistaken? --] (]) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
			:: I am a muslim, and I dont view him as the greatest prophet! (I view each prophet has come down with his own miracle/sign and Job/duty and) what distinguishes Muhammed is that (in islam) he is the final prophet to be born with the final message. A more appropriate sentence would be "Muslims view Muhammad as the final prophet born bringing the final message (the Koran)" ] (]) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
			:::Well the same can be said about Jesus - him saying he was the Son of God versus that's what Christians view him as - many newer schools of thought, especially in Eastern Orthodoxy are beginning to somewhat merge with the Islamic view of him being a messenger - rather than a Demi-God. My point is all those figures are historically very obscured - if you believe they existed even! Best we can do is just reflect what the majority followers of the religion believe. I doubt you can prove anything about him - let alone what he said. We should edit this article so it reflects what Muslims view him as, which has a much stronger bases in ancient texts etc than the virtually non-existant historical accounts of him. ] (]) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	:It is now divided into three sections: Customs (or maybe utterances), hygiene, and burial rituals. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I wouldn't say it was brilliant prose, but that's absolutely fine. Nice and prosey. :) ] (]) 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	== Pruned links ==		== The influence of Islam... ==
			<blockquote>"The Alevi, Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata and Ha-Mim movements either emerged out of Islam or came to share certain beliefs with Islam. Some consider themselves separate while others still sects of Islam though controversial in certain beliefs with mainstream Muslims. Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late fifteenth century Punjab, incorporates aspects of both Islam and Hinduism."</blockquote>
	People had been adding proselytizing links and I removed them. If you want your site covered, make sure it's in DMOZ. ] 23:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
			This paragraph is currently located under ] but I think it would fit better under ]. ] (]) 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
	==Qur'an as not being independant source==
	Can it be explicitly written on the article that Qur'an needs the interpretation from hadith literature, as it will imply that qur'an is not an independant source. For example, and Maliki school of thought considers Qur'an and practice of the Ummah to be independant source and hadith to be a dependant source. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			== To-Do List ==
	And also from the very nature of ], it has been criticize, scrutinized and collected in a period of time. But Qur'an is considered by Muslims to be accurate and practices that can be related to the prophet have very high probability of genuinness. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			Well, I think that the history is already told, and the history section should be converted to "Political History" or "History After Muhammad". Will someone change that section? --<span id="Obaidz96" class="plainlinks" >]&nbsp;(] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> </span>) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	: . ]<sup>]</sup> 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	== Suggested Reading ==		== Indonesian version of Islam? ==
			IS there any room for this topic here or should a new page be written.
	I have some recommended reading and source of references for the non-muslims in this group:
			I ask as Indonesia is numerically the most populous Muslim nation- and there is much variety and discussion within Indonesia about Islam.] (]) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	The Koran translation by Rodwell at www.gutenberg.org. It's an old translation, but modern ones tend to get colored by political attitudes.
			:If it is notable and sourced, add it to ]. ] (]) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	I would recommend reading the whole thing (it isn't that long), but if you want to start with just a little, I recommend Sura 8 "The Spoils"
	AKA "The Spoils of War", and the last Sura in it, Sura 114 "The Table" (a diatribe against other religions). I also recommend the book "Islam and Terrorism" by Mark Gabriel, if you want to learn a little about how Islam is actually taught and enforced (as mentioned in this article, it's also a political and judicial system, not just a religion).
	I also recommend "Islam and Dhimmitude"; this could help clean up the comments about Dhimmi. Dhimmi status allowed people to survive, and sometimes thrive, under muslim rule, but it had these severe problems for the Dhimmi:
	1) They are not allowed to be armed, so their armed neighbors can do with them as they please, and authorities feel no need to protect them. Also, pogroms occured every few generations when attitudes changed, so Dhimmi populations eventually converted, migrated away, or were wiped out.
	2) They must pay ], which wasn't some minor tax; it was supposed to be severe. Enforcement varied.
	3) They must acknowledge the Muslims as their superior, through various ways.
	I also take particular issue with "The validity of an Islamic justification for these acts is contested by many Muslims, in particular defying some of the rules of Jihad.". Many is vague -> does this mean 5% of Muslims? I might buy that. Show me a major Islamic figure who has come out stating that the suicide bombings killing civilians in Dar-al-Harb (outside Muslim countries; literally the "House of War") is morally wrong (not stupid, morally wrong, there is a HUGE difference). The references cited are fringe groups. Polls in Gaza + the West Bank actually argue that most consider such bombings acceptable, and at one time there was 77% support <ref>http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2005/p15a.html</ref>.
	A more accurate comparison is to compare supposed "fundamentalist" Islam in terms of its acceptance level in the religion more with Orthodox Judaism or observant Roman Catholics -> the Koran calls for Jihad against unbelievers in many different places, and later Suras make clear that this includes Christians and Jews. I do not claim most Muslims really believe that this is their religious duty, but those polls suggest that it isn't some tiny fraction of the religion -> it is a major branch recognized by most Muslims, and which few Muslims dare condemn.
	Another reference of interest for Arab culture, which is strongly tied to Islam because the Koran is in Arabic, and the original considered to be the word of god, and thus untranslateable -> thus devout Muslims learn Arabic, and absorb some Arabic culture in the process:
	"The Closed Circle". It is important to note that the King James Bible is a translation of a translation; the tie between Christianity and Roman culture is thus weaker, and thus most Christians don't see the strength of the Islamic/Arabic tie.
	I don't claim that any of this is nice to think about, but Islam is what it is. Hiding from what Islam really is does a disservice to the reader. All religions have their differences, and stress different priorities. Jihad is clearly a major priority of Islam, and if you doubt me, read an accurate translation of the Koran.] 09:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			== Deen or religion ==
	==Qiyamah==
	The story regarding Qiyamah is completely lacking sources. If it is taken from Qur'an or hadith, atleast a reference and a reliable secondary source should be there in the article. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			Seeing that my edit replacing the word "religion" with and internal link to the article on "Deen" (the word muslims and the Koran use to describe Islam) has been reverted by Jet, I felt it appropriate to bring this up on the talk page instead of reverting his revert. Islam is regarded by Muslims as a deen (way of life) and not a mere religion. Seeing that the Koran also uses this word instead of the arabic word for relgion, I think it is appropriate that in internal link be provided to "deen" so that a reader can understand both sides of the issue. ] (]) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	Another point is that only widely accepted beliefs by mainstream Islamic community should only be there. Such beliefs must have support from primary sources i.e. Qur'an or hadith and also from reliable secondary sources. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I found it in the Dummy's Guide to Islam... ] (]) 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			: I disagree, for numerous reasons. Islam is seen as a religion by many more than a way a life. The idea that it is a way of life stems from the belief that it is the one true faith, and therefore the way of life. ] (]) 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	And also details are too many and seems to be copied from some eschatological book, whose acceptance can be questioned if not supported properly by Qur'an or ] hadith. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I found it in the Dummy's Guide to Islam... ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			: Well, I also disagree in that the very first part of the article should try hard not to confuse the reader. It's confusing enough already with the specialized terms. A religion or a religious tradition that ''also'' has elements that explicitly direct how to organize one's life is not unheard of, so it is not 'false' to say it is a religion. The idea of ] should be brought out in the article, and actually I'm quite surprised that it does not seem to be mentioned? In fact, can someone point to where the (Western notion of) tension between religion and society is resolved? ] (]) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I would doubt that dummy's guide to Islam is a ] and ] compatible source. Because such sources rely more on popular culture and not on its actual significance in the religion. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Apart from all that, can someone check whether my at ] seems correct? It was confusing to me... ] (]) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I would strongly recommend removal of this part of the section, which is under discussion as it will not make much difference. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Have you even looked at it? It was written by a Muslim. It's perfectly acceptable as a source.] (]) 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Dummy's guides are definitely not acceptable sources for anything in WP. The encyclopedia would become a laughing stock. ] 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	::*That isn't a valid reason not to use "Dummy's guides". The reason outlined by {{User|Truthspreader}}'s earlier are very valid (that the books are more pop culture than reference works). This reply seems to be more of a personal attack, and at the very least is not constructive. --] 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			:I agree with use of 'religion' over 'deen'. It may be less specific, but it's far more familiar. And for the reasons ] gave, it doesn't really add any new information. ] (]) 07:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
	I asked about this section briefly earlier, when I was attempting to clarify what exactly was a quoted statement from the Qur'an, and what was commentary about it. There needs to be something referenced from elsewhere to support the topic, certainly. I have maintained from the beginning that a better (or at least a clearer) source should be used. --] 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			:: Yes, perhaps the idea of Deen should be brought up later in the article, and yes it ''is'' surprising that it has not been mentioned. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Consolidation. ==
			:::"Religion" is the common rendition of "din." Yes, I know it's a pretty sloppy one at that, but the article does note that din is "usually translated as religion", and also provides a link to the respective article where the issue can be clarified. ] 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
			"Deen" is Arabic for religious faith. It is just as likely to be used by Christian and Jewish Arabs (which I witnessed) as Muslim Arabs. I am very confused as to your thinking as all religions - and even other personal belief systems i.e. Vegetarianism - are seen as ways of life. IMO, Islam can be as well described as Religious Faith/Way of life in any language as well as Arabic, though I must admitt my knowlede of Islam is not up to scratch. ] (]) 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	Over the past five days, I think more has been added to this article than was in the past five months. Which is brilliant, because it probably needed it. However, we are now approaching 80kb sizewise, and I think it's time to consolidate what we've added. Aminz has been doing a marvellous job of referencing his contributions, and, as before, I think this is something we need to continue to work on. Additionally, focusing on nice, concise, readable prose should be another goal. Reducing the size of the text without losing facts is important for an FA. I also think that, in a few days, once the article has stabilised, we should renominate for GA. I think it's beginning to deserve it now. ] (]) 10:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
			:According to the article on ], the thesis put forward in his book ''The Meaning and End of Religion'' the word deen cannot be translated as religion for a number of reasons. The article has the following paragraph:
	== removal of sourced text ==
			{{cquote|In a chapter titled The special case of Islam, Smith - himself an Presbyterian and ordained minister in the United Church of Canada whose academic speciality was Islam - argues that The Prophet would have been, above all others perhaps, deeply alarmed at any suggestion that he was starting a new religion. Indeed, Smith points out, Arabic, strictly speaking, doesn't even have a word for religion in the European sense: the word din, customarily translated as such, significantly differs in a number of important respects.}}
			:If the word deen is still being substituted by religion, then we should also insert Smith's opinion about the word. Regards--] (]) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			== Protected ==
	The text which I included in resurrection section is completely sourced by peer reviewed sources. Secondly, the information is true regarding Islamic beliefs whether someone believes that sin will earn hell or not. It is ] to remove sourced text. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Talk page has been semi-protected for 48 hours given graffiti. ] (]) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::And since when including Islamic beliefs in ] article constitutes ] problem? ]<sup>]</sup> 06:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	== Anybody care to discuss changes here before implementing in the article ==
	], please use ] if you want to practice. Read ] before removing the quotes template for Quranic verses. Secondly, removing sourced text from peer reviewed sources is vandalism. This is Islam article, you have to respect ] and ] sources and presenting some opinion on any religion within that religion article is not violation of ] but censoring of information. '''Is there someone to explain this basic fact to''' ] ]<sup>]</sup> 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			== Unorthodox Islamic sects ==
	:We have been discussing this matter for a while now in ] and someone just comes from nowhere and starts removing properly referenced material. I think someone needs to address this issue on this article. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			I'm surprised by the lack of allusions to unorthodox Islamic sects. No allusions to the Druze, Ahmadiyah, Ansariyah...It's non-scientific to repudiate those branches of Islam, only because they are opposite to the Islamic orthodoxy. And, certainly, leaves an impression of pro-political correctness bias.
	GLorious awe-inspiring Qur'an say GIANT QUOTE blah blah blah GIANT QUOTE then saying GIANT QUOTE blee blee blee GIANT GUOTE. GIANT QUOTE infidel Muslim GIANT QUOTE GIANT QUOTE Allah prophet bleh bleh bleh GIANT QUOTE. PLEASE stop using Misplaced Pages as vehicle for preaching of religion and start discussing things in the sober academic way.
			:See the last paragraph of ]. ] 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
			With all respect, nomen est omen, as Latin adagio goes. "Other religions". It's assumed they are marginal, instead of studying with Sunnism, or Shiism. Anyway, I think this matter is very controversial, and therefore, difficult to treat it adequately. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			== Islam world's largest religion? ==
	Starting with using NO giant quotes. Would that be okay for you?] 08:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Ive heard Islam is the world's largest religion So I checked on the Internet and it says it's true check for your self if you don't beleive me. I was still wondering and I don think it's true so I am going to ask if it's true from you guys. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Those quotes are not giant and there is no reason not to do that. You can NOT revert since you don't like it. --] 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			: All of the sources I've encountered agree with ], in that Islam is the second-largest. Unless you provide a link to a ], your claim doesn't mean much. <b>] ]</b> 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
			::I think what the suer means is this: discounting the fact that Muslims are split into two major sects (Sunni and Shia), Islam is the largest ''denomination'' in the world, given that Muslims outnumber Catholics (the largest Christian denomination). This conclusion, however, is based upon Vatican statistics, who has specifically said that it can't vouch for statistics on Muslim population. I've not seen independent sources come to the same conclusion.] (]) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
			Perhaps to give a more detailed answer- for arguments sake.
	Theyre bigger even then the words inside them! Why too the GIANT INDENTS? WHy the BLUE? You are SHOUTING the Qur'an verses from the rooftop like the muezzin.] 08:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Islam covers around 21.01% of the world population. This however is split into the denominations of Sunni, Shi'a, Sufism, and Kharijites. Christianity is makes up about 33.32% it however is split up into allot of denominations.
			So,
	The quotes say something and it is sometimes good to include them. --] 08:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Christianity- 33.2% (1.9 billion)
	:Yeah SOMETIMES its good. Thats it its about sometimes. When is it needed for the article and when is the article just the excuse to preach the Qur'an because we like the Qur'an and think people should hear it? Ask that.
			:Roman Catholicism- 16.99%
			:Protestantism- 5.78%
			:Orthodox- 3.53%
			:Anglican- 1.25%
			:Other Christian- 5.77%
			Islam-22.01% (1.1 billion)
			:Sunni-
			:Shi'a-
			:Sufism-
			:Kharijites-
			Thus, Christianity is the worlds largest Religion and Roman Catholicism remains the worlds largest Religious Denomination. ] (]) 02:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Its never good to have the giant blue quotes. Theyre always ugly and shouldnt be existing on wikipedia.] 08:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			::You split Christianity into percentages for individual denominations, but not Islam. Based on the 85/15% split between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims as given in this article and ], and taking say 2% off the Sunni figure to allow for smaller minorities (some not considered as true Muslims by other Muslims), 83% of 22.01% (''which is a very over-precise figure, but never mind'') is over 18.2% of whatever the 100% figure is supposed to represent (''it's '''way''' short of the current world population''), as opposed to Roman Catholicism's "16.99%". And that very probably would make Sunni Islam the world's largest single religious denomination. ] (]) 08:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
	do you mean the cquote template? --] 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			::: I apologise- the way I presented the figures was misleading. Of the 6 billion people on earth. 33% are Christian. Of the 6 billion people on Earth 17% are Roman Catholic.
			Christianity has 1.9 billion adherents. Islam has 1.1 billion. The Roman Catholic denomination has around 1 billion adherents. The Sunni denomination (Islam's largest) claims about 85% of Islam's 1.1 billion followers. Thus Roman Catholicism is still a largest denomination than Sunni. ] (]) 17:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
			::::Eeeewww, nasty math! First, there aren't 6 billion people on Earth any more; latest figure in ] is nearly 6.7 billion. Second, 1.9 billion is not 33.2% of the same population as 1.1 billion is 22.01% of anyway. Third, the Roman Catholic denomination had (per ''Guinness Book of Answers'', 1993 ed.) around 1 billion adherents back in the early 1990s (when the world population was about 5.5 billion, hence just over 18% R.C.)- so if your 1 billion figure is still correct for 2008 then the R.C. proportion of the world's population has declined sharply, to around 15%. Fourth, the adherents.com headline figures are rather different from those you quote: Christianity 2.1 billion and Islam 1.5 billion (though they make it very clear that those are pretty much educated guesses based on extrapolation from earlier educated guesses; also they did the calculations back in 2005, seemingly using 2003-4 world population figures of 6.3 billion). Not that all this OR is admissible anyway, but I'm hoping it will inspire somebody to find a currentish figure in a WP:reliable source. ] (]) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
			Why is 5 pilars of islam are not accuratly represented here?
	The {{tl|cquote}} template is a commonly accepted quotation template on wikipedia. it was not created specifically for this page. If you actually read that section there is no "preaching" occuring, and I find it difficult to believe that an article about '''Islam''' could be written without mentioning and especially referencing the Qur'an. The entire article has been at least as NPOV as any other religious article in wikipedia, pretty much from the beginning from what I can tell. Furthermore, as has been mentioned there is already a discussion ongoing abot the ] section. Could you please look to see if something is being discussed before simply removing materiel? --] 08:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Giving wrong and inaccurate information on this site will damage the credibility of this site <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:Old but i feel like commenting on the above misplacede comment: this sites credibility is already near 0% simply because it is wikipedia.--] (]) 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
			== Jihad ==
	:The template page ITSELF is saying 'For long quotations in the text, the Manual of Style recommends using the HTML blockquote element.' Only for the 'pull quotes' and regular articles arent full of pull quotes. SO abuse of the template.] 09:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			The section on Jihad is not only extremely inaccurate but also offensive. Jihad is the 'internal struggle against temptation'. What the hell happened to that belief which is held by virtually all muslims, and why is the belief of a few violent lunatics is represented more here. This is common sense and I don't think sources are necessary for it, but I'll try gathering some if I have time if there's any opposition. I'll attempt changing the wording slightly if there's no objections. ] (]) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
	There are some examples there in the template. I can see something in the words you quoted: "for long quotations..." ;) --] 09:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			:No, you need sources for all your edits. ''Everything'' needs sources. If you've heard something, or know something but don't recall the source, you may post it here and someone may find a source.] (]) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
			:Pink Princess, the article does say that "Most Muslims today interpret Jihad as only a defensive form of warfare: the external Jihad includes a struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice."
			:Don't you agree that a culture within which a religion is born specifies the kind of distortions that would take place in it? Don't Muslims claim (truly or falsely) that Christianity became distorted once it was separated from its Jewish culture and won converts in a Hellenistic one? Now, just think about it for a minute: what were the most salient features of the Arabian culture that could possibly color Islam in its own image? These were the idea of Arab superiority, and warfare (Bedouin's national sport); lo and behold, developments towards both of these can be located in the early centuries of Islam some of which were later corrected upon and some were kept.--] (]) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
			::Certainly Pink Princess, it is clear that the Quran teaches "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors" And it is also certain that the primary battle in Islam is against Satan fought in one's own heart, as it is in all the religions of God. As far as the article goes, however, it notes the personal nature of an individual's struggle against Evil (the greater Jihad) quite prominently. I do not see the objectionable nature you seem to see here. ] (]) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
			Peter Deer, I'll read it again tomorrow and get back to you mate. Be Happy, WTF you mean warfare is a beduins national sport? Are you implying Beduins are bloodthirsy loons or are warmongerers, as that is very insulting and shows the ignorance of such a idiot. Look at most wars today, who is starting them for their own greed you bigot. ] (]) 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
	==Explaining my edit==
	In addition to grammatical corrections, I changed a quote attributed to Yvonne Hadad and Jane Smith: "May of the details..." to "Many of the details...". I don't have the original book, but it doesn't make sense with "May". The word "consists" is also likely to be a misquote, but I left it alone.
			: I don't think that "national sport" was a good way of putting it. The Beduins were a war-like people who clashed with one another in tribal warfare yes. ] (]) 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
	I also corrected (I hope) a Qur'an quote, by matching it more carefully with the link already provided, to 3 translations of chapter 17 of the Qur'an. The words "think that" are in the original scripture according to the Qur'an link, so I added them to Misplaced Pages. The quote mark I added isn't duplicate - one quote mark is needed to balance a quote mark in the scripture, and the other quote mark ends the entire scripture quote. Also, the scripture quoted is from verse 49 to 52, not 51 to 54 according to the Qur'an link. ] 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			::Of course in the beduin culture of pre-islamic arabia, they were careful not to kill because of the blood feud incurred; in fact the main purpose of raids were to acquire booty not to kill. Without doing that the survival of Bedouins was not fully possible; something dictated by the harsh environment of the desert. Sometimes it was indeed carried as a sport and show of brevity. This was the culture in which Islam was born; this is not say that Islam at the time of Muhammad endorsed that form of warfare; in fact to the contrary. Nor do I claim that in practice Muslims were historically more violent than say Christians, to the contrary. My point was the mark that the Arabian culture left in the formation of the traditional concept of Jihad. Yes, as I said most modern Muslims view Jihad as defensive but that you can find in modern times.
			::Lastly, Pink Princess, see ] --] (]) 04:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
			:::I too think that putting it as "national sport" is not a good description. More appropriate would be to say that they Bedouin did not see any moral objection is seizing goods by force.
			:::But we should look at it another way to. The pre-Islamic Arabs had months of peace, in which warfare was forbidden. Thus, they were very far from the civilized concept of "All is fair in war". Given the forbidden months, wars longer than a few months would have been impossible.] (]) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
			::::Unless it was seasonal, like 6 months rest than the remaining 6 months are war? ] (]) 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
	All of it got reverted without explanation, and I can't tell how much of it was unintentional during a revert war between Truthspreader and Opiner. Even the word "will" is now misspelled. I'll let someone else take a turn correcting or at least answering the above. ] 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Ok, Be Happy, I misunderstood you, but saying war to them is a national sport was very misleading and gives the impression I got which does not seem to be what you intended to. I appologise for my harsh langauge, I agree totally that unfortunately a lot of Beduin Arab pre-Islamic culture which was at that time violent, was wrongfully kept in Islam. However, this shold be highlighted in the article so to prevent it being taken as being a true part of Islamic teachings.
	:Thank you for you edits and your edits were helpful. I've put back your edits. Cheers! ]<sup>]</sup> 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			And Tourskin, what are you implying?
			Lastly, I keep my objections to the Jihad section, I read it again, and it still remains to represent the minority twisted view of the radicals and not at all mainstream Islam. Also it almost excuses misinterpretaions and wrong interpretations of Jihad, by stating 'It is commonly taken as the military form', or something similar. I hope you all understand this is a wrong interpretation - especially one born from anti-Islam loons after the 'War on Terror'.
			True Jihad is internal struggle against evil - yes Islam does have rule for defensive warfare, and sanctions it in some cases, but that is not at all Jihad. Also Islam never allows wars and violence to spread Islam or for expansionism, though this was used by Muslim Missionaries in practice - much like those of virtually all other religions including Christianity.
	Thank you. The current version has unbalanced quote marks: “Many of the details of the Fire, as of the Garden, are reminiscent of the New Testament; others reflects on occasions the tone of early Arabic poetry. On the whole, however, "The picture afforded by the Qur'an is uniquely its own, articulated in a generally consistent and always awe-inspiring fashion." The quoted portions should be enclosed in an ] of quote marks, and the capital letters and periods adjusted to match where the sentences should start and end. ] 16:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Also I would correct "reflects" to "reflect" if it weren't an inaccessible quote. ] 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Unfortunately now I am very bussy (still) - the more university forms I fill in and send, the more come through the post, and they need me to do research on the internet to understand and of the crap on them. Also I need to pass my driving test. :(
	==This is Islam article, definitely Islam POV will be here plus a few tweaks==
			So I'd appreciate if someoe can try and find some sources for true Jihad so it can get edited and corrected, and PM me to let me know, as I wont come here for a while. Many thanks in advance. ] (]) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
			:The section as written is quite fair and is based on a variety of reliable sources. - ] (]) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
			::No I disagree as a Muslim, it is not at all fair, and very biased to show Islam as an exceptionally violent religion, and as I said plays into current misinterpretations by anti-muslims or muslim crazies about Jihad. And sources don't matter, as with all belief systems, interpretations of the individuals count the most. Those sources are from the minority opinion of Muslims. ] (]) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
			::: Ahh come on, where is the bias? It doesn't even mention the fact that many terrorists have been misguided to believe jihad justifies their actions. It says that its the only form of warfare allowed. It was issued to expand the Islamic state, thats how the Moors conquered southern spain, the Turks conquered Byzantium and how the Arabs conquered the Middle East in '''c''' 630 AD. Its also been used to defend Islamic countries/territories like in Afghanistan. Interpretations of individuals count the most? Then why do you label those sources as minority opinions and criticize; make up your mind do you want the narrow opinions of a few terrorists to tell you what Jihad is or would you like sources and scholars to tell you? Besides, you should be impartial to this regardless of your Islamic identity, this is how wikipedia works, if you're insulted by the truth, too bad, I'm insulted by the fact that there's anti-religious jokes around every corner, but you gotta stop fantasizing about what you think it is and accept what it is, whatever it is. ] (]) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
	That is the quote from Truthspreader edit summary. Its unacceptable attitude to neutral encylopedia. The giant quotes are symptom of the problem. Goal is to use the pages to 'spread truth' of Islam. Thats why every sentence saying what WILL happen on judgmenet day. What Allah DOES want and WILL do. Why any neutral language will be invisible behind the GIANT QUOTES from the Qur'an.
			:::: Pink, your personal opinions are your own, but this section was carefully written and has achieved wide consensus. It uses ''very'' reliable sources, per ], and is balanced per ]. If you have additional reliable sources to present, please do, and we will discuss how to add them. If you think we are misrepresenting an existing source, or giving undue weight to some of the existing sources, please say how, in specific reference to the text. - ] (]) 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
	Not neutral at all! Instead 'definitely Islam POV'.] 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Tourskin, I clearly said that despite what people have excused in history - much like the bloodbaths you fanatic Christians have caused, it does not represent the original teaching you idiot - but hey, reading your page I should guess you'd enjoy anything that slants Islam into a bad like you anti-Islamic racist prick. And when since terrorists or History represented Islam or any other religion - do the missionaries who offer food and aid to the poor, taking advantage of their situation represent Christianity, because I never see that in the Christianity section, nor the massacres carried out to spread that religion, or most others. Religion is scripture and majority opinion - none of those are whats represented in that section in my opinion. Majority opinion and Scripture says Jihad has nothing to do with warfare, and that is what must be represented first and foremost - not the opinions of a few extremists brainwashed or tricked, nor the racist anti-Islam, hate-mongering bigots like Tourskin who seem to want to slander everyone else without looking at themselves. Like I said, I don't have time to keep coming here and search for sources. I created this section specifically to appeal for others lucky enough to have more time on their hands to find such sources, and PM me so I can try putting an arguement forwards at some time.
	:Mate! instead of removing a scholarly opinion, why don't you present another opinion from a ] and ] compatible source, so as to neutralize it i.e. XYZ says that the descrition presented in Qur'an for judgement is not impressive at all etc. Censoring information is not the way. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			And Merzbow, thanks but only because it was present on Misplaced Pages first, does not at all mean that it is in any way superior or truth as per the 'Wiki-Elitest' attitudes. As long as we have people who know nothing about Islam, nor have anything to do with it but to further their own hate-mongering political agendas - wether that be the terrorist loons or extremist Christian racists and hatemongerers like Tourskin - whatever is written here will have a clear bias no matter how strict the many rules here are - but nothing's completely unbiased in the world. I'll try reading the sources when I get time - writing all this is surprisingly much less time consuming than reading all the sources ;) . Thanks again for the advice.
	Yes, you should specify sentences which you think are not neutral and find reliable sources having different views and add it. --] 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			I'll try convince my local Imam to come here with religious, rather than historic sources which this seems to be mainly based on, to correct this. In the meantime I want this section primarily for new sources of Jihad to represent that opinion rather than discussion - a request for help rather than discussion as I have no time to search the whole archives of the internet. I don't know what the wiki policy is on that or what I should do to ask for help in terms of sources here. Should I delete all this discussion and simply put a notice for help on sources to support that or what? Unfortunately even if I get sources I wont be able to come here for some time. ] (]) 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
	:SORRY but the quote that Qur'an is 'awe-inspiring' is NOT 'information.'] 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			: You are a misguided individual. First of all, I am not a Christian fanatic. My User page shows sayings of Jesus Christ, all of which are totally peaceful. Secondly, Islamic terrorism exists, and is the largest form of ]. Christian terrorism or terrorism in the name of Christianity is almost non-existent in contrast. Thirdly, '''I did not say''' that Islam commits massacres or anything and '''I did not say''' that Islamic Jihad supports terrorism. Look at my arguments. Did I say that? Why do you continue to make up your stuff? I said that terrorists use Islamic Jihad, and that is not mentioned in the article. Nor did I ask it to be mentioned. All I asked was that you be consistent. You can't use the sources that ''you'' like, which is what you are doing. All religions have had followers who have commited terrible crimes, including followers of Catholicism and followers of Islam. '''You live in a foolish fantasy world''' and '''refuse to acknowledge religious persecution''', '''regardless of religion'''. '''It is high time for you to cease your personal attacks against me, wake up from your belief that Islam or any religion has never commited mistakes and accept the overwhleming number of sources that state what Jihad is''', and '''I have not said anywhere''' on this page at all that Islam is a religion or war or that Jihad supports terrorism, '''anywhere at all'''!!! You want to '''stay in wikipedia''', you '''stop your personal attacks.'''] (]) 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
	That's part of the information. ;) --] 08:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Pink, you are on ice so thin its thickness can only be measured with an electron microscope. Please reconsider your approach here. - ] (]) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
	I agree that this sentence is a quote but pray tell what it is supposed to mean:
			::I agree. Pink Princess would not stay much in wikipedia if personal attacks are not stopped. --] (]) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
			Do you guys think it would be a good idea to contrast the Qur'anic view of Jihad and of warfare with the way Muslims have historically approached it, using the ] articles on Jihad and Warfare? --] (]) 00:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	"On the whole, however, the picture afforded by the Qur'an is uniquely its own, articulated in a generally consisted and always awe-inspiring fashion."
			: In my opinion, that would include more useful information that would distinguish between what its suppose to be and what it is. ] (]) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	Unless I assume that "consisted" should read "consistent" it is nonsense. If my assumption is correct, please correct that error (BTW, I find remarkable and annoying that constantly one has to clean up language behind certain editors.) However, even then I still have a hard time deriving meaning from the bit about "awe-inspiring". ] ] 09:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			I think the balance that has previously been agreed upon is a fair one. Jihad in Islamic legal discourse refers primarily to military combat. In more ascetic, spiritual tracts it assumes the meaning of striving against sin or internal evils - or self purification. As far as I remember (although I haven't checked the section recently), the section does maintain a balance between these two aspects. ] 13:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	I have made some helpful (mainly punctuation) edits which remove the POVness but don't change the meaning.]
	:"awe-inspiring" is not helpful, quote or no quote. Why (why?!) is it not enough to say "these people believe the Quran is the word of God". If you believe that, of course it will be "awe-inspiring", I cannot quite imagine people saying "bugger, another message from the Old Man, why can't he shut up for a change, or at least keep it brief". Regarding quality of prose, I think it is justified to revert ungrammatical or garbled additions. If you want to contribute to an article, you should at the very least be able to form a coherent sentence in encyclopedic style without relying on other people to clean up after you and salvage what bits of value may have been buried in your edit. This is at least my view in theory. In practice I find it is mostly less bother to clean up after people after all. ] <small>]</small> 11:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	::were you referring to me there?] 15:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::not at all. ] <small>]</small> 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			: I will only push this matter if there is support for it, I'll drop it otherwise. I don't want to be seen as anti-Islamic or a Christian fanatic, but I hate political correctness as well. ] (]) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	Dab, there are two editors who are really confused :) Me, and Truthspreader . Would you please explain. The quote in question is ''describing the differences between hereafter as it is described in Qur'an and the NT''. So, it is informative. I don't really get it. Would you please explain. --] 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Tourskin, like I said many times before, the current Islamic Jihad is used as a military/political tactic against the sometime's equally harsh foriegn policies of the mainly Christian West towards third-world Muslim countries. I'm sure if the West was Muslim - Islamic terrorist would be totally obscilete, so we'll get Arab/Central Asian terrorism instead.
	== Moon ==
			Be Happy, I think that would be a great idea, so to shut some of those fanatics and bigots up who claim Islam is a religion of war more so than others, and teaches hate to everything West - for political motives. Tourskin, I agree with you there for once, but I'll continue to find sources that represent Jihad to what I was bought up to believe it is, and I believe/hope most muslims will agree to that rather than Itaqallah's and the section's views of it being also/more military based. But it'll probably take me some time - as answering these has taken most my PC time today. ] (]) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			<blockquote>
	An entire article on Islam, and not one mention of Hubal or the Crescent Moon in its history?
			<nowiki>1. Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find
	:]? have you been exposed to any ] lately? That said, why isn't ] linked anymore? ] <small>]</small> 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			harshness in you. (Q.9:123)
	::It was taking up too much space, and a section entitled "Islamic symbols" that then went on to say "Islam has no symbols, they're left over from the Ottoman empire" seemed rather pointless... ] (Have a nice day!) 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			2. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks
	== Dispute resolved ==
			and smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12)
			3. Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of
	Has the dispute over Qiyamah now been resolved? I cannot tell from the messages and they seem to have been split into several sections. ] (Have a nice day!) 21:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			him. (Q.3:85)
			4. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5)
	:The section looks good. --] 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			5. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they
	O, Dev. The last paragraph which you removed. I think it is explaining the punishments in hereafter which is part of Muslim belief. I think it is relevant. What do you think? --] 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			drove you out. (Q.2:191)
	:Not in an section on Resurrection. In Sin, yes. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			6. Fight them on until there is no more dissension and religion becomes that of
	But it is about how sin(and what sin) is punished in hereafter. The last sentence I think is also relevant. --] 22:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			Allâh. (Q.9:193)
			7. Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with
	But I agree that it might be better to shortened further. --] 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			shame. (Q.9:14)
	:Yes, this is what is starting to concern me. We need to strip this article down to nice concise essentials. I think all that needs to be mentioned is that people judged sinners by Allah are thrown to hellfire, and this should be sufficent. Anyone wanting more should visit the relevant article. Do you agree? ] (Have a nice day!) 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			8. Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If we
	Dev, I am not the only editor here :) I suggest saying: people judged sinners by Allah are thrown to hellfire; briefly mentioning the different types of punishment; and the important sins. 3 short sentences. --] 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in
	:As long as they're short... :) ] (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
			sin. (Q.9:66)
			9. You who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbelievers) are Najasun
	:I think it is very important to know that what kind of sins are punishable in Islam, as it also shows the psychology of the religion to some extent. If others agree, I can put the paragraph back at the same place, because I couldn't find any place else better than this to put it. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			(impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand
	::Consider putting it in a new subsection at 1.4 ] 01:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			mosque at Mecca) after this year. (Q.9:28)
			10. Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People
	Muhammad, try to rewrite it so that its focus would be on Ma'ad. i.e. starting with Ma'ad. The same information can be presented in different forms. --] 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay
			tribute by hand, being inferior. (Q.9:29)</nowiki>
			</blockquote>
	How about this:
			These excerpts are taken from the Koran itself; I don't see how this leaves much 'wiggle room' for tolerance in modern Islam unless followers have decided to ignore sections of their holy text, and Jihad would seem inevitable to me.] (]) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
	:Resurrection is followed by judgement of all souls. According to the Qur'an, sins that can consign someone to hell include lying, dishonesty, corruption, ignoring God or God's revelations, denying the resurrection, refusing to feed the poor, indulgence in opulence and ostentation, the economic exploitation of others, and social oppression. The punishment is not restricted to fire of hell, but also includes abasement({{quran-usc|10|27}}), denial of water({{quran-usc|7|50}}) and of light ({{quran-usc|57|13}}).<ref name="enc_m"/>
			:Because you're taking them out of context, silly. I can take parts of the ] or ] out of context too. Here we go, let me correct your lack of research:
			:* You quote verse 9:123. In the start of that chapter, verse 9:6 states, '''"And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of God, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not."'''
			:* You quote verse 8:12. After that is verse 8:37, which states, '''"Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning)."'''
			:* You quote verse 3:85, verse 3:113 after that states, '''"They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of God in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him)."''' The phrase "People of the Scripture" refers to Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.
			:* You quote verse 9:5, but you don't fully quote it, you cut off part of the quote. The entire part states as follows, ''"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. '''But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.'''"'' And even establishment of worship isn't needed, since many groups rejected Islam and just accepted a treaty with Muslims.
			:* You quote verse 2:191. ''Right after that verse is 2:192'', which states, '''"But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful."'''. Earlier in that chapter is verse 2:62, which states, '''"Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."'''
			:* You quote verse 9:193, ''which doesn't even exist, since the 9th chapter of the Qur'an only has 129 verses''!
			:* You quote verse 9:14, but ''right before that verse'', verse 9:13 states, '''"And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."''' So, once again, we have defensive fighting.
			:* You quote verses 9:28 and 9:29. I once again quote verse 2:62, which states, '''"Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."'''
			:You should do your own research instead of finding quotes on the Internet and not actually reading them in context. Islam brought to religion the idea we must logically accept things through our own research, both through intellect and heart. I urge you to do the same, no matter what religion you are, or even if you have no religion. Truth and logic must go hand in hand, don't discriminate or hate another faith or judge them until you do actual research, instead of copying and pasting verses out of context with causes hatred towards people, giving them wrong impressions. Don't just trust what someone else tells you, you need to verify it yourself. Your sister in humanity, --] 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
	]<sup>]</sup> 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)		Das Kapital? Lol. ]] 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
			:Ah, leave me alone, I couldn't think of anything. I originally put ]. --] 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
	Maybe details of punishment can be removed i.e the last sentence. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Why?--] 03:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			Unless someone can fins a reliable source (print, direct from the Quran, etc.) for the following 'interpretation':
	::I am happy to put it back, if everyone agrees. Just trying to make the article slim. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			''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.''
	Yes, I am happy. Resurrection without any mention of judgment is incomplete. But I have an objection to what you've written. One of the most important punishments is that God doesn't talk with them. (In sura 3, it should be I believe). Separation from God; displeasure of God; ... It is not just fire, ... So, for now, I think it is better to remove it till I find another source which specifically talks about punishments. --] 07:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			then I will go ahead and delete it. Unless it can be supported as reliable information (not just POV), then it should not be on this page. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: Also, the most valuable reward is "pleasure of God". It is not only Garden...--] 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
	::it will be good to mention these as well but the source which i mentioned talks about only physical rewards and punishments, as only physical things can be described in "awe-inspiring" fashion but not others ;) ]<sup>]</sup> 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			Re-added the section removed by Socrates42. The reference seems to be pretty well supported by the immediately following sentence: "Jihad... may be declared against... non-Islamic leaders or states which refuse to submit to the authority of Islam." Sounds pretty straightforward.
	: Thanks. I can see that the Qur'an stresses on physical punishments, but spritual rewards-punishments are more important. Pleasure of God, Displeasure of God... Thanks for your great work and Cheers, --] 07:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)RavShimon
			== The definition "Surrender to the will of God" is only half of the interpretation. Islam defined is "peaceful surrender to the will of God". ==
	: I dont know much about religions besides greek mythology and I dont think it matters too much, but isnt the symbol for islam the crescent moon? If so, why is it not the picture at the top of the infobox where the symbol of the religion should go one that looks like the ] mosque in constantinople? ] and ] both follow that template. Im probably asking a stupid question not worth your time, but this comes from my perspective as an outsider unfamiliar with the religion. -Clown57
			...The Arabic word for surrender without the connotation of peace is "Har-ram". <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Jihad section? ==
			: Be bold and edit it yourself, adding in sources ] (]) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	A central element in the Koran <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16955</ref><ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2800</ref> and Islam as a whole is Jihad. It should have its own section. As the article is right now, it barely seems mentioned. (unsigned comments by ])
			::Or if you do not know how, or just don't want to do it yourself, post the location of the sources here and one of the other editors or myself will do so (provided they're ], ], and not ], of course). ] (]) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
			you are wrong it means 'Submission To The Will Of Allah' check it out <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: I think indeed Jihad is very important and this article should have section on it. --- ] 19:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Well, anybody who knows a bit about Arabic words will tell you there's nothing in the word "Islam" meaning "Allah" or "God" or "divine", nor anything meaning "will", but the key element (s-l-m) indicates "wholeness" or "well-being", an element which is effectively ignored in translations like "submission" or "surrender" (and only vaguely implied by the addition of "peaceful"). Anybody got a really authoritative Arabic dictionary that would be acceptable as a source ref? ] (]) 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
			::You can look through the relevant entry in if you like. Islam is masdar of the IVth form of the s-l-m root, it's important not to mix it up with other forms. Yes, some writers do say it connotes submission as well as the tranquility obtained therefrom, but we'd really need a reliable source to back that up. ] 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
			:::Thanks. Given the availability of such an excellent resource, I've foolishly decided to try an explanation contrasting "Islam" with other Arabic words which mean submission/surrender in different contexts (eg تخل - sense of renunciation, خضوع - sense of obeying orders, تنازل - sense of conceding etc.) This may take a while... ] (]) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
			::::It'd be nice to see what you come up with. I would recommend we agree upon the exact changes to be made first before implementing them in the article so that constant changes to the article aren't needed. Regards, ] 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
			:::::OK, here's the first attempt:
