Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:37, 19 June 2007

	Islam/Archive 24 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 11, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 18, 2006. Current status: Featured article

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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". Denver Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Topical Archives
External Links
Archive index

Jihad Section

"and non-Muslims in a Muslim were traditionally allowed to live as dhimmis."

In a Muslim what? Nation, community, state, occupied region? (Nick Kamm 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Good catch... Muslim "state". - Merzbow 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FA nominated

Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Islam

Aminz convinced me not to wait for the Peer Review, which usually takes a month and frequently only garners automated comments (which I can and have generated and reviewed myself). So now it's show time. - Merzbow 02:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest that someone keep looking at the comments and change the article accordingly where possible. Then leave there  Done sign. That will help in making some people satisfied. --- A. L. M. 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone keep an eye on the To-do list... that's where I'm tracking suggestions made in FAC. - Merzbow 19:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

combining multiple refs in one footnote with bullets and line breaks?

People on FAC are encouraging us to combine adjacent footnotes. Historically, we've done this using semicolons, but the semicolons are hard to see when complex references like cite templates are put in one footnote. However, I've found that the bullet character does the job nicely, along with line breaks. As an experiment I've converted references 108 and 137 to this new format. What do people think? - Merzbow 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can help with changing the references if everybody likes it. --Aminz 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

One question to consider if we do this is in what order to place the multiple references within the footnote. For lack of a better idea, I suggest smaller references (author/year or Quran) first followed by larger references (cite templates), and within types, alphabetically by last name and then year of publication. - Merzbow 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

see what i've done with the latter footnote. does it look any better? ITAQALLAH 12:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. I tweaked it to be "see" instead of "refer too", and removed some of the benign extra spacing in the source, and also converted the ref immediately following it. What do you think about the ordering question... do you like my proposed scheme above? - Merzbow 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How to modify history section?

Ack. So per FAC we have to decide what to add to the History section to expand its scope beyond the political. I think maybe a paragraph per sub-section would do; it still should remain primarily political history since this is the only place in the article that treats it. The existing material in the first and third sections can be shrunk a bit to make room. I suppose things to hit on are origin of sects, important developments in law and theology, important developments in the arts. Also note that I've just created the new "Modern times" section, which now contains the "Modern movements" material, which I think is a much more logical organization; it still needs a bit of history added to it. So let's throw out some ideas:

Rise of empire (632–750)

• A sentence on origin of Sunni/Shi'a split. This is easy.
• A sentence on the origin of Sufism - the appearance of ascetism as a "reaction against the worldliness of the early Umayyad period". (Mention Hasan al-Basri?).
• Socioeconomic: creation of Islamic empire settled Arabs throughout the Middle East and created cosmopolitan communities, led to "extensive urbanization and economic development".
• Codification of the hadith collections.

Golden Age (750–1258)

• Shi'ism splits into twelvers and Isma'ilis and Zaydis (?)
• Development of Islamic law: al-Shafi as the founder, emergence of the four legal schools in eighth-ninth century, the "closing of the door of ijtihad" in the tenth century.
• Further Sufi developments: transformation of asceticism into mysticism, (maybe mention Rabi'ah al-'Adawiyah, al-Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj?).
• A sentence on Ahmad al-Ghazali, of course - legal, philosophical, and theological impact who also made Sufism respectable.
• Algebra (al-Khwarazmi), medicine (Avicenna)
• Art and architecture under Abbasids, Persian literature, al-Farabi the philosopher

Ottomans and India (1258–1878)

• Sufis: Rise of the mystical orders, mention Rumi
• Architecture - Taj Mahal of course
• Economic: Ottomans encouraged trade routes throughout empire, established guild system in urban locations, were advanced in technology until 18th century

Modern times (1878-present)

• History: cover WWI dismemberment of Ottomans, Israel and Palestine, Arab nationalism, oil, Pakistan/India
• Includes the material about modern Muslim movements that is now in its own section.
• Anything important in art, literature, etc. happen?

- Merzbow 07:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I think two periods are important: 1. The formative period 2. The modern period.