			:::::''Islam'' is a noun formed from the Arabic verb ''aslama'', and it is commonly translated into English as "submission". However, such one-word translations tend to be unhelpful, because Arabic words are formed from "roots", groups of letters (typically 3) which indicate a particular concept or situation, and from which large numbers of related words are derived. Thus, to translate the English verb "submit", Arabic can develop words from its root B-L-D (د‎ﻠ‎ﺒ‎ ) which signifies "the ground", to indicate submitting in the sense of letting somebody walk all over you; or Kh-M-D (ﺪ‎ﻤ‎ﺧ‎ ) which signifies "becoming inactive" (with implications of, for example, a fire going out) to indicate submitting in the sense of ceasing to resist the inevitable; and there are numerous other possibilities. ''Islam'', however, comes from the root S-L-M ( ﺴﻠﻢ‎ ) which signifies "whole", or "complete", with an implication of freedom from harm or blemish. From the S-L-M root can be derived words that English could translate as "peace" (in the sense of freedom from imminent harm) or "surrender" (in the sense of ceasing resistance in order to avoid harm), or many others, such as "payment of the whole amount", but those are not translations of the specific word ''Islam''. Perhaps the best clue to the type of submission indicated by ''aslama'' and ''Islam'' is given in a word very frequently used in the Qur'an to refer to Allah, '']'', which is often translated as "Lord" but actually comes from a root R-BB ( ﺐ‎ﺭ ) which signifies sustaining and rewarding. The Arabs who first received the message of Islam would see this as analogous to the role of their local leaders, whose function was to ensure the welfare of their people, in return for certain obligations. Islam involves obligations to Allah, collectively known as '']'' (a phonetic spelling, the root being D-Y-N, دين ), a word which is sometimes oversimplified in translation as "religion". The scope of ''deen'' in Islam is indicated below, but what is important is that without adhering to these obligations, one is not a Muslim.
			:::::] (]) 21:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
			::::::Thanks David. I feel there's a lot of editorialisation and excessive explanation. I'm aware that the depth of the Arabic language does mean things may need further explanation, but I think there are too many avoidable tangents above. I also think some of the content above is not directly verifiable to the lexicon - every passage and its context needs to be backed up by a source, else there is risk of ].
			::::::I was thinking more of something resembling a highly summarised version (i.e. one or two sentences) of the lexicon's assessment of the fourth form of SLM. The other forms aren't really significant here, and I feel that much of the analysis is extraneous. Most academic (and indeed Islamic) sources translate Islam as submission as it's the closest thing available (which isn't to say they don't believe further explanation is warranted) - so I don't think we can suggest inaccuracy unless it's verifiable to a high quality reliable source. Regards, ] 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::The reason for the possibly-excessive explanation in the above is to try and bridge a cultural gap which is to some extent built into languages. "Submission" has many connotations in English that "islam" (hey, I just changed the significance of a word simply by not caapitalising) would not have had for the Arabs of 1400 years ago, because English adapts word-meanings to context far more than Arabic; on the other hand the fourth form of S-L-M has connotations which cannot be expressed by the English word "submission" (or even, to an extent, by a single section of the dictionary entry on S-L-M). Furthermore, the word has been the subject of centuries of propaganda, pro- and anti-, and I feel the simplest way to address that is to add more linguistic explanation. I've deliberately omitted references from this draft (although basically it is all from Lane with the key exception that the concepts of ''islam'', ''deen'', and ''rabb'' are linked together based on their use in the Qur'an) but a key inspiration for the complexity of the above wording was an attack on the present version which I found accidentally while Googling, . I think Kifayat ur Rahman was right to criticise the existing Misplaced Pages wording, but ended up (particularly in the second of the two messages) giving an equally wrong alternative. Similarly, as noted above, the heading of this talk-page section introduces interpretive elements which represent a modern Islamic POV. Hence I feel that Misplaced Pages can perform a useful service by attempting to indicate for a general audience, in a neutral way, how the verbal noun from the fourth form of S-L-M works in a religious context- and more specifically, how it would have worked when the Qur'an was first revealed, which may not be the same thing. ] (]) 13:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
			Just today reverted an edit claiming that "peace" was the meaning of the root S-L-M. This would be the place to substantiate this. ] (]) 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
	== Size ==
			== 1150-1400 ==
	The article is now 76kb in size. Given that ] is 48kb and ] 56kb, we have too much information in this article. I'm going to start removing less important bits of information. I would like to remind everyone that it's not about what is relevant to Islam, as recent discussion on Qiyamah and Islamic knowledge has assumed, but what is ''important''. We need to explain the '''essence''' of Islam, and give links for the reader to find out more. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
			There needs to be a separate sub-section regarding the 1150-1400 period (period between Abbasids & Turks), that should include Mongol invasion, Crusades & Reconquista. The after effects should also be discussed in 2-3 sentences, the intellectual stagnancy & defensive introvertism that followed grand scale library burnings & massacres. It was the most cataclysmic period in Islamic history. The text is there, but it seems very unimportant in the way it exists right now.
	== Intro ==
			Similarly we need to have a European colonization sub-section (1700-1950), & its aftereffects including reactionary extremism (Maududi, Qutb, Banna etc).
	"This means acknowledging the moral injuctions that were revealed to humanity in the Torah, the Gospels and the Qur'an as true and intended by God to further human well-being. This submission is identical to the concept of 'thy will be done' advocated by Jesus in the Lord's prayer. Jesus (held in great reverence by Muslims) and all the Hebrew prophets are regarded as humans who both practised and advocated Islam."
			] (]) 08:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
	Are you kidding me? I recognize Aminz's editing when I see it. Here are some problems with this paragraph:
			:I do believe the Mongol invasions, Crusades, and Reconquista are all mentioned in the text. Modern movements and interaction with the West is also discussed briefly. ] 21:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
	*"This means acknowledging the moral injuctions that were revealed to humanity in the Torah, the Gospels and the Qur'an as true and intended by God to further human well-being."
			::Ofcourse....what I was saying was that judging from their importance in Islamic history, they should have their own sub-section. Right now these are discussed in the Golden age sub-section. Mongol invasions, Crusades & Reconquista are not a part of golden age, but the cause of its end, & the cause of the beginning of a new era of stagnancy.
	This literally means that the word Islam implies the acknowledgement of "the moral injunctions" in the Torah and the Gospels. This completely obscures the fact that Muslims believe (though the Quran is inconsistent about this) that the Torah and the Gospels are corrupted versions of the "real" Torah and Gospels, which came from God, and in doing so presents a view of Islam that is more compatible with Judaism and Christianity than Islam actually is, a typical Muslim propaganda technique.
			::So rather than being a part of some other subsection, they should be discussed in their own subsection, showing the pivotal importance these events have ..... Islam on the high vs. Islam on the low. Same should be case with European colonization.
	*"This submission is identical to the concept of 'thy will be done' advocated by Jesus in the Lord's prayer."
			::Something like this (with some modifications) . The colonization sub-section will need one more paragraph, very briefly discussing British, French, Russian & Dutch colonisation. While the mongol/crusade subsection will need 2-3 lines about the intellectual/cultural significance of these events. ] (]) 11:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	This presupposes many things about Jesus including that he existed (though I have no problem if the article assumes that he did, as almost all historians believe this) and that he actually spoke the Lord's prayer. Furthermore, it completely glosses the differences between the Christian concept of God's will and the Muslim concept, not to mention the fact that this formulation states as a fact that Jesus was referring to the Muslim idea about God's will. And again, this sentence portrays Islam as being somehow closer to Christianity than it actually is.
			:::Do bear in mind that the History section was much larger and detailed than the current version and we had to do substantial trimming in preparation for the FAC (meaning that things were discussed very briefly) to ensure it wasn't too large. So I don't agree that extra content may be totally necessary. I see your point about Mongol invasions etc., and I'd like to see what others think about it. ] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	*"Jesus (held in great reverence by Muslims) and all the Hebrew prophets are regarded as humans who both practised and advocated Islam."
			Made some improvements in history section, feel free to discuss more changes that need to be made ] (]) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	This bit of information does not warrant inclusion in the introduction, and I do not believe that most Muslims even know about many of the Hebrew prophets, as Muhammad certainly didn't refer to them all in the Quran. In my opinion the inclusion of this sentence in such a prominent place in the article is Muslim propaganda, used in much the same way Muhammad used it.
			:I think the overlinking is a bit excessive as the link are already available in the article body. Section headings should not be unduly extended or complicated. ] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
			Woah woah, not necessarily, lets begin from the start, instead of reverting all the changes. the first section 'Rise of Caliphates' should have mention of the islamic civil wars in the title which it mentions in the subsection, a link to 'Battle of Karbala' should be there clearly.
	I'm busy combating Aminz's POV pushing in other articles, but I hope that the people in this article striving for NPOV will take my statements into account and work on the introduction. ] 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			the second section 'islamic golden age' should give mention to Muslim Agricultural Revolution, which isnt given mention later on,
	:accusations of "POV-pushing" are ]. please cease this disruptive behaviour. instead of objecting on the basis that the text contrasts with your own perception, why not bring some scholarly, reliable sources which establish the exact points you are asserting? ]. ] 13:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			No idea why the 'Crusades, Reconquista and Mongol invasion' section was reverted, i thought it made the article more clearer.
	::Please do not defend this paragraph because you support this edit in principle. A blatently POV paragraph has been added that I intended to remove myself once I had found a more suitable praragraph to replace it with. Additionally, I would like to point out that, per ], a lead section should sum up the information below and not add anything new: the paragraph that has been added obviously does not do that. Arrow has made the point that the paragraph inserted is POV; you cannot call on him to disprove a negative. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a Muslim apology. In that spirit, lets get on with improving the article. ] (Have a nice day!) 14:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			The empire section should have mention of Safavid Iran, due to many many reasons, which are very clear.
	:::I have just looked through the history and discovered Aminz did not add that paragraph, ] did. I apologise thoroughly to Aminz. My other points still stand - I have edited the above paragraph to reflect that.
			Lastly the 'Modern', no idea why >>{{see|Fall of the Ottoman Empire|Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire|Arab Revolt|Arab-Israeli conflict|Iranian revolution}}<< shouldnt be there, as little mention is given towards this in the article.
			To summarise, as you should know Islam has a vast history, and links should be given to help people (who may not be knowledgeable of Islam as you are) to help them learn etc etc. i will revert the changes and if you wish to remove one or two links which you dont feel are relevant, be my guest, but please do not revert all the changes I made. Thank you.] (]) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::it is certainly not merely an issue about POV weightage. the comments above attempt to explain why the passage is ''factually'' incorrect. this is not best done by merely countering it with one's own subjective POV, when we are trying to document islamic beliefs regardless of their being perceived correct or false by editor X. i see nothing factually wrong with the passage bar some slight tweaking. there is no negative proof being requested, as all these points are very simple ones derived from the islamic ] (has been given virtually no mention in this article: perhaps we could include the other articles in the 'Beliefs' section?). even so, i don't believe this paragraph as it stands merits inclusion in the introduction. ] 16:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			:I don't mind having a few main links added (i.e. 2 or 3), but it shouldn't be over the top, which is what I felt from the recent changes. If they're already linked in the text (i.e. first fitna etc.) then there is less need for them all to be placed at the beginning of the section. The section headings don't have to mention things in specific detail such as writing "Turkish (Ottoman), Indian (Mughal), Persian (Safawid)" etc. - it makes it longer than is neccessary. ] 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I disagree. But if we're both agreed the paragraph needs rewriting, lets not argue about it and just drop the subject. ] (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			::I cleaned it up a bit. - ] (]) 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::::do you agree that we should also incorporate other fundamental islamic beliefs such as ] and the others listed into the beliefs section (i'm not sure what you're saying you disagree with)? ] 16:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			Thanks for your reply and thanks for the cleanup. changes have improved the section] (]) 12:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
	== Rewritten lead ==
	Rewrote lead, taking out the paragraph that was objected to. Not that I had any knee-jerk objection to that paragraph, but it didn't work in the lead. What do people think about the text below for a lead? The only other point that it seems to me should probably be included in the lead would be the Sunni-shi'a distinction.
	'''Islam''' (]: {{Audio|ar-al_islam.ogg|الإسلام; ''al-'islām''}}) is a ] ] based upon the ], its principal ]. It is the ] in the world today, with an estimated 1.4 billion adherents, known as ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Teece, Geoff|title=Religion in Focus: Islam|publisher=Smart Apple Media|year=2005|pages=p. 10}}</ref>
			== no alcohol ==
	Muslims believe that ] (Arabic: '']'') ] the Qur'an to ] and that Muhammad is God's ] ] (see: ]). Most Muslims see the actions and teachings of Muhammad, as related in the ] and ], to be indispensable tools for interpreting the Qur'an. Like ] and ], Islam is an ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Vartan Gregorian|title=Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith|publisher=Brookings Institution Press|location=Washington D.C.|year=2003|id=ISBN 0-8157-3283-X|pages=p. ix}}</ref>
			hello, what is actually said about alcohol consumption, in ] he said only not by grain and by grapes. Therefore he could drink alcohol made from honey. Is that correct? Please help ] (]) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
	Today, Muslims may be found throughout the world, particularly in the ], ], ], ], and ]. About 20 percent of Muslims originate from ].<ref> {{cite book |author= John L Esposito|title=What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam |publisher=Oxford University Press US| year=2002| pages=p. 2| id=ISBN 0-19-515713-3}}</ref> Islam is the second largest religion in many ] countries, such as ], which has the largest Muslim population in ], and the ].<ref> {{cite web| title=Muslims in Europe: Country guide| url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4385768.stm| author=BBC| date=]| accessdate=2006-09-28}} </ref><ref> {{cite web| title=Religion In Britain| url= http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293| author=Office for National Statistics| date=]| accessdate=2006-08-27}} </ref>
			:That is a very simplistic interpretation of the Quran which prohibits alcohol made from grapes only. This was probably because the Arabs of that period had no conception of alcohol from grains. According to later interpretations done by Islamic scholars and held in general agreement by the community (see a theological concept called ]) all intoxicating substances are prohibited in Islam.--] (]) 11:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
			:Thank you, is the judgement of Islamic scholars supreme: like the church or pope in catholicism? The article does say the interpretation is only for the scholar himself, explaining my "confusion". ] (]) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
	] 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			::The interpretation is actually ] in Sunni Islam. But in the case of alcohol the difference is that, the ] of the Muslim community has denounced it and placed the prohibition. There is no consensus in many other matters, for example, the use of credit cards etc, despite contrary judgements of Islamic scholars.--] (]) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
	:That is very short for an article that is 68kb long - could you try and add a bit more? ] (Have a nice day!) 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			What a minute? What do you mean the people didn't know about alcohol from grain? It was introduced into the region 4,000 years ago. Islam can't be that old. (] (]) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC))
	::Well, I think you're right but I would rather that other contributors suggest which (completely uncontroversial) points should go in the lead and then I will re-edit for the quality of the prose. There is space to put more in - I suggested the Sunni-Shi'a distinction - is there consensus for that, and would someone like to draft it? ] 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Islam is only about 1500 years old, in a certain sense. But the point is that the tribes of Arabia did not know about all the discoveries the world had seen when the Quran was supposedly revealed. The Arabs had not heard of alcohol from grain then. (Believe it or not I know people who still haven't heard of it!) The Quran discusses concepts relatively more closely related to Arabian life.--] (]) 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think this is a very good lead; concise and to the point, without anything controversial! I'm not too sure the Sunni Shi'a distinction fits in the introduction, but if it's a brief one sentence or so I see no problem. Good job everyone :-) --] 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::No I don't think we need Sunni-Shi'a stuff in the introduction either. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
			== Strange claims about the Black Stone ==
	::The lead was still highly controversial, as the phrasing implied that Islam views the relationship between the Quran and the Torah and Gospels the way Christianity views the relationship between the New and Old Testaments, and this is false. Islam believes that the Torah and Gospels are very corrupted versions of the "real" Torah and Gospels, so the sentence was highly, highly misleading. They have to say that, by the way, because the Quran contains substantially altered versions of stories in the Torah, and denies that Jesus was crucified, for example. ] 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could have a look at ] and , which an anonymous IP editor has repeatedly been adding. Essentially the editor is claiming that the Ka'aba in Macca was originally a Hindu temple (!) and is citing an apparently fringe scholar in support of that claim. I've had a look at the sourcing, which seems to be very thin indeed; some second opinions would be useful. -- ] (]) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	::: Then you should tag it with {{fact}} and await citations.] 01:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			: An Indian temple? I have never heard of such a thing. In all likelihood, that "scholar" would be some ] who is trying to attack Islam by saying that Kaaba is an Indian temple, or could just be plain stupid in that belief. ] (]) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It's the introduction. There's no need to have a highly misleading sentence there. ] 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			I don't know about the temple, but I did hear the Black Stone was the center piece for religions in the area long before Islam, although if it was Hindu, or Jewish, or pagan, or Nabataean, or simply related to some odd jinn or another I have no idea. (] (]) 21:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)_
	:::: I don't know who add that but the majority of early scholars believed that the Bible is mainly misinterpreted. It was later that the textual distortion became a main view. --] 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			: Yes thats true, it was worshipped by pagan arabs before Muhammad. ] (]) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I think the best course of action would be simply to have the version that ] suggested above. That whole statement about the Quran and the Bible etc... doesn't belong in the introduction methinks- it's definitely for the body where a more detailed discussion can be given. --] 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree . ] 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree. ] 09:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			== Questions on the humanities reference desk ==
	I wrote here and I will re-iterate, Qur'an is an independant source. By saying that Qur'anic interpretation depends on Sunnah and hadith is wrong. If you see by ], Qur'an is an independant source and so is Sunnah. If not, indirectly, it also implies that Qur'an is not clear in its meanings. Sunnah is actually comprised of those things which are not told in the Qur'an. For example, ] is Sunnah but not told in Qur'an etc. Hadith definitely plays a very important role, but different groups i.e. Shia and Sunnis have different collections. For example, stoning to death is not mentioned in Qur'an and on this basis it is rejected by some Modern scholars, but others consider it part of the Sunnah. Hence Sunnah is also an independant source, and depends that whether you collect Sunnah by which way i.e. scholar's emphasis is altogether on hadith as Shafi or on the practice of people as Maliki(see Sunnah section in the article). Hence, I think instead of "Most Muslims see the actions and teachings of Muhammad, as related in the ] and ], to be indispensable tools for interpreting the Qur'an", it should be written, "] and ] are considered to be the basic sources of Islam by majority of the Muslims". ]<sup>]</sup> 09:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
	:While I can't attest for the over all accuracy of the sentence you want to change, I don't think it implies what you are claiming. It doesn't say that "Qur'anic interpretation depends on" anything. Please discuss the view that Sunnah and Hadith may be tools for interpretation. Do most Muslims believe this? That is the crux of the matter.] 12:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			A couple of questions about Islam have been asked on the ]. It would be great if some editors knowledgeable about Islam could pop over there and answer them. Thanks. ] (]) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Good point! Now Islam's teaching even though comes from its principle scripture, Qur'an but still comes from prophet Muhammad. Hence, I don't find a need to tell that on which thing Qur'ans interpretation depends. For example ] emphasizes too much on ]n language and less on ]tic literature in his ], ]. Others might not do that!!! Hence, I felt that we need to put a more NPOV sentence that would be acceptable to all of us, as discussing on which things interpretation of Quran depends can also be discussed in Tafsir section of the article, for example. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			== "Inheritance" of religion in Islam ==
	::Secondly, I've already written about the independant nature of Qur'an and Sunnah. Hadith is only there to find Sunnah, but itself, it can be criticized, scrutinized or rejected. Hence, I feel that principle of sources of Islam should be there, and not how to interpret the Qur'an.
			Within Judaism, you're considered jewish if your mother is jewish, or that's how I remember it in any case. Within Islam, are you considered a member of the faith if your father is muslim? If your mother is muslim? If either is muslim? And is the rule a hard-and-fast kinda thing, or does it possibly vary from country to country?--] (]) 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
	::I also have a problem with the first sentence. Islam doesn't solely depend on Qur'an. This is wrong again. Islam depends on the teaching of Muhammad. And from Muhammad, we receive Qur'an (claimed book of revelation) and Sunnah (deeds of the prophet as part of the religion). Hadith is a tool to find Sunnah. I think we need some changes in Lead section. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			: Islam teaches that everyone is born a Muslim. But for clarification, Muslim women may only marry Muslim men, so in this obvious scenario the children will be raised Muslims. Muslim men that marry non-Muslim women will do so with the taken-for-granted assumption that she will submit and become a Muslim too, so again the children are raised Muslim. ] (]) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
	Someone please just get that stuff about the Bible out of there. Abtract had a little edit war with me for a while, so I can't do it without my wikienemies pouncing and giving me a 3RR block. ] 10:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			::In secular countries, Muslim women marry non-Muslim men. In this case, are children considered Muslims? ] (]) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	==Another suggestion for Lead paragraph==
	'''Islam''' (]: {{Audio|ar-al_islam.ogg|الإسلام; ''al-'islām''}}) is a ] ] based upon the teachings of Muhammad. It is the ] in the world today, with an estimated 1.4 billion adherents, known as ]s.<ref>{{cite book|author=Teece, Geoff|title=Religion in Focus: Islam|publisher=Smart Apple Media|year=2005|pages=p. 10}}</ref>
			::: Well, I guess it depends. I'm not a Muslim, but I know for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim is not to be taken lightly. In such cases, Islamic law has already been broken with her marrying a non-Muslim. Islamic law teaches that whenever a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man, she will fall under his influence and religion, becoming an apostate. Furthermore interpretation of the Qu'ran says that such relations are to be avoided, against all non-believers. It is assumed that Muslim men will not fall under the religion of their wives, hence they can marry non-mulsim women. Some blog sites discussing this suggest that the Qu'ran does not allow any marriages, regardless if its a Muslim man or woman, but for that, I do not know. Point being, if a Muslim woman does marry a non-Muslim, and the man '''stays''' a non-Muslim, then I guess the couple probably don't have Islamic law on their minds and so won't raise the kids Muslims anyways; the Qu'ran leaves no room for interpretation when it comes to who is allowed to marry non-Muslims (permanent non-Muslims who don't convert). ] (]) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
	Muslims believe that ] (Arabic: '']'') ] the Qur'an to ] and that Muhammad is God's ] ] (see: ]). Muslims consider ] and ], practices of Muhammad as part of the religion, as basic sources of Islam.<ref>Ghamidi(2001), </ref> Like ] and ], Islam is an ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Vartan Gregorian|title=Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith|publisher=Brookings Institution Press|location=Washington D.C.|year=2003|id=ISBN 0-8157-3283-X|pages=p. ix}}</ref>
			From a more Muslim perspective (me),
	Today, Muslims may be found throughout the world, particularly in the ], ], ], ], and ]. About 20 percent of Muslims originate from ].<ref> {{cite book |author= John L Esposito|title=What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam |publisher=Oxford University Press US| year=2002| pages=p. 2| id=ISBN 0-19-515713-3}}</ref> Islam is the second largest religion in many ] countries, such as ], which has the largest Muslim population in ], and the ].<ref> {{cite web| title=Muslims in Europe: Country guide| url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4385768.stm| author=BBC| date=]| accessdate=2006-09-28}} </ref><ref> {{cite web| title=Religion In Britain| url= http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293| author=Office for National Statistics| date=]| accessdate=2006-08-27}} </ref>
			*Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women as long as they are the "people of the book" (Christian, Jew ).
			**That directly means the kids will be Muslim. This is similar "who is a Jew" concept where if the mother is Jewish the child is Jewish, except this is vice-versa for Muslims i.e. father was Muslim child is a Muslim.
			*If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man and they have kids, the kids are not Muslims.
			**However for ''such a marriage'' to take place the man must be a Muslim convert. This is why Muslim women do not marry non-Muslims because the relationship gets complicated.
			Any questions? ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 15:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
			:Also everyone is a Muslim by name. So only difference is that ''you say'' you are Muslim. I am proud to say I am a Muslim. ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
	]<sup>]</sup> 14:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			:: And I humiliate myself before God to say I am a Christian, for I am not worthy - please keep our personal opinions to ourselves. ] (]) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks, Truthspreader. However, I am not entirely sure that the sentence you have added works well in English. Are the Qur'an and Sunna "practices of Muhammad"? I would have thought that the Qur'an is not a practice but a revelation (at least this article seems to say that). And as I understand it the Sunna is a body of tradition and reported statement. It's important to get this bit absolutely right, so perhaps we should look at some more authors. In this case didn't find Ghamidi's wording very clear for non-Muslim readers. (Although I appreciate that he is a serious scholar and a useful source for the encyclopedia.) I will look up what Albert Hourani says when I have a chance. Esposito may have some good wording too. How about Bernard Lewis, Aminz? ] 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			:::That was kinda unnecessary, Tourskin, IMHO ] (]) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes, you are right that there is a problem with wording. Actually, it is just Sunnah which is the practice of Muhammad as part of the religion and not Qur'an as it is the revelation. If it is . confusing (as I now myself think), we can remove the definition of Sunnah. John Esposito also writes that Quran and Sunnah are two basic sources:. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::And why is it unnecessary for User:Lord of Moria to say that he is proud of being a Muslim? My example was designed to illicit a reaction; now you know that wikipedia discussion pages are not for stating what one is proud of. ] (]) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think it would be useful if you, Truthspreader, made some more comments on the section in the article on ], getting it to reflect all the best sources and the different views within Islam. Then it will be easier to summarise it in the lead. The relationship between the ] and ] seems to be complicated and even controversial. ] 16:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::And User:Lord of Moria, you are incorrect; according to Islamic belief, everyone is born a Muslim, but not everyone remains submitted to God, and not everyone who submits to God does so according to the Qu'ran. Besides, hadn't I answered all of these points anyway? ] (]) 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Interesting enough, the whole Sunnah section in the article is written by me. The determination of Sunnah is a controversial issue, as written in the last sentence of the section. But the point is that Sunnah essentially is part of the religion, unlike Hadith, which are narrations and which can be criticized and scrutinized, and there is a complete knowledge to do that. For example, ] believes that only those traditions which came to us through perpetual adherence of ] are Sunnah, while Sunnis can even consider ] as Sunnah and Shias even consider deeds of Imams as Sunnah, but there are some core Sunnahs which are common among all Muslims. For example, under "Custom and Behavioural laws" section in the article, all of those things are Sunnah and are accepted by all Muslims. I think a more generic defintion of Sunnah would be, as Ghamidi writes, traditions which Muhammad instituted among his followers as religion. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
	::And sometimes, people use the word Sunnah to refer to a certain action of the prophet. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			:::::I didn't think Moria's statement was something to worry about, but...I think I'll stay out of this one n.n;; ] (]) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::How about saying something like:
	::::"Muslims believe that God (Arabic: Allāh) revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad and that Muhammad is God's final prophet (see: Prophets of Islam). Most Muslims see the actions and teachings of Muhammad, as related in the Sunnah and Hadith, '''to be indispensable in complimenting their of the Qur'an'''. Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.
	:::It goes around the fact you mentioned earlier about the Sunnah and hadith '''not''' used to interpret the Qur'an per se, while still highlighting the importance of them for ''most'' muslims. I admit maybe the sentence may get more long winded, but what does everyone think? --] 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
			::I wasn't being hostile or anything like that why take offence? LOL. I'm sorry if I meant any. I did not mean to insult anyone, sorry. I can say I'm proud to be a Muslim, I was giving myself as an example of who is a Muslim i.e. I proclaim it like my religion demands. People can say they are proud of themselves (I mean they do do it on their user pages). I am not incorrect however I have done my research so no need to be hostile towards me. Any more questions? ] <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Above version is not very different to the previous one, as Islam is not totally dependant on Qur'an but Sunnah is also an independant source. How about this one:
			:::Nope, I am happy that we cleared this. I too apologize if I insulted anyone, although I think neither me nor User:Lord of Moria need apologize. ] (]) 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::Muslims believe that ] (Arabic: '']'') ] the Qur'an to ] and that Muhammad is God's ] ] (see: ]). Muslims consider the ] and traditions of Muhammad in ] to be basic sources of Islam.<ref>Ghamidi(2001), </ref> Like ] and ], Islam is an ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Vartan Gregorian|title=Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith|publisher=Brookings Institution Press|location=Washington D.C.|year=2003|id=ISBN 0-8157-3283-X|pages=p. ix}}</ref>
			This thread does not relate directly to work on the article; the conversation is best taken to a non-wiki venue. Article talk pages are not for general discourse on the the topic of the article, but a tool for editing collaboration. If you would like to see an area developed, you may initiate the process by making your recommendations here: the result will just as often answer your query AND result in development of the article. ] (]) 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::]<sup>]</sup> 01:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::If everyone agrees, I can put the changes in the Lead paragraph. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
			== Islam portal image ==
	OK, I have looked up "sunna" in Albert Hourani's "A History of the Arab Peoples", which is a good scholarly source. (A historical source, not a theological one, it should be noted.) Hourani explains the meaning of ''sunna'' historically in the context of the growth of the caliphate.
			I don't think having an image of the Taj Mahal as the standard image for all the Islam pages is a good idea. The Kabba would have been more suitable as it's the Islamic first and main mosque. The Taj Mahal is not a religious structure, just an architectural aspect of the Mughal Empire and not a place of worship as it's a mausoleum (glorified tombstone for a grave). it also steretypes, suggesting an 'Indian' landmark is in some way a major part of the world faith and it isn't. It's irrelevant and misleading and should be replaced with the Kaaba or Qu'ran etc. Thanks.
	"More systematically that the Umayyads, the 'Abbasids tried to justify their rule in Islamic terms. From the beginning they used religious symbols. The caliph claimed to rule by divine authority as a meber of the Prophet's family. He claimed also to be governing in accordance with the Qur'an and the rules of right conduct, which were increasingly defined in terms of the Prophet's habitual behaviour (''sunna'')."
			] (]) <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	So Hourani can be cited in support of the view that the ''sunna'' (or ''sunnah'') is the habitual behaviour of the Prophet. Note that he doesn't mention ''hadith'' at this stage.
			: You should discuss this perhaps at the relevant wikiproject. ] (]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
	Hourani then goes on to explain - again as history rather than theology - why the Shi'a tradition is somewhat different. "... Ma'mun gave his support to the ideas of certain rationalist theologians and tried to make their accpetance a condition of official service. This attempt met with opposition from those theologians, led by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who held that the Qur'an and the habitual behaviour of the Prophet, literally interpreted, offered sufficient guidance. After a period of persecution, the attempt to impose a single interpretation fo the faith by the power of the ruler was ended, almost never to be resumed. The belief in a unity which includes differences of legal opinion, and the importance of the Qur'an and the practice (''sunna'') of the Prophet as the bases of it, gradually created a mode of thought which came to be known generally as Sunnism, as distinct from Shi'ism."
			:: Taj Mahal Has nothing to do with Islam. Its a tomb for his lover not for his religion! Maybe a mughal mosque such as the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore would be more appropriate and significant. --] (]) 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
			== Naqshbandi ==
	I've copied these quotations in case they are of any use, either in the lead or for the section on ''sunnah'', which is still unreferenced. Hourani is a good source, but he is not the only one. As WP policies point out, historians interpretations may differ. There may be more up to date scholarship (Hourani's book is 1991) and works that are concerned with theology rather than history. ] 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
			I have noticed that the ] article does not cite any sources. There seems to have been some edit warring too, and I suspect that if future additions to the article were based only on reliable sources that some of that problem would be reduced. (My own knowledge of Sufism is so slight I would not attempt to edit such an article.)
	:Being a Muslim, I know that people use word "Sunnah" extensively for habitual behaviour of the prophet. The problem with traditional Sunnis is that since from Shafi'i, they consider all "Sahih hadith" in Bukhari and Muslim et al. to be accurate and considering everything as Sunnah. But I think, instead of going into detail that how Sunnah can found (a very contentious subject amongst Muslims, although there are some core Sunnahs which are common amongst all of them), the generic definition should be there in Lead paragraph. However, you can add the details in Sunnah section, which you mentioned above. Cheers! ]<sup>]</sup> 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
			Now that I think of it, the much larger ] article also has very little sourcing. It seems to be an excellent article, but if some knowledgeable editors could add sources it would be a good act for an important article. ] (]) 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
	==Fastest growing?==
			== Qur'an section ==
	Can you please add that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world according to http://www.adherents.com. thanks {{unsigned|88.108.156.102}}
	:I would love to, but it is disputed in ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I have added that it is ''one of'' the fastest growing, as that seems indisputable. And adherents.com seems to be a reputable website. ] 14:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
			"The Qur'an in its present form is often considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur'an has never become a main point." First, this is an ungrammatical snake and needs to be chopped in two.
	:::Couldn't find your addition in the article! ]<sup>]</sup> 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
			A larger concern is that it's extremely simplistic. It takes the question of authorship as the sole point of academic interest in the content of the Qur'an. (It also has a kind of "everything fine here, move along" quality.) Questions of self-consistency are equally important. Shifts in emphasis over the course Muhammad's life have been noted (e.g that verses from the Medina period are the more violent is a widely made point.) ] (]) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::I messed up, an edit conflict I think. I'll try again. ] 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
			Moving it, with the refs:
	== Women's status under Islam ==
			:The Qur'an in its present form is often considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur'an has never become a main point.<ref>See:
	Women are not equal under Islam, and saying: "Many Muslims counter the claim that only "liberalization" of the Islamic Sharia law can lead to distinguishing between tradition and true Islam by saying that meaningful "fundamentalism", by definition, will eject non-Islamic cultural inventions — for instance, acknowledging and implementing Muhammad's insistence that women have God-given rights that no human being may legally infringe upon."
	gives the reader the false impression that women have equal rights to men under Islam. This implication is explicitly not true, though I also agree with the point that many majority-Muslim countries give women less rights to women than they actually have under the Quran, and that Muhammad brought women more rights than they had before him in arabic societies.
	I inserted "limited" to correct the false implication that women have equal rights under Islamic law. I will reinsert that unless this is clarified or the false implication is removed in some other way.
	Women are explicitly inferior to men according to the Quran, and here are some citiations from Rodwell's translation of the Quran on www.gutenberg.org:
	"The divorced shall wait the result, until they have had their courses thrice,
	nor ought they to conceal what God hath created in their wombs, if they
	believe in God and the last day; and it will be more just in their husbands
	to bring them back when in this state, if they desire what is right. And it
	is for the women to act as they (the husbands) act by them, in all fairness;
	but '''the men are a step above them'''. God is Mighty, Wise." -Sura 2 (The Cow1) : 90
			* William Montgomery Watt in ''The Cambridge History of Islam'', p.32
	Sura 2 again, 91:
			* Richard Bell, William Montgomery Watt, ''Introduction to the Qur'an'', p.51
	"Mothers, when divorced, shall give suck to their children two full years,
			* F. E. Peters (1991), pp.3–5: "Few have failed to be convinced that … the Quran is … the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation."</ref> ] (]) 11:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
	if the father desire that the suckling be completed; and such maintenance and
	clothing as is fair for them, shall devolve on the father. No person shall be
	charged beyond his means. A mother shall not be pressed unfairly for her
	child, nor a father for his child: And the same with the father's heir. But
	if they choose to wean the child by consent and by bargain, it shall be no
	fault in them. And if ye choose to have a nurse for your children, it shall
	be no fault in you, in case ye pay what ye promised her according to that
	which is fair. Fear God, and know that God seeth what ye do."
	Under Islam, men have custody of the children after they are 2 years old in a divorce.
			::It doesn't address the issue of authorship or content, it addresses the question of textual authenticity (which is an important question for any ancient text), which is a subject of academic endeavour, and one upon which mainstream academia is agreed. I think it should be restored, but I do agree that the change in wording introduced by Aminz has made is a bit clunky. ] 14:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
	Surah 4 Women:
	3: Women are unequal in inheritance; they get half that of men
	"With regard to your children, God commandeth you to give the male the portion
	of two females; and if they be females more than two, then they shall have
	two-thirds of that which their father hath left: but if she be an only
	daughter, she shall have the half; and the father and mother of the deceased
	shall each of them have a sixth part of what he hath left, if he have a
	child; but if he have no child, and his parents be his heirs, then his mother
	shall have the third: and if he have brethren, his mother shall have the
	sixth, after paying the bequests he shall have bequeathed, and his debts. As
	to your fathers, or your children, ye know not which of them is the most
	advantageous to you. This is the law of God. Verily, God is Knowing, Wise!
			:::But why say this and not address other aspects of the "content of the Qur'an"? If restored it leaves the reader the impression that there's nothing in dispute, which isn't so. Again, self-consistency is at least as important authenticity. The most startling discovery I made in picking up the Qur'an was finding early verses "abrogated" by later verses. I can source this concern to Lewis (2004). ] (]) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
	Half of what your wives leave shall be your's, if they have no issue; but if
			::::My point was that the passage isn't about the content of the Qur'an at all, it is about the authenticity of the text itself. The passage only leaves the impression that the text is authentically from the date it is purported to be - which is the standard view in Western academia, if we are to believe the words of Francis Peters ''et al.'' I'm sure there's many 'concerns' of subjective nature with regards to content which can be sourced to all sorts of texts... but that's what they are: subjective. The most startling discovery to you may not be so to others (For one, the issue of ''nasikh wal-mansukh'' - the abrogating and abrogated - is only one of numerous subcategories of ]). That it can be sourced doesn't mean it's of pressing importance to be mentioned in the brief summary - especially when interpretative comments about content (i.e. self-consistency) may represent only that author's opinion. I'll restore the passage which was used in the FA version as it's much clearer. ] 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
	they have issue, then a fourth of what they leave shall be your's, after
	paying the bequests they shall bequeath, and debts.
			:::::Except, perhaps, for "natural," there is no word that is misused as badly as "subjective." You are using it here to evade my point. That, for instance, 2:217 is abrogated by 9:36 is an objective fact of my translated version. I can e-mail you the footnote. No, we don't need that specific example in the article. I bring up abrogation as an example of something that I'm sure can be sourced to more than one western academic: there are clear shifts in the tone and specific injunctions of the late verses of the Qur'an relative to the early verses. This is not a minor point.
	And your wives shall have a fourth part of what ye leave, if ye have no
			:::::My question then: if we are to bring up western academics at all, why do we have an embargo against criticism? You have argued previously against using a western academic re polygamy, a widely debated issue surrounding Islam. But if western academics position the Qur'an positively then we can mention them? The effect of this stance, Itaq, is sanitization. ] (]) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
	issue; but if ye have issue, then they shall have an eighth part of what ye
			::::::I didn't say the topic of abrogation was subjective at all. I suggested your exceptional 'concern' regarding it was, whereas the reality is that it's simply one of many fields of exegetical study of the Qur'an (sarf, balagh, asbab an-nuzul, ahkam, and so on). I also suggested that your bringing up of content at all as a basis of removing a passage clearly not related to content was a non-sequitur.
	leave, after paying the bequests ye shall bequeath, and debts."
			::::::Academics ''do'' comment on the abrogation theory, just as they comment on the context of revelation, rhetorical devices, linguistic analyses, thematic variations, chronology, religious/legal/social applications (see: the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, and the Qur'an entry in the Encyclopedia of Islam - the latter in particular spends much more time discussing other aspects of content than it does abrogation, such as the letters at the beginning of numerous suras like ALM, or the historical references within the text). Refer to any study on exegesis. My point being, on what basis is it being argued that one aspect of content demands mention over others, other than it being of personal concern to yourself as was implied?
			::::::I'm not quite following your characterisation of my stance. If you could re-familiarise me with the discussion you're referring to, and how it compares with the fairly simple issue of general academic consensus regarding the textual integrity of the Qur'an, then I would be most grateful. ] 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::First of all Itaq, the passage I removed literally contained the words "content of the Qur'an." There was no non sequitur in my initial post. The sentence was sweeping and simplistic. (The changed version is much less so.)
			:::::::I'll rephrase the complaint of my last. The term "Western academics" is used exactly once in this article, which obviously adds a certain gravitas to whatever point is being made. If we are to mention the Western academy at all, why are we limiting ourselves in this way? Why can we not add a single sentence on Western criticism of polygamy (]) when we can invoke Western academics for textual authenticity? Why should we not observe that there are shifts within the Qur'an that have been noted by academics? For the third time, that is far from a small issue. And it can be framed neutrally (I can also source it to Armstrong).
			:::::::Finally, I intended "concern" in its primary sense: of or relating to the discussion at hand. ] (]) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
			::::::::I'll assume that the issue about authenticity has been put to rest.
			::::::::Western academics is intended to refer to qualified Islamic studies scholars - not Western commentators/perspectives in general. There's a paragraph or two covering criticisms in general, most of which are indeed Western-oriented... so I don't see your point about neglecting certain perspectives.
			::::::::Regarding abrogation, I expressed above that academics discuss and analyse many aspects of the Qur'an. The abrogation theory is merely one aspect of exegesis as a whole, and I've listed some other areas for you above. Look closely and you'll identify that academics discuss all of these, as much as they discuss things like abrogation, if not more. I'm not saying it's unimportant. I'm saying that since none of the aspects are unimportant, why give especial attention to one subcategory of tafsir in a summary section without covering other, equally important subcategories? It may be sourceable to Lewis, Armstrong and many others, but it's not seriously the case that they devote nothing else about the contents of the Qur'an in their entire coverage. As an apt example, I refer you again to the 62-page EoI entry on the Qur'an written by AT Welch. ] 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::::I suggest we then change "Western academics" to "Islamic studies scholars." This would again make the point less sweeping.
			:::::::::To be clear, I am only using abrogation as an example. We don't need to specifically mention it. What I'm thinking of is a sentence or two noting that the Qur'an should be viewed as contemporaneous with Mohammed's life and as a document that evolved over time. This notion of "revelation" differs significantly, I think, from the Judeochristian understanding that many readers will bring to this page. This could be done after the second sentence of the first paragraph or after the third sentence of the second paragraph.
			:::::::::As for the criticism paragraph, it's still too much of a "yes, but." And I still feel this page could incorporate some more on modern debates. ] (]) 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Correct pronunciation... ==
	4: Women are to be executed or permanently imprisoned for "whoredom" but men may be forgiven
	"If any of your women be guilty of whoredom, then bring four witnesses against
	them from among yourselves; and if they bear witness to the fact, shut them
	up within their houses till death release them, or God make some way for
	them.
			{{tl|editsemiprotected}}
	And if two men among you commit the same crime, then punish them both; but if
			I don't see the text in the source, but the text printed under the "pronunciation" heading is inappropriate. I suspect this article has been vandalized. Maybe an established user will kjnow how to correct this?
	they turn and amend, then let them be: for God is He who turneth, Merciful!"
			] (]) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
			:{{fixed}} It's already been reverted, and the editor who placed it has been warned and reported to the administrators. Thank you for reporting this.--] ] ] '']'' 03:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Muhammad ==
	5: Captured married women who are enslaved may be raped
	"Forbidden to you also are married women, except those who are in your hands
	as slaves: This is the law of God for you. "
			The sentence "''Muhammad (c. 570 – June 8, 632) was an Arab religious, political, and military leader who founded the religion of Islam as a historical phenomenon."''' is confusing. It seems to guess at Muhammad's intentions. There was no way of knowing that the religion would become the 'historical phenomenon' that we know now. So, I am proposing to remove 'as a historical phenomenon".
	9: Again, Men are superior, women should be obedient
	"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God hath
	gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from
	their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the
	husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those
	for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart,
	and scourage them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion
	against them: verily, God is High, Great!"
			Also, there has been an obscenity in the first line of the article for many hours. I'm a new user and I don't know how to edit a 'semi-protected' article, so any help is appreciated.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	This is probably worth adding as part of the article, though probably not with all these citations just because of size.] 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
			<br />
			Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Patrick. If you're registered, I do believe you have to wait four days or so before being able to edit semi-protected articles. Also, the article seems to have been cleaned up, so no worries (for now) ] (]) 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
	:Add whatever you want to ]. Then come back here and sum up what you want to put in. ] (Have a nice day!) 18:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
			== new section? ==
	Looking at this from a narrow view, at the time it was the most rights that women had and the first insitution to do so. Not only that, there are many arguments that go against and prove the rights of women. You should do a little more research from CREDIABLE sources.
			Does anybody think creating a section on muslim interaction with the non-muslim world would be useful? I think it would be a more elegant way of incorporating the criticisms section, may be an oportunity to clean up the history section in general, as well. Also, I think a lot of people who are searching for information on Islam might like to know more about it as a factor in shaping world events. Subjects covered might include: Islamic stances on interaction with non-muslims and how this affects the foreign policy of Islamic states, Islamic interaction with other major religions, Islamic proselytization throughout the world, prominent muslims in non-muslim society, tension and conflict with non-muslims. Well, just an idea, shoot it down if it stinks, and by the way, great article, thanks to the editors for a good read. ] (]) 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
	-I have heard, much like Christianity in its beginnings, that Islam was progressive in allowing women rights, but much like strict readings of the Bible women then become bound to literal readings. I think there should be a discussion about where women are allowed not in homes but in the mosques. There is a central division there that we can still see. In many cases, women enter in the back, are not allowed to participate in the religion as publicly. That is an interesting and relevant note that should be addressed.] 18:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)S
			:Or... another article? On the interface, the meeting points in various societies, between Islamic cultures/(maj|min)orities and non-Muslim (maj|min)orities. It would be quite interesting to me to see the different 'styles' (if you will) that the various communities take. Consider modern Nigeria and the reoccurence of the old German solution ], where which religion should dominate is regionally based (]) Or Malaysia (]) where the ] are very important. Or China and official minorities. Or Turkey and secularization of government. How do these political and cultural circumstances get reconciled with the religious? I would think an exploration of the diverse modern and historical responses to coexistence might point out that there are more possibilities than just one or two rigid interpretations.
	== Fastest growing again ==
			:I note that the ] section has links to ] and ] and other articles. Is it possible there is already an article? ] (]) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
			== Moses - Link ==
	I've been staying away from this article, being completely burned out after years of trying to maintain a neutral stance and academic credibility on a battlefield topic but ... I couldn't let the "fastest growing" claim stand in the first para.
			The link for Moses in '''Articles of faith''' section in line (''The Qur'an mentions the names of numerous figures considered prophets in Islam, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, among others'') should be changed from Musa to Moses <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Sure, Muslims make that claim frequently, but I'm not sure it's meaningful. It can't be interpreted as ''rate'' of growth; many of the Christian mega-churches that have mushroomed in American suburbs and exurbs can boast much higher rates. Or for that matter, an storefront church that goes from two members to ten in the space of a year -- 500% growth! So I think that the claim must be that it is adding more adherents every year than any other religion. So far as I can tell, this claim is based on world population statistics. But ... many Third-World Muslim-majority countries have high rates of population growth. All those children are being counted as "Muslims" simply by virtue of being born in a predominantly Muslim country. So, this is something of which Muslims are to be proud? Proof of the validity of Islam? I don't think so. It's a triumphalist claim, one that many religions make. (I did fieldwork in anthropology of religion: I've heard the "fastest growing" claim from Mormons, Bahais, Assembly of God, yadda yadda.) Best to keep such boasts out of the lead para and discuss matters in sober fashion in the demographics section.
			== re-added section ==
	We've been removing this claim from the first para for years. It's WP crab-grass as far as I'm concerned. ] 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
	:The rate of growth issue is highly problematic, and it seems from edits on ] that some people are quite concerned with claiming their religion to have the fastest rate of growth. I never really understood what the big deal is. However, since it was brought up here, I wanted to note a couple of things. None of the statstics referenced on ] for instance, claim that Islam gains more adherents every year. Christianity seems to be clearly in the lead there, but Christianity also has a far higher base population. On the contrary, of the large world religions, Islam does seem to have the "fastest RATE of growth". If one goes to ] one can easily understand what a true growth rate is in terms of population. It is a percentage growth, and the means of growth really don't matter. Conversion vs. births for instance ... have no bearing on the growth rate. This isn't a value judgment on what counts as growth but a pure demographic figure. Are children born to Muslim parents in these afore mentioned countries not Muslims? Is it because they are not adults? I've seen this argument before and frankly its a bit disturbing. But I whole heartedly endorse leaving these population growth claims out of the opening paragraph and perhaps out of the entry all together. I just want to clarify that it is in fact a "rate" of growth that the claim goes back to.] 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
			User:AAA765 removed the following section writing in edit summary: ''"to last version by Itaqallah. unsourced or unscholarly"'':
	==GA==
	I have nominated for GA. I think its good enough now. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
			<blockquote> ] and ] on the other hand have entered the "Islam in Europe" debate. Berman identifies a "reactionary turn in the intellectual world" represented by Western scholars who idealize Islam.<ref>{{cite magazine| last = Berman| first = Paul| authorlink = Paul Berman| title = Who's Afraid of Tariq Ramadan?: The Islamist, the journalist, and the defense of liberalism.| journal = ]| publisher = | location = | date = June 04 2007| url = http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=fd52e6a4-efc5-42fd-983b-1282a16ac8dd}}</ref></blockquote>
	:I think there are too many tags on this article for it to succeed. --] 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
	::To my recollection, they were all placed there for political reasons rather than to improve the article. I have removed them all except the POV tag on the criticism section, which was the result of an actual dispute. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
	:passes easily. GAs aren't FAs, and this article is close to FA standard. ] <small>]</small> 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)		Since it's both sourced and scholarly I am re-adding it. —] 06:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
			== Integrating Shi'a and batini point of view ==
	== Arabic Words ==
			I honestly can say I can look at this article and say that none of this whatsoever describes my beliefs, and the beliefs of at least over 30 million Muslims, counting the ], the ], and a myriad of other Sufi and Shi'a groups. I stayed away from article for a long time, but now I'd like to work with everyone for changes.
	Shouldn't the Arabic words in this article be italicized? ] 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
			Before I start, the Sunni opinion and Twelver opinion, which are nearly synonymous, should be the most prominent. However, the ''batini'' point of view does make up a significant amount of followers of Islam. I am going to use this analogy to help us through this: batini groups in their population are a little more than the same percentage ] make up in ]. We can use how that was dealt with in their article, however, unlike Mormonism, these groups appeared very early on in Islam, and hence are a little more important in its overall discussion, which includes both historical and contemporary perspectives. In Nizari Ismailism, shariah was declared void not too long after ]'s son escaped to ]. And of course, let's not forget the Sufi groups, and the ]] forerunners to Alevism, all of which predate the current Usuli school of Twelver Shi'a Islam.
	==Note about GA Status==
	The article seems very unstable, just take a look at the diff for the article around five or six days ago and the article now, and there appears to of been some edit war, but not being familiar with the article, I don't know everything about the situation. Since its just been nominated i'm not going to fail it or anything, but can anyone elaborate on this, does anyone think there will be any more substantial changes in the near future? ] 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't think so. The substantial changes came in a period of massive change - we realised we didn't need many of the sections that we had, but that some important ones were rather lacking. In addition there was an edit war over the criticism section that has been ended and probably won't resurrect given its main proponent has now left Misplaced Pages. The ongoing discussion is about what to put into the lead section, but I don't think this really fluctuates, but steadily improves. I figured five or six days without the article changing substantially ''was'' stable; does it have to be longer? ] (Have a nice day!) 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I just thought it might help anyone who comes to review the article, since they might end up wondering about stability themselves, and it helps when editors involved with the page have an explanation :/. ] 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
			<s>''In accordance with the Islamic belief in ]...''</s>
	==The contradictory section==
			No Shi'a group I know of believes in predestination. Yes, Allah knows what will happen, but he has not written anything and nothing is set at all, even the return of ] is subject to change in Shi'a thought.
	These three ideas all contradict each another:
			<s>''The Shi'a understanding of predestination is called "divine justice" (''Adalah'').''</s>
	'Muslims hold that the message of Islam is the same as the message preached by all the messengers sent by God to humanity since Adam.'
			Is there anywhere you can find Adalah described as predestination? How reliable is this source? Adalah, and the Shi'a belief in general, is called the point between two extremes, ie, God knows what will happen but he does not cause it to happen. This is generally termed as a type of free will philosophy-wise.
	'From a Muslim point of view, Islam is the oldest of the monotheistic religions because it represents both the original and the final revelation of God'
			''Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them.''
	'Islamic texts depict Judaism and Christianity as prophetic successor traditions to the teachings of Abraham.'] 09:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
			This is very important. Anyone who reads this article will get the incorrect notion that the meaning of being a practicing Muslim is to pray, fast, and do these literal activities. This isn't so, and many groups that even parkate in these activities, do concentrate on the inner meanings.
	:These do not contradict one another. From a Muslim point of view, Islam the religion was founded by Muhammad in a direct line of succession from Abraham. Previous attempts to reveal Islam were corrupted by man and resulted in Christianity and Judaism. Therefore, although Islam is the descendant of Judaism adn Christianity, it is also the oldest rleigion because it was what Allah tried to reveal originally (and, apparently, failed in doing so). ] (Have a nice day!) 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
			''...or ritual prayer, which Sunni perform five times a day, though most Shi'a groups such as the ] combine the five separate prayers into three times a day, while other Shi'a groups such as the ] have only three prayers. For most Muslims, each salah is done facing towards the ] in Mecca.''
	:"and, apparently, failed in doing so" ? What do you mean? Please elobrate unless this is some kind of dumb joke attempt. (] 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC))
			First off, Twelver (and I think Zaidi) are the ones that combine five prayers into three times a day. Not all Shi'a, one should not use Shi'a to just describe the Twelver branch. Second, it is notable to note that some groups such as the Nizari, really only pray three times a day, not just combine five prayers. Also, Alevi and Nizari do not face Mecca in their prayers. And lastly, there have been quite a few groups in history that have changed the liturgical language in Islam, such as the living ]. ] in fact allowed one to recite their prayer in their native toungue, though his students later disagreed with this position.
	If the message always the same then its not representing 'both the original and the final revelation of God' but actually all the revelations including in between. How can there be the 'prophetic successor traditions' if theyre all the same? Sounding like there are two ideas which are contradicting. One is the message was always the same so Islam is only repeat and 'depict Judaism and Christianity' as corrupted Islam. The other is it got better and better so there are successor traditions and Islam is the next improved successor. Then the idea of the original and final revelations are Islam but the other ones arent which contradicts both the other ideas.] 18:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I've already explained above. There isn't a contradiction: however, the theology involved is very complicated, so someone may wish to consider changing it. ] (Have a nice day!) 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	::"the theology involved is very complicated." That's a gentle way of saying it. ] 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
			''Some Muslim groups do not fast during Ramadan, and instead have fasts different times of the year.''
	==Critisism and terrorism==
	Why is that added to the article, while none of that is included in the other religious articles? Are we going to remove it from here, or add similar sections to all other articles, including adding a Israeli terrorism section to Judaism? --] 16:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I have already had this argument with Bhaisaab, and and as he has left I can only assume that he has asked you to ressurrect it. If you want to try to add an Israeli terrorism section to Judaism, good luck with that, because nt only does Israel not sponsor terrorism, its actions have nothing to do with Judaism and you will rightly be accused of NPOV.
	:I have filed a peer review over this and discussed it endlessly on this talkpage, and it has been deemed by the community that Islam should have a criticism section. I will say this once more: just because other religions do not have a criticism section (and Judaism does have one, btw) does not mean that Islam shouldn't. There are valid, notable criticisms of Islam and they should be ackowledged in the article I am fed up with having to argue this point, when it has been established by consensus. Please will you quit moaning about it. ] (Have a nice day!) 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
			Once again, among the aforementioned groups, fasting during Ramadan is practically non-existent. In general you still ''do'' have fasting, but it is at different times of the year.
	:: ''I can only assume that he has asked you to ressurrect it'' Please do not assume things like that. Secondly, we can have link to that article and remove this section from here. Let vote again and check if the concensus still there. --- ] 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::This current criticism section is quite good. I have argued against prior versions in the past quite vehemently, but this one is balanced, clear and concise. I agree that there is still a problem with religion entries as a whole, but I think the over arching issue is that other religions don't include criticism sections when they should, and/or do not include the right kinds of criticisms. Why not set a good example here and work towards having a good NPOV criticism section? Maybe other entries will learn from this one. For instance the criticism section in ] (if you can call it criticism and not simply "academic disagreement"), and the one in ] (which could be renamed "theological disagreement") should probably look to the one here and not vice versa. Clearly crticisms of religious Zionism, or Christian Fundementalism could be added to both of those pages, if the editors identifying with those faiths and editing those pages were willing to allow it. However, what I suggest here is to lead by example. The flaws of those pages should not affect the attempt to make a good article here. Just a suggestion.] 21:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::It probably would be nice to make things more consistant, then, together, all articles involved probably have a better shot at FA since they'll be in a similar kind of pattern. ] 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	:''Please do not assume things like that.'' I will if it's true, and your answer confirms it. You know that you're all communicating by email, Ibrahim, and I have the emails to prove it. ''Let vote again and check if the concensus still there.'' Given the ex-Muslim Guild's propensity to votestack, I would say that I've already established consensus elsewhere, and don't desire to have an avalanche of Muslim editors descend on the page to agree with you. Votes do not make a consensus. Not all religion articles have the same sections to them - Baha'i has a persecution section, Sikhism has a section on Sikh people etc. Their sections are just as relevant as the criticism section is here - it was added as a matter of encyclopaedic documentation, not to have a go at Islam, and I do wish you would stop bringing up the issue because you personally do not like it (and I further wish you would stop disparaging Jews, Judaism, and Israel as you do it). ] (Have a nice day!) 21:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
			''The Ismaili exclude khumms and only add three pillars to the five, which are ], ], and ].''
	I never communicated with Striver on this perticular issue and if you prove it then I promise to quit wikipedia for good. You have capability of not assuming good faith which is really not a good thing. Furthermore, thanks for your insult saying that I disparaging Jews, Judaism, and Israel "in general". I totally deserved that. However, I will continue to criticize a Jew I feel bad and love another I found good. --- ] 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
			Why do we have the Twelver pillars but not the Ismaili? It seems odd, since it is nonetheless a prominent grouping in Shi'a Islam.
	:Please, please. Let's immediately stop this chain of accusations and counter-accusations. It is perfectly possible to have an NPOV section on criticisms so let's get on with writing it. ] 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
	I have never said you are communicating with Striver about this issue, I said Bhaisaab has evidently been communicating with Striver because it is Striver is using the very same arguments that Bhaisaab used, and he has never previously expressed any kind of problem with the criticism section before. You only assume good faith when you have no evidence to suspect otherwise - and I have seen the comments on your talkpages to "check your email". If you wish to criticise a Jew, go ahead - I hate ] - but do criticise ''because'' they are a Jew, which, by conflating Judaism and Israel, which you obviously detest, you are doing. There's a difference there, and I don't think you've quite realised it. Going back to the criticism section, its NPOV and dispassionate, so I hope we can all get on with improving this article - it would be nice to have it featured on the front page in time for the ], though this is a long shot. ] (Have a nice day!) 00:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			''- Mainstream Islamic law does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state"; the ulema function as both jurists and theologians. In practice, Islamic rulers frequently bypassed the Sharia courts with a parallel system of so-called "Grievance courts" over which they had sole control. As the Muslim world came into contact with Western secular ideals, Muslim societies responded in different ways. ] has been governed as a secular state ever since the reforms of ], which has been greatly supported by the Shi'a ] population. In contrast, the ] replaced a mostly secular regime with an ] led by the ].''
	::What you call evidence, i call coincidence. I have e-mailed with Bhaisaab, s/he invited me to a new wiki. But i have not talked to s/he about this issue. Me bringing up "the exact same thing" is in my view nothing more than a confirmation that there is a merit in my observation, specialy considering that the above editor agrees with me. I re-state my point: why is terrorism mentioned in this article? In what way is it linked to Islam?`Does Islam promote terrorism in any given qur'anic vere or hadith?
			Mainstream is important, not all Muslims, even traditional groups, believe that shariah is unseperable from state. In fact until recently, the Twelver advocated a separation of church and state, though one might argue that it was only a temporary measure during ]. Also, I tied in the previous themes by noting that the Shi'a Alevi group were among the biggest supporters of secularism in Turkey, which is I believe a very important fact to complete the mosaic of Islamic beliefs.
	::If i create a succesfull organization and start blowing up shit, and claim that i have been prompted to do so in the USA constitution (a great text, really), do we add a terrorism section to that article? Why is there no crusade and which hunting section in the christianity article? A being relevant to B does not make B relevant to A. --] 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			Once again, let me make it clear. This edits are a few sentences and words. I don't want them to have an overly prominent place in the article, they are by far fringe views. But, over 30 million is not a small number, that is twice the amount of followers of ] in the entire world. And historically it has been witnessed as a movement Islam for a long period of time. It deserves its place in this article, definitely. --] 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::Actually, there is a "crusade and witch hunting section" in the ] article, look for the "Persecution by Christians" section. ] 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			:The issue here is that minority views will generally not get much coverage. There are vast numbers of sects in Islam, each with millions of followers. Compare that to the ~2 billion figure attributed to the Muslim world today and we see that most groups in an article like this will get no mention, or perhaps an extremely brief one at that. I think basic general Shi'i distinctions, where important, have been mentioned. I don't quite follow why the issue of destiny etc. has been raised when we already provide some comments about Shi'ite views here. Adding further clarifications and elaborations about Shi'i-centric perspectives and sub-sects etc. is not a good balance and would fall into undue weight I think, just as additions about every clarification or contention from any other group would be seen as skewing it in a particular direction. ] 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::Kinda makes my point really. ] (Have a nice day!) 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			::But the issue is the Shi'i branch is the largest one in Islam. I totally agree, it would be ridiculous to mention ''every'' point of contention. At least allow me to change the language and add a few sentences in order to point out that not all groups follow shariah and believe it has symbolic meaning, or even point out that symbolic meaning just as we have pointed out the details of the exoteric act (since this carries through Sufism, Shi'asm, and many other groups). The fact is, what we currently have being described is Sunnism, not Islam in its entirety, down to the five pillars that appears in Sunni books of hadith (which I suppose is understandable). I see that as a major issue. It would be as if we concentrated on Catholic and Orthodox practices in the article about Christianity, just because Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the largest branches of Christianity, with Protestant groups being divided among themselves. Yes, there are literally thousands of sects in Christianity, but the Christianity article does most likely a good job in portraying what they have in common, excluding fringe groups like Jehova's Witnesses or the Mormons. I am confused as to why we cannot do this here. --] 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::The Shi'i branch accounts for 15-20%, last I checked. Which is a significant minority. But it certainly doesn't warrant a Shi'i-oriented caveat at every point of contention, which isn't within the spirit of ] IMO. The place to discuss subdivisions within Shi'ism and how they differ is ]. One may note that the intricate differences between Hanafis, Shafi'is, Malikis and Hanbalis are not explained here, neither are the creedal differences between the various sub-sects (most of which are perhaps more noteworthy) within Sunnism. This article follows ], the aim being to give a general overview, and should be done with the undue weight policy in mind. Most major Shi'i creedal and fiqhi positions have been mentioned. For a group that is a significant minority, that's quite reasonable I think. Especially when you consider that many of the Sunni subdivisions are appropriately left for the relevant daughter articles. ] 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::First off, we shouldn't use words like "fringe groups". Secondly, a section to cover minority opinions of a notable nature should be included. If these sects of Islam are notable then they should be referenced. Thirdly, Islam is roughly 1 billion, not 2 billion. ]] 05:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yes and no really. That section ("Persecution by Christians") is presented as historical fact ... as something engaged in by major institutions and not as a criticism of the religion as a religion. This is why the actual criticism section on the Christianity page is quite different. Also, the history described in the Persecution by Christians pertains to activities promoted by major Christian instititions at certain historical periods, and not the activities of Christian fringe groups. There are, in other words, some important differences here. Lets be a bit more sensitive in our comparisons. In your comparison an equivalent section would be more like "Terrorism performed by Islamic fringe groups".] 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::I consider my own religious faith to be ''fringe'', I know it's not mainstream, though I suppose the phrase may insult something. Now, here is the issue, so riddle me this: are we mainly concentrating on integrating the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view, or Shi'a in general? Let me be clear, the Zaidi, Ismaili, and Twelver Shi'a have absolutely nothing in common neither doctrinally nor in fiqh, they only share early history and some vague conception of Imamate which differs so strongly among them it can hardly be considered the same thing. If we are concentrating on the Shi'a view in general, then we have failed because majority of the second largest Shi'a group, the Ismaili, as well as the second largest Twelver group the Alevi, do not have any of the conceptions of shariah mentioned here, even though these ''batini'' groups have a similiar conception of why they don't have shariah, or the true meaning of shariah, hence the ''batini'' label even applied by Orientalists. So, that is a fail. If you want to just integrate the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view since that is the ''largest'' Shi'a view, you've already done it should be made clear that is the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view, not ''the Shi'a'' vew. This isn't the issue of small differences in fiqh or aqeedah, these are huge differences, whether one follows shariah or not.
			::::In my opinion, by using the phrase ''Shi'a'' to describe Usuli Twelver Shi'a, you are giving incorrect information. For example, mutah is not done by most Ismaili nor Alevi, just like Sunnis. We have to genericise this entire section for it to be truly accurate, and I'd rather do that then falsely point out where Shi'a differ as the articles certainly show. And small sentences should be mentioned in which it states that not all Muslim groups follow shariah. For now, I'll try to return those small differences back in. --] 05:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
			:Your expression ''Let me be clear, the Zaidi, Ismaili, and Twelver Shi'a have absolutely nothing in common neither doctrinally nor in fiqh, they only share early history and some vague conception of Imamate which differs so strongly among them it can hardly be considered the same thing'' is contradicts with what I have read in Corbin's work about Ismailism. I think Ismailis and Twelvers are similar in some basic ideas as I mentioned ]. Furthermore In the case of Shari'a Nizari and Mustalavi aren't the same. <span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Muhammad himself killed hundreds of Jewish men and sold their women and children into slavery, after they surrendered unconditionally. This is attested to in both Ibn Ishaq and Bukhari. ] 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
			::In Ismailism, the Imam is the Face of God, who is the destination, while the Pir is your guide to it, the light (like the Imam is for Twelvers). I think that's a huge difference. And you're right, Nizari and Mustaali aren't the same, that makes it even more difficult to discuss this issue. How do you think we can integrate a pan-Shi'a view? --] 03:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Well if that is historically accurate then it would probably fall under "Persecution by Muslims" as a broad historical cateogry (see BELOW). But that has nothing to do with the comparison between CURRENT Islamist affiliated terrorism and the historical persecution of non-Christians which is what the above comment is concerning. Again see below.] 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
			:::The Imam is the Face of God means Imam has all of the names of God(Asma Allah) except few of them which deserve only to The God such as ''Allah'' and ''Rahman''. Thus as I know Twelvers agree that ''Imam is the Face of God''. Imam is like the mirror which can find God's attribute in it. I don't understand the huge difference!<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			::::I am sorry, yes, this is a Twelver belief too. However, there are a couple more differences: ] vs ], and also, in Ismaili prayer and ] it is clearly stated that Ali sahi Allah. --] 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::::] is a controversial issue among Twelvers. On the other hand we should seperate ] who belive Imam is God or God incarnated in him or something like this from Shias.<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 04:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			::::::Exactly, and any well-read Ismaili, as is seen in the ] and prayer, will tell you that the Imam is God. This shows how different the conceptions of Imamah are. --] 04:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::I haven't seen such idea in Corbin's work. Corbin is an expert in this field, but he's never mentioned such idea. This is the first time I've heared Ismailis believe Ali is God. Are you sure?<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 04:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::Pelle seems to have a good point in a way, a section here should probably be something like "Persection by Muslims" for consistancy :/. Of course, the Christian version addresses all of history, so as the Islam one would presumably do the same, there would certainly be time periods when the Muslims doing the persecuting were certainly not fringe groups. ] 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes, ] in fact was asked about this, because there was confusion in the tariqah. He said from the zahir perspective he isn't, but from the batini perspective he is. You should check out for more information, their forums has lots of interesting information. --] 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::::This is clearly exaggeration. As I know former renowned Ismaili theologians such as ] and ] didn't believe in it. In addition, if they really think so, then Twelvers don't consider them as Muslim.--<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I would imagine that this would be the case. But I would forewarn that if such a section is created it is done with well referenced and academically mainline historical facts so as to stave off the inevitable ideological warfare as much as possible. There are plenty of examples all over wikipedia where the issue of the conditions under Muslim rule, for instance, is hotly debated already.] 14:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			::::::::::I looked into it, you are correct, this is a heretical view. Real Ismaili (Nizari, Mustaali, etc) do not believe this. Maybe some weird people. Some people are misunderstanding the ], prayers, and misquoting the Aga Khan. --] 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Strongly agree that we stick to the historical mainline. Also note that the "Persecution by Christians" section is hardly a model as it contains nothing on the crusades, the Inquisition or the witch hunts and virtually dismisses the Church's contribution to antisemitism. ] 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			=== A compromise ===
	:::::::The thing of it is, the Persecution by Christians section is deliberatly short and lacking in much detail because of summary style, all of the real information is in the ] article and whatnot. Is there a similar type of article in the Islamic articles on Misplaced Pages that could be used here with summary style? ] 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			I went through it again, and it seemed we had the same concerns. So, what I basically did was moved statements of contention to where the issue was first introduced, and deleted lots of blanket statements (Shi'a believe ______, these statements were often almost exclusive to Usuli Twelver Shi'a). All in all, I think it makes the article cleaner without having a parenthesis in every pillar ascribing not only a Shi'a view, but a false one that not all Shi'a groups believe in. I toned down the language in those pillars as well, so as of right now, it seems pretty good. I'll tweak it as I go along. Here is the idea:
	::::::::Well, yes. I originally rewrote the section in summary style using ] - which is why I am baffled as to why people object to it. ] (Have a nice day!) 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			* I completely changed the predestination thing, I don't feel that was correctly worded at all.
	:::::::That might be the problem, The Christianity article has both a criticism and persecution by section, the criticsm summarizes Criticism of Christianity, and the other one summarizes Historical persecution by Christians. So there needs to be a ] or ] article for this to work I think. ] 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			* Took out statement about Shi'a eight pillars, and just mentioned a different set of pillars, which differs among Shi'a groups. Also added this sentence, "Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them" in order to give slight mention to the batini groups.
	:::::::...Which is bad, because it seems that article has bad references :/. ] 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			* Instead of going into the details of which groups pray how many times a day, I deleted all that and just simply put all Muslims pray ''multiple'' times a day, which even all batini groups can agree with. No need to say Twelver pray five prayers three times, Ismaili just pray three times, etc, as you pointed out. Also said salat ''generally'' faced Mecca, since that's not always the case.
	::::::::My opinion is that "Persecution by..." or "Persecution of..." sections in articles would be more relevant in the ] or ] articles rather than ] or ]. --] 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			* Deleted the mention of khumms which has nothing to do with zakat anyway, and also differs among Shi'a.
			* Mentioned in a single sentence at the end of the fasting section that some Muslims fast other times of the year besides Ramadan.
			* Added the phrase that ''most Muslims'' adhere to shariah, in order not to create a false blanket statement over a significant minority.
			* Pointed out the secularism has been supported by some Muslim groups, such as the Alevi. We may want to take this one out.
			:::Secularism is supported by some Sunnis too. It doesn't relate to Madhab necessarily.<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			::::Yeah, it was taken out. --] 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:*Deleted this, I think it isn't needed. --] 06:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
			I think this should all be fair, I think Itaqallah was right about the minimalist approach we should take, and in fact, by balancing the view I actually made the entire section smaller, which is good and shows that it was extraneous material and not the lack of material that was creating issues. There is still maybe a little more to do... but looking nice so far. Please give some feedback before further changes. --] 05:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
	BTW, just a point of information regarding a comparative point brought up in this discussion, in case anyone cares. The "Persecution of" and "Persecution by" sections were removed from the ] article. They were put into the ] entry instead. I don't know what baring that has on anyone's thoughts about this "criticism" page, but there it is.] 04:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
			:I think your editions are acceptable except one of them. ''Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them.'' is unclear. I disagree with ''Some Sufi and Shi'a....''. We should mention their name.<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
	:] moved them after her discussion here and on the ] talk page. See her comments above for the rationale. I'm glad of the move towards consistency, but I'm not entirely sure that "persecution by Christians" is either a good section title, or that it belongs in the ] article. This is because the persecution was not initiated by individual Christians but by State and Church authorities -the Inquisition to give the most obvious example. It would be the same with "persecution by Muslims". To come back to this article, what I think is still lacking is a sense of Islam as the foundation for a vast, centuries-old, international civilisation. It is that civilisation, and not the religion, that, among positive features too numerous to list, also had (and has) some negative features. ] 10:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
			::::], ], ], ], are what I can name off the top of my head. Better to just put some Sufi and Shi'a groups. --] 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::::At least you can make an interlink and refer some Shia to Batinis. In this case Twelvers are more similar to Sunnis, while that part may cause some misunderstanding. <span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			::::::That works nicely, thanks! --] 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:I disagree with changing basic facts or statements - or making them terribly ambiguous - simply to cater for minority groups. Muslims ''do'' pray five times a day, that is verifiable from a hundred different reliable sources. A small minority, however, does not pray five times a day. That a small minority doesn't, in no way means the general statement should be changed. Refer to ] here. I'll review the changes made but the major ones may need further discussion. ] 14:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			::I've removed the sentence about Sufi/Batini Shia on the basis that it was inserted without a source. It's important to know how significant these views are in determining whether it warrants discussion, and how much so. ] 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::I don't insist on adding it, but you can use Corbin's work ,''History of Islamic philiosophy'', as a source.--<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 15:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			===Some other improvement===
	::Agree.] 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
			*It's written ''Adherents are generally required to observe the Five Pillars of Islam, which are five duties that unite Muslims into a community.'' We can remove ''five'' in the lead.
			:*''Several'' could work. --] 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			*We should add something about ''Articles of faith'' in the lead. We can move ''The Qur'an states that all Muslims must believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment". Also, there are other beliefs that differ between particular sects. The Sunni concept of predestination is called divine decree, while the Shi'a version is called divine justice. Unique to the Shi'a is the doctrine of Imamah, or the political and spiritual leadership of the Imams.'' to the lead.--<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:*That actually works fine. --] 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			::*Not particularly necessary IMO. Some basic beliefs are covered in the lead, things are mentioned more comprehensively in the section in question. The current balance of the lead is reasonable IMO, a lengthy passage about beliefs (in a place where the Sunni/Shi'a distinction has not yet been made) is not ideal. My views about changing 'Five Pillars' to accomodate minority groups, even though almost any introductory academic text uses the term in a general sense anyway, is similar to my above point about the five daily prayers.] 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::I think the articles of faith deserve to be added in the lead.--<span style="font-family:monospace;">](]-])</span> 15:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			::::The fact is in most of the books we read, ''Islam'' = ''Sunnism'', with a slight mention of Shi'a Islam perhaps later. There are many authors, including early on Corbin, which in fact criticizes this. I don't see why we can't slightly make things vaguer to cater to a significant minority. Sometimes Twelvers are described as praying five times, sometimes three times as five different prayers. And the Nizari Ismaili who pray three times a day are a significant portion of Shi'a Islam as Shi'a are of Islam, around 10%. I promote the genericising of the language in order to be more inclusive. Also, this lets us include other groups which may have unorthodox amounts they pray. And second, it may give readers the idea that we don't have a ''sixth'' prayer, which we do. --] 22:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
			:::::Most academic sources will refer to the practice of 80-90% of Muslims as Islam, because that is the mainstream. Many times Sunni is a term merely used for distinction from Shias (i.e. being a non-Shia). This article caters for significant minority viewpoints where appropriate by mentioning the view in passing, as directed by ], and this has generally been followed throughout the article. Making the language ambiguous is poor style, doesn't adhere to FA criteria, and is ultimately unencyclopedic. Specificity and conciseness are not inversely proportional. As for the prayer example, well technically the additional night (witr) prayer is wajib in Hanifite jurisprudence, but issues like these are all small print and not worth even considering in a brief overview/summary-style article like this. In general, Muslims pray five times a day. ] 00:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
			::::::In total, we made a few sentence ambigious, I'm sure that isn't totally destroying the FA style. Saying ''multiple'' times is hardly undue weight, since it is arguable whether the Twelver Shi'a prayer three or five times, even if it is five prayers. (Should we make sunnah prayers considered extra as well? Or just classified as rakat?) I don't see the issue "multiple" times causes, nor do I see the issue with saying "Generally facing Mecca". I can understand the latter as undue weight, but at least the former isn't. --]
			:::::::My point is: why say "multiple" when it's clear that the academic sources all generally say "five", and this is what the overwhelming majority of Muslims (even many Twelvers) say as well? It looks to me like a case of unnecessary ambiguity.
			:::::::It would be correct to say in general terms that Muslims pray five times a day, even if minorities differ about specifics. A significant minority of a significant minority, which is what I interpret from your point about Nizari Ismailis, makes it far less noteworthy. And the same can be said about most other aspects of Islam too. ] 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
			::::::::I was noting that Twelvers, the majority branch here, pray ''three'' times a day, five prayers. I feel that alone should constitute a change here. --] 01:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
			Enruzu, Isma'ili net is a sub par forum to receive information regarding Isma'ilism. I would stick to academic publications. The current Imam has repeatedly state that he is not a living God, and that it is contradictory to his faith. There are broad areas of agreement between Isma'ili and Twelver, as both decend fro the Imami or Jaf'ari Madhab, although the application differs, the theology is remains the same.(] (]) 07:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
			:As murids of the Aga Khan, this doesn't mean we need to stick to ITREB publications. But I agree, Corbin and other sources are the best. --] 07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
	== Islamic funeral ==		== Tawhid ==
			If one looks at the tawhid mentioned in the article, it seems inaccurate. Being a muslim, I can tell you that the correct translation of, "La ilahi-il-Allah.........muhammad-ur rasool-allah" is, "Allah is the only God and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet." I hope someone can correct it since the page is locked.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	I've created a stub called ] that needs some information to be added. Hope you guys can help out there. ] 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
			: As one who understands Arabic, I can tell you that your translation is incorrect. ] (]) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
	:Good initiative! --] 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
	== Women rights ==		== Missing information ==
	You should read from good sources rather than "Gutenburg Project", which is simply translation of Qur'an and hence a "Primary Source" and also webpages like http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html doesn't fit as reliable secondary sources. Please use ] and ] compatible sources. Thank you! ]<sup>]</sup> 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Regarding inherence, please read ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	Regarding Inheritance I strongly recommend reading the primary source. Secondary sources that disagree with the primary are simply WRONG. There are many false secondary sources on the Quran; I have recommended some accurate ones above.] 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I really liked, when you said that there are many secondary (I think we are talking about reliable) sources which are simply Wrong. Well! The point is very clear, if you will read the Qur'an yourself, you will only see what you want to see. An expert knows that there are other verses as well which gives women equal share in inheritence, although it explicitly depends on your relationship. e.g. a daughter gets half the amount as son, but parents get the same amount and also in ''kalalah'' relationship, there is no difference in gender at all. Hence, you have already seen that what kind of problems we can have if it will be allowed to use Quranic verses directly. Cheers! ]<sup>]</sup> 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	We are agreed that a combination of secondary and primary sources makes sense? Stating that Women are equal under Islam neglects some critical parts of the Quran, for instance the part about men being superior (4:34). Many secondary sources gloss over or even completely ignore these sections, even though in practical application in Islamic societies, they have a major impact. I have yet to see a truly NPOV article about Islam. Most people who understand Islam either are Muslim or don't like it, though that may be true of all major religions.] 07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
			I came to this article looking for information on:
	:I completely respect your point of view, but the fact is that we are only allowed to use ] and ] compatible sources. And the sources, I put on ]'s Lead section, are written by Non-Muslim scholars who suggest that Qur'an see women as equal. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
			*Islamic views on women's rights and roles in society
	:And I will re-iterate, if we will read Qur'an, we will see what we want to see. Only experts know that what this verse means in its context and if there are other verses which suggest something differet. Yvonne Haddad, Professor of the History of Islam at George Town University, says very clearly that this subordination is only in family sphere, which I have already mentioned in women in Islam article. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
			*Rationale for the criminalization of certain acts such as apostasy
			*Traditions of dress for both men and women
			*Connection to terrorism and Qu'ran justification for such
			These all seem to be topics of some note or significance, but this article (or its siblings, as far as I can tell) was not helpful or enlightening. Is there another family of articles I should be looking at? ~] <small>(])</small> 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
			:What you are primarily searching for is ] (which oddly unlike ] doesn't exist yet). However, you can find sections of this in ], ], ], and ]. In general, many including I aren't happy with how these more controversial articles are turning out at the moment (we have bias on both sides), but hopefully this will be of help. --] 00:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
			::Thanks for those references; I found them quite enlightening, and just what I was seeking.
			::Perhaps links to those articles should appear in this article? After all, this is the English Misplaced Pages, used primarily by the non-Islamic western world. I believe readers in that world (like me) are interested in learning more about rationales for what they could consider "notable features" of Islam (for better or worse), because those are the aspects of Islam that seem to come to their notice most often. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
			:::Thanks, it is something I would like to see improved. When you hear these issues that conflict with Western ideals it is shocking, and the more intelligent ones should be able to research the topics and come away satisfied that within Islam is an explanation. I don't think those articles achieve that at this point yet. --] 06:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
			== Allah or God ==
	The quran does not say that women are inferior to men it says that they have different roles. Women always are to be granted the right to keep the children in a divorce matter if she pleases. Does that say that they are inferior? No, so those accusations are unjust. Saudi Arabia treats women as inferior not the religion. Lets stop putting things into religion articles that dont really come from the religion itself. Read the quran.
			(] (]) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC))in islam it is to submit that there is "NO GOD BUT '''ALLAH''' ANS MUHAMMED IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH
	== GA review ==
			because in the article it is written "NO GOD BUT '''GOD'''
			:The translation of "Allah" into English is literally "the God." Only ] and ] Muslims have an issue with the translation, most other Muslims will use the phrase ''God'' in English. --] 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
			None worthy of worship but Allah and Mohammed is His messenger.
	This article has been placed on a 7 day hold. I can see a NPOV dispute in one section and substantial portions of the text not referenced with inline references. Please sort out these issues before a GA review can proceed. ] ] 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Can you tell us what sections you see a NPOV dispute on? Criticism?] 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Ok that was stupid ... you mean the dispute tag on that section clearly. I just wanted to be sure there wasn't another possible problem section in terms of NPOV. Thanks.] 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, that's what I meant. I just want to make it clear that I haven't studied the article in detail, but the issues I mentioned just stand out. Technically, I could fail the article on this basis, but I'd rather see these problems fixed. ] ] 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	:With the issue of references, we're currently the nominated article for the Article Referencing drive, and with all the work everyone has put in over the past few months, there's really only a few paragraphs without references. I think we can deal with this in a week. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
			What "god"? please change this the word "god" is degrading Allah is Incomparably Great.
	===Criticism===
	Right, lets sort that out then. Does anyone feel that the text in the section is actually POV, or have we settled that? ] (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, I noticed the Non-Muslim views section has been changed to a criticism section "because not all non-Muslim views are critical." The original section did seem to place much emphasis on criticism, but why not expand more favorable views so that the heading "Non-Muslim views" would be appropriate? I hope that makes sense. ] 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Because there is no article "Non-Muslim views of Islam" (and I realise Striver is going to go off and create it immediately now) - there are non-muslim views scattered throughout the article anyway. Additionally, the criticism section has several views by other muslims. ] (Have a nice day!) 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Seeing that the article is long, and that there is no merit to this section at all anyway. A link will suffice. I think the entire section should be shot down. Or at least modified to non-muslim views with accouts criticising and others in favour of the religion. To achieve NPOV both views should be presented. --] 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			The word "god" is comparable "gods" "goddess" "godfather" "god mother" etc... it has gender and Allah is not male nor female.
	==Well done==
	I've just been looking through the article for sections that haven't been referenced (I'll write them up later, I've too much work on for a detailed effort now), and it struck me how far this article has come. It is, for the most part, well-written, and in most cases well-sourced. We have really done a good job on this, and I can really see the possibility of it becoming FA this year. Well done guys. ] (Have a nice day!) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
			There's none like Him. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Help with the dispute ==