For the formative period, we can make use of the intro of Islamic_ethics article, i.e. "Islamic ethics (akhlāq), defined as "good character," historically took shape only gradually and was finally established in the 11th century. It was eventually shaped as a successful amalgamation of pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, the Qur'anic teaching and non-Arabic elements (mainly of Persian and Greek origins) embedded in or integrated with a general-Islamic structure. Although the Islamic prophet Muhammad's preaching produced a "radical change in moral values based on the sanctions of the new religion, and fear of God and of the Last Judgment", the tribal practice of Arabs did not completely die out. Later Muslim scholars expanded the religious ethic of the Qur'an and Hadith in immense detail."

Then we can touch the challenges of the modern times. I remember in the Muhammad article we mentioned the shift in Muslim view of Muhammad's miracles. That might be helpful as well. --Aminz 08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

EoQ has two articles on "Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Early Modern and Contemporary" and "Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Classical and Medieval"- Is this relevant here? --Aminz 08:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

i have added a sentence on the mihna, and i'll add another one about the sunni/shi'a split. i'll also add a sentence about Ghazzali's crucial theological work. i don't think we want to bloat the section too much. the art/civilization should stay in its own section methinks, and same with the developments of Islamic law. i think the FAC comment was directed more towards any theological differences that emerged, so as long as we cater for that then i think it should be sufficient. ITAQALLAH 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis

I think this would be better: "In response, the Muslim organizations of "Islamic Supreme Council of Canada" and Bernard Lewis, a non-Muslim scholars, say that Islamic texts do not sanction these activities."--Aminz 08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This one also works for me: "In response, Bernard Lewis says that Islamic texts do not sanction these activities." --Aminz 08:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. - Merzbow 08:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle. What's wrong with "Bernard Lewis says" and why does it needed to be changed to "Some scholars". "Bernard Lewis says" is the most accurate. --Aminz 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to specify which scholars think islam is a religion of peace and which ones think terrorism is acceptable in islam. Some scholars is most accurate, because there is more than one with that view, but not all have that view. I also think it is advertisement to include Lewis' name. Including the "however" is also a problem, because it implies that the other interpritation is incorrect.--Sefringle 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an advertisement to include Lewis's name. He is a leading scholar in this field, no question, probably the leading scholar. I'm sure that whether Misplaced Pages endorses him or not is a question of utter indifference to him. This is not a point on which scholarly opinion is evenly divided. Which scholars, if any, think that terrorism is acceptable in Islam? Itsmejudith 20:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the issue. The issue here is that it is a POV to say Islam is not a religion of terrorism, just like it would be a POV to say it is. It is not necessary to person X believes Islam is a religion of peace and person Y believes Islam is not a religon of peace. It is better just to say Islamic terrorism exists and there are those who think it is not sanctioned by Islamic texts.--Sefringle 23:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, please answer Judith's question:"Which scholars, if any, think that terrorism is acceptable in Islam?" You claimed "Some scholars is most accurate, because there is more than one with that view, but not all have that view."--Aminz 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yousef al-Qaradhawi did argue that suicide bombing is justified against Israel. The only thing is he argued that it shouldn't be called terrorism. But that isn't the point. --Sefringle 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So, Yousef al-Qaradhawi too says Islam doesn't support terrorism. His definition of terrorism is different from yours. He doesn't say Islam supports terrorism but it is you who are making that conclusion. Now, do you know why he said it is okay "against Israel". Is there anything specific about the state of Israel in the early sources of Islam? --Aminz 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

He is still a terrorist supporter. Supporters of violence against Israel are still terrorist supporters. But I'm getting sick of this debate that apparently is going nowhere.--Sefringle 00:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Qaradhawi doesn't say "I support terrorism." You are viewing it that way and it is your POV. You need to show me a Muslim scholar who says that "Islam supports terrorism". Again, Medieval Islamic law is fixed and doesn't accept "recentism". --Aminz 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate is clearly going nowhere. But since you asked, there is also Muhammad Qutb, a radical Islamist writer.--Sefringle 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, please show me "Yousef al-Qaradhawi"'s quote and let's see if we can add that as well (if others agree). We say: lewis says X. Yousef al-Qaradhawi says Y. We just need to stick these together in a good manner--Aminz 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It should clearly say "most scholars", not "some scholars"; in addition to Lewis and Esposito who are cited now, I can pull up ten more cites by scholars who argue against the terrorists' claims. And so far only Qaradhawi has been claimed as being on the side of the terrorists' (proof of which I haven't seen yet). - Merzbow 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we go back to the origional wording,(There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim.) which didn't imply any numbers. I think that version was less POV.--Sefringle 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. - Merzbow 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A section on Family