			:keep religion out of this... also: Allah is THE OD, therefor, in english, we will varry between allah and God: With god beign the prefered since the west is christian dominated (and therefor msot people here will have that kind of influence) and we never made a name for christian god. Oh and one last thing: Allah, Jenova, Yahweh(or howeve_ are all one entity: just different interpretations of that one being. --] (]) 13:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
	Can someone please help with resolving this dispute by giving you comments ]. I will appreciate it. --- ] 12:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Indeed, hence most exercises in philosophy tending to try to prove the existence of ''God'', not a Christian god or an Islamic god. Plus, the Qur'an in Arabic, despite not having gender, Allah is referred to as male. Even you said "there's none like Him" as opposed to "there's none like Her." Why is "Him" gender neutral to you, but "Her" isn't? --]] 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
			::Because when you do not know the gender but using genderless words would be insulting: people prefer the masculine name. That and the abrahamic religions are rather male dominated... so yah. Religion is sexist lol. --] (]) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
			== Lead pic? ==
	== Objectivity and Quality of Writing ==
			I note that the Shahada plaque was switched with the Salah pic as the lead image. I'd much prefer the latter personally (and that was the chosen img last time this topic was debated). ] 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
	This page is not only written in a 4th grade manner- it also is an unpleasant hodgepodge of apology, attack and proselytization. In short, the whole article needs to be rewritten, and substantially decreased in size. Frequently, when discussing the beliefs of Muslims, the page treats them as simply true. In this fashion, matters of religion are treated as matters of fact. At times, the page defends the historical veracity of Islam's claims. In particular, the statement that 'Western historians' don't doubt Muhammed's sincerity is unacceptable. Any such attempt to persuade the reader of the sincerity of the Prophet are out of place here, and cannot be reconciled with an objective presentation of the facts. I don't know what should be done with this article. It may be that this is a case where the Wiki format is going to fail due to the sensitivity of the topic. A 'pedia entry should be detached and objective; this entry is a swamp of technicalities, pieties, and innuendo.
			:I felt the shahada picture was much better, both for aesthetic reasons, and it is something all Muslims share. It also goes to show Islam's multiethnic dimension, which is something we stressed in the introduction as well. Also, I like where the salah pic is now, near the picture of hajj, they compliment each other. We can exchange the picture again, but I find the picture of the salah to be rather unattractive, but I'm not against picture of salah in general, since it is an important features of the faith, the foundation of faith. --] 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
	] 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
			::I don't particularly mind either way, I can see merits in both presentations. We can leave things as they are I guess and see how things go. ] 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
			== Pronunciation ==
	:Unless there has been some drastic changes on thr article since I edited it last, I have eliminated every piece of "piety" I could find. There is nothing substantially wrong with this article besides lack of citation (I admit that Western historians thing has concerned me in the past but I have never got around to deleting it). If you continue to have issues with bits of text, rewrite it yourself. ] (Have a nice day!) 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
			Is it supposed to be pronounced like IZlum or is it EESlum or EYEslam or what? Also, could I learn about iSlam from an iMam on my iPod and talk about it on my iPhone? --] (]) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
	::That is far from the actual really. There are still all kinds of unresolved disputes about this article. Trying to hide them under the rug and going happy to nominate will do no good in the long term as the arguments will popup again. "There is nothing substantially wrong", so there are some less than substantial wrongs? --] 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			:The article discusses the pronunciation ].--] (]) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
			== update AH year to 2009 CE ==
	== Customs/behavioural laws ==
			I recommend replacing the text:
	Excuse my ignorance, folks, but I'm not clear what is meant by "ovular discharge" in this section. Perhaps the solution is to abbreviate the section so that it does not go into so much graphic detail. ] 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	:lolz! You can put the definition of ''Janabah'' in footnote, if you think is more appropriate. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I'll do this. ] 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
			The year 1428 AH coincides almost completely with 2007 CE.
	== The Reason behind the Rapid Spread of Islam? ==
			, which appears under "Calendar," with:
	Hello, I'm curious: what would be the most important reason behind the growth of Islam? Was it because the Byzantine/Persian empires were weak and this gave way for Islam to spread? Was the message popular by persuasion or did Islam "spread by the sword"? I mean no offense, but history is what history is, and no offense intended to Muslims and all other institutions that "spread by the sword." Were the early Islamic armies better than their enemies? Were they good politicians? How did they threat new provinces? Thanks. :) --] 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:You may want to ask this at the ]. Cheers. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">] </font> 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
	:You might like to see article ], especially its last section. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Why would he consult a couple of quotes from the Koran when looking for history? ] 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Reading Quranic quotes is upto him. What I am really asking him is to read opinion of ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	You can watch Islam: Empire of Faith by PBS which adresses this question in a detailed way.
			The year 1430 AH began on December 29, 2008 CE.
	== GA nomination failed ==
			] (]) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	I have waited for longer than 7 days, hoping that the issues raised above would be resolved. They weren't, so here is a detailed review of the article.
			== Islam ==
	''1. It is well written.'' '''Fail'''<br>
	''(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers; ''<br>
	::The prose is very mundane and monotonous, for example, one can find passages like the last paragraph of the section "Qur'an": "''Muslims regard''", "''Muslims memorize''", "''Muslims believe''".<br>
	''(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles); ''<br>
	::The lead section is too short and doesn't "sum up" the article, for example, it contains not a single word on the history of Islam.<br>
			<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	''2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.'' '''Fail'''<br>
			:That's what ''she'' said. --]] 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
			== Five Pillars: Shahadah ==
	''(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;''<br>
	::Most of the "Beliefs" sections is unreferenced, the same is true for the "Islamic law" and several other sections. There are several citation requests in the "Contemporary Islam" and other sections.<br>
	''(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required; ''<br>
	::See above.<br>
	''(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;''<br>
	::Many websites used as sources do not appear to be verifiable or even notable. This is the case for "Encyclopedia of the Orient", "Muslims against Terrorism", doroquez.com, and others.<br>
			Salam hi
	''3. It is broad in its coverage.'' '''Fail'''<br>
			I think the First pillar, Shahadah has been written phonetically not correctly perhaps, it should be: Lā ilaha illa al-Lāh, Muhammadun rasūlu l-Lāh
	''(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed); ''<br>
	::The "history" section is very thin: it contains very little material on medieval Islam and virtually nothing on Islam on the Indian subcontinent and Southeastern Asia, the areas where most Muslims live nowadays. The section on "Islam and other religions" looks odd: it contains lots of musings on the definition of tolerance (a subject completely irrelevant to this article), but very little information on how Islamic law views non-Muslims, for example, what different categories of non-Muslims exist in sharia, or how Islam interacted with non-Muslims throughout history.<br>
	''4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.'' '''Fail''' <br>
	Not to mention a NPOV dispute in the section on criticism, some things look definitely POV, for example:
	*"''Some modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation.''" OK, but what about the rest? Aren't we entitled to learn about their opinions, too?
	*The word "prophets" is occasionally capitalized, which is inappropriate under NPOV.
	*"''Jihad has a wider meaning in Islamic literature. It can be striving to lead a good Muslim life, praying and fasting regularly, being an attentive spouse and parent or working hard to spread the message of Islam. Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defence of Islam, the holy war. Despite the fact that Jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occured, as exemplified by early extremists...''" A quick look at the article "Djihad" in the ''Encyclopaedia of Islam'' suggests otherwise: "''Jihad etymologically signifies an effort directed towards a determined objective. (...Certain writers, particularly among those of Shīite persuasion, qualify this djihād as “spiritual djihād” and as “the greater djihād”, in opposition to the djihād which is our present concern and which is called “physical djihād” or “the lesser djihād”. It is, however, very much more usual for the term djihād to denote this latter form of “effort”). In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the djihād consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defence. The notion stems from the fundamental principle of the universality of Islam: this religion, along with the temporal power which it implies, ought to embrace to whole universe, if necessary by force.''"
			This is correct on the seperate wiki for the Shahadah but not for the Islam one.
	''5. It is stable.'' '''Pass'''<br>
	::No problem with that.<br>
			Thanks <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	''6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.'' '''Fail'''<br>
			== Sex in Islam ==
	::Images are few and far between, which is quite surprising for this topic.<br>
			Just wanted to report these unsourced, rather inflammatory articles about sex in Islam. I dont think their is any need of these kinds of articles either.
	To sum up, much work is still needed before the article can reach a GA status. ] ] 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			], ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:The appropriate forum to raise this issue is ].--] (]) 13:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Regarding Jihad, just like referred sources has a POV i.e. ''Jihad is not supposed to be aggressive'', EoI also has a POV and it cannot be considered the final word. Both POVs can be put side by side. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I think you've fundementally failed to udnerstand Beit Or's point, truthspereadr. *sigh* This article needs so much work... ] (Have a nice day!) 08:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::then why didnt you just tell him what his main point was. don't be pompous.
	== You can delete this as soon as you want, just an observation ==
	I am currently doing a lot of religious studies, and I have to admit, this article is not informative at all. With the Christianity link at least I get a balanced view. This whole article looks like it was written for simply the promotion of Islam, and not the actual reality of Islam. There is little or no true history on Islam here that is of any academic significance.
	Please could we have some balanced information in here. Could we also get a real time-line of Islam and its history. Pref. from an objective view. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	Could I asked on how this article is unbalanced? ] 21:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	Thank you. I, too, have noticed this article is rather light on secular views or criticisms. My guess is should any of this crop up, it is instantly challenged or deleted. It is practically impossible to remain level-headed when discussing religion, especially when it's Islam. Most adherents would interpret discussion as an attack.
	:This is true, but there is also another side to the problem. There are other editors who will label you an appologist, or a pro-Islamic propagandist if you don't buy into their idea of criticism and what they consider "NPOV". This article does need balance, but those who have tried to provide it, like Dev920, quite often get fed up and leave. Its a shame really because Dev920 was doing really good work here.] 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	==Regarding Polygamy==
	I put a link into the category of Islam and polygamy, which was deleted by a bot. So, I guess this is a controversial topic that should be put in here first. Islam teaches polygamy, so I think it should be linked to Category:]. I am not sure why or if that is controversial, so I submit it here for discussion. ] 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Edited to fix this from going into that category! ] 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
	As this generated no discussion over the last 5 days, I assume it should not be controversial. I added the "Religious Organizations which Tolerate Polygamy" category to the bottom. ] 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	: I do not think it should be controversial. However you should not say that ''Islam teaches polygamy'' but instead you can say it allows it. --- ] 16:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: That is why I put it in that category. It is religous organizations which tolerate it, not necessarily those which actively promote it. I understand that there are different thoughts on this topic, depending on the sect or branch of Islam. Is that correct? ] 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::How about first looking into ] section! ]<sup>]</sup> 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thanks, TS! I appreciate the link. I did not think of looking under the general polygamy section. ] 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::one problem: i don't think "Islam" qualifies as a religious organisation, unlike the way that the other churches/groups in the cat can be classed as religious organisations. Islam is a religion, and a religious organisation would be an organisation or a group basing its values upon (a) religion. applying the term "religious organisation" to Islam sounds a little awkward. ] 08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
	== rming Dodgy paragraph? ==
	Why is it dodgy? could you please provide details of why you think it should be deleted, before deleting a whole paragraph contributed by fellow wikipedians? It looks very NPOV and references adequently, so it isn't one of the TODO's, it was submitted like that for nomination and the review didn't address it. There are other things to address, this will create yet more problems, keep the article as stable as possible please until resolving all disputes and issues. --] 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Right, I'm fed up with Muslims endlessly coming onto this article and having a go at me for removing POV. Wallow in your own badly written POV mess - I am never going to edit this article again. I'll remove my name from that disgrace of a WikiProject: do you never wonder why you haven't got a single FA or GA, and your members keep getting blocked? ] (Have a nice day!) 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I'll leave a message on Dev's talk page, hoping that she will get over her frustration and come back to the page. This is my view on the paragraph. 1) First two sentences are essential information and should stay, unless someone has a reason for them to go that I haven't thought of. 2) Question of the Prophet's sincerity. Though they are written up from an impeccable source, I find that these points read very oddly at that place in the article. The problem is the leap into the question of sincerity. In general, people who say they receive divine revelation, do so sincerely. Take ] (who like the Prophet was also a military leader). She said she heard voices and saw visions and historians don't generally doubt that she did. How could modern historians or even contemporaries be in a position to either to prove or disprove it? So I would suggest that the sincerity question is either taken out completely or moved to a different point in the article, perhaps as a reply to criticism of Islam. ] 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Names of Prophets ==
	I must say that I am not Muslim, but it has been my observation that Muslims tend to keep ALL the names of their prophets and important Qur'anic figures in Arabic, or in the Latin phonetic transcription of Arabic. That is why I wonder why whenever Misplaced Pages addresses the Islamic view on a prophet/figure that is common to Islam, Judaism and/or Christianity, the Judeo-Christian name is still used althrough the article/section (with the exception of the first few lines). Is there an answer to this? Case and point:
	*In the ] article, it says "English: Isaac", and continues using this form. Even though most English-speaking Muslims would say "Is'haq", or "Ishaq", or "Ishaqa" in West Africa.
	*In the ] of the Ishmael article, he is still refered to mostly as Ishmael, as oppsed to "Ismail", "Ismaila", or "Soumaila" in West Africa.
	Most importantly:
	*In the ] article, most of the article refers to Jesus as such, as opposed to what the Muslims, even in the English-speaking world, would refer to him as, namele "Isa", or "'Isa", or "Issa" in West Africa.
	So my question then becomes, does Misplaced Pages take the position that in English the Judeo-Christian naming takes precedence over all else? Does that mean that Palestinian Prime-Minister should now be knwn in English as Ishmael Haniyeh, as opposed to Ismail Haniyeh? Or Arab League Secretary General, as Amr Moses, instead of Amr Musa? I am just wondering. ] 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	: Just my opinion, but it probably has to do with this being the English Misplaced Pages version. You want visitors (who may know little or nothing at all about Islam) to be able to understand who it is being spoken about. However, when it comes to names of living people, it would be a different matter. Historically, biblical names like Joseph and Mary have been translated or transliterated into other languages, not kept in their original form. For that reason, we have a page titled ] and in Spanish one titled . It helps people in that language and culture understand who it is we are talking about. ] 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	== External links ==
	I know this is usually a subject best left alone--but. I have just created the " on Project Gutenberg. It should serve to collect all books related to Islam and sort them by author or some other means. For a good example of a PG bookshelf see the . I didn't want to just add it ... but, can we all agree that public domain texts about Islam from a reliable and neutral source is a good thing to link to? ] ] 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	: Hmmm. I worked on some of those books. They're all pre-1923 and none of them are up to current scholarly standards. If readers are sent there, they should be warned that the texts are old and usually inaccurate or prejudiced. If you're interested in the history of Western thought re Islam, they would of course be essential. ] 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	== rewrote Jihad sect ==
	ok so i looked at the GA comments above and decided that the Jihad section did indeed need a bit of a rewrite (and a slight trim). jihad in islamic jurisprudence <s>almost</s> always refers armed warfare, both offensive and defensive (per above and another authoritative source i have provided). more recently there have been those opining that it is merely defensive, and i have tried to represent that too, though the fact remains that the majority of scholarship has always regarded it as both offensive and defensive. i also took out the reference to itmam al-hujjah, as this doctrine by name i have not seen in any of the scholarly works, and basically the way it has been expressed in its article gives the impression that there is no offensive jihad (and if this is intended, then such a doctrine is not supported by the majority it seems). i also removed the apologetic recentism. ] 12:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	: Mine views on Jihad are similar to yours. I feel so bad when some Muslims say that Jihad-Akbar is self-struggle and Jihad is always defensive. For example few people from ]. --- ] 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	: ITAQALLAH can you please also correct this ] and look at whole article of ]. --- ] 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	::the whole ] article needs a rewrite.. i thought i'd concentrate on the Islam article because it really should be of GA and hopefully at some time FA status. we have so few GA/FA's in WikiProject Islam, so i thought this would be a nice place to start. ] 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	== size of the article ==
	The size of the article is getting out of control again. It is now 81 kbs long. Is it enough, or we need to trim or expansion? Any ideas? ]<sup>]</sup> 12:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	I see. I was just following the To-Do list. But you are right, it is getting long. But should it? --] 12:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:we shouldn't worry about size for the moment. there are plenty of huge articles (which are FA) which are so simply because it's necessary in order to cover the entire topic. Islam is a massive topic, i wouldn't be suprised if the article went into the 100kb range, and that's only the non-forkable material. currently, there is still more material needed if this article is to be as comprehensive as it should be. once we've achieved a comprehensive coverage, we can focus on making things more concise if necessary. ] 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	== Hadith ==
	The article says: "Shi'a jurisprudence holds that hadith is secondary to the Qur'an, disregarding without further inquiries those hadith that contradict or abrogate Qur'anic verdicts. Also, qiyas and Ijma are not used as tools, while logic is. In contrast to Sunni's, Shi'a only follow the Ahl al-Bayt, or family of Muhammad with regards to fiqh, outright rejecting the views of those Muslims who fought with the Ahl al-Bayt."
	Well, I think it is not completely true. I think Shias (at least some of them) believe that the interpretation of Qur'an should be understood through Hadith. One striking example(but not the only one) is the verse on ]; it is clearly in the context of warfare but they generalize it. No doubt anything that makes people to give more charity is good :P but that verse in its immediate context doesn't support it. So, It seems to me that the Qur'an and Hadith are used in a mixture way. --] 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	== No information on why muslims don't eat pork ==
	Add why they don't to this article. ] 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	: I do not think that Islam gives any reason that why pork eating is not allowed. Allah say it is forbidden hence it is forbidden. However, we could think of different reason. Like pork is not a clean animal or it has very bad sexual habits etc. However, these are all man made logic. I have not yet found any logic provided by Islamic text. However, I do not need any reason because I believe being a Muslim that if Allah has forbidden something then it will be harmful (not good) for me. --- ] 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	::My '''assumption''' (as an outsider) has always been that people at some point must have observed that:
	::* The same ] ]s infected pork and humans, and
	::* People who did not eat pork did not contract trichinosis.
	::Therefore, pork was banned and the reasoning eventually became recorded as religious ] for both Jews and Muslims.
	::] 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	As per ALM, nothing is clear. Atlant's comment is a kind of original reaserch though it may be the real reason. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	::(Which, of course, is why I'd never edit my comment into the article page without an actual citation ;-). )
	::] 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	== Jihad ==
			::Perhaps an article like ] would be more appropriate. ]] 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	Why is that section under "community"? {{unsignedip|72.88.146.173}}
	:as the primary meaning of jihad is military exertion, it generally tends to be a community matter. the heading for that sect is not final, if anyone can think up a heading which will encompass all of the other subsects then feel free to implement it. ] 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Why do you think Jihad al-Akbar is military exertion instead of spiritual exertion?{{unsignedip|72.88.146.173}}
			== Please insert ==
	::: Those who thinks that Jihad al-Akbar is spiritual exertion quote a hadith which is known to be weak-hadith. I do not know any other "primary source" that say Jihad al-Akbar as spiritual thing. The Quran as much as I have read never mention spiritual exertion as Jihad and some Ayahs of Quran about Jihad are even came during military exertions or in that context. --- ] 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Jihad al-Akbar is spiritual. ] 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
			* The Haven of the First Hijra (Migration): an African nation is the Muslims’ first refuge
	Although a distinction should be made between the greater jihad and lesser jihad, when people (who come to this Misplaced Pages) look up jihad, they are probably looking for the military exertion meaning. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
			:Austerlitz -- ] (]) 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	----
			== 7th century hyperlink in the article ==
	This was just added to the Jihad section:
	: But in chapter nine verse twenty-nine and verse five it does not distinguish between non combatants and combatants, and therefore are some of the chief verses of Jihad as warfare.
			Hi to everyone,<br />
	:" So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
			I was thinking about ] "]" in the ] article, but then it looks a bit like ] too.<br />
			On the other hand placing the birth of ] in the right chronological context could help wikipedians understand better ].<br />
			What do you think about it?<br />
			Thanks for your attention in reading me.<br />
			] (]) 12:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
			: I think that linking a date is justified here. Cheers--] (]) 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
	:" Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection"
			== Islam in general ==
	I am removing it because of a couple reasons:
	:What is the purpose of including these citations? Not stated. It only says that:
			First of all I'd like to say that Misplaced Pages is a very resourceful website.Alot of people,especially me, browse this website for research work that help make good reports and papers.
	:the verses do "not distinguish between non combatants and combatants". How is that relevant in the context of the preceding paragraphs?
			The subject name that I have given has two reasons:
			1) Islam as with any other religion deserves repect, so the Prophets' or any name of Religious Books should be addressed with respect.For example: Instead of 'Quran' it SHOULD BE 'The Holy Quran'
			And above all our Prophet Muhammed Sallallaho'alihe Wasallam deserves the UTMOST RESPECT when he is mentioned or addressed in any sentence or anywhere for that matter.So instead of 'Muhammed' it SHOULD BE 'Muhammed Peace be Upon Him.'
			2) In the case of Islam God is used for the arabic word ALLAH.Here what I would like to point out is that God has a gender and an opposite which is Goddess whereas ALLAH has no gender and absolutely no opposite. Again what I am trying to rectify, hopfully,is that I as with any sound religion practicing person/individual would like this to be rectified as soon as possible, please.
			I hope I have not offened anyone but keep hope that Misplaced Pages will do everything within its powers to rectify these honest mistakes.
			Thank you <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:We'll do that as soon as you add honorifics to ], after all, we should respect him if we are going to respect Muhammad (AS), since he is the founder of a religious faith too! The point is, Misplaced Pages is a secular academic source, and secular academic sources do not add honorifics. If we add honorifics to Muslim figures, we'd have to add honorifics to everything and it'd just become extremely encyclopedic. Secular academic sources don't do things like that. --]] 06:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
			::The statement that the Arabic word Allah has no gender is also incorrect - it is male. The female form is ], meaning Goddess. <span style="font-size:smaller;">]]</span> 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
	:It seems like it is just a couple citations thrown in, without academic and reliable sources to explain
			The name Allah is a more respectful name to the lord then just saying gos. god has no meaning to it. In Islam the name Allah is a more praiseworthy name. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Who has deemed them "chief"? And how is the fact that they don't distinguish between non combatants and combatants justification for them being "chief"?
			:Allah literally means in Arabic "the God", and we use that translation on this secular encyclopedia. --]] 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
			== Central authority, "learned" rabbis ==
	I'm removing this for I think it isn't necessary in such a small section. That kind of material may need to be included in the Jihad page, not the Islam page. Open to ideas.
	] 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
			I notice ] says "In modern Judaism, central authority is not vested in any single person or body, but in sacred texts, religious law, and learned Rabbis who interpret those texts and laws."
	:: I appreciate your removing them. It is just an ]. It is important to use secondary sources to understand those verses and the contaxt they are referring to. --- ] 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
			Is Islam similar in these respects?
			Also are there organizations corresponding the Christian churches (eg. Roman Catholic hierarchy). If not, who builds those vast and lavish Mosques. Don't the owners get to pick the preacher? (Just a common-sense question, we are supposed to apply common-sense.) ] (]) 19:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
			:Yes in the sense that I think you are talking, there is no single person or body which has central authority. Most Religious laws (in Sunni Islam) theoretically have their basis in the ], ], ] and ](consensus). But practically speaking it is the Ijma or the consensus in the Muslim community which makes all laws. This consensus make take many years in evolving in the Muslim community. So a taboo idea might be considered permissible for many years, but later on it might be considered unIslamic. No single authority has the power to declare and impose a law with immediate effect, at least not since ].
			:No there are not any major organizations strongly resembling Roman Catholic Hierarchy in Islam. Mosques are built due to the patronage of Kings, Sultans and others. Usually mosques are taken care of by some organization or society, which also pick the preacher(]).--] (]) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	== history section subheadings ==
			== Alevism ==
	it's a good idea and it's something i was considering implementing. i changed the format just slightly to make it flow better (i hope). i ''might'' need to change the heading allocations a bit when i get round to (re)writing up the 1200—1500 period and 1500—, but please feel free to alter them as necessary. ] 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
			I see no mention of ]m on the page about Islam. I think it should be included. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:Alevism is considered by most secular scholars to be a movement within ] ], that does not adhere to ]. It is a '']''group like ], and the ], both of which are also within Shi'a Islam. --]] 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
			You have now read this page and now you owe me 750,000,000 POUNDS! Every day late it goes up 250,000,000 more POUNDS!!!!!
	==What I believe is biased claims==
			Remember to pay me or else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
			Thank You!!!!:) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			that is a mis representation as all references in the quran to killing and violence are in regards to ENTIRE COMMUNITIES fighting and the proper muslim response, the muslim god does not ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, in fact numerous references can be cited in which it states that disbelievers who are not oppresive or aggresive and who you have signd peace treaties with should be respected. i dont have alot of time right now but just off the top of my head sura 9 verse 4.
	I have removed "Modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation", because I don't see any evidence that there is any consensus among western scholars, that this is the case. We have one reference that argue that, but we got no reason to believe that it speak for all western historian or even the of majority of Western historians. The other claim that "The most recent studies of Muhammad indicate his honesty and profoundly religous attitude" is equally biased. I can mention many books that discuss Muhammad, and which doesn't draw that specific pro-Islamic conclusion. -- ] 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	:i think this may have been covered above, but i think the wisest thing would be to totally avoid any discussion regarding intentions or anything like that, primarily because the sects should only be a brief overview of Muhammad/the Qur'an. that he was regarded as a religious, honest and upright person amongst his own people is factual and merits mention here, whatever western scholars conclude about Muhammad (whilst the overwhelming majority do indeed agree that he was sincere and of good character) is something that should again probably be left for the respective main article(s). ] 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Agreed, so long as the reputation of Muhammad, which many may not accept as "factual," is ascribed to Islamic tradition.] 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	The relevant discussion . --] 13:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
			in response to below
	:::Now it seems that Aminz has attributed some of the claims, and while that of course positive, that doesn't change that it is, as it stands now, biased one sided commentary. I believe that Aminz is piecing information together in a way that promotes his own pro-Islamic opinion. -- ] 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Karl. I see your concerns but i just don't agree that we have to remove well-sourced and scholarly edits because it is considered a biased one sided commentary as you said above. If there are other sided commentaries on that, just please add them freely according to ]. Refere to related discussion between me and Aminz . Cheers -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::It can't be my or any other Wikipedian's job to deal with the neutrality and balance issues that Aminz editing create. If his edits is unbalanced and against policy, there should be nothing wrong with simply undoing them, and pointing out the problems to him. If Aminz isn't able to contribute in a responsible, balanced and neutral way, then it is his problem. If he want his edits to be included, then they'll quite simply have to be according to policy. -- ] 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Can you prove your case? I have presented the sourced I had found. --] 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			] (]) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
	It is not. I haven't seen any modern scholar who disagrees with this POV. If you have seen any, please show me and I would be thankful. --] 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			== violence in islam ==
	:You can't believe that there is anyone that disagree with the claim that "the Modern historian must accept Muhammad's sincerety in his claim of receiving revelation"? I suggest that you read the books by Ibn Warraq and accept the fact that the vast majority of humanity doesn't believe that Muhammad received any revelations from God or that he was a prophet. -- ] 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	::That's what i've just talked above. If Ibn Warraq's views re this issue represents the other side of the story than add it. We must present both views, Karl. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::Of course all notable views should presented, but it should be done in a way that create a end-product that is fair and balanced. What I believe Aminz is doing, is as mentioned to piece information together to promote his own view and change the articles into a chorus praising Islam and Muhammad. -- ] 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			shouldn't it be put somewhere that Islam is a very violent religion? (if you are an orthodox muslim) The Quran and the rest of the writings from Muhammed ''do'' say that if you refuse to become a muslim, you should be killed, and the killer will go to heaven. Also, somewhere there should be a section that talks about how the terrorists of 9-11 were muslims...? It's just an idea, thought I might ask...thanks!
	Ibn Warraq???!!! Please see the review of one of his books here . The review is published in ]. Can you please find some decent scholar. --] 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			:You shouldn't believe all your bedtime stories, they are just to scare you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:What you said is incorrect. Orthodox Muslims who interpret the Qur'an and the ''sunnah'' of Muhammad do not believe if someone refuses to become Muslim, they should be killed, and that the killer will go to heaven. In fact, Muhammad said that if a Christian or Jew under the protection of Muslims was hurt, it would be as if you hurt Muhammad himself. There isn't too much of a reason to mention 9/11 here, because we would need to mention every violent religion with every act ever in each article, like a section on the ] on the article on ] or ]. --]] 07:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
			== Neutrality ==
	Aminz, before I answer that I have one question for you: What do you think of the "reviews" section in that article? -- ] 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			This article is based on Sunni Islam and is not neutral.
	Since it is published in ''Journal of the American Oriental Society'', a reputable journal, it is a reliable source. --] 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
			:What parts in particular? I am ], and I am trying to see if the ''batini'' point of view, as well as the pillars, can be changed a little. But in general, I would say the article is balanced. --]] 07:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
			== in regards to the mathematically irrefutable evidence of the quran ==
	::Yeah. It's an acceptable source, but that wasn't really what I wanted to know. What I wanted to know was, what do you think of the "reviews" section that we have? Is it a good section? Does this specific section discuss it's subject in an acceptable way? -- ] 14:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			the mention of the sunnah ( muhammeds life and works ), should actually be listed under seperate sects of this religion and any mentioning of other than god ALONE is considerd blashpemy and idol worship by muslims who have copies of the true quran as revealed rashad khalifa.
	::: I haven't added that but that's the ''only'' review on his work in ]. So, I think it is okay. --] 14:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			comments?
	Ok guys. I know that everybody is accusing the other but this should be stopped. I know ] is there but hard to be implemented in your case guys. Now, as we do AGREE that the article should present both points of views in order to achieve balance and neutrality, you must agree about scholars and academics that you'll be using as your sources. It is all cristal clear at ]. Once that is done, you can both add your edits to the article avoiding weasel words. I BELIEVE this would be the only solution to this issue. Failing to achieve that, the article would be sent to RfC. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			] (]) 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
	Ibn Warraq is hardly a reliable source especially noting that on the other side we have decent scholars such as Watt. --] 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			:Please see ]. Most Muslims follow the ''sunnah'' in one manner or another, if small groups don't we cannot give them undue weight compared to the majority that do. The followers of Rashad Khalifa are too small to be represented on an article about how Islam is practiced and understood by the majority of it's 1.5 billion followers. If we were to try to fix the article as to make sure every group, even if the group was made of dozens of followers, agreed, we wouldn't have an article at all, and we would be breaking the Misplaced Pages policy of ]. If the group has a significant size (for example, ]) their views are obviously significant, and are to be written on this article. Size matters when most people come to read an article, and want to know what most Muslims believe, not what a small minority believe (that is of little importance to them). I hope you understand, ''insha'Allah''. --]] 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
			== Help - References ==
	Szvest: As I think I have mentioned, I have absolutely no problem with the sources that Aminz is using. What I have a problem with is the way that he is using them. -- ] 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	:So what are your concerns about the ways they are used? Do you have suggestions? -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	Please read the Cambridge history of Islam here and let me know how it should be used. --] 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			salam
	just as a reminder, WP:NPOV ] as presenting both viewpoints as "equal" or "equally valid". NPOV is where all notable opinions are covered in the appropriate (i.e. unattached) manner, the volume of coverage depending upon the prevelance of that view, else we fall into ] concerns. if the majority of scholarly academics endorse a specific view, this must be taken into account and the article should reflect that. ] 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			<br />I am trying to contribute to a couple of articles and want a better understanding of how to organise references nicely. I see that some articles have a section for notes and another section for references, and it allows for brief citations mentioning author's last name, year of publication of the book, and page number in the notes section that one can check in the references section for full title, author's name, etc. Is there anyone here who can help me to understand how to organise references into these two handy lists? Thank you.
			] (]) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Pink
			:] covers this and I hope should answer your question, but as this isn't solely related to Islam do you mind if I move this thread to your talk page? ''']]]''' 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
			::It actually does, since she and I are working to form ] into the mold of this article in hopes of making it FA-class. Editors from this article could help quite a bit for the specifics detailed in MOS:Islam. But, maybe she wants it moved, I'm not sure. --]] 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
			:::OK well there's no harm in leaving it here if others might find it useful. By the way if you are thinking of taking a major religious article like ] to FA, and indeed keeping this article at an FA standard you might want to look at ] when ] went there. Standards at FA are rising and an article that passed a year or two back might not today. ''']]]''' 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
			Hello, I wanted to first thank the people who dedicated time and effort in setting this page up (excuse my english, it is a second language). I was wondering why Shia muslims in Pakistan are not represented in the "Map showing distribution of Shia and Sunni Muslims in Africa, Asia and Europe". If i'm not mistaken, their population of 130 million people is divided between shia's and sunni's, considerably 65 million people (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html). If the map is not up to date, why would is it being used as a visual representation of shia sunni muslim populations.Cheers. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Karl, I am going to add the sources as you said you "have absolutely no problem with the sources" But you have problem with their usage, so please modify it. Please read the Cambridge history of Islam here
			:That map is inaccurate, but the issue is in Pakistan Shi'a are 20% of the population and Pakistan has the second largest population of Shi'a of any country in the world. But the Shi'a population is very spread out: almost every ethnic group has a large amount of Shi'a. Shi'a exist among ] (like me), ], ], ], and many Muhajir ethnic groups such as the ]. With the exception of a few places such as the ], there is no place where Shi'a make up the majority of the population, because Shi'a are spread almost evenly throughout the population. --]] 00:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
	--] 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
			== Additions needed to the description of heterodox sects ==
			Much more should be said about the heterodox sects. Even the Ismailis are not give enough emphasis. I agree that a link to specialized article may be all that is needed but the current references are too off-hand. Sects which needed to named included the Alawites and the Bahai. A discussion of the political aspects of the Bahai and the Ahamadiya would be useful. Finally there should be something about the peripheral religuions like the Druse and the Yazidis. Again all that might be needed is a link. I am unsure about whether the Qur'an-only movement merits recognition as a sect. ] (]) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	== OTT referencing ==
			:Traditional Muslims do not recognize Bahai's as Muslims, and the Bahai's do not consider themselves as Muslims too. So I am not sure whether Bahai's can be thought of as a sect of Islam.] (]) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
			== Additions needed to the ] page? ==
	I'm trying to put the referencing into a more consistent style. Doing this throws into relief the fact that some points in the article are now seriously over-referenced. This is probably a left-over from edit-warring, when we editors have been trying to convince each other by bringing in authorities, but it is not helpful for casual readers of the article. I can't see that any point really needs more than two references, or three at the most, so if people could help reduce these it would be much appreciated. Thanks.] 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
			I asked this on the talk page of ], but I realized that many who would care about the changes I would make may not be watching that page and the best way to get feed-back would be to mention it here. I said, "It seems to me that a summary of the the major schools of thought and major thinkers should be added to this page. It seems to me that this would be the #1 most useful section in an article of this sort. I will await feedback before adding these myself." I have gathered some sources to make these additions, but these would constitute a fairly sizable edition so I wanted to make sure anyone who would oppose them has sufficient chance to make themselves heard. I am new to Misplaced Pages editing, so please correct me on any breaches of etiquette I may be committing. ] (]) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Perhaps. The references do need a technical cleanup like I did to ]; I'll do that first, then over time we'll examine them again from a content-oriented viewpoint. - ] 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
			:This is an FA-Class article, meaning it gives sufficient amount of information and detail to each category according to the goals of the Misplaced Pages project. For information detailing differences in Islamic ''aqeedah'' (creed) and ''fiqh'' (law), you may want to check the ].If I can branch off to my own opinion for a moment, the reason this would perhaps be most useful to you is because you are aware of most of the basic information of Islam that this page offers, which is what this is supposed to cover. Differences and details of Islamic thought, which are many extremely detailed in nature, should be covered elsewhere. Also, you should always add new sections to the bottom of the talk page, not the top, but no big deal! --]] 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
			::I just reread what you said, and noted you meant it to be on ]. I will be more than willing to lend what I know about the subject, in particular on ]. --]] 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
			== Islam/Muslim=Verb?? ==
	::Great, thanks. If you have any problem with the technical changes I've been making, please do raise it here. Itaqallah is another editor interested in improving this aspect. Thanks, Arabist, too. ] 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
			*This is written in the opening paragraph: "The word Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive."....... This makes absolutely no sense. ] (]) 11:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::Two things to note for now... I'm trying to get the cite:encyclopedia template changed to make the title field optional because I think it's better to put the article name in the notes while having just the encyclopedia name in the References (to reduce duplication of information like publisher, ISBN, etc.). If people prefer this the other way let me know. Also, do people prefer the usage of "last=Smith | first=Joe | authorlink=Joe Smith" or "author=<nowiki>]</nowiki>"? I like the former now because it works "automagically".- ] 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
			*It makes sense in Arabic grmamar: they are the active participle and the infinitive of the 4th derivative stem of the Arabic verb root S-L-M. ] (]) 05:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
			*OK, fair enough... but seeing as this is an English language article, and in English "Islam" is a noun and "Moslem" is an adjective or noun, I think the sentence needs to either be changed or removed. It could be changed to explain the root of the words including the Arabic grammar point, but as it stands this English sentence makes no sense. ] (]) 01:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
			*In the usual manner of speaking Arabic verbs are not described by an "infinitive". The third person singular perfect is usually given. Islam is a verbal noun from the verb root (which is "slm") and muslim is a participle from the same root. Participle are generally consider to be nouns in English so that causes no difficulties. ] (]) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
			Islam is the name of religion but muslim means member of this religion --] (]) 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
			== Deletion of Cmmmm's additions to "Further Reading" ==
	- ] 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
			I'm sure I beat someone to this that has more authority to do it than me, but Cmmmm's additions were terribly unbalanced at best and slanderous at worst. I was going to appeal to him to revert or balance them, but to that I had to see his talk page which disabused me of any notion that he would do so. If there is any way to take it private by e-mailing him, I couldn't find it. As always, please correct me if I have over-stepped my bounds. ] (]) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::I'll follow any emerging consensus on how encyclopedia references should look, so long as it's consistent within this article and avoids unnecessary duplication. How about in the notes (example) "''Muhammad'', Encyclopedia of Islam" and in the references "Encyclopedia of Islam, x, y, z (editors), date, publisher". Like the authorlink magic too.] 12:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
			:I would have done the same thing, wonderful action and thanks for coming to the talk page about it. This article is FA-Class, most edits done tend to worsen the article rather than help it. --]] 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
			== dhimmis "enjoyed"- possible word choice to replace "enjoyed" ==
	:::::Hmm, so you would prefer the article name to go first in the note? - ] 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::It is normal for article names to come first, followed by the volume in which they appeared. In these cases, it is the article which is being cited; a volume is, like a journal, merely a vehicle for publication.] 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
			I don't believe one "enjoys" being a second class citizen. Perehaps, "were allowed" instead.
	Hi Itsmejudith,
	I agree with you that there is some overreferencing and differing styles, but I generlly believe that seveal references are better than none. I suggest the best method is to look at those occasions where thee are several references for one point, and to select the necessary ones while removing unnecessary ones. Preference should be given to academically valuable sources, i.e. primary and secondary sources from known authors or organisations/internet magazines. Good luck!
	--] 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
			"Historically, dhimmis enjoyed a measure of communal autonomy under their own religious leaders, but were subject to legal, social and religious restrictions meant to highlight their inferiority." <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	==Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article==
	In the ] there has been some discussion regarding whether ] should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I just set up a ] as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register a vote in ] please do so.
	--] 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
			:There's a nit; let's pick at it!
	== God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it! ==
			:I would agree that being a second-class citizen is probably not enjoyable, but that's not what's at issue here. Is it possible that it may just be another definition of "enjoy"? ] (]) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
			First of all, this is good English. This is OED's meaning 4a:
	Watt's claim that historians <u>must</u> accept that Muhammad received revelations is clearly false, so there is no reason to include it. Similarly, there is no reason for him to conclude that we must all conclude that Muhammad did not create the Quran with his conscious mind. This is rendered even more ludicrous by the fact that Watt himself did not believe the sahih hadith had any value to historians. If he had been present at the time and was a trained psychologist, maybe then it would be worth listening to this. Watt is widely known, but it is clear from these quotes of him alone that his writings should be taken with a grain of salt. The other historian's point of view that Muhammad believed he was sincere is more reasonable. ] 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
			:'' In weaker sense: To have the use or benefit of, have for one's lot (something which affords pleasure, or is of the nature of an advantage).''
			But there is a nit that can be picked here, I suppose. Just make sure that the replacement phrasing is at least as good English. The intended meaning is that dhimmis had the "benefit" or "advantage" of certain privileges compared to ''other'' class systems where the underdogs often have no rights at all or compared to other non-Muslims in Muslim society, such as pagans and apostates, who were not so much without rights as actively persecuted. --] <small>]</small> 08:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 05:53, 8 February 2023