Here is what the Oxford Dictionary of Islam has to say:

Family: The basic unit of Islamic society. In Arabic, ahl or aila is a comperhensive term that may include grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins on both sides of the family. The Qur'an enjoins mutual respect and responsibility between spouses and among family members. Spouses and children have duties and rights protected by law. Men and women remain members of their natal families even after their marriage. In modern times, the family has been subject to economic and social pressures that have disrupted the traditional family-extended patterns, including changing responsibilities for women. Nevertheless, it remains a flexible unit of social organization in Muslim societies.

Family law A marriage contract requires an offer and acceptance before witnesses. The groom is required to give his wife a dowery (mahr), which is her property alone, to dispose of as she wishes. The groom may pay a portion of the dowery at the time of contract and the rest at a specific time in the marriage contract. Men may marry up to four wives, but women may marry only one men at a time. In most Muslim countries, divorce by the husband is effected by a unilateral pronouncement known as the talaq, which severs the legal relationship, although this is in violation of Quranic teaching and one of the subjects of modern reform efforts. After the talaq, the couple must refain from sexual intercourse for three months. At the end of this time, the marriage is terminated. During the marriage, the wife is entitled to maintenance and support, which includes food, clothing, and accommodation; with divorce, this entitlement terminates. Legal adoption is not permissible under traditional Islamic law. The specifics of Islamic law differ widely on place and time as well as school of law. The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code.

The Women and Islam entry is long. I just quote the first paragraph and some other parts:

"In Islam, men and women are moral equals in God's sight and are expected to fulfil the same duties of worship, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and plgrimage to Mecca. Islam generally improved the status of women compared to earlier Arab cultures, prohibiting female infanticide and recognizing women's full personhood. Islamic law emphasizes the contractual nature of marriage, requiring a dowery be paid to the women rather than to her family, and guaranteeing women's rights of inheritence and to own and manage property. Women were also granted the right to live in the matrimonial home and recieve financial maintainance during marriage and a waiting period following death and divorce.
The historical records shows that Muhammad consulted women and weighted their opinions seriously. At least one women was appointed imam over her household by Muhammad. Women contributed significantly to the canonization of the Qur'an. A women is known to have corrected the authorative ruling of Caliph Umar on dowery....Nevertheless, the status of women in premodern Islam in general conformed not to Quranic ideals but to prevailing patriachal cultural norms. As a result improvement of the status of women became a major issue in modern, reformist Islam...."

--Aminz 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Esposito has lots on this also. We also need to mention some of the modern-day controversies over womens' rights. - Merzbow 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... Hmmm. Let me see. This part was relevant from the above quote:"The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code."

I'll quote part of the Women and Islam entry which is more relevant to your concern:

Nevertheless, the status of women in premodern Islam in general conformed not to Quranic ideals but to prevailing patriachal cultural norms. As a result improvement of the status of women became a major issue in modern, reformist Islam.
Since the mid-nineteenth century, men and women have questioned the legal and social restrictions on wpmen especially regarding education, seclusion, strict veiling, polygony, slavery, and concubinage. Women have published works advocating reforms, established schools for girls, opposed veiling and polygony, and engaged in student and nationalist movements. Nationalist movements and new states that emerged in post-World War II period percieved women and gender issues as crucial to social development. State policies enabled groups of women to enter the male-dominated political spheres and professions previously closed to them, although these policies often caused popular and religous backlash.
Debate continue over the appropriate level of female participation in the public sphere. Women are typically viewed as key to either reforming or conserving tradition because of their roles in maintaining family, social continuity, and culture. Women's status has also been used as a means of defining national identity. Although governments of twentieth-century Muslim nation-states have promote education for both boys and girls as a means of achieving economic growth, the percentage of girls enrolled in schools in developing countries with large and rapidly growing population remains low. Concern for men's job has given added incentive to the conservative call for women to adhere to traditional role as housewives and mothers, although economic necessity has led women to undertake whatever work they can find, usually low-paid, unskilled labor. War and labor migration have increased the number of female-headed households.
Women today are active participants in grassroots organizations; development projects; economic, education, health, and political projects; relief efforts; charitable associations; and social services. Modern reforms have made polygynous marriages difficult or illegal; permited wives to sue for divorce in religous courts, particularly in cases of cruelty, desertion, or dangerous contagious diseases; provided women with the right to contract themselves in marriage; required husbands to find housing for a divorced wife while she has custody over the children; increased minimum age for spouses.... THIS LIST GOES ON AND ON...

EoI says(article Nikah):

4. The laws regarding the rights and duties of husband and wife cannot be modified by the parties at the drawing-up of the contract. This can, however, be effected by the man pronouncing a conditional ṭalāḳ immediately after the conclusion of the marriage contract; this shift to secure the position of the woman is particularly common among Indian Muslims. For the rest, the couple are left to private agreements which need not be mentioned in the marriage contract. The actual position of the woman in marriage is in all Muslim countries entirely dependent on local conditions and on many special circumstances. It is not a contradiction of this to say that the legal prescriptions regarding marriage are most carefully observed as a rule. In spite of certain ascetic tendencies, Islam as a whole has been decidedly in favour of marriage.—In modern Islam, the problem of the woman's position in marriage and polygamy is especially discussed between conservatives and adherents of modern social ideas.

On reforms regarding polygomy, same article says:

Reforms aimed at consolidating monogamy restrict polygamy to the extent of complete abolition. Polygamy has been totally abolished as yet only in Turkey. In ʿIrāḳ it was first abolished (1959), only to be reduced to prohibition (1963). Complementary measures taken concerning polygamy are:
(1) Stipulation in the marriage contract (see above, vii).
Ottoman family law allows a woman to stipulate in her marriage contract that her husband shall not marry another wife and that should he do so, either she or the polygamous wife will be divorced. Jordan followed suit, though the first wife may dissolve only her own marriage, not that of the co-wife.
(2) Prohibition.
Polygamy has been prohibited (in Iran this presumably applies to both permanent and temporary marriage) unless permitted by court (district court in South Yemen) on the basis of “good defences”: The court must be satisfied that the husband is financially able to properly maintain multiple wives (Syria; Iran, 1967); that the co-wives will be treated with equal justice (ʿIrāḳ, Iran, 1967); and that the first wife consents to the marriage, is unable or unwilling to co-habit, has been sentenced to imprisonment, is addicted to drink, drugs or gambling, has deserted the family or disappeared, or has become barren, insane or afflicted with incurable disease (Iran, 1967, 1975). In South Yemen a medical certificate to this effect is required. In ʿIrāḳ these defences are presumably implied by the phrase “some lawful benefit in the polygamous marriage”. In Israel (1951) the defence available to Muslims qua Muslims against a charge of polygamy (prohibited by the Mandatary authorities) was abolished and replaced by two defences against such a charge: prolonged absence or mental illness of the spouse.
Prohibition of polygamy, unlike abolition, does not in itself invalidate polygamous marriage, though those failing to obtain the court's permission are liable to penal sanctions.