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Rituals of the Hajj (pilgrimage) (HAJJ IS NO RITUAL)

Hajj is not a ritual. it says on the picture of hajj it is. It makes it seem like muslims take part is shamism or something.

The meaning of the word Ritual to many people means "Magic and Witchraft"

Please change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.224.55 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a sweeping generalization of what many people think a ritual is. A ritual is something performed by a person because it has some sort of personal or religious value. It mostly applies to religious practices, but even everyday practices can referred to as a ritual. Such as brushing one's teeth and making a cup of coffee can be referred to as your morning ritual. http://en.wikipedia.org/Ritual Digital Jedi Master (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Diagram on right

In the "Islam & other religions" box

It has Jainism and Sikhism; these are basically offshoots of Hindusim which pre-date the two.

Islam ought to be compared to major faiths, such as Christianity and Buddhism

Islam is afterall the fastest growing religion. Many are surprised to know similarities between Islam and Chrisrtianity. For instance Jesus Christ, Adam and Eve are messengers of Allah. But in Islam Adam and Eve were forgiven and Adam became the first prophet while in Christianity the two were original sinners! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beleiver of truth (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 September 2008

Citation for Islam being the largest single religious denomination

The article is locked, but a citation for the missing one at the end of the first paragraph is at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080330/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_muslims --Jimbo42 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That piece has already been included as a reference in the article. Celarnor 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not a denomination. OUChevelleSS (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This citation is not sufficient. The source is from the Vatican, not recognized as an authority on Islam by anybody but Catholics, and not even by all of them . The idea of Islam as "the largest denomination" is questionable on the face of it. First, Islam has denominations of it's own, and is not a denomination by itself. If it were, the word "denomination" would be meaningless in context. Second, denomination of what? Again, the label "denomination" would mark it as a smaller part of a larger religion, divided from others in the same religion by specific articles of faith or interpretation. MathewGSmith (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not a single denomination. There have for a long time been more Muslims that Catholics. Islam should be compared to Christianity in numbers, not Catholicism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.105.55 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that neither the Yahoo link nor the Vatican states that Islam is a Denomination. It clearly says that it is a larger religion than Catholicism. It can be inferred that the Vatican doesn't consider itself a denomination, rather a religion unto itself. mpa|mpa68.249.127.44 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Not sure if this has been brought up before or not, but the main article for Islam contains more Shiite things than Sunni, so is there any way we can clean/discuss this? Thanks DevilAsh 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

from alsadi: I Agreed with that because according to all statistics Sunnies are more than 90% (refer to the fact book) it's like having to mention the communist party in the front article about USA as a major party in USA during the cold war! the problem with this approach is that it ignores many facts like that Shiites are only found on far places where people don't speak Arabic like Iran I was shocked with many articles here about Islam. PS: Shiites have an organized ways to do vandalism on wikipedia as they pay Khums to fund that. Please In any Islamic related article one should ask about valid citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydalsadi (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

From Pink: I feel that the article for Islam should be much more general, while containing references or links to sections/articles that explain the viewpoints of the major sects (Sunni, Shia, etc.). For example, the "Five Pillars" is treated as if it were common to Shia and Sunni Islam, whereas Shia Islam has its own listing of its beliefs ("Usul ad-Din," 5) and its practises ("Furu' ad-Din," 10). Sunni Islam has the Five Pillars as a reference to core Sunni Islamic practises and also the Articles of Faith (6) in reference to its belief. Perhaps a brief treatment could be made of core Islamic beliefs and practises: 1) Belief in Allah 2) Belief in Prophet Muhammad 3) Belief in the Hereafter; 1) Salah 2) Zakat ("Charity" -> Zakat only for Sunni Muslims, Zakat and Khums for Shia Muslims) and 3) Hajj. Afterward, reference could be made to those points that distinguish Sunni and Shia Islam. This kind of treatment should also take care of DevilAsh's concern, since many topics would contain a general explanation of an Islamic topoic and then divert to Shia, Sunni, and other Islamic sectarian distinctions after covering the generality of Islamic belief/practise/etc. Therefore, it would not seem to contain so many references that specified only the Shia Islamic viewpoint of various topics. 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Pink

Islam - not a new religion

Islam is not a new religion originating from teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) , its revival of teachings of Christ and Moses. Muslims believes in teachings of Christ and Moses and Quran - the Muslim holy book - is the revival of teachings of Bible. looking for citation to add this sentence to article introduction

usman 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

see the second sentence of the second paragraph. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam was predicted by pagan gods. and the birth of Muhammad (reincarnation of pagan god) kinda messed up. dates back millions of years or something like that --Mohun (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost Mohun, I believe you are mistaken. There are no records of any predictions millions of years ago. Science indicates that modern humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years total, and even less in a civilized form. Secondly, if you are referring to the Pratisargaparvan of Hinduism (which I would like to state for the record that I do not consider to be 'pagan') it is evidenced that it was created somewhere between 700 and 800 AD, **after** Muhammad, and seems to have been written in a vilifying and accusatory manner, and certainly can't be called a 'prediction.' Thirdly, as I am sure this is patent nonsense and that you would not have any verifiable sources I fail to see how this conversation can have any bearing on this article. So I must assume, for the sake of courtesy, that I have misunderstood you. If this is the case, could you clarify what you actually meant? - Peter Deer (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only in Bhavishya Purana its also mentioned in Atharaveda, Sama Veda, RigVed, Bhagawat Purana, Kalkis and goes on and on. I think the only refs to claim this would be actual pictures from these Vedas. im still working on it. i gatherd a lot of sources. and so far i can also say that the information you hear about Muhammad and Vedas are all true. i went through some books and the page numbers and chapters that articles listed about Muhammad in Vedas it all matches up so far. and futher goes into more detail. its going to take some time for me, the most i can tell you is that these website that claim Muhammad in Vedas are not making stuff up and the page numbers and chapters seem to be proper. --Mohun (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From Pink: As a conservative Muslim, I feel that it is easiest to treat Islam as its own religion when discussing it in an academic manner, rather than treating it as an original religion from which others branched. One problem in dealing with it as an original and ancient religion is that those qualities that distinguish it from other religions would have to undergo development in academic treatments. For example, the requirement for salat was different under Prophet Moses than under Prophet Muhammad, and it is alsmost certain that the various postures and recitations that comrpise salat have changed over the millenia. In addition, requirements for charitable contribution, pilgrimage, funeral processes, modesty, marriage, etc. have all changed over the millenia. Academically speaking, the primordial "Islam" is not recognisable. Furthermore, Muslims are taught that all are born on the natural path of monotheism - it is likely that this natural monotheism is what constituted the primordial religion of Prophet Adam and his family. It would simply be too confusing and require too much time, energy, and space to treat Islam as the religion that existed since the time of Adam. We Muslims have bigger fish to fry, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 209.206.216.59 (talk) 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Pink

In an encyclopedia, we strive to distinguish between fact and dogma. To take an example from another religion, the early Catholic church heavily edited the texts that became the new testament, but editing does not change the truth (or lack thereof) of the original text. Muslims may take comfort in believing that Islam precede Muhammad, but the fact is that he started the religion, and not a single human "practiced" Islam before him. Michael.Urban (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Heavily edited" the texts. Wow, goes to show what you know of the Bible in other Churches, such as the Nestorians, Ethiopians and other non-Ephesian Churches. Gabr-el 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Israelites as among the first Muslims

alSala'amu alaykum. Since most of our prophets are Hebrews and Aramaics, and looking over to the Qur'an, it is quite clear that modern Islam is a re-birth of a faith gone wrong, especially between the time of Eliyas and that of I'sa. I was hoping the "History of Islam" would make significant reference to the Israelites/Children of Israel before the Muhammadan era.

See Israelites: Islamic theology and Surah Yunus

(84) And Moses said: "O my people! If you have believed in God, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims". (85) Then they said: "In God we put our trust. Our Lord! Make us not a trial for those who are disbelievers".

Thanks. Omar 180 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true to say that the heresy of Islam is not a new religion, it is the continuation of Christianity...at least that is what it claims. However, as Misplaced Pages does not hold the Islam to be true it can only view it from a scientific historical perspective- It is distinct enough to be called a separate religion by Anthropologists and Religious Studies Experts and so Misplaced Pages must comply with these assertions. Gavin (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly put, Christianity got KO'd so God used a phoenix down, and renamed it Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as- God revealed the path of salvation to the world...a worried Satan released his final WEAPON and called it Islam. Gavin (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as Cecil, once pure and being corrupted into a Dark Knight, finally finds his true path as a Paladin. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Necessary Update: Women

This article makes the statement that a woman recieves half the inheritence a man does, but does not explain why. In Islam, a man is required to provide for his family, and any money he has must be used for the general good of his wife and children. He is also expected to care for elderly parents. A woman's money from any source, however, is hers and hers alone. She is not required to spend it on necessities such as food, adequate clothing, shelter, heat, oil, etc.

Please ensure that statments such as this are fully explained. The last thing we need is people using articles like this as "proof" of Islam's negativity toward women simply because they are not complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblebeltmuslimah (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I don't think it implies any negativity by not explaining, but if you can locate any academic reliable sources expounding upon this then we can decide on how to briefly incorporate it. Further discussion is likely warranted at daughter articles like Women and Islam. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would worry about adding any explanation on this page. Mostly these justifications are ad hoc attempts to counter Western critics. And that doesn't mean they're not valid... but it does mean it's hard to represent in the sentence we are giving to the issue. And, fundamentally, for most of the history of Islam it's just how it is and it makes sense. It needs no more justification than any other law. gren グレン 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and we do not want to add unnecessary complications. The statement made above is not valid in the case of a widow with children, who does often have to use her own money to provide necessities. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE : One source is the Book "Wemon rights system in Islam" (Nizam-e- Hoghugh-e-Zanan-Dar-Islam) which is written in Persian, by the famous clerick "Mortaza-Motahhari". You can look at it if you want to make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.199.210 (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of Ahadith and Sunnah

There are many devout Muslims who do not trust the authenticity of recorded ahadith and sunnah of Mohammed (pbuh). There are also many devout Muslims who, regardless of their authenticity or inauthenticity, believe that the Qur'an itself is complete (by its own statment, many many times within its pages) and that ahadith and sunnah are simply unnecessary. These beliefs are definitely worth mentioning, especially since questionable ahadith and sunnah have formed the backbone of many "Islamist" regimes.

Please include a section on these beliefs, as the number of believers who ascribe to them is growing. I will gladly provide any information and documentation that may prove helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblebeltmuslimah (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The number of "Qur'an-only" adherents is extremely small when weighed against even other minority sects such as Ibadis or Ahmadiyya. So as per undue weight I don't think this merits mention, and this has been the general view when this issue came up previously. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Three or so years ago I was supporting the inclusion of some of the Qur'an alone viewpoints in Islam--I'm glad I have gained better perspective. But, I do think there is a valid point about skepticism--since skepticism comes in other forms than Qur'an only. There is Sunni-Shia hadith collection disputes. There is Fazlur-Rahman-ish/liberalized scholars who argue more scrutiny is necessary but don't call for rejection. There are Hamza Yusuf types who talk about needing to study matns to make sure they do not contradict the Qur'an--even of sahih hadith. So, I would have no problem if some of that skepticism was worded in... but, I'm not sure it's necessary. gren グレン 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the Qur'an-only adherents are small in numbers, but that does not mean they are nonexistent. I have read the "Undue Weight" policy and it has caused me to lose some respect for Misplaced Pages. Failure to mention minority viewpoints after they have been brought to attention is dishonest and misrepresentative. Biblebeltmuslimah (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The issues of authenticity, as well as the existence and standpoint of Quran-alone Muslims, are addressed in the hadith page. On an unrelated note, that Qur'an Alone page is very poorly done. I'll take a look at it myself later, but if any of you would like to take a crack at fixing it first that'd be just fine. Peter Deer (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The hadith page looks like it could do with some improvement too. ITAQALLAH 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it could. Suppose I'll have to actually crack open a book or two. Swell. Peter Deer (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help... I have a few good sources available. :-) ITAQALLAH 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be particularly helpful. I look forward to working with you. Peter Deer (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only are the Quraniyoon extremely small as a sect, they have been summarily dismissed by nearly every other Islamic sect as infidel on the basis of their rejection of the use of the Prophetic Sunnah as a source of Islam. The rest of Muslims view this rejection as a rejection of Prophet Muhammad himself, which is unbelief in terms of Islam. 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Pink

History of Hadith + Quran

In the sections for Al-Bukhari's Sahih Hadith and the Quran, you can include two photos that I have taken of the worlds first printed copies of them, these are extremely rare and I'm not sure if there are other photos of them on the internet. Photos are below in my Islamic History section, if they will be used I will take my watermarks off them so let me know.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadhabib (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arshadhabib. These images would be ideal for the Qur'an and Hadith articles respectively. Less so for this article because we already have a picture of a page from the Qur'an in the Qur'an ssection, and hadith is covered quite briefly in the Muhammad section which already contains an image of Masjid al-Nabawi. But certainly the other two articles could benefit from these images.