--Aminz 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, i'm gonna do a good copyedit of the family section in a few, with a focus on keeping things simple. parts of the section i'm thinking are a little tangental and i might trim it a little bit. ITAQALLAH 17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is some good info in there but it could serve to be trimmed to about half the size; I also want to mention the modern-day controversy about women's rights to satisfy one of the FA request. We should probably also mention inheritance laws. I'll hold off for now while you copyedit. - Merzbow 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ok i did a bit of a trim, and included mention of inheritance. i left the discussion re: modern controversy for you to deal with. a sentence or two seems ideal. you might want to consult Waines (2003) p93+, he discusses quite a bit about polygyny. ITAQALLAH 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll get to it a bit later... with luck tonight we will have addressed all remaining FAC concerns (at least until/if new ones are posted). - Merzbow 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing Wahhab's name... it's still a mystery for me how best to represent Arabic names. Sounds like something we could add to the Islam articles guideline. - Merzbow 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

the family section might need a bit of tweaking, because it currently declares that practices like hijab have no clear basis in Islamic texts. of course, this is one opinion shared by academics (and not necessarily fact), but traditional Islamic jurisprudence (as well as Islamists) assigns it as a religious obligation. please refer to "Women in Islam: The Western Experience". Roald, A.S (2001), Routledge p. 260 - which discusses feminism quite extensively. ITAQALLAH 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Esposito says just that... he appears to be claiming that Islamic scholars have interpreted ambiguous passages in the Qur'an to justify pre-Islamic practices. But he once again may be trying to be too apologetic, so I've softened the wording in the sentence. As with jihad, I suppose it pays to double-check everything he says (grumble)...- Merzbow 08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For criticism section

To be added to the last section for the purpose of achieving more comprehensive issues coverage there:
"Islam is criticised for affronting human dignity and failing standards of civilised behaviour to the extent that it permits circumstances for the birth of children into slavery as well as promulgating a permission for muslims to buy and sell enslaved persons - including for the sole purpose of concubinage."

Probably too much detail for this article, it's covered well in the subarticles though. - Merzbow 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

Overall, this is an excellent & informative article. I'm simply going to list a few comments on relatively minor points I noticed:

• Five pillars There seems to be an al- missing in the Arabic script (arkān dīn)

• Diacritics There's some inconsistency here. I appreciate that internal links have to use the spelling in the main articles referred to; but unlinked phrases such as masjid jami, ridwan & al-qadaa should have macrons where necessary.

• Etymology IMO the sentence

The word islām is derived from the Arabic root, sīn-lām-mīm, and is formed from the verb aslama ...

should be abbreviated to

The word islām is derived from the Arabic verb aslama ...

• Calendar Why not tell readers the Hijri equivalent of 2007 (ie 1428)? And while you're at it, you could give them a handy rule of thumb instead of the cryptic & discouraging:

Islamic dates cannot be converted to CE/AD dates simply by adding 622 years.

For example, you could point out that Hijri centuries are 3 years shorter than Christian centuries. A back-of-the-envelope calculation then gives 2007 - 622 = 1385 Christian years since the Hijra: nearly 14 centuries; x 3 = 42 Hijri years to be added; 1385 + 42 = 1427, which is only one year out.

The reverse conversion is better. 1428 is roughly 14⅓ centuries. So 1428 - 43 = 1385 Christian years since the Hijra; + 622 = 2007.

• Demographics Turkey is indeed a Muslim-majority state; but it is constitutionally secular.

--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting points. For 1, 2, and 3, probably Itaqallah can take a look since he knows Arabic. For 4, that sounds reasonable, I'll look into it. For 5, we're adding a subsection to "Law" on Islam/state relations, we can certainly mention there that modern Muslim states come in a variety of forms, like Turkey. - Merzbow 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, i've addressed the first three points. the suggested change in the etymology section seemed reasonable. if i find any other words needing fixing as i go through the article i'll be sure to do that. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I've done a bit more copyediting—mainly minor stuff. See my remarks above on Malise Ruthven. Good luck with the FAC! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. - Merzbow 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

religion and state

(Copied and continued from FAC review).

I highly disagree with that edit. EoQ is quite clear that according to some "the qurʾānic message is not political but moral". This section further fails to mention Shia Islam that traditionally separated politics from religion holding that only Muhammad and his descendents can be the head of government. We are not supposed to write what people *like* to hear.--Aminz 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming the Qur'an is a political document, so why rebut a claim not being made? And I don't think that representation of Shi'a tradition is correct; according to Britannica, the Imam is explicitly both a spiritual as well as a political leader, so if anything church and state are more intertwined in Shi'a tradition. - Merzbow 00:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To say Islamic law doesn't separate state and religion already makes it biased towards saying: the Qur'an is political cause it is the main source. So, the qualification needs to be made.