Just as a sidenote, it looks like you've taken some photographs of impressive quality. You might wish to consider releasing some of them under a license like GFDL (or another one usable on Misplaced Pages) as Misplaced Pages tends to lack high-quality images of this nature and topic. Some may even be of featured quality. ITAQALLAH 00:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammadans

Hello, I noticed when i type Muhammadan it redirects to Islam. Muhammadan refers to (Pagans) that are Hindus and Buddhists that were known as Muhammadans before Islam was created. Note, there was no name of Hindu or Buddhists that time they were known as Muhammadans beacause of the Muhammadan Dynasty that arrived in South Asia. Muhammadan shold be an article about the pagan clans that were with Muhammad and shared all rituals and also described in the sacred vedas by pagan religon. Later, it was already predicted by the sacred vedas that Muhammad will be born as a reincarnation of another god and would be the one to lead the pagans and goes on and on. So its better to redirect Muhammadan to Muhammad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohun (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually no that is completely untrue. Muhammadan is a western term for Muslim/Islamic that has become mostly archaic. You will find that in western terminology predating about 1960 the terms were interchangeable in western society. Peter Deer (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=muhammadan A Muhammadan is a follower of Muhammad. I'm curious if this means that Muhammadans follow only Muhammad's teachings and dismiss all the dogma that he had nothing to do with the creation of. Followers of Jesus Christ preach of following moral sincerity rather than strictly following religious ritual, so I think I see a comparison here. Also, as a random musing, if Muhammadans are followers of Muhammad that appeared before Islam was codified as it is today, wouldn't that make them a 'pure' form of followers?74.67.17.22 (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammadan is a catch-all. It covers the same people as are now covered by the far more commonly used word in English, Muslim. I think you are trying to read too much into the name. Historically it is based from the fact that Westerners originally came to know Islam as the religion brought by Muhammad and that, they were Muhammadans. It's just a matter of nomenclature and Muhammad has been phased out for various reasons including that some feel it is derogatory. gren グレン 10:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Page Isalamic External Links

Why external links don't have eastern Muslims websits are nonMuslims afraid of the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.112.228 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than play the fear card, try helping the article. Post links to sites written in English whenever possible however, as this is the English language Misplaced Pages. Also, the suggestion you make that only eastern Muslim websites have the truth sounds quite biased. You should clear up any misunderstanding without throwing the 'afraid of the truth' idea around like a common conspiracy theorist.74.67.17.22 (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that western websits don't have the truth. Eastern sites have more info and has more members. There are many scholars for example see the site islam house. It has 74 languages in English there are alot of article audio books you will not stop learning from the site for years. Though every time I try to post this link the next page say spam i very good site for muslims and other to read as they like to understand is called a spam an no one can benefite from it. 2 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.159.86 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Our linking policy has been to try to present a few basic introductory sites which are not overly pushing a strong religious or anti-religious point of view; a few sites that will have audio, video, and visual art of Islam related works; and, primarily the DMOZ directories. There are far too many sites about Islam to chose which belongs and keep the number of links manageable. This is why we linked to the DMOZ directory which should give a large array of sites of all sorts. gren グレン 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not one denomination

"There are between 1.2 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, ---> but the largest single religious denomination."

What about Sunnis, Shi'a, Kharijites, etc? The article even has a section on denominations, so the above quote is clearly false hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.140.180 (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree here 100%. The Pope's use of "denomination" is unconventional and probably says more about how the Vatican considers "Catholicism" than "Islam." It was also clearly not spoken in English but has been translated as such. The conventional use of "denomination," which we have adopted here on Misplaced Pages makes the statement entirely illogical. Why are we publishing this strange perspective in the lead? I'm removing it ... please do not simply revert it because it is "sourced." Please provide a good rationale for including this oddity, and in the lead no less.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think it's an unnecessary insertion. The ambiguity over religious groups etc. also doesn't really help. Broadly speaking Christianity is still the largest world religion, and the Vatican finding that Muslims have overtaken Catholics to become the single largest "religious group" is more of a footnote really. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Itaqallah on this one. It is unnecessary. Yahel Guhan 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, completely unnecessary and very political whether you decide that Islam is one or many. Better to leave it out gren グレン 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So why is it still there afer 16 days?Tourskin (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A denomination is a branch of a world religion so you can't really say "single denomination" it's just confusing also there in Islam one of the main reasons it's the largest growing religions is because when your'e born into a Muslim family you become a Muslim even though you may not follow the rules or lifestyle of a Muslim so a lot of the Islamic population is in fact made up of a lot of non Muslims really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.200.162 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This article +others may need to be updated. Islam now = Largest religion in the world.

Islam is now the largest religion in the world as per a few days ago.

• Muslims "Overtake" Catholics, Become Largest Religion - March 31, 2008
• Islam overtakes Catholicism as world's largest religion - March 31, 2008
• Islam is world's largest religion: Vatican - March 30, 2008 at 2:51 PM EDT
• 'Islam world's largest religion'

CaribDigita (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See the above section. Yahel Guhan 07:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No it is not the largest religion in the world. Islam as a whole is now larger than one division of christianity: the catholics. This is including shi'a and Sunni muslims. 33-38% of the world's population follows christianity, whereas only 18% of the world are Muslims, so NOT the largest group or even division, as Catholicism is larger than Sunni Muslims without shi'a muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.154.181 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

islam has atleast 1.2 billion minimum this bs about islam being only a billion strong, is not true. The cia world factbook, council on american islamic relations, and the vatican all say so they seem like credible sources to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvpggt (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the facts: there are 2 billion Christians in the world and between 1.1-1.9 billion Muslims in the world of all sects. Does that sort out the problem? LOTRrules (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ok look im getting tired of beating this to death, until u tell me why the cia, the vatican, and the councl on american islamic relations are all, no your claim that 1.1 to 1.9 does not settle it. How about you provide me with an link to your supposed facts as i will do now #REDIRECT ]

1. REDIRECT ]#REDIRECT ] You can also explain this wiki consistancy issue shown in the next redirect, the site titled the muslim world say a far more reasonable estimate of 1.3 billion to 1.5 billion muslims #REDIRECT ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvpggt (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam, as a whole, Sunni and Shi'ite is now bigger than the single Christian sect of Catholicism. But not bigger than Christianity as a whole, which includes Protestantism, Orthodox, Catholicism, etc. Islam I believe would not even qualify as the largest single sect in the world, because it is split into Sunni and Shi'ite, and other smaller divisions. You can compare Christianity as a whole with Islam as a whole. You can't compare Islam as a whole with the single Christian sect of Catholicism, as Islam is broken into sects, and Catholics aren't. So Catholicism is still the largest single denomination in the world, and Christianity as a whole is still larger then Islam as a whole.

Just my two cents. If the Vatican says that Islam is the largest religion, next to Catholicism, then that pretty much dismisses any arguement. The Vatican is clearly saying that Catholicism is not a sect, denomination or anything other than a pure religion. Why there is so much resistance with grouping together Catholicism and Protestantism, when the Vatican has clearly implied that is not correct, is beyond me. Therefore either the Vatican is wrong, or you guys are right. So I agree that changes will have to be made to this article, and the articles in Christianity and Catholicism. Islam is the largest religion in the world, and apparently that is a hard pill to swallow. MPA 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@ MPA WOW, you're really pushing for Islam to be named the world's largest religion huh? Here's the jiff for the illogical to understand. Christianity as a WHOLE is bigger then Islam as a WHOLE. If you take denominations of each religion and look at them as religions in themselves, then Christianity (Catholicism) will STILL be the biggest religion. You can't lump ALL forms of Islam together and compare it with only ONE form Christianity. The Vatican was mistaken in looking at Islam as monolithic and without divisions, i.e. the SHIA, and others. If the Vatican gave themselves the same fair treatment to Islam in their comparison, they would realized they are the biggest, EITHER WAY. 71.126.110.131 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, and moreover the Oxford English Dictionary, it really depends on one's accepted definition of Catholicism. In theory, there can be different denominations and sects within Catholicism. Although, I do contend that this is merely an argument over semantics. 72.81.138.134 (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dowry"

Islam#Family_life states "The groom is required to pay a dowry (mahr) to the bride, as stipulated in the contract". Mahr is not dowry... since it's from the man to the woman. And it's not bride price because it's to the woman and not her parents. And it's not really dower since that has the implications of for after husband dies... but maybe that's the closest. In any case, we should come to agreement and also... the fact that dowry is used makes me wonder how applicable the sources really are. Do they sources say dowry? I hope not. gren グレン 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would seem to be inaccurate terminology. But perhaps this is less of inaccurate understanding of the nature of Mahr and more that the term dowry has come to mean something different in western vernacular than it originally meant. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to explain this and what it would mean for the article... do you think we should keep on using dowry? gren グレン 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines dowry as "Money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband in marriage." What about the term "groomwealth"? there is no such term in English but it may be closer. although groomwealth is paid to the family of the woman and not the woman herself but this seems to be closer to Mahr.--Be happy!! (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When I studied social anthropology a long time ago there was a basic distinction between 1) "dowry", when the transfer of resources was from the bride's side to the groom's side or the couple and 2) "bridewealth", when the transfer of resources was from the groom's side to the bride's side or the couple. Ideally, we would refer at this point to a scholarly text that discussed the whole question across cultures and proposed a consistent terminology. In the absence of that, can we find a wording that explains the concept without reference to terms like "dowry" which are used loosely and potentially very confusingly. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick review of the sources:

Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world: "Mahr is a gift that the Muslim bridegroom offers the bride upon marriage ... ... In English, mahr has commonly been translated as "dower." (that's all it says about the English rendition)

"Mahr" article in the Encyclopedia of Islam: "Mahr: Hebrew mohar, Syriac mahrā, "bridal gift" , originally "purchase-money" , synonymous with ṣadāḳ which properly means "friendship" , then "present" , a gift given voluntarily and not as a result contract, is in Muslim law the gift which the bridegroom has to give the bride when the contract of marriage is made and which becomes the property of the wife." - in the rest of the article the Arabic rendition mahr is favoured although it's sometimes substituted with "bridal gift."

"Bridal gift" is also the rendition of mahr given in the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic cultures (Brill publishers) p. 258

Other sources use "dowry," "bride price," "dower," and so on. I'd probably be in support of using bridal gift because it seems to be the most accurate, but there really is no unanimity amongst the sources on this one. ITAQALLAH 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should do our best to explain what it is and not refer to "dowry" or even "bridal gift" as these words do not provide much enlightenment. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In English, the word "dowry" has several meanings (as Itsmejudith should know), one of which is " a gift of money or property by a man to or for his bride". An online Arabic-English dictionary also translates mahr as "dowry". Beit Or 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sufi umar (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)thegeniousumar== Creation ==

When Jibra'el the angel came to tell to Mohammad( SAWS) to preach ,the muslim era didn't start there but it started when Adam(A.S) was sent down to earth. According to the muslim calendar we are in the year 1386. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi952 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New map is better

I'd like to weigh in on the map situation. The new map, put up by Moshino, is much more intuitive than the one we had up previously. That's not to say that the old map was no good, but the gradient of greens from light to dark (low to high) makes more sense than arbitrary colors assigned to the different percentages. Another similar option would be to go between two colors in a gradient, like yellow and red, but I think this one is supurb. I'm going to revert back to Moshino's map and I'd like to hear a good argument for keeping the old one. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the darker side of the map, with the high percentages isn't clearly distinct enough between some of the groups I'm assuming Moshino can tweak the coloring a bit. That problem does not change the fact that this map is much more informative for what it does and requires much less work to figure out.PelleSmith (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree as well with your comments thanks a lot, plus for the old maps, I have also given links to them on the maps if people are having trouble viewing them.. for all of them. Moshino31 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You should propbably credit the CIA World Factbook and the other map as a source. I almost disagreed with the change because I thought yours was unsourced until I checked the difference between the two and saw none. gren グレン 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tahrif

Tahrif is a significant Islamic belief, but not significant enough to be in the lead. A more significant belief, that in the Day of Judgment, would be much better suited. We should also state Tawhid more explicitly (saying that Islam is monotheist is not enough).Bless sins (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

A couple of nights ago, I readded the criticism section that had been agreed upon at FAC but it was removed. (I actually closed this at FAR and either missed that the section was gone or looked at a version that temporarily had it.)

The reverting edit summaries suggested that it had been incorporated into the rest of the article. I don't disapprove of moving criticism in general, and I think it's right (usually) to deprecate criticism sections. But looking now I don't see that anything has actually been reincorporated. The best I can find is the last paragraph of Modern times. There's no criticism there—it's a typical, badly done strawman + apologism paragraph. (Side note: which David Duke?!)

I know if someone comes along and demands criticism it might seem like they have an axe to grind. I don't think I've behaved that way with this article. I sung it's praises closing the FAR—but I missed this removal of information. I find it a little troubling, for instance, that the See also didn't take the link to the criticism article. I don't see reincorporation. Only removal. Marskell (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It does seem some information got lost in the movement, and addition of loaded descriptors like "idealogues". I think your recent change is an improvement. - Merzbow (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the see also link. I think it was a while ago that it was agreed that the criticism section should be merged within other parts of the article. Yahel Guhan 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback: I have an issue with using inherently unreliable citations, such as Spencer's/Warraq's works or the cite to FPM. Better alternatives such as Rippin's work or the NYT book review have been removed. So I don't agree with replacing good quality sources with poorer ones. You may have mistaken apologism for apologetics, but I disagree with your basic point. The version you inserted is much less balanced, as it includes ~5 claims, and a comment about fundamentalism; and essentially 1 counter claim, with a comment about Islamophobia. There's also an uninformative list of apologists (arguably as loaded as 'idealogues') tacked on at the end.

A much fairer balance is stuck in the prior version, where we have two critiques (which aren't straw men, else they wouldn't have remained in the current version either); a recognition that Muslim scholars contest these claims (not a response); a response from some academic scholars and a more informative comment about Islamophobia from Carl Ernst.

I don't intend to make any immediate changes, but I prefer the previous version with some tweaks (idealogues -> writers) and the inclusion of the sentence about fundamentalism. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize Spencer is problematic, as he's so polemical. But I would not call him "inherently unreliable." If we flag his opinions as his opinions, I think they are valid for inclusion, given that he has an established and well known reputation on the subject. (Ditto Rushdie—that letter about Islamophobia was in here at one point, and has also been removed.)

As for balance, we need to consider the article as a whole. I find the readded paragraph balanced because, as I say, there's basically no other criticism anywhere. For instance, Family life (a section added during FAC) elides commonly brought up criticisms of polygamy and inheritance. If those were included, I wouldn't see a need to mention Spencer.

On the whole, this article remains clinical and soundly written. It is a strong Misplaced Pages piece and I don't want to mess up sections with he said/she said paragraphs. But it shouldn't be completely absent modern criticisms, as the reader will arrive considering them and NPOV suggests we include them. Marskell (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While the current criticism section is better than the pseudo-criticism featured before, it's still problematic in many respects. For example, the section mentions some people who criticised Islam in the Middle Ages, but it doesn't say what charges those people put at Islam's door. Furthermore, in Abbasid times, there was an extensive anti-Islamic Christian polemical literature (and, of course, anti-Christian Muslim polemical literature), which the article passes over in silence. The recentist focus of the criticism section is also troubling. Modern times have seen much more prominent critics of Islam than Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq; Henri Lammens and Winston Churchill may be the first who come to mind. Beit Or 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the polemical literature is mentioned. Did you miss the following in the Golden Age (750-1258) section: "The spread of the Islamic dominion induced hostility among medieval ecclesiastical Christian authors who saw Islam as an adversary in the light of the large numbers of new Muslim converts. This opposition resulted in polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman. In the medieval period, a few Arab philosophers like the poet Al-Ma'arri adopted a critical approach to Islam, and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides contrasted Islamic views of morality to Jewish views that he himself elaborated." ITAQALLAH 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it because it was buried deep inside in the body of the article? It's funny that the description of this polemics is itself polemical: some early writers do call the Arabs libidinous (not sure where the "subhuman" comes from), but the main points of dispute were, of course, theological. Anyway, my other points stay. Beit Or 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

After checking the source (Tolan, John V. (2002). Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. Columbia University Press.), I must say that it is badly misrepresented in the article. Yes, the book says on p. xvi "Medieval Christian writings about Islam contain much that is appalling to the twentieth-century reader: crude insults to the Prophet, gross caricatures of Muslim ritual, deliberate deformation of passages of the Koran, degrading portrayals of Muslims as libidinous, gluttonous, semihuman barbarians.", but "This opposition resulted in polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman." is certainly not a correct summary of the Christian polemical literature, since it contained much more than that. "Libidinous and subhuman" is senationalist cherry-picking. Beit Or 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Badly misrepresented? I see no misrepresentation of the source whatsoever. Did you bother checking pp. 40-41? "Over time, however, it became clear that the new Muslim rulers were here to stay. Muslims affirmed their power, proselytized among Christians and Jews, and dotted the landscape with new mosques; only then did Christians begin to take Islam seriously as a religious rival and to attempt to define it in Christian terms. Some authors ascribed an apocalyptic role to Islam; its rise and its winning of new Christian converts were proof that it was the religion of Antichrist and that the last days were at hand. Some authors branded Islam as heresy, falsely derived from Christian doctrine. In an attempt to stem the tide of conversions to Islam, they denigrated it using the familiar traditions of antiheretical polemics. A few Christians attacked Islam and its prophet in public, deliberately provoking the Muslim authorities into inflicting the death penalty; thus they became new martyrs whose hagiographers attempted to boost the flagging Christian morale." I think the description used in the article is quite a sober representation of the source and that quote you gave. I fail to see where the "cherry-picking" has taken place. Can you show me where the source makes your claim that there was "much more than that"? ITAQALLAH 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You did that for me. Just in the paragraph above, the source cites the theme of Islam being a Christian heresy. Other themes include: Muslim conquests as punishment for the sins of Christians (p. 40), Muhammad being a false prophet (p. 52), Qur'an being full of absurdities (p. 52) etc. Even without delving much into sources, some common sense is enough to see that "polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman" is not an accurate and clinical summary of Christian-Muslim polemics. Beit Or 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Your contention was that the main points of the early Christian opposition to Islam were theological, and that the book had somehow been misrepresented by omitting the mainstay of the criticism. None of what you cited were theological refutations, just more examples of polemical accusations. The notion of Muslim conquests as punishment for Christian sin wasn't directly an attack on Islam as it was a blame on Christians. I don't see any point being made except that every single attack the book mentions isn't highlighted in the two-sentence summary (if it were, I suspect the passage would be looking much more "polemical" than it apparently does now). Putting the Christian polemics into perspective with regards to the whole of Muslim history which the section attempts to cover, I think the two to three sentences on this specific issue is fair, and I think the source has been adequately, fairly, and soberly represented. ITAQALLAH 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, I disagree with you on the issue of which sources may be used and when. If Spencer's view is of repute, can't we find an independent reliable source discussing it? If reliable sources aren't discussing it... well it's a good indication that it's probably not as popular as forwarded, and subsequently not noteworthy here either. We did that with Warraq, as we have some of his views covered by Andrew Rippin and the NYT Book review. So we're using reliable sources to provide information about Warraq and his views.

To look at the distribution of article from the perspective of where criticism is present and absent is fundamentally flawed IMO. Encyclopedic, dispassionate coverage about the facts of Islam isn't exactly "pro-Islam" by default. The family life section should give us the facts about the Islamic family structure in a concise manner as per WP:SS. The issue of those saying the Islamic familial system is just, of the natural order/fitra, empowering, or oppressive, misogynist, backward, is all secondary - and really this section isn't the place to discuss it. The counter-balance to criticism here is response. And the focus on negative opinions should be in equal proportion with opposing views, so that the reader is at least shown both perspectives and in equal weightage. I fear that current layout, which is just under half a dozen unanswered critiques and a single generic response about old myths and polemics, doesn't quite strike that balance.

I have no issue with mentioning the opinions raised about Islam in recent times and I think it warrants discussion in this article. But I want to ensure the coverage of views about Islam is balanced. Perhaps the next productive step here is to work on a presentation that meets in the middle between the two versions. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're not going to have a criticism section, the family life section is the logical place for a short (sentence or two) nod to criticism directed at, well, family life in Islamic religion/culture... - Merzbow (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Secularists and non-Muslims have questioned the compatibility of Islam with modern notions of women's rights. Reformist Muslims have not necessarily adopted Western or other outside frameworks in arguing for greater rights for female Muslims. The ability of a man to treat multiple wives equally has been questioned, for instance, with reference to the Qu'ran itself."

Will this do? It gives a single sentence nod to outside criticism but then focuses on developments within the religion. Marskell (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the rationale behind compensating a more neutral layout (i.e. integration of the criticism section) by adding more criticism. I personally don't believe any further coverage of criticism - especially recentist - is necessary, especially when the perspectives of reformists and Islamists are already covered. ITAQALLAH 11:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your argument amounts, then, to having no criticism in the article at all. (And it's clear that the section wasn't integrated—it was simply removed.) How three sentences on the status of women compromises the coverage, I don't know. It's pertinent, widely discussed, and deals directly with the text of the Qu'ran. Hardly recentism, in the sense that that term is used around here. Marskell (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've explained my position in detail above, and it doesn't amount to omitting mention of criticism. The issue isn't about interpretations about the status of women - if you look at the section, that is already given copious coverage. There's a long list of other - factual - things we can discuss about family life in Islam as related in academic texts, long before giving the nod to individuals who don't just criticise this aspect, but virtually every aspect. The comparison with modern ideals is indeed of recentist and undue focus, as we omit any mention of the comparative status of women thirteen hundred years prior (e.g. Women had the right to independently own property/wealth before and after marriage in Islam, a right which was only granted in Britain in the late 19th century).

We already cover the issue of criticism, two paragraphs worth in the History section. To say the criticism section was ever removed is just plain wrong. Most of the content from those two paragraphs were simply relocated, as is plainly viewable in the article history and talk archives. Some specific critiques were removed, so as to maintain an air of balance and adequately recognise that such critiques are indeed disputed; as opposed to a string of undisputed claims opposed by one generally vague dismissal. The paragraph in the Modern times section is something I think needs tweaking, as already explained. Instead of recognising that this aspect needs collaborative work, the focus seems to be more on where else we can add yet more "criticism," as if these opinions are the most important things that can be said about the topic. ITAQALLAH 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire article, by necessity and nature, has a recentist focus. That's why there is a specific "history" section. The article as a whole focuses on what Islam is in the here and now. So recent debate on the subject is of far more importance that what the situation was 1300 years ago. - Merzbow (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article should actually avoid a recentist focus for reasons mentioned here. The history section is about the history of Islam up until today - hence it includes a section on modern times, which does provide substantial coverage about criticism and recent discourse. The article itself isn't about recentist focus at all, it's about what the academic scholarly texts say about Islam, taking into account the primary texts, the secondary texts, and the institution of Islam as a whole and throughout its history. Whilst "recent debate" is a noted topic, and has been given its own space, it's certainly not significant enough to saturate the entire article by virtue of it being more recent. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We should not shoehorn criticism into its own section for the same reasons we should not shoehorn discussion of the "modern-time" debate over these issues into its own section. If you grant one, you must grant the other. This is highly relevant information to today's readers. - Merzbow (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with the first part of the statement at least, in regards to there being a criticism section, but I find that Itaqallah has made some good points as well and I think that he is right in regards to the criticisms that were removed, unless I've overlooked something significant. Perhaps it's just me but a criticism section by itself seems like it might be undue weight to individual points of view, where a popular opposition section might be more appropriate, and having these critical viewpoints represent their respective oppositions. Or perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about, that's also a possibility, happens all the time. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think modern developments have been shoehorned, as discussing them in that section is natural as it's a part of the timeline of Muslim history. But my point is that certain perspectives being more recent doesn't mean they're more significant to the topic as a whole, or that they merit more coverage on that basis alone. The strength of coverage is determined by the comparative weight given to the topic in academic scholarly discussion. The family life section already gives decent coverage to different perspectives in modern times, so I don't understand why more should be inserted as opposed to more content about factual matters, like women's ownership of property/wealth, who qualifies as mahram, children's role in the family, and so on. The presumption is of course that further coverage is actually needed, and I don't believe that to be the case. ITAQALLAH 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

About Prophet Muhammad

The article says that Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet, this is untrue. According to hadith the Prophet Muhammad said to the Muslims never to say one prophet was better than another. So please change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.45.241 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It says that "Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet", it doesn't say "Muhammad said he was the greatest prophet". So, I think the distinction is clear or I am mistaken? --Be happy!! (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a muslim, and I dont view him as the greatest prophet! (I view each prophet has come down with his own miracle/sign and Job/duty and) what distinguishes Muhammed is that (in islam) he is the final prophet to be born with the final message. A more appropriate sentence would be "Muslims view Muhammad as the final prophet born bringing the final message (the Koran)" ] (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the same can be said about Jesus - him saying he was the Son of God versus that's what Christians view him as - many newer schools of thought, especially in Eastern Orthodoxy are beginning to somewhat merge with the Islamic view of him being a messenger - rather than a Demi-God. My point is all those figures are historically very obscured - if you believe they existed even! Best we can do is just reflect what the majority followers of the religion believe. I doubt you can prove anything about him - let alone what he said. We should edit this article so it reflects what Muslims view him as, which has a much stronger bases in ancient texts etc than the virtually non-existant historical accounts of him. Pink Princess (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The influence of Islam...

"The Alevi, Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata and Ha-Mim movements either emerged out of Islam or came to share certain beliefs with Islam. Some consider themselves separate while others still sects of Islam though controversial in certain beliefs with mainstream Muslims. Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late fifteenth century Punjab, incorporates aspects of both Islam and Hinduism."

This paragraph is currently located under Denominations: Others but I think it would fit better under Islam and other religions. Oore (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To-Do List

Well, I think that the history is already told, and the history section should be converted to "Political History" or "History After Muhammad". Will someone change that section? --Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian version of Islam?

IS there any room for this topic here or should a new page be written. I ask as Indonesia is numerically the most populous Muslim nation- and there is much variety and discussion within Indonesia about Islam.Starstylers (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is notable and sourced, add it to Islam in Indonesia. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deen or religion

Seeing that my edit replacing the word "religion" with and internal link to the article on "Deen" (the word muslims and the Koran use to describe Islam) has been reverted by Jet, I felt it appropriate to bring this up on the talk page instead of reverting his revert. Islam is regarded by Muslims as a deen (way of life) and not a mere religion. Seeing that the Koran also uses this word instead of the arabic word for relgion, I think it is appropriate that in internal link be provided to "deen" so that a reader can understand both sides of the issue. Mushoo (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, for numerous reasons. Islam is seen as a religion by many more than a way a life. The idea that it is a way of life stems from the belief that it is the one true faith, and therefore the way of life. Tourskin (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I also disagree in that the very first part of the article should try hard not to confuse the reader. It's confusing enough already with the specialized terms. A religion or a religious tradition that also has elements that explicitly direct how to organize one's life is not unheard of, so it is not 'false' to say it is a religion. The idea of Deen (Arabic term) should be brought out in the article, and actually I'm quite surprised that it does not seem to be mentioned? In fact, can someone point to where the (Western notion of) tension between religion and society is resolved? Shenme (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from all that, can someone check whether my change at Deen (Arabic term) seems correct? It was confusing to me... Shenme (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with use of 'religion' over 'deen'. It may be less specific, but it's far more familiar. And for the reasons Shenme gave, it doesn't really add any new information. Ilkali (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the idea of Deen should be brought up later in the article, and yes it is surprising that it has not been mentioned. Mushoo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.202.27 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Religion" is the common rendition of "din." Yes, I know it's a pretty sloppy one at that, but the article does note that din is "usually translated as religion", and also provides a link to the respective article where the issue can be clarified. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Deen" is Arabic for religious faith. It is just as likely to be used by Christian and Jewish Arabs (which I witnessed) as Muslim Arabs. I am very confused as to your thinking as all religions - and even other personal belief systems i.e. Vegetarianism - are seen as ways of life. IMO, Islam can be as well described as Religious Faith/Way of life in any language as well as Arabic, though I must admitt my knowlede of Islam is not up to scratch. Pink Princess (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the article on Wilfred Cantwell Smith, the thesis put forward in his book The Meaning and End of Religion the word deen cannot be translated as religion for a number of reasons. The article has the following paragraph:

“

In a chapter titled The special case of Islam, Smith - himself an Presbyterian and ordained minister in the United Church of Canada whose academic speciality was Islam - argues that The Prophet would have been, above all others perhaps, deeply alarmed at any suggestion that he was starting a new religion. Indeed, Smith points out, Arabic, strictly speaking, doesn't even have a word for religion in the European sense: the word din, customarily translated as such, significantly differs in a number of important respects.

”

If the word deen is still being substituted by religion, then we should also insert Smith's opinion about the word. Regards--Shahab (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected

Talk page has been semi-protected for 48 hours given graffiti. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unorthodox Islamic sects

I'm surprised by the lack of allusions to unorthodox Islamic sects. No allusions to the Druze, Ahmadiyah, Ansariyah...It's non-scientific to repudiate those branches of Islam, only because they are opposite to the Islamic orthodoxy. And, certainly, leaves an impression of pro-political correctness bias.

See the last paragraph of Islam#Other religions. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, nomen est omen, as Latin adagio goes. "Other religions". It's assumed they are marginal, instead of studying with Sunnism, or Shiism. Anyway, I think this matter is very controversial, and therefore, difficult to treat it adequately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.128.75.213 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam world's largest religion?

Ive heard Islam is the world's largest religion So I checked on the Internet and it says it's true check for your self if you don't beleive me. I was still wondering and I don think it's true so I am going to ask if it's true from you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.84.93 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the sources I've encountered agree with this article, in that Islam is the second-largest. Unless you provide a link to a reliable source, your claim doesn't mean much. OhNoitsJamie 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what the suer means is this: discounting the fact that Muslims are split into two major sects (Sunni and Shia), Islam is the largest denomination in the world, given that Muslims outnumber Catholics (the largest Christian denomination). This conclusion, however, is based upon Vatican statistics, who has specifically said that it can't vouch for statistics on Muslim population. I've not seen independent sources come to the same conclusion.Bless sins (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps to give a more detailed answer- for arguments sake. Islam covers around 21.01% of the world population. This however is split into the denominations of Sunni, Shi'a, Sufism, and Kharijites. Christianity is makes up about 33.32% it however is split up into allot of denominations.

So,

Christianity- 33.2% (1.9 billion)

Roman Catholicism- 16.99%

Protestantism- 5.78%

Orthodox- 3.53%

Anglican- 1.25%

Other Christian- 5.77%

Islam-22.01% (1.1 billion)

Sunni-

Shi'a-

Sufism-

Kharijites-

Thus, Christianity is the worlds largest Religion and Roman Catholicism remains the worlds largest Religious Denomination. Gavin Scott (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You split Christianity into percentages for individual denominations, but not Islam. Based on the 85/15% split between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims as given in this article and Demographics of Islam, and taking say 2% off the Sunni figure to allow for smaller minorities (some not considered as true Muslims by other Muslims), 83% of 22.01% (which is a very over-precise figure, but never mind) is over 18.2% of whatever the 100% figure is supposed to represent (it's way short of the current world population), as opposed to Roman Catholicism's "16.99%". And that very probably would make Sunni Islam the world's largest single religious denomination. David Trochos (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologise- the way I presented the figures was misleading. Of the 6 billion people on earth. 33% are Christian. Of the 6 billion people on Earth 17% are Roman Catholic.

Christianity has 1.9 billion adherents. Islam has 1.1 billion. The Roman Catholic denomination has around 1 billion adherents. The Sunni denomination (Islam's largest) claims about 85% of Islam's 1.1 billion followers. Thus Roman Catholicism is still a largest denomination than Sunni. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Eeeewww, nasty math! First, there aren't 6 billion people on Earth any more; latest figure in World population is nearly 6.7 billion. Second, 1.9 billion is not 33.2% of the same population as 1.1 billion is 22.01% of anyway. Third, the Roman Catholic denomination had (per Guinness Book of Answers, 1993 ed.) around 1 billion adherents back in the early 1990s (when the world population was about 5.5 billion, hence just over 18% R.C.)- so if your 1 billion figure is still correct for 2008 then the R.C. proportion of the world's population has declined sharply, to around 15%. Fourth, the adherents.com headline figures are rather different from those you quote: Christianity 2.1 billion and Islam 1.5 billion (though they make it very clear that those are pretty much educated guesses based on extrapolation from earlier educated guesses; also they did the calculations back in 2005, seemingly using 2003-4 world population figures of 6.3 billion). Not that all this OR is admissible anyway, but I'm hoping it will inspire somebody to find a currentish figure in a WP:reliable source. David Trochos (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is 5 pilars of islam are not accuratly represented here? Giving wrong and inaccurate information on this site will damage the credibility of this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.98.89 (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Old but i feel like commenting on the above misplacede comment: this sites credibility is already near 0% simply because it is wikipedia.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jihad

The section on Jihad is not only extremely inaccurate but also offensive. Jihad is the 'internal struggle against temptation'. What the hell happened to that belief which is held by virtually all muslims, and why is the belief of a few violent lunatics is represented more here. This is common sense and I don't think sources are necessary for it, but I'll try gathering some if I have time if there's any opposition. I'll attempt changing the wording slightly if there's no objections. Pink Princess (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you need sources for all your edits. Everything needs sources. If you've heard something, or know something but don't recall the source, you may post it here and someone may find a source.Bless sins (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pink Princess, the article does say that "Most Muslims today interpret Jihad as only a defensive form of warfare: the external Jihad includes a struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice."

Don't you agree that a culture within which a religion is born specifies the kind of distortions that would take place in it? Don't Muslims claim (truly or falsely) that Christianity became distorted once it was separated from its Jewish culture and won converts in a Hellenistic one? Now, just think about it for a minute: what were the most salient features of the Arabian culture that could possibly color Islam in its own image? These were the idea of Arab superiority, and warfare (Bedouin's national sport); lo and behold, developments towards both of these can be located in the early centuries of Islam some of which were later corrected upon and some were kept.--Be happy!! (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Pink Princess, it is clear that the Quran teaches "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors" And it is also certain that the primary battle in Islam is against Satan fought in one's own heart, as it is in all the religions of God. As far as the article goes, however, it notes the personal nature of an individual's struggle against Evil (the greater Jihad) quite prominently. I do not see the objectionable nature you seem to see here. Peter Deer (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Deer, I'll read it again tomorrow and get back to you mate. Be Happy, WTF you mean warfare is a beduins national sport? Are you implying Beduins are bloodthirsy loons or are warmongerers, as that is very insulting and shows the ignorance of such a idiot. Look at most wars today, who is starting them for their own greed you bigot. Pink Princess (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that "national sport" was a good way of putting it. The Beduins were a war-like people who clashed with one another in tribal warfare yes. Tourskin (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course in the beduin culture of pre-islamic arabia, they were careful not to kill because of the blood feud incurred; in fact the main purpose of raids were to acquire booty not to kill. Without doing that the survival of Bedouins was not fully possible; something dictated by the harsh environment of the desert. Sometimes it was indeed carried as a sport and show of brevity. This was the culture in which Islam was born; this is not say that Islam at the time of Muhammad endorsed that form of warfare; in fact to the contrary. Nor do I claim that in practice Muslims were historically more violent than say Christians, to the contrary. My point was the mark that the Arabian culture left in the formation of the traditional concept of Jihad. Yes, as I said most modern Muslims view Jihad as defensive but that you can find in modern times.