Secondly, yes, in Shia Islam, Imam is a political leader but whenever he is present. Aside from 10+5 years, during 1400-(10+5) years Imams were not in control of the state. Therefore in reality state and religion can be separated until end times. --Aminz 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the exact quote from the source regarding the Qur'an? Also do you have a source for the Shi'a claim? - Merzbow 01:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some preliminaries: As an institution governing a territory, administering its peoples and resources and legislating a socio-political order, the state as organ of rule came into being in early Islam not from qurʾānic directive but from the experience and consensus of the first Muslims. Strong emphasis is given in the Qurʾān to obedience (q.v.) to God and the messenger (q.v.) of God, a heavily exploited phrase which early exegetes understood as those with knowledge and intelligence, not political authority, e.g. Mujāhid, Tafsīr, i, 163; see knowledge and learning; scholar; intellect). The Qurʾān makes enough mention of struggle between the followers of Muḥammad and his opponents to suggest that politics was at play in the first attempts to announce its message. Moreover, the Prophet was awarded authority (q.v.) in the form of an oath of allegiance, in which his followers promised to fight for the cause of God and early writers of history, such as Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845; Ṭabaqāt), do depict the Prophet as a regional hegemon, receiving delegations and tribute in exchange for protection.

There is no agreement that the Qurʾān even has a political message. For Qamaruddin Khan the qurʾānic message is not political but moral, a summons to submit to the one God and a life of faith. He claims that the Qurʾān in no way sanctions one political form (i.e. monarchy, theocracy, democracy, etc.) and that those who derive a political message from the Qurʾān exploit its verses out of context for their own goals. In contrast, for Muhammad ʿIzzat Darwaza the Qurʾān speaks to all aspects of human life, including the state and its financial, judicial, military and missionary tasks — a specifically qurʾānic political program implied, as he sees it, in the reference of q 57:25 to the book (q.v.) and iron, i.e. divine justice and the coercive force needed to ensure public order. To that end, he adduces a number of verses (q.v.) purported to have called for political leadership after the death of the Prophet and marshals forth in the body of the work an array of verses on the basis of which he constructs a qurʾānic vision of political organization.
Despite the range of opinion about its political content, the Qurʾān is clear about the connection between socio-political prosperity and obedience to the message of God as conveyed by his messengers.

--Aminz 05:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

But this section is about Islamic law, not just the Qur'an. The hadith of course are intensely political, being a record of Muhammad's life. And on top of that you have centuries of precedent of Islamic jurists saying that church and state are basically the same thing (as Lewis, Esposito and Lapidus make clear). The best solution is to simply take out the sentence about revelation being the fundamental source; therefore the text no longer implies that the Qur'an addresses politics. - Merzbow 06:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I don't understand why you insist so much that we should not mention the view of Qur'an(the most important source) with respect to politics. --Aminz 07:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because we would confuse the reader. We would then need to proceed into a long discussion about politics in all sources of Islamic law and how they relate (Qur'an, hadith, ijma, qiyas). Anyways, now that the revelation sentence is gone, there is much less implication that the Qur'an addresses politics. - Merzbow 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The current edit seems to fool the readers into thinking that Islam is a monoloithic identity. There are various views. We should not compromise POV with simplicity. And of course there is a lot of implication that the Qur'an addresses politics. To say Islamic law does means yes the Qur'an does. --Aminz 07:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV issue because all sources agree that "Islamic law makes no distinction between matters of church and matters of state" - even Esposito. Saying the Qur'an is unclear on politics simply provides more detail about the differences between the sources of Islamic law, detail that we don't have enough room to go into here, because if we talk about how one of the sources addresses politics, we then have to talk about how the other three sources do so also. And then we're getting into pages of information. I think we need other editors to give their opinions on this issue. - Merzbow 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By "Islamic law", you are probably refering to the view of five particular early scholars. Fine, those 5 people should have agreed to it.

We are writing an article on "Islam" and "Politics". I am not convinced that we should not say what the Qur'an says about this because it "confuses" people. The view of the Qur'an is even more important than that of Muslim scholars because no Muslim "worships" them. Muslims do care about the Quran and nothing has authority over it. --Aminz 07:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither Lewis or Esposito nor Lapidus think the issue of politics on the Qur'an is important enough to even mention, but they all make the statement above, that Islamic law does not distinguish between church and state. How about this: we can add a sentence to the Qur'an section that gives a short overview of what's in the Qur'an, and it will also say that it's not clear if the Qur'an addresses politics. - Merzbow 07:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As Merzbow observes, Islam does not necessarily equal the Qur'an; even if the Qur'an has (according to some) no political message, that does mean that Islam is apolitical. The existence and scope of Islamic law, including as it does not only civil and criminal law but also taxation and foreign policiy, is proof that there was not meant to be any distinction between church and state, as is Sunnah, in which Muhammad's legitimacy as political ruler is based upon his normative status as the prophet of God: see Theocracy. Whether Islam mandates theocracy or overtly forbids a separation of church and state (per Qutb and many othes) is another question.Proabivouac 07:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the promised sentence to the Qur'an section (which was needed anyway). This is really the correct place to mention the issue. - Merzbow 07:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I quit for now. It is really painful to see that in a section on the relation of Islam and politics, we are forbiden to mention the relation of the Qur'an and politics. --Aminz 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Veiling

I have a quibble about the "family" section, even after Merzbow's very useful edits. I wish we could have just a little more detail about the controversies relating to women's dress. And the present text reads "traditional Islamic practices such as veiling (hijab, burqa, chador) and seclusion (purdah)." Well, as I understand it, "hijab" has two meanings, a general one meaning modest dress and a more specific one meaning a type of headscarf, which is not a veil as it does not cover the face. The chador is an overall garment that again does not have to include a veil. The burqa does include a veil. There is also the niqab. As it reads at the moment the article could further confuse readers who are not familiar with all these types of dress and the attitudes to them. Itsmejudith 07:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we have room to expand this section, but I'll take out the parenthetical cause, you make a good case that it's confusing. We can link veiling to Veil#Muslim_veils. - Merzbow 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• with regard to this edit - firstly, it shouldn't have been fact-tagged in the first place, for the material in the passage is all verified by the cites at the end. secondly, the sentence is quite important to clarifying and understanding the issue of qadr in Islam. ITAQALLAH 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The apparent contradiction comes from us saying that God pre-ordains everything, but in the next sentence we say that man has free will and is responsible for his actions. I know that theologians try to explain this with certain arguments. If we want to add this information back in we should also say something about these arguments to unconfuse the reader. - Merzbow 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't have the time atm to write out what Farah relates about this, but please do consult p. 122 onwards of his 2003 work which discusses it in reasonable detail. i thought the sentence clarified that man has free choice as opposed to free will, in that things cannot occur just by his 'willing' of it, but he does have the faculty to choose between what is presented to him, and this is what Farah attributes to Muslim theologians' explanation of this doctrine. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Cook takes the view that the Qur'an is against free will, saying that those Muslims who have tried to argue for it "have fought a losing battle." He notes some verses. I can quote that if it'd be useful. The issue is that God creates the universe with full knowledge of the consequence of his actions, including what his creatures will choose, and he knows it even before he creates the universe. So he creates it knowing exactly what will happen, so it makes little sense to say that man has free will. Arrow740 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

one can argue that just because God knows what a man is to do does not necessarily suggest that the man did not connote to perform that particular action. i'd like to see what Cook has to say if you can provide a reference, but i am sure there are plenty of other academic perspectives on this (you may wish to refer to the Patton ref, p. 140 onwards, which basically says as i did above). but such debate aside, the purpose of this and the other sections is to explain what Muslims believe. ITAQALLAH 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If God has total freedom in how he creates the universe and full knowledge of all the consequences of his actions then man has no free will. I think the section is fine without the Cook material, maybe I'll add it to the Qadr article. Arrow740 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