Lastly, Pink Princess, see WP:CIVILITY --Be happy!! (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I too think that putting it as "national sport" is not a good description. More appropriate would be to say that they Bedouin did not see any moral objection is seizing goods by force.

But we should look at it another way to. The pre-Islamic Arabs had months of peace, in which warfare was forbidden. Thus, they were very far from the civilized concept of "All is fair in war". Given the forbidden months, wars longer than a few months would have been impossible.Bless sins (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless it was seasonal, like 6 months rest than the remaining 6 months are war? Tourskin (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Be Happy, I misunderstood you, but saying war to them is a national sport was very misleading and gives the impression I got which does not seem to be what you intended to. I appologise for my harsh langauge, I agree totally that unfortunately a lot of Beduin Arab pre-Islamic culture which was at that time violent, was wrongfully kept in Islam. However, this shold be highlighted in the article so to prevent it being taken as being a true part of Islamic teachings. And Tourskin, what are you implying? Lastly, I keep my objections to the Jihad section, I read it again, and it still remains to represent the minority twisted view of the radicals and not at all mainstream Islam. Also it almost excuses misinterpretaions and wrong interpretations of Jihad, by stating 'It is commonly taken as the military form', or something similar. I hope you all understand this is a wrong interpretation - especially one born from anti-Islam loons after the 'War on Terror'.

True Jihad is internal struggle against evil - yes Islam does have rule for defensive warfare, and sanctions it in some cases, but that is not at all Jihad. Also Islam never allows wars and violence to spread Islam or for expansionism, though this was used by Muslim Missionaries in practice - much like those of virtually all other religions including Christianity.

Unfortunately now I am very bussy (still) - the more university forms I fill in and send, the more come through the post, and they need me to do research on the internet to understand and of the crap on them. Also I need to pass my driving test. :( So I'd appreciate if someoe can try and find some sources for true Jihad so it can get edited and corrected, and PM me to let me know, as I wont come here for a while. Many thanks in advance. Pink Princess (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The section as written is quite fair and is based on a variety of reliable sources. - Merzbow (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No I disagree as a Muslim, it is not at all fair, and very biased to show Islam as an exceptionally violent religion, and as I said plays into current misinterpretations by anti-muslims or muslim crazies about Jihad. And sources don't matter, as with all belief systems, interpretations of the individuals count the most. Those sources are from the minority opinion of Muslims. Pink Princess (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh come on, where is the bias? It doesn't even mention the fact that many terrorists have been misguided to believe jihad justifies their actions. It says that its the only form of warfare allowed. It was issued to expand the Islamic state, thats how the Moors conquered southern spain, the Turks conquered Byzantium and how the Arabs conquered the Middle East in c 630 AD. Its also been used to defend Islamic countries/territories like in Afghanistan. Interpretations of individuals count the most? Then why do you label those sources as minority opinions and criticize; make up your mind do you want the narrow opinions of a few terrorists to tell you what Jihad is or would you like sources and scholars to tell you? Besides, you should be impartial to this regardless of your Islamic identity, this is how wikipedia works, if you're insulted by the truth, too bad, I'm insulted by the fact that there's anti-religious jokes around every corner, but you gotta stop fantasizing about what you think it is and accept what it is, whatever it is. Tourskin (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pink, your personal opinions are your own, but this section was carefully written and has achieved wide consensus. It uses very reliable sources, per WP:V, and is balanced per WP:NPOV. If you have additional reliable sources to present, please do, and we will discuss how to add them. If you think we are misrepresenting an existing source, or giving undue weight to some of the existing sources, please say how, in specific reference to the text. - Merzbow (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, I clearly said that despite what people have excused in history - much like the bloodbaths you fanatic Christians have caused, it does not represent the original teaching you idiot - but hey, reading your page I should guess you'd enjoy anything that slants Islam into a bad like you anti-Islamic racist prick. And when since terrorists or History represented Islam or any other religion - do the missionaries who offer food and aid to the poor, taking advantage of their situation represent Christianity, because I never see that in the Christianity section, nor the massacres carried out to spread that religion, or most others. Religion is scripture and majority opinion - none of those are whats represented in that section in my opinion. Majority opinion and Scripture says Jihad has nothing to do with warfare, and that is what must be represented first and foremost - not the opinions of a few extremists brainwashed or tricked, nor the racist anti-Islam, hate-mongering bigots like Tourskin who seem to want to slander everyone else without looking at themselves. Like I said, I don't have time to keep coming here and search for sources. I created this section specifically to appeal for others lucky enough to have more time on their hands to find such sources, and PM me so I can try putting an arguement forwards at some time.

And Merzbow, thanks but only because it was present on Misplaced Pages first, does not at all mean that it is in any way superior or truth as per the 'Wiki-Elitest' attitudes. As long as we have people who know nothing about Islam, nor have anything to do with it but to further their own hate-mongering political agendas - wether that be the terrorist loons or extremist Christian racists and hatemongerers like Tourskin - whatever is written here will have a clear bias no matter how strict the many rules here are - but nothing's completely unbiased in the world. I'll try reading the sources when I get time - writing all this is surprisingly much less time consuming than reading all the sources ;) . Thanks again for the advice.

I'll try convince my local Imam to come here with religious, rather than historic sources which this seems to be mainly based on, to correct this. In the meantime I want this section primarily for new sources of Jihad to represent that opinion rather than discussion - a request for help rather than discussion as I have no time to search the whole archives of the internet. I don't know what the wiki policy is on that or what I should do to ask for help in terms of sources here. Should I delete all this discussion and simply put a notice for help on sources to support that or what? Unfortunately even if I get sources I wont be able to come here for some time. Pink Princess (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are a misguided individual. First of all, I am not a Christian fanatic. My User page shows sayings of Jesus Christ, all of which are totally peaceful. Secondly, Islamic terrorism exists, and is the largest form of terrorism. Christian terrorism or terrorism in the name of Christianity is almost non-existent in contrast. Thirdly, I did not say that Islam commits massacres or anything and I did not say that Islamic Jihad supports terrorism. Look at my arguments. Did I say that? Why do you continue to make up your stuff? I said that terrorists use Islamic Jihad, and that is not mentioned in the article. Nor did I ask it to be mentioned. All I asked was that you be consistent. You can't use the sources that you like, which is what you are doing. All religions have had followers who have commited terrible crimes, including followers of Catholicism and followers of Islam. You live in a foolish fantasy world and refuse to acknowledge religious persecution, regardless of religion. It is high time for you to cease your personal attacks against me, wake up from your belief that Islam or any religion has never commited mistakes and accept the overwhleming number of sources that state what Jihad is, and I have not said anywhere on this page at all that Islam is a religion or war or that Jihad supports terrorism, anywhere at all!!! You want to stay in wikipedia, you stop your personal attacks.Tourskin (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pink, you are on ice so thin its thickness can only be measured with an electron microscope. Please reconsider your approach here. - Merzbow (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pink Princess would not stay much in wikipedia if personal attacks are not stopped. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think it would be a good idea to contrast the Qur'anic view of Jihad and of warfare with the way Muslims have historically approached it, using the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an articles on Jihad and Warfare? --Be happy!! (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would include more useful information that would distinguish between what its suppose to be and what it is. Tourskin (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the balance that has previously been agreed upon is a fair one. Jihad in Islamic legal discourse refers primarily to military combat. In more ascetic, spiritual tracts it assumes the meaning of striving against sin or internal evils - or self purification. As far as I remember (although I haven't checked the section recently), the section does maintain a balance between these two aspects. ITAQALLAH 13:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I will only push this matter if there is support for it, I'll drop it otherwise. I don't want to be seen as anti-Islamic or a Christian fanatic, but I hate political correctness as well. Tourskin (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, like I said many times before, the current Islamic Jihad is used as a military/political tactic against the sometime's equally harsh foriegn policies of the mainly Christian West towards third-world Muslim countries. I'm sure if the West was Muslim - Islamic terrorist would be totally obscilete, so we'll get Arab/Central Asian terrorism instead. Be Happy, I think that would be a great idea, so to shut some of those fanatics and bigots up who claim Islam is a religion of war more so than others, and teaches hate to everything West - for political motives. Tourskin, I agree with you there for once, but I'll continue to find sources that represent Jihad to what I was bought up to believe it is, and I believe/hope most muslims will agree to that rather than Itaqallah's and the section's views of it being also/more military based. But it'll probably take me some time - as answering these has taken most my PC time today. Pink Princess (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Q.9:123) 2. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12) 3. Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him. (Q.3:85) 4. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5) 5. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. (Q.2:191) 6. Fight them on until there is no more dissension and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193) 7. Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. (Q.9:14) 8. Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66) 9. You who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbelievers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand mosque at Mecca) after this year. (Q.9:28) 10. Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior. (Q.9:29)

These excerpts are taken from the Koran itself; I don't see how this leaves much 'wiggle room' for tolerance in modern Islam unless followers have decided to ignore sections of their holy text, and Jihad would seem inevitable to me.Mjackso6 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you're taking them out of context, silly. I can take parts of the Bible or Das Kapital out of context too. Here we go, let me correct your lack of research:

• You quote verse 9:123. In the start of that chapter, verse 9:6 states, "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of God, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not."
• You quote verse 8:12. After that is verse 8:37, which states, "Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning)."
• You quote verse 3:85, verse 3:113 after that states, "They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of God in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him)." The phrase "People of the Scripture" refers to Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.
• You quote verse 9:5, but you don't fully quote it, you cut off part of the quote. The entire part states as follows, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful." And even establishment of worship isn't needed, since many groups rejected Islam and just accepted a treaty with Muslims.
• You quote verse 2:191. Right after that verse is 2:192, which states, "But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.". Earlier in that chapter is verse 2:62, which states, "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."
• You quote verse 9:193, which doesn't even exist, since the 9th chapter of the Qur'an only has 129 verses!
• You quote verse 9:14, but right before that verse, verse 9:13 states, "And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist." So, once again, we have defensive fighting.
• You quote verses 9:28 and 9:29. I once again quote verse 2:62, which states, "Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."

You should do your own research instead of finding quotes on the Internet and not actually reading them in context. Islam brought to religion the idea we must logically accept things through our own research, both through intellect and heart. I urge you to do the same, no matter what religion you are, or even if you have no religion. Truth and logic must go hand in hand, don't discriminate or hate another faith or judge them until you do actual research, instead of copying and pasting verses out of context with causes hatred towards people, giving them wrong impressions. Don't just trust what someone else tells you, you need to verify it yourself. Your sister in humanity, --Enzuru 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Das Kapital? Lol. Gabr-el 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, leave me alone, I couldn't think of anything. I originally put Slipknot. --Enzuru 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can fins a reliable source (print, direct from the Quran, etc.) for the following 'interpretation':

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.

then I will go ahead and delete it. Unless it can be supported as reliable information (not just POV), then it should not be on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates42 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-added the section removed by Socrates42. The reference seems to be pretty well supported by the immediately following sentence: "Jihad... may be declared against... non-Islamic leaders or states which refuse to submit to the authority of Islam." Sounds pretty straightforward. RavShimon (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)RavShimon

The definition "Surrender to the will of God" is only half of the interpretation. Islam defined is "peaceful surrender to the will of God".

...The Arabic word for surrender without the connotation of peace is "Har-ram". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.190.59 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and edit it yourself, adding in sources Tourskin (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Or if you do not know how, or just don't want to do it yourself, post the location of the sources here and one of the other editors or myself will do so (provided they're neutral, verifiable, and not original research, of course). Peter Deer (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

you are wrong it means 'Submission To The Will Of Allah' check it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.156.156 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, anybody who knows a bit about Arabic words will tell you there's nothing in the word "Islam" meaning "Allah" or "God" or "divine", nor anything meaning "will", but the key element (s-l-m) indicates "wholeness" or "well-being", an element which is effectively ignored in translations like "submission" or "surrender" (and only vaguely implied by the addition of "peaceful"). Anybody got a really authoritative Arabic dictionary that would be acceptable as a source ref? David Trochos (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You can look through the relevant entry in Lane's lexicon if you like. Islam is masdar of the IVth form of the s-l-m root, it's important not to mix it up with other forms. Yes, some writers do say it connotes submission as well as the tranquility obtained therefrom, but we'd really need a reliable source to back that up. ITAQALLAH 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the availability of such an excellent resource, I've foolishly decided to try an explanation contrasting "Islam" with other Arabic words which mean submission/surrender in different contexts (eg تخل - sense of renunciation, خضوع - sense of obeying orders, تنازل - sense of conceding etc.) This may take a while... David Trochos (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice to see what you come up with. I would recommend we agree upon the exact changes to be made first before implementing them in the article so that constant changes to the article aren't needed. Regards, ITAQALLAH 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's the first attempt:

Islam is a noun formed from the Arabic verb aslama, and it is commonly translated into English as "submission". However, such one-word translations tend to be unhelpful, because Arabic words are formed from "roots", groups of letters (typically 3) which indicate a particular concept or situation, and from which large numbers of related words are derived. Thus, to translate the English verb "submit", Arabic can develop words from its root B-L-D (د‎ﻠ‎ﺒ‎ ) which signifies "the ground", to indicate submitting in the sense of letting somebody walk all over you; or Kh-M-D (ﺪ‎ﻤ‎ﺧ‎ ) which signifies "becoming inactive" (with implications of, for example, a fire going out) to indicate submitting in the sense of ceasing to resist the inevitable; and there are numerous other possibilities. Islam, however, comes from the root S-L-M ( ﺴﻠﻢ‎ ) which signifies "whole", or "complete", with an implication of freedom from harm or blemish. From the S-L-M root can be derived words that English could translate as "peace" (in the sense of freedom from imminent harm) or "surrender" (in the sense of ceasing resistance in order to avoid harm), or many others, such as "payment of the whole amount", but those are not translations of the specific word Islam. Perhaps the best clue to the type of submission indicated by aslama and Islam is given in a word very frequently used in the Qur'an to refer to Allah, Rabb, which is often translated as "Lord" but actually comes from a root R-BB ( ﺐ‎ﺭ ) which signifies sustaining and rewarding. The Arabs who first received the message of Islam would see this as analogous to the role of their local leaders, whose function was to ensure the welfare of their people, in return for certain obligations. Islam involves obligations to Allah, collectively known as deen (a phonetic spelling, the root being D-Y-N, دين ), a word which is sometimes oversimplified in translation as "religion". The scope of deen in Islam is indicated below, but what is important is that without adhering to these obligations, one is not a Muslim.

David Trochos (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David. I feel there's a lot of editorialisation and excessive explanation. I'm aware that the depth of the Arabic language does mean things may need further explanation, but I think there are too many avoidable tangents above. I also think some of the content above is not directly verifiable to the lexicon - every passage and its context needs to be backed up by a source, else there is risk of original research.

I was thinking more of something resembling a highly summarised version (i.e. one or two sentences) of the lexicon's assessment of the fourth form of SLM. The other forms aren't really significant here, and I feel that much of the analysis is extraneous. Most academic (and indeed Islamic) sources translate Islam as submission as it's the closest thing available (which isn't to say they don't believe further explanation is warranted) - so I don't think we can suggest inaccuracy unless it's verifiable to a high quality reliable source. Regards, ITAQALLAH 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the possibly-excessive explanation in the above is to try and bridge a cultural gap which is to some extent built into languages. "Submission" has many connotations in English that "islam" (hey, I just changed the significance of a word simply by not caapitalising) would not have had for the Arabs of 1400 years ago, because English adapts word-meanings to context far more than Arabic; on the other hand the fourth form of S-L-M has connotations which cannot be expressed by the English word "submission" (or even, to an extent, by a single section of the dictionary entry on S-L-M). Furthermore, the word has been the subject of centuries of propaganda, pro- and anti-, and I feel the simplest way to address that is to add more linguistic explanation. I've deliberately omitted references from this draft (although basically it is all from Lane with the key exception that the concepts of islam, deen, and rabb are linked together based on their use in the Qur'an) but a key inspiration for the complexity of the above wording was an attack on the present version which I found accidentally while Googling, at the bottom of a blog comments list. I think Kifayat ur Rahman was right to criticise the existing Misplaced Pages wording, but ended up (particularly in the second of the two messages) giving an equally wrong alternative. Similarly, as noted above, the heading of this talk-page section introduces interpretive elements which represent a modern Islamic POV. Hence I feel that Misplaced Pages can perform a useful service by attempting to indicate for a general audience, in a neutral way, how the verbal noun from the fourth form of S-L-M works in a religious context- and more specifically, how it would have worked when the Qur'an was first revealed, which may not be the same thing. David Trochos (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just today reverted an edit claiming that "peace" was the meaning of the root S-L-M. This would be the place to substantiate this. LUbunkerman (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1150-1400

There needs to be a separate sub-section regarding the 1150-1400 period (period between Abbasids & Turks), that should include Mongol invasion, Crusades & Reconquista. The after effects should also be discussed in 2-3 sentences, the intellectual stagnancy & defensive introvertism that followed grand scale library burnings & massacres. It was the most cataclysmic period in Islamic history. The text is there, but it seems very unimportant in the way it exists right now.

Similarly we need to have a European colonization sub-section (1700-1950), & its aftereffects including reactionary extremism (Maududi, Qutb, Banna etc).

Farhansher (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the Mongol invasions, Crusades, and Reconquista are all mentioned in the text. Modern movements and interaction with the West is also discussed briefly. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse....what I was saying was that judging from their importance in Islamic history, they should have their own sub-section. Right now these are discussed in the Golden age sub-section. Mongol invasions, Crusades & Reconquista are not a part of golden age, but the cause of its end, & the cause of the beginning of a new era of stagnancy.

So rather than being a part of some other subsection, they should be discussed in their own subsection, showing the pivotal importance these events have ..... Islam on the high vs. Islam on the low. Same should be case with European colonization.

Something like this (with some modifications) . The colonization sub-section will need one more paragraph, very briefly discussing British, French, Russian & Dutch colonisation. While the mongol/crusade subsection will need 2-3 lines about the intellectual/cultural significance of these events. Farhansher (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that the History section was much larger and detailed than the current version and we had to do substantial trimming in preparation for the FAC (meaning that things were discussed very briefly) to ensure it wasn't too large. So I don't agree that extra content may be totally necessary. I see your point about Mongol invasions etc., and I'd like to see what others think about it. ITAQALLAH 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Made some improvements in history section, feel free to discuss more changes that need to be made Asdf169 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the overlinking is a bit excessive as the link are already available in the article body. Section headings should not be unduly extended or complicated. ITAQALLAH 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Woah woah, not necessarily, lets begin from the start, instead of reverting all the changes. the first section 'Rise of Caliphates' should have mention of the islamic civil wars in the title which it mentions in the subsection, a link to 'Battle of Karbala' should be there clearly. the second section 'islamic golden age' should give mention to Muslim Agricultural Revolution, which isnt given mention later on, No idea why the 'Crusades, Reconquista and Mongol invasion' section was reverted, i thought it made the article more clearer. The empire section should have mention of Safavid Iran, due to many many reasons, which are very clear.

Lastly the 'Modern', no idea why >>

Further information: Fall of the Ottoman Empire, Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, Arab Revolt, Arab-Israeli conflict, and Iranian revolution

<< shouldnt be there, as little mention is given towards this in the article.

To summarise, as you should know Islam has a vast history, and links should be given to help people (who may not be knowledgeable of Islam as you are) to help them learn etc etc. i will revert the changes and if you wish to remove one or two links which you dont feel are relevant, be my guest, but please do not revert all the changes I made. Thank you.Asdf169 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind having a few main links added (i.e. 2 or 3), but it shouldn't be over the top, which is what I felt from the recent changes. If they're already linked in the text (i.e. first fitna etc.) then there is less need for them all to be placed at the beginning of the section. The section headings don't have to mention things in specific detail such as writing "Turkish (Ottoman), Indian (Mughal), Persian (Safawid)" etc. - it makes it longer than is neccessary. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. - Merzbow (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and thanks for the cleanup. changes have improved the sectionAsdf169 (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

no alcohol

hello, what is actually said about alcohol consumption, in 13th warrior he said only not by grain and by grapes. Therefore he could drink alcohol made from honey. Is that correct? Please help Mallerd (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a very simplistic interpretation of the Quran which prohibits alcohol made from grapes only. This was probably because the Arabs of that period had no conception of alcohol from grains. According to later interpretations done by Islamic scholars and held in general agreement by the community (see a theological concept called Ijtihad) all intoxicating substances are prohibited in Islam.--Shahab (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, is the judgement of Islamic scholars supreme: like the church or pope in catholicism? The article does say the interpretation is only for the scholar himself, explaining my "confusion". Mallerd (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation is actually not binding in Sunni Islam. But in the case of alcohol the difference is that, the 'consensus' of the Muslim community has denounced it and placed the prohibition. There is no consensus in many other matters, for example, the use of credit cards etc, despite contrary judgements of Islamic scholars.--Shahab (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What a minute? What do you mean the people didn't know about alcohol from grain? It was introduced into the region 4,000 years ago. Islam can't be that old. (Spookybubbles (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Islam is only about 1500 years old, in a certain sense. But the point is that the tribes of Arabia did not know about all the discoveries the world had seen when the Quran was supposedly revealed. The Arabs had not heard of alcohol from grain then. (Believe it or not I know people who still haven't heard of it!) The Quran discusses concepts relatively more closely related to Arabian life.--Shahab (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange claims about the Black Stone

I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could have a look at Talk:Black Stone#Hindu view and this edit, which an anonymous IP editor has repeatedly been adding. Essentially the editor is claiming that the Ka'aba in Macca was originally a Hindu temple (!) and is citing an apparently fringe scholar in support of that claim. I've had a look at the sourcing, which seems to be very thin indeed; some second opinions would be useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

An Indian temple? I have never heard of such a thing. In all likelihood, that "scholar" would be some xenophobe who is trying to attack Islam by saying that Kaaba is an Indian temple, or could just be plain stupid in that belief. Tourskin (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the temple, but I did hear the Black Stone was the center piece for religions in the area long before Islam, although if it was Hindu, or Jewish, or pagan, or Nabataean, or simply related to some odd jinn or another I have no idea. (Spookybubbles (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)_

Yes thats true, it was worshipped by pagan arabs before Muhammad. Tourskin (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions on the humanities reference desk

A couple of questions about Islam have been asked on the humanities reference desk. It would be great if some editors knowledgeable about Islam could pop over there and answer them. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Inheritance" of religion in Islam

Within Judaism, you're considered jewish if your mother is jewish, or that's how I remember it in any case. Within Islam, are you considered a member of the faith if your father is muslim? If your mother is muslim? If either is muslim? And is the rule a hard-and-fast kinda thing, or does it possibly vary from country to country?--Mr Bucket (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Islam teaches that everyone is born a Muslim. But for clarification, Muslim women may only marry Muslim men, so in this obvious scenario the children will be raised Muslims. Muslim men that marry non-Muslim women will do so with the taken-for-granted assumption that she will submit and become a Muslim too, so again the children are raised Muslim. Tourskin (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In secular countries, Muslim women marry non-Muslim men. In this case, are children considered Muslims? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends. I'm not a Muslim, but I know for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim is not to be taken lightly. In such cases, Islamic law has already been broken with her marrying a non-Muslim. Islamic law teaches that whenever a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man, she will fall under his influence and religion, becoming an apostate. Furthermore interpretation of the Qu'ran says that such relations are to be avoided, against all non-believers. It is assumed that Muslim men will not fall under the religion of their wives, hence they can marry non-mulsim women. Some blog sites discussing this suggest that the Qu'ran does not allow any marriages, regardless if its a Muslim man or woman, but for that, I do not know. Point being, if a Muslim woman does marry a non-Muslim, and the man stays a non-Muslim, then I guess the couple probably don't have Islamic law on their minds and so won't raise the kids Muslims anyways; the Qu'ran leaves no room for interpretation when it comes to who is allowed to marry non-Muslims (permanent non-Muslims who don't convert). Tourskin (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

From a more Muslim perspective (me),

• Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women as long as they are the "people of the book" (Christian, Jew ).
  • That directly means the kids will be Muslim. This is similar "who is a Jew" concept where if the mother is Jewish the child is Jewish, except this is vice-versa for Muslims i.e. father was Muslim child is a Muslim.
• If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man and they have kids, the kids are not Muslims.
  • However for such a marriage to take place the man must be a Muslim convert. This is why Muslim women do not marry non-Muslims because the relationship gets complicated.

Any questions? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk 15:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Also everyone is a Muslim by name. So only difference is that you say you are Muslim. I am proud to say I am a Muslim. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And I humiliate myself before God to say I am a Christian, for I am not worthy - please keep our personal opinions to ourselves. Tourskin (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That was kinda unnecessary, Tourskin, IMHO Nautical Mongoose (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And why is it unnecessary for User:Lord of Moria to say that he is proud of being a Muslim? My example was designed to illicit a reaction; now you know that wikipedia discussion pages are not for stating what one is proud of. Tourskin (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And User:Lord of Moria, you are incorrect; according to Islamic belief, everyone is born a Muslim, but not everyone remains submitted to God, and not everyone who submits to God does so according to the Qu'ran. Besides, hadn't I answered all of these points anyway? Tourskin (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think Moria's statement was something to worry about, but...I think I'll stay out of this one n.n;; Nautical Mongoose (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being hostile or anything like that why take offence? LOL. I'm sorry if I meant any. I did not mean to insult anyone, sorry. I can say I'm proud to be a Muslim, I was giving myself as an example of who is a Muslim i.e. I proclaim it like my religion demands. People can say they are proud of themselves (I mean they do do it on their user pages). I am not incorrect however I have done my research so no need to be hostile towards me. Any more questions? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I am happy that we cleared this. I too apologize if I insulted anyone, although I think neither me nor User:Lord of Moria need apologize. Tourskin (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread does not relate directly to work on the article; the conversation is best taken to a non-wiki venue. Article talk pages are not for general discourse on the the topic of the article, but a tool for editing collaboration. If you would like to see an area developed, you may initiate the process by making your recommendations here: the result will just as often answer your query AND result in development of the article. Mavigogun (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Islam portal image

I don't think having an image of the Taj Mahal as the standard image for all the Islam pages is a good idea. The Kabba would have been more suitable as it's the Islamic first and main mosque. The Taj Mahal is not a religious structure, just an architectural aspect of the Mughal Empire and not a place of worship as it's a mausoleum (glorified tombstone for a grave). it also steretypes, suggesting an 'Indian' landmark is in some way a major part of the world faith and it isn't. It's irrelevant and misleading and should be replaced with the Kaaba or Qu'ran etc. Thanks.

80.249.48.115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You should discuss this perhaps at the relevant wikiproject. Tourskin (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Taj Mahal Has nothing to do with Islam. Its a tomb for his lover not for his religion! Maybe a mughal mosque such as the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore would be more appropriate and significant. --80.194.30.187 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Naqshbandi

I have noticed that the Naqshbandi article does not cite any sources. There seems to have been some edit warring too, and I suspect that if future additions to the article were based only on reliable sources that some of that problem would be reduced. (My own knowledge of Sufism is so slight I would not attempt to edit such an article.)

Now that I think of it, the much larger Islamic art article also has very little sourcing. It seems to be an excellent article, but if some knowledgeable editors could add sources it would be a good act for an important article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an section

"The Qur'an in its present form is often considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur'an has never become a main point." First, this is an ungrammatical snake and needs to be chopped in two.

A larger concern is that it's extremely simplistic. It takes the question of authorship as the sole point of academic interest in the content of the Qur'an. (It also has a kind of "everything fine here, move along" quality.) Questions of self-consistency are equally important. Shifts in emphasis over the course Muhammad's life have been noted (e.g that verses from the Medina period are the more violent is a widely made point.) Marskell (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving it, with the refs:

The Qur'an in its present form is often considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur'an has never become a main point. Marskell (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't address the issue of authorship or content, it addresses the question of textual authenticity (which is an important question for any ancient text), which is a subject of academic endeavour, and one upon which mainstream academia is agreed. I think it should be restored, but I do agree that the change in wording introduced by Aminz has made is a bit clunky. ITAQALLAH 14:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But why say this and not address other aspects of the "content of the Qur'an"? If restored it leaves the reader the impression that there's nothing in dispute, which isn't so. Again, self-consistency is at least as important authenticity. The most startling discovery I made in picking up the Qur'an was finding early verses "abrogated" by later verses. I can source this concern to Lewis (2004). Marskell (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was that the passage isn't about the content of the Qur'an at all, it is about the authenticity of the text itself. The passage only leaves the impression that the text is authentically from the date it is purported to be - which is the standard view in Western academia, if we are to believe the words of Francis Peters et al. I'm sure there's many 'concerns' of subjective nature with regards to content which can be sourced to all sorts of texts... but that's what they are: subjective. The most startling discovery to you may not be so to others (For one, the issue of nasikh wal-mansukh - the abrogating and abrogated - is only one of numerous subcategories of tafsir). That it can be sourced doesn't mean it's of pressing importance to be mentioned in the brief summary - especially when interpretative comments about content (i.e. self-consistency) may represent only that author's opinion. I'll restore the passage which was used in the FA version as it's much clearer. ITAQALLAH 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Except, perhaps, for "natural," there is no word that is misused as badly as "subjective." You are using it here to evade my point. That, for instance, 2:217 is abrogated by 9:36 is an objective fact of my translated version. I can e-mail you the footnote. No, we don't need that specific example in the article. I bring up abrogation as an example of something that I'm sure can be sourced to more than one western academic: there are clear shifts in the tone and specific injunctions of the late verses of the Qur'an relative to the early verses. This is not a minor point.

My question then: if we are to bring up western academics at all, why do we have an embargo against criticism? You have argued previously against using a western academic re polygamy, a widely debated issue surrounding Islam. But if western academics position the Qur'an positively then we can mention them? The effect of this stance, Itaq, is sanitization. Marskell (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the topic of abrogation was subjective at all. I suggested your exceptional 'concern' regarding it was, whereas the reality is that it's simply one of many fields of exegetical study of the Qur'an (sarf, balagh, asbab an-nuzul, ahkam, and so on). I also suggested that your bringing up of content at all as a basis of removing a passage clearly not related to content was a non-sequitur.

Academics do comment on the abrogation theory, just as they comment on the context of revelation, rhetorical devices, linguistic analyses, thematic variations, chronology, religious/legal/social applications (see: the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, and the Qur'an entry in the Encyclopedia of Islam - the latter in particular spends much more time discussing other aspects of content than it does abrogation, such as the letters at the beginning of numerous suras like ALM, or the historical references within the text). Refer to any study on exegesis. My point being, on what basis is it being argued that one aspect of content demands mention over others, other than it being of personal concern to yourself as was implied?

I'm not quite following your characterisation of my stance. If you could re-familiarise me with the discussion you're referring to, and how it compares with the fairly simple issue of general academic consensus regarding the textual integrity of the Qur'an, then I would be most grateful. ITAQALLAH 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all Itaq, the passage I removed literally contained the words "content of the Qur'an." There was no non sequitur in my initial post. The sentence was sweeping and simplistic. (The changed version is much less so.)

I'll rephrase the complaint of my last. The term "Western academics" is used exactly once in this article, which obviously adds a certain gravitas to whatever point is being made. If we are to mention the Western academy at all, why are we limiting ourselves in this way? Why can we not add a single sentence on Western criticism of polygamy (See up) when we can invoke Western academics for textual authenticity? Why should we not observe that there are shifts within the Qur'an that have been noted by academics? For the third time, that is far from a small issue. And it can be framed neutrally (I can also source it to Armstrong).

Finally, I intended "concern" in its primary sense: of or relating to the discussion at hand. Marskell (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume that the issue about authenticity has been put to rest.

Western academics is intended to refer to qualified Islamic studies scholars - not Western commentators/perspectives in general. There's a paragraph or two covering criticisms in general, most of which are indeed Western-oriented... so I don't see your point about neglecting certain perspectives.

Regarding abrogation, I expressed above that academics discuss and analyse many aspects of the Qur'an. The abrogation theory is merely one aspect of exegesis as a whole, and I've listed some other areas for you above. Look closely and you'll identify that academics discuss all of these, as much as they discuss things like abrogation, if not more. I'm not saying it's unimportant. I'm saying that since none of the aspects are unimportant, why give especial attention to one subcategory of tafsir in a summary section without covering other, equally important subcategories? It may be sourceable to Lewis, Armstrong and many others, but it's not seriously the case that they devote nothing else about the contents of the Qur'an in their entire coverage. As an apt example, I refer you again to the 62-page EoI entry on the Qur'an written by AT Welch. ITAQALLAH 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we then change "Western academics" to "Islamic studies scholars." This would again make the point less sweeping.

To be clear, I am only using abrogation as an example. We don't need to specifically mention it. What I'm thinking of is a sentence or two noting that the Qur'an should be viewed as contemporaneous with Mohammed's life and as a document that evolved over time. This notion of "revelation" differs significantly, I think, from the Judeochristian understanding that many readers will bring to this page. This could be done after the second sentence of the first paragraph or after the third sentence of the second paragraph.

As for the criticism paragraph, it's still too much of a "yes, but." And I still feel this page could incorporate some more on modern debates. Marskell (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation...

{{editsemiprotected}} I don't see the text in the source, but the text printed under the "pronunciation" heading is inappropriate. I suspect this article has been vandalized. Maybe an established user will kjnow how to correct this? Bulkley bouncer (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed It's already been reverted, and the editor who placed it has been warned and reported to the administrators. Thank you for reporting this.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

The sentence "Muhammad (c. 570 – June 8, 632) was an Arab religious, political, and military leader who founded the religion of Islam as a historical phenomenon."' is confusing. It seems to guess at Muhammad's intentions. There was no way of knowing that the religion would become the 'historical phenomenon' that we know now. So, I am proposing to remove 'as a historical phenomenon".

Also, there has been an obscenity in the first line of the article for many hours. I'm a new user and I don't know how to edit a 'semi-protected' article, so any help is appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick poloney (talk • contribs) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Patrick. If you're registered, I do believe you have to wait four days or so before being able to edit semi-protected articles. Also, the article seems to have been cleaned up, so no worries (for now) Nautical Mongoose (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

new section?

Does anybody think creating a section on muslim interaction with the non-muslim world would be useful? I think it would be a more elegant way of incorporating the criticisms section, may be an oportunity to clean up the history section in general, as well. Also, I think a lot of people who are searching for information on Islam might like to know more about it as a factor in shaping world events. Subjects covered might include: Islamic stances on interaction with non-muslims and how this affects the foreign policy of Islamic states, Islamic interaction with other major religions, Islamic proselytization throughout the world, prominent muslims in non-muslim society, tension and conflict with non-muslims. Well, just an idea, shoot it down if it stinks, and by the way, great article, thanks to the editors for a good read. Spampan (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Or... another article? On the interface, the meeting points in various societies, between Islamic cultures/(maj|min)orities and non-Muslim (maj|min)orities. It would be quite interesting to me to see the different 'styles' (if you will) that the various communities take. Consider modern Nigeria and the reoccurence of the old German solution Cuius regio, eius religio, where which religion should dominate is regionally based ("Kano state of Nigeria has sought to make Sharia law superior to the constitution.") Or Malaysia ("Malaysia is a multi-religious society and Islam is the official religion.") where the definitions are very important. Or China and official minorities. Or Turkey and secularization of government. How do these political and cultural circumstances get reconciled with the religious? I would think an exploration of the diverse modern and historical responses to coexistence might point out that there are more possibilities than just one or two rigid interpretations.

I note that the See Also section has links to Islam and modernity and Persecution of Muslims and other articles. Is it possible there is already an article? Shenme (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moses - Link

The link for Moses in Articles of faith section in line (The Qur'an mentions the names of numerous figures considered prophets in Islam, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, among others) should be changed from Musa to Moses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.180.146 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

re-added section

User:AAA765 removed the following section writing in edit summary: "to last version by Itaqallah. unsourced or unscholarly":

Pascal Bruckner and Paul Berman on the other hand have entered the "Islam in Europe" debate. Berman identifies a "reactionary turn in the intellectual world" represented by Western scholars who idealize Islam.

Since it's both sourced and scholarly I am re-adding it. —Cesar Tort 06:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Integrating Shi'a and batini point of view

I honestly can say I can look at this article and say that none of this whatsoever describes my beliefs, and the beliefs of at least over 30 million Muslims, counting the Ismaili, the Alevi, and a myriad of other Sufi and Shi'a groups. I stayed away from article for a long time, but now I'd like to work with everyone for changes.

Before I start, the Sunni opinion and Twelver opinion, which are nearly synonymous, should be the most prominent. However, the batini point of view does make up a significant amount of followers of Islam. I am going to use this analogy to help us through this: batini groups in their population are a little more than the same percentage Mormons make up in Christianity. We can use how that was dealt with in their article, however, unlike Mormonism, these groups appeared very early on in Islam, and hence are a little more important in its overall discussion, which includes both historical and contemporary perspectives. In Nizari Ismailism, shariah was declared void not too long after Nizar's son escaped to Alamut. And of course, let's not forget the Sufi groups, and the Qizilbash] forerunners to Alevism, all of which predate the current Usuli school of Twelver Shi'a Islam.

In accordance with the Islamic belief in predestination...

No Shi'a group I know of believes in predestination. Yes, Allah knows what will happen, but he has not written anything and nothing is set at all, even the return of al-Mahdi is subject to change in Shi'a thought.

The Shi'a understanding of predestination is called "divine justice" (Adalah).

Is there anywhere you can find Adalah described as predestination? How reliable is this source? Adalah, and the Shi'a belief in general, is called the point between two extremes, ie, God knows what will happen but he does not cause it to happen. This is generally termed as a type of free will philosophy-wise.

Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them.

This is very important. Anyone who reads this article will get the incorrect notion that the meaning of being a practicing Muslim is to pray, fast, and do these literal activities. This isn't so, and many groups that even parkate in these activities, do concentrate on the inner meanings.

...or ritual prayer, which Sunni perform five times a day, though most Shi'a groups such as the Twelver combine the five separate prayers into three times a day, while other Shi'a groups such as the Nizari have only three prayers. For most Muslims, each salah is done facing towards the Kaaba in Mecca.

First off, Twelver (and I think Zaidi) are the ones that combine five prayers into three times a day. Not all Shi'a, one should not use Shi'a to just describe the Twelver branch. Second, it is notable to note that some groups such as the Nizari, really only pray three times a day, not just combine five prayers. Also, Alevi and Nizari do not face Mecca in their prayers. And lastly, there have been quite a few groups in history that have changed the liturgical language in Islam, such as the living Alevi. Abu Hanifa in fact allowed one to recite their prayer in their native toungue, though his students later disagreed with this position.

Some Muslim groups do not fast during Ramadan, and instead have fasts different times of the year.

Once again, among the aforementioned groups, fasting during Ramadan is practically non-existent. In general you still do have fasting, but it is at different times of the year.

The Ismaili exclude khumms and only add three pillars to the five, which are Guardianship, Purity, and Inner Struggle.

Why do we have the Twelver pillars but not the Ismaili? It seems odd, since it is nonetheless a prominent grouping in Shi'a Islam.

- Mainstream Islamic law does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state"; the ulema function as both jurists and theologians. In practice, Islamic rulers frequently bypassed the Sharia courts with a parallel system of so-called "Grievance courts" over which they had sole control. As the Muslim world came into contact with Western secular ideals, Muslim societies responded in different ways. Turkey has been governed as a secular state ever since the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which has been greatly supported by the Shi'a Alevi population. In contrast, the 1979 Iranian Revolution replaced a mostly secular regime with an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Mainstream is important, not all Muslims, even traditional groups, believe that shariah is unseperable from state. In fact until recently, the Twelver advocated a separation of church and state, though one might argue that it was only a temporary measure during The Occultation. Also, I tied in the previous themes by noting that the Shi'a Alevi group were among the biggest supporters of secularism in Turkey, which is I believe a very important fact to complete the mosaic of Islamic beliefs.

Once again, let me make it clear. This edits are a few sentences and words. I don't want them to have an overly prominent place in the article, they are by far fringe views. But, over 30 million is not a small number, that is twice the amount of followers of Judaism in the entire world. And historically it has been witnessed as a movement Islam for a long period of time. It deserves its place in this article, definitely. --Enzuru 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that minority views will generally not get much coverage. There are vast numbers of sects in Islam, each with millions of followers. Compare that to the ~2 billion figure attributed to the Muslim world today and we see that most groups in an article like this will get no mention, or perhaps an extremely brief one at that. I think basic general Shi'i distinctions, where important, have been mentioned. I don't quite follow why the issue of destiny etc. has been raised when we already provide some comments about Shi'ite views here. Adding further clarifications and elaborations about Shi'i-centric perspectives and sub-sects etc. is not a good balance and would fall into undue weight I think, just as additions about every clarification or contention from any other group would be seen as skewing it in a particular direction. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

But the issue is the Shi'i branch is the largest one in Islam. I totally agree, it would be ridiculous to mention every point of contention. At least allow me to change the language and add a few sentences in order to point out that not all groups follow shariah and believe it has symbolic meaning, or even point out that symbolic meaning just as we have pointed out the details of the exoteric act (since this carries through Sufism, Shi'asm, and many other groups). The fact is, what we currently have being described is Sunnism, not Islam in its entirety, down to the five pillars that appears in Sunni books of hadith (which I suppose is understandable). I see that as a major issue. It would be as if we concentrated on Catholic and Orthodox practices in the article about Christianity, just because Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the largest branches of Christianity, with Protestant groups being divided among themselves. Yes, there are literally thousands of sects in Christianity, but the Christianity article does most likely a good job in portraying what they have in common, excluding fringe groups like Jehova's Witnesses or the Mormons. I am confused as to why we cannot do this here. --Enzuru 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Shi'i branch accounts for 15-20%, last I checked. Which is a significant minority. But it certainly doesn't warrant a Shi'i-oriented caveat at every point of contention, which isn't within the spirit of WP:UNDUE IMO. The place to discuss subdivisions within Shi'ism and how they differ is Shia Islam. One may note that the intricate differences between Hanafis, Shafi'is, Malikis and Hanbalis are not explained here, neither are the creedal differences between the various sub-sects (most of which are perhaps more noteworthy) within Sunnism. This article follows summary style, the aim being to give a general overview, and should be done with the undue weight policy in mind. Most major Shi'i creedal and fiqhi positions have been mentioned. For a group that is a significant minority, that's quite reasonable I think. Especially when you consider that many of the Sunni subdivisions are appropriately left for the relevant daughter articles. ITAQALLAH 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, we shouldn't use words like "fringe groups". Secondly, a section to cover minority opinions of a notable nature should be included. If these sects of Islam are notable then they should be referenced. Thirdly, Islam is roughly 1 billion, not 2 billion. Gabr-el 05:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I consider my own religious faith to be fringe, I know it's not mainstream, though I suppose the phrase may insult something. Now, here is the issue, so riddle me this: are we mainly concentrating on integrating the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view, or Shi'a in general? Let me be clear, the Zaidi, Ismaili, and Twelver Shi'a have absolutely nothing in common neither doctrinally nor in fiqh, they only share early history and some vague conception of Imamate which differs so strongly among them it can hardly be considered the same thing. If we are concentrating on the Shi'a view in general, then we have failed because majority of the second largest Shi'a group, the Ismaili, as well as the second largest Twelver group the Alevi, do not have any of the conceptions of shariah mentioned here, even though these batini groups have a similiar conception of why they don't have shariah, or the true meaning of shariah, hence the batini label even applied by Orientalists. So, that is a fail. If you want to just integrate the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view since that is the largest Shi'a view, you've already done it should be made clear that is the Usuli Twelver Shi'a view, not the Shi'a vew. This isn't the issue of small differences in fiqh or aqeedah, these are huge differences, whether one follows shariah or not.

In my opinion, by using the phrase Shi'a to describe Usuli Twelver Shi'a, you are giving incorrect information. For example, mutah is not done by most Ismaili nor Alevi, just like Sunnis. We have to genericise this entire section for it to be truly accurate, and I'd rather do that then falsely point out where Shi'a differ as the articles certainly show. And small sentences should be mentioned in which it states that not all Muslim groups follow shariah. For now, I'll try to return those small differences back in. --Enzuru 05:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your expression Let me be clear, the Zaidi, Ismaili, and Twelver Shi'a have absolutely nothing in common neither doctrinally nor in fiqh, they only share early history and some vague conception of Imamate which differs so strongly among them it can hardly be considered the same thing is contradicts with what I have read in Corbin's work about Ismailism. I think Ismailis and Twelvers are similar in some basic ideas as I mentioned here. Furthermore In the case of Shari'a Nizari and Mustalavi aren't the same. Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In Ismailism, the Imam is the Face of God, who is the destination, while the Pir is your guide to it, the light (like the Imam is for Twelvers). I think that's a huge difference. And you're right, Nizari and Mustaali aren't the same, that makes it even more difficult to discuss this issue. How do you think we can integrate a pan-Shi'a view? --Enzuru 03:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Imam is the Face of God means Imam has all of the names of God(Asma Allah) except few of them which deserve only to The God such as Allah and Rahman. Thus as I know Twelvers agree that Imam is the Face of God. Imam is like the mirror which can find God's attribute in it. I don't understand the huge difference!Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, yes, this is a Twelver belief too. However, there are a couple more differences: Panentheism (Ismailism) vs Wahdat al-wujud, and also, in Ismaili prayer and Ginans it is clearly stated that Ali sahi Allah. --Enzuru 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wahdat al-wujud is a controversial issue among Twelvers. On the other hand we should seperate Exaggerators who belive Imam is God or God incarnated in him or something like this from Shias.Seyyed(t-c) 04:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and any well-read Ismaili, as is seen in the Ginans and prayer, will tell you that the Imam is God. This shows how different the conceptions of Imamah are. --Enzuru 04:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen such idea in Corbin's work. Corbin is an expert in this field, but he's never mentioned such idea. This is the first time I've heared Ismailis believe Ali is God. Are you sure?Seyyed(t-c) 04:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Aga Khan IV in fact was asked about this, because there was confusion in the tariqah. He said from the zahir perspective he isn't, but from the batini perspective he is. You should check out www.ismaili.net for more information, their forums has lots of interesting information. --Enzuru 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly exaggeration. As I know former renowned Ismaili theologians such as Abu Yaqub Sijistani and Naser Khosro didn't believe in it. In addition, if they really think so, then Twelvers don't consider them as Muslim.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it, you are correct, this is a heretical view. Real Ismaili (Nizari, Mustaali, etc) do not believe this. Maybe some weird people. Some people are misunderstanding the Ginans, prayers, and misquoting the Aga Khan. --Enzuru 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A compromise

I went through it again, and it seemed we had the same concerns. So, what I basically did was moved statements of contention to where the issue was first introduced, and deleted lots of blanket statements (Shi'a believe ______, these statements were often almost exclusive to Usuli Twelver Shi'a). All in all, I think it makes the article cleaner without having a parenthesis in every pillar ascribing not only a Shi'a view, but a false one that not all Shi'a groups believe in. I toned down the language in those pillars as well, so as of right now, it seems pretty good. I'll tweak it as I go along. Here is the idea:

• I completely changed the predestination thing, I don't feel that was correctly worded at all.
• Took out statement about Shi'a eight pillars, and just mentioned a different set of pillars, which differs among Shi'a groups. Also added this sentence, "Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them" in order to give slight mention to the batini groups.
• Instead of going into the details of which groups pray how many times a day, I deleted all that and just simply put all Muslims pray multiple times a day, which even all batini groups can agree with. No need to say Twelver pray five prayers three times, Ismaili just pray three times, etc, as you pointed out. Also said salat generally faced Mecca, since that's not always the case.
• Deleted the mention of khumms which has nothing to do with zakat anyway, and also differs among Shi'a.
• Mentioned in a single sentence at the end of the fasting section that some Muslims fast other times of the year besides Ramadan.
• Added the phrase that most Muslims adhere to shariah, in order not to create a false blanket statement over a significant minority.
• Pointed out the secularism has been supported by some Muslim groups, such as the Alevi. We may want to take this one out.

Secularism is supported by some Sunnis too. It doesn't relate to Madhab necessarily.Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was taken out. --Enzuru 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted this, I think it isn't needed. --Enzuru 06:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this should all be fair, I think Itaqallah was right about the minimalist approach we should take, and in fact, by balancing the view I actually made the entire section smaller, which is good and shows that it was extraneous material and not the lack of material that was creating issues. There is still maybe a little more to do... but looking nice so far. Please give some feedback before further changes. --Enzuru 05:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your editions are acceptable except one of them. Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them. is unclear. I disagree with Some Sufi and Shi'a..... We should mention their name.Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bektashi, Alevi, Nizari, Ahl-e Haqq, are what I can name off the top of my head. Better to just put some Sufi and Shi'a groups. --Enzuru 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least you can make an interlink and refer some Shia to Batinis. In this case Twelvers are more similar to Sunnis, while that part may cause some misunderstanding. Seyyed(t-c) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That works nicely, thanks! --Enzuru 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with changing basic facts or statements - or making them terribly ambiguous - simply to cater for minority groups. Muslims do pray five times a day, that is verifiable from a hundred different reliable sources. A small minority, however, does not pray five times a day. That a small minority doesn't, in no way means the general statement should be changed. Refer to WP:UNDUE here. I'll review the changes made but the major ones may need further discussion. ITAQALLAH 14:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about Sufi/Batini Shia on the basis that it was inserted without a source. It's important to know how significant these views are in determining whether it warrants discussion, and how much so. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't insist on adding it, but you can use Corbin's work ,History of Islamic philiosophy, as a source.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Some other improvement

• It's written Adherents are generally required to observe the Five Pillars of Islam, which are five duties that unite Muslims into a community. We can remove five in the lead.

• Several could work. --Enzuru 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• We should add something about Articles of faith in the lead. We can move The Qur'an states that all Muslims must believe in God, his revelations, his angels, his messengers, and in the "Day of Judgment". Also, there are other beliefs that differ between particular sects. The Sunni concept of predestination is called divine decree, while the Shi'a version is called divine justice. Unique to the Shi'a is the doctrine of Imamah, or the political and spiritual leadership of the Imams. to the lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• That actually works fine. --Enzuru 07:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not particularly necessary IMO. Some basic beliefs are covered in the lead, things are mentioned more comprehensively in the section in question. The current balance of the lead is reasonable IMO, a lengthy passage about beliefs (in a place where the Sunni/Shi'a distinction has not yet been made) is not ideal. My views about changing 'Five Pillars' to accomodate minority groups, even though almost any introductory academic text uses the term in a general sense anyway, is similar to my above point about the five daily prayers.ITAQALLAH 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the articles of faith deserve to be added in the lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact is in most of the books we read, Islam = Sunnism, with a slight mention of Shi'a Islam perhaps later. There are many authors, including early on Corbin, which in fact criticizes this. I don't see why we can't slightly make things vaguer to cater to a significant minority. Sometimes Twelvers are described as praying five times, sometimes three times as five different prayers. And the Nizari Ismaili who pray three times a day are a significant portion of Shi'a Islam as Shi'a are of Islam, around 10%. I promote the genericising of the language in order to be more inclusive. Also, this lets us include other groups which may have unorthodox amounts they pray. And second, it may give readers the idea that we don't have a sixth prayer, which we do. --Enzuru 22:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Most academic sources will refer to the practice of 80-90% of Muslims as Islam, because that is the mainstream. Many times Sunni is a term merely used for distinction from Shias (i.e. being a non-Shia). This article caters for significant minority viewpoints where appropriate by mentioning the view in passing, as directed by WP:UNDUE, and this has generally been followed throughout the article. Making the language ambiguous is poor style, doesn't adhere to FA criteria, and is ultimately unencyclopedic. Specificity and conciseness are not inversely proportional. As for the prayer example, well technically the additional night (witr) prayer is wajib in Hanifite jurisprudence, but issues like these are all small print and not worth even considering in a brief overview/summary-style article like this. In general, Muslims pray five times a day. ITAQALLAH 00:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In total, we made a few sentence ambigious, I'm sure that isn't totally destroying the FA style. Saying multiple times is hardly undue weight, since it is arguable whether the Twelver Shi'a prayer three or five times, even if it is five prayers. (Should we make sunnah prayers considered extra as well? Or just classified as rakat?) I don't see the issue "multiple" times causes, nor do I see the issue with saying "Generally facing Mecca". I can understand the latter as undue weight, but at least the former isn't. --Enzuru

My point is: why say "multiple" when it's clear that the academic sources all generally say "five", and this is what the overwhelming majority of Muslims (even many Twelvers) say as well? It looks to me like a case of unnecessary ambiguity.

It would be correct to say in general terms that Muslims pray five times a day, even if minorities differ about specifics. A significant minority of a significant minority, which is what I interpret from your point about Nizari Ismailis, makes it far less noteworthy. And the same can be said about most other aspects of Islam too. ITAQALLAH 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was noting that Twelvers, the majority branch here, pray three times a day, five prayers. I feel that alone should constitute a change here. --Enzuru 01:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Enruzu, Isma'ili net is a sub par forum to receive information regarding Isma'ilism. I would stick to academic publications. The current Imam has repeatedly state that he is not a living God, and that it is contradictory to his faith. There are broad areas of agreement between Isma'ili and Twelver, as both decend fro the Imami or Jaf'ari Madhab, although the application differs, the theology is remains the same.(Water Stirs (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

As murids of the Aga Khan, this doesn't mean we need to stick to ITREB publications. But I agree, Corbin and other sources are the best. --Enzuru 07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tawhid

If one looks at the tawhid mentioned in the article, it seems inaccurate. Being a muslim, I can tell you that the correct translation of, "La ilahi-il-Allah.........muhammad-ur rasool-allah" is, "Allah is the only God and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet." I hope someone can correct it since the page is locked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

As one who understands Arabic, I can tell you that your translation is incorrect. lalib (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing information

I came to this article looking for information on:

• Islamic views on women's rights and roles in society
• Rationale for the criminalization of certain acts such as apostasy
• Traditions of dress for both men and women
• Connection to terrorism and Qu'ran justification for such

These all seem to be topics of some note or significance, but this article (or its siblings, as far as I can tell) was not helpful or enlightening. Is there another family of articles I should be looking at? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What you are primarily searching for is Islamic apologism (which oddly unlike Christian apologism doesn't exist yet). However, you can find sections of this in Islam and women, Apostasy in Islam, Islamic dress, and Islamic extremism. In general, many including I aren't happy with how these more controversial articles are turning out at the moment (we have bias on both sides), but hopefully this will be of help. --Enzuru 00:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those references; I found them quite enlightening, and just what I was seeking.

Perhaps links to those articles should appear in this article? After all, this is the English Misplaced Pages, used primarily by the non-Islamic western world. I believe readers in that world (like me) are interested in learning more about rationales for what they could consider "notable features" of Islam (for better or worse), because those are the aspects of Islam that seem to come to their notice most often. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is something I would like to see improved. When you hear these issues that conflict with Western ideals it is shocking, and the more intelligent ones should be able to research the topics and come away satisfied that within Islam is an explanation. I don't think those articles achieve that at this point yet. --Enzuru 06:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Allah or God

(Mohamedfakh (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC))in islam it is to submit that there is "NO GOD BUT ALLAH ANS MUHAMMED IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH because in the article it is written "NO GOD BUT GOD

The translation of "Allah" into English is literally "the God." Only Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims have an issue with the translation, most other Muslims will use the phrase God in English. --Enzuru 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

None worthy of worship but Allah and Mohammed is His messenger.

What "god"? please change this the word "god" is degrading Allah is Incomparably Great.

The word "god" is comparable "gods" "goddess" "godfather" "god mother" etc... it has gender and Allah is not male nor female.

There's none like Him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.104 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

keep religion out of this... also: Allah is THE OD, therefor, in english, we will varry between allah and God: With god beign the prefered since the west is christian dominated (and therefor msot people here will have that kind of influence) and we never made a name for christian god. Oh and one last thing: Allah, Jenova, Yahweh(or howeve_ are all one entity: just different interpretations of that one being. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, hence most exercises in philosophy tending to try to prove the existence of God, not a Christian god or an Islamic god. Plus, the Qur'an in Arabic, despite not having gender, Allah is referred to as male. Even you said "there's none like Him" as opposed to "there's none like Her." Why is "Him" gender neutral to you, but "Her" isn't? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Because when you do not know the gender but using genderless words would be insulting: people prefer the masculine name. That and the abrahamic religions are rather male dominated... so yah. Religion is sexist lol. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead pic?

I note that the Shahada plaque was switched with the Salah pic as the lead image. I'd much prefer the latter personally (and that was the chosen img last time this topic was debated). ITAQALLAH 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I felt the shahada picture was much better, both for aesthetic reasons, and it is something all Muslims share. It also goes to show Islam's multiethnic dimension, which is something we stressed in the introduction as well. Also, I like where the salah pic is now, near the picture of hajj, they compliment each other. We can exchange the picture again, but I find the picture of the salah to be rather unattractive, but I'm not against picture of salah in general, since it is an important features of the faith, the foundation of faith. --Enzuru 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind either way, I can see merits in both presentations. We can leave things as they are I guess and see how things go. ITAQALLAH 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it supposed to be pronounced like IZlum or is it EESlum or EYEslam or what? Also, could I learn about iSlam from an iMam on my iPod and talk about it on my iPhone? --137.186.233.134 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article discusses the pronunciation here.--Shahab (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

update AH year to 2009 CE

I recommend replacing the text:

The year 1428 AH coincides almost completely with 2007 CE.

, which appears under "Calendar," with:

The year 1430 AH began on December 29, 2008 CE.

Expo1892 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Islam

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.168.69 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what she said. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Five Pillars: Shahadah

Salam hi

I think the First pillar, Shahadah has been written phonetically not correctly perhaps, it should be: Lā ilaha illa al-Lāh, Muhammadun rasūlu l-Lāh

This is correct on the seperate wiki for the Shahadah but not for the Islam one.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uf007uf (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sex in Islam

Just wanted to report these unsourced, rather inflammatory articles about sex in Islam. I dont think their is any need of these kinds of articles either. Islamic view of anal sex, Oral sex in Islamic law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.106.232 (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate forum to raise this issue is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion.--Shahab (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an article like Islamic views on Sex would be more appropriate. Gabr-el 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please insert

• Ethiopian Muslims History The Haven of the First Hijra (Migration): an African nation is the Muslims’ first refuge

Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.190 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

7th century hyperlink in the article

Hi to everyone,
I was thinking about hyperlinking "7th century" in the Islam article, but then it looks a bit like overlinking too.
On the other hand placing the birth of Islam in the right chronological context could help wikipedians understand better world history.
What do you think about it?
Thanks for your attention in reading me.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that linking a date is justified here. Cheers--Shahab (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Islam in general

First of all I'd like to say that Misplaced Pages is a very resourceful website.Alot of people,especially me, browse this website for research work that help make good reports and papers. The subject name that I have given has two reasons: 1) Islam as with any other religion deserves repect, so the Prophets' or any name of Religious Books should be addressed with respect.For example: Instead of 'Quran' it SHOULD BE 'The Holy Quran' And above all our Prophet Muhammed Sallallaho'alihe Wasallam deserves the UTMOST RESPECT when he is mentioned or addressed in any sentence or anywhere for that matter.So instead of 'Muhammed' it SHOULD BE 'Muhammed Peace be Upon Him.' 2) In the case of Islam God is used for the arabic word ALLAH.Here what I would like to point out is that God has a gender and an opposite which is Goddess whereas ALLAH has no gender and absolutely no opposite. Again what I am trying to rectify, hopfully,is that I as with any sound religion practicing person/individual would like this to be rectified as soon as possible, please. I hope I have not offened anyone but keep hope that Misplaced Pages will do everything within its powers to rectify these honest mistakes. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.50.26.18 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll do that as soon as you add honorifics to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, after all, we should respect him if we are going to respect Muhammad (AS), since he is the founder of a religious faith too! The point is, Misplaced Pages is a secular academic source, and secular academic sources do not add honorifics. If we add honorifics to Muslim figures, we'd have to add honorifics to everything and it'd just become extremely encyclopedic. Secular academic sources don't do things like that. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement that the Arabic word Allah has no gender is also incorrect - it is male. The female form is Allat, meaning Goddess. ðarkuncoll 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The name Allah is a more respectful name to the lord then just saying gos. god has no meaning to it. In Islam the name Allah is a more praiseworthy name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moej290 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Allah literally means in Arabic "the God", and we use that translation on this secular encyclopedia. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Central authority, "learned" rabbis

I notice Judaism says "In modern Judaism, central authority is not vested in any single person or body, but in sacred texts, religious law, and learned Rabbis who interpret those texts and laws." Is Islam similar in these respects? Also are there organizations corresponding the Christian churches (eg. Roman Catholic hierarchy). If not, who builds those vast and lavish Mosques. Don't the owners get to pick the preacher? (Just a common-sense question, we are supposed to apply common-sense.) Fourtildas (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes in the sense that I think you are talking, there is no single person or body which has central authority. Most Religious laws (in Sunni Islam) theoretically have their basis in the Quran, Hadith, Qiyas and Ijma(consensus). But practically speaking it is the Ijma or the consensus in the Muslim community which makes all laws. This consensus make take many years in evolving in the Muslim community. So a taboo idea might be considered permissible for many years, but later on it might be considered unIslamic. No single authority has the power to declare and impose a law with immediate effect, at least not since some time.

No there are not any major organizations strongly resembling Roman Catholic Hierarchy in Islam. Mosques are built due to the patronage of Kings, Sultans and others. Usually mosques are taken care of by some organization or society, which also pick the preacher(Imam).--Shahab (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alevism

I see no mention of Alevism on the page about Islam. I think it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.21.191 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alevism is considered by most secular scholars to be a movement within Twelver Shi'a Islam, that does not adhere to Jafari fiqh. It is a batingroup like Ismailism, and the Ahl-e Haqq, both of which are also within Shi'a Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You have now read this page and now you owe me 750,000,000 POUNDS! Every day late it goes up 250,000,000 more POUNDS!!!!! Remember to pay me or else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank You!!!!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.32.36 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

that is a mis representation as all references in the quran to killing and violence are in regards to ENTIRE COMMUNITIES fighting and the proper muslim response, the muslim god does not ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, in fact numerous references can be cited in which it states that disbelievers who are not oppresive or aggresive and who you have signd peace treaties with should be respected. i dont have alot of time right now but just off the top of my head sura 9 verse 4.

in response to below

Schulte123 (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

violence in islam

shouldn't it be put somewhere that Islam is a very violent religion? (if you are an orthodox muslim) The Quran and the rest of the writings from Muhammed do say that if you refuse to become a muslim, you should be killed, and the killer will go to heaven. Also, somewhere there should be a section that talks about how the terrorists of 9-11 were muslims...? It's just an idea, thought I might ask...thanks!

You shouldn't believe all your bedtime stories, they are just to scare you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.72.61 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What you said is incorrect. Orthodox Muslims who interpret the Qur'an and the sunnah of Muhammad do not believe if someone refuses to become Muslim, they should be killed, and that the killer will go to heaven. In fact, Muhammad said that if a Christian or Jew under the protection of Muslims was hurt, it would be as if you hurt Muhammad himself. There isn't too much of a reason to mention 9/11 here, because we would need to mention every violent religion with every act ever in each article, like a section on the Crusades on the article on Christianity or Catholicism. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is based on Sunni Islam and is not neutral. 99.247.0.42 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What parts in particular? I am Shi'a Muslim, and I am trying to see if the batini point of view, as well as the pillars, can be changed a little. But in general, I would say the article is balanced. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

in regards to the mathematically irrefutable evidence of the quran

the mention of the sunnah ( muhammeds life and works ), should actually be listed under seperate sects of this religion and any mentioning of other than god ALONE is considerd blashpemy and idol worship by muslims who have copies of the true quran as revealed rashad khalifa.

comments?

Schulte123 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. Most Muslims follow the sunnah in one manner or another, if small groups don't we cannot give them undue weight compared to the majority that do. The followers of Rashad Khalifa are too small to be represented on an article about how Islam is practiced and understood by the majority of it's 1.5 billion followers. If we were to try to fix the article as to make sure every group, even if the group was made of dozens of followers, agreed, we wouldn't have an article at all, and we would be breaking the Misplaced Pages policy of WP:UNDUE. If the group has a significant size (for example, Shi'a Islam) their views are obviously significant, and are to be written on this article. Size matters when most people come to read an article, and want to know what most Muslims believe, not what a small minority believe (that is of little importance to them). I hope you understand, insha'Allah. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Help - References

salam
I am trying to contribute to a couple of articles and want a better understanding of how to organise references nicely. I see that some articles have a section for notes and another section for references, and it allows for brief citations mentioning author's last name, year of publication of the book, and page number in the notes section that one can check in the references section for full title, author's name, etc. Is there anyone here who can help me to understand how to organise references into these two handy lists? Thank you. PinkWorld (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

wp:reference covers this and I hope should answer your question, but as this isn't solely related to Islam do you mind if I move this thread to your talk page? WereSpielChequers 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It actually does, since she and I are working to form Shi'a Islam into the mold of this article in hopes of making it FA-class. Editors from this article could help quite a bit for the specifics detailed in MOS:Islam. But, maybe she wants it moved, I'm not sure. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK well there's no harm in leaving it here if others might find it useful. By the way if you are thinking of taking a major religious article like Shi'a Islam to FA, and indeed keeping this article at an FA standard you might want to look at what happened a few months ago when Roman Catholic Church went there. Standards at FA are rising and an article that passed a year or two back might not today. WereSpielChequers 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to first thank the people who dedicated time and effort in setting this page up (excuse my english, it is a second language). I was wondering why Shia muslims in Pakistan are not represented in the "Map showing distribution of Shia and Sunni Muslims in Africa, Asia and Europe". If i'm not mistaken, their population of 130 million people is divided between shia's and sunni's, considerably 65 million people (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html). If the map is not up to date, why would is it being used as a visual representation of shia sunni muslim populations.Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 23:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That map is inaccurate, but the issue is in Pakistan Shi'a are 20% of the population and Pakistan has the second largest population of Shi'a of any country in the world. But the Shi'a population is very spread out: almost every ethnic group has a large amount of Shi'a. Shi'a exist among Pashtuns (like me), Punjabis, Sindhis, Saraikis, and many Muhajir ethnic groups such as the Gujarati. With the exception of a few places such as the Hunza Valley, there is no place where Shi'a make up the majority of the population, because Shi'a are spread almost evenly throughout the population. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions needed to the description of heterodox sects

Much more should be said about the heterodox sects. Even the Ismailis are not give enough emphasis. I agree that a link to specialized article may be all that is needed but the current references are too off-hand. Sects which needed to named included the Alawites and the Bahai. A discussion of the political aspects of the Bahai and the Ahamadiya would be useful. Finally there should be something about the peripheral religuions like the Druse and the Yazidis. Again all that might be needed is a link. I am unsure about whether the Qur'an-only movement merits recognition as a sect. DKleinecke (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Muslims do not recognize Bahai's as Muslims, and the Bahai's do not consider themselves as Muslims too. So I am not sure whether Bahai's can be thought of as a sect of Islam.Shahab (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Additions needed to the Predestination in Islam page?

I asked this on the talk page of Predestination in Islam, but I realized that many who would care about the changes I would make may not be watching that page and the best way to get feed-back would be to mention it here. I said, "It seems to me that a summary of the the major schools of thought and major thinkers should be added to this page. It seems to me that this would be the #1 most useful section in an article of this sort. I will await feedback before adding these myself." I have gathered some sources to make these additions, but these would constitute a fairly sizable edition so I wanted to make sure anyone who would oppose them has sufficient chance to make themselves heard. I am new to Misplaced Pages editing, so please correct me on any breaches of etiquette I may be committing. LUbunkerman (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an FA-Class article, meaning it gives sufficient amount of information and detail to each category according to the goals of the Misplaced Pages project. For information detailing differences in Islamic aqeedah (creed) and fiqh (law), you may want to check the Islamic schools and branches.If I can branch off to my own opinion for a moment, the reason this would perhaps be most useful to you is because you are aware of most of the basic information of Islam that this page offers, which is what this is supposed to cover. Differences and details of Islamic thought, which are many extremely detailed in nature, should be covered elsewhere. Also, you should always add new sections to the bottom of the talk page, not the top, but no big deal! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just reread what you said, and noted you meant it to be on Predestination in Islam. I will be more than willing to lend what I know about the subject, in particular on Ismailism. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Islam/Muslim=Verb??

• This is written in the opening paragraph: "The word Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive."....... This makes absolutely no sense. Madritor (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• It makes sense in Arabic grmamar: they are the active participle and the infinitive of the 4th derivative stem of the Arabic verb root S-L-M. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• OK, fair enough... but seeing as this is an English language article, and in English "Islam" is a noun and "Moslem" is an adjective or noun, I think the sentence needs to either be changed or removed. It could be changed to explain the root of the words including the Arabic grammar point, but as it stands this English sentence makes no sense. Madritor (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• In the usual manner of speaking Arabic verbs are not described by an "infinitive". The third person singular perfect is usually given. Islam is a verbal noun from the verb root (which is "slm") and muslim is a participle from the same root. Participle are generally consider to be nouns in English so that causes no difficulties. DKleinecke (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Islam is the name of religion but muslim means member of this religion --Ozozcan (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Cmmmm's additions to "Further Reading"

I'm sure I beat someone to this that has more authority to do it than me, but Cmmmm's additions were terribly unbalanced at best and slanderous at worst. I was going to appeal to him to revert or balance them, but to that I had to see his talk page which disabused me of any notion that he would do so. If there is any way to take it private by e-mailing him, I couldn't find it. As always, please correct me if I have over-stepped my bounds. LUbunkerman (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have done the same thing, wonderful action and thanks for coming to the talk page about it. This article is FA-Class, most edits done tend to worsen the article rather than help it. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

dhimmis "enjoyed"- possible word choice to replace "enjoyed"

I don't believe one "enjoys" being a second class citizen. Perehaps, "were allowed" instead.

"Historically, dhimmis enjoyed a measure of communal autonomy under their own religious leaders, but were subject to legal, social and religious restrictions meant to highlight their inferiority." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlook2 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a nit; let's pick at it!

I would agree that being a second-class citizen is probably not enjoyable, but that's not what's at issue here. Is it possible that it may just be another definition of "enjoy"? RavShimon (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this is good English. This is OED's meaning 4a:

In weaker sense: To have the use or benefit of, have for one's lot (something which affords pleasure, or is of the nature of an advantage).

But there is a nit that can be picked here, I suppose. Just make sure that the replacement phrasing is at least as good English. The intended meaning is that dhimmis had the "benefit" or "advantage" of certain privileges compared to other class systems where the underdogs often have no rights at all or compared to other non-Muslims in Muslim society, such as pagans and apostates, who were not so much without rights as actively persecuted. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Coleman, Isobel. "Women, Islam, and the New Iraq". Foreign Affairs. 85 (1): 24–38.
2. See:
   • William Montgomery Watt in The Cambridge History of Islam, p.32
   • Richard Bell, William Montgomery Watt, Introduction to the Qur'an, p.51
   • F. E. Peters (1991), pp.3–5: "Few have failed to be convinced that … the Quran is … the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation."
3. Berman, Paul (June 04 2007). "Who's Afraid of Tariq Ramadan?: The Islamist, the journalist, and the defense of liberalism". The New Republic. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)