you have offered a premise and a conclusion, but i don't see how they are connected. in any case, i'll try rephrasing the passage that was removed (or see what Merzbow can do with it) as i think it's an important distinction in traditional Muslim belief that merits mention. ITAQALLAH 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For this article, the traditional Muslim belief is certainly more important than its validity. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. Arrow740 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever we do, the important thing is that we don't let the reader think that we, as editors, are giving incorrect information because the text appears contradictory. If Muslim belief looks contradictory, we have to indicate that the apparent contradiction is not really thought of as a contradiction by Muslims because of X, Y, and Z. I'll look at some of the references in more detail. - Merzbow 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufism

I know that Merzbow is rigorously cutting stuff out and this helps the article towards FA. But have we got room for another sentence about Sufi music and dance? These artistic traditions are gaining in worldwide influence. For example, note the popularity of the late great musician Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. There are also the Sufi saints .... ? Itsmejudith 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan a sufi? Really? I think it will be disputed to add such a material hence we should avoid it at this stage if possible. --- A. L. M. 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's only relevant if it's had a specifically religious influence. - Merzbow 00:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Al-Kindi

I've removed the philosophers from the Arts section, because the generic definition of Islamic philosophy wasn't very useful, and because three of the four listed are treated more informatively in Golden Age section. It strikes me that Al-Kindi may warrant mention here as well.Proabivouac 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The section is too small now, we may as well deep-six it. The calligraphy/architecture mentions can easily be placed in the mosque section. - Merzbow 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And the bit about Rumi should go into the History section. - Merzbow 06:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Miltary activities

It is not that he kill Jews simply becasue they resist in converting to Islam. It shows that all non-Muslim should be killed, deported. Which is obviously wrong. Could we make the wording better ? --- A. L. M. 07:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. - Merzbow 07:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mecca

Merzbow, Can you please quote what the source has to say about this sentence: "Muhammad also increased the pressure on Mecca by bringing surrounding desert tribes under his control, by force or by alliance."--Aminz 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"The victory over Mecca was also the culmination of Muhammad's tribal policy. Throughout the eight-year struggle, Muhammad has tried to gain control of the tribes in order to subdue Mecca. Missionaries and embassies were sent throughout Arabia, factions loyal to Muhammad were supported, and tribes were raided...". - Merzbow 07:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"increasing the pressure on Mecca" seems somewhat vague and I am not so sure if that would be the only reading of this sentence and if so how important it was. --Aminz 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

True... Lapidus says a few sentences later that Muhammad did this specifically to cut off Mecca's trade routes; I put this in the article. - Merzbow 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, please check if that was a significant part of Muhammad's mission? I mean how important it was overally to be included in this section. --Aminz 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that most of the wars (if not all) were started by Meccas. Saying "Muhammad also increased the pressure on Mecca by bringing surrounding desert tribes under his control, by force or by alliance" might not be true. How can someone with 313 soilders put pressure with 1000 men army (Badr). They were weak all most of the time. Can we also tweak it a bit. May be something on similar lines. "Furthermore Muhammad men and his enemies of Mecca also came into conflict..." --- A. L. M. 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

People on FA feedback seem to think so, and I agree; Islam wouldn't exist if Muhammad hadn't been as good a general and politician as he was and defeated Mecca. Also that statement is exactly what Lapidus is saying; I can quote more from that page if necessary - Muhammad kept increasing his power base by bringing the desert tribes under his control, until he had Mecca checkmated. - Merzbow 08:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest look at other sources too. It is not wise to just use one source POV on this sensitive topic. I have read some other story in Urdu source that refers to old arabic sources. --- A. L. M. 08:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Now I realize what is going on in this section and the underlying motive. The section is missing the entire point. Welch says" The really powerful factor in Muḥammad's life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God." --Aminz 08:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the motive is somebody made a suggestion that pointed out an omission, and I agree. Muhammad did not succeed by getting everyone in Arabia to convert and join him peacefully; as all histories make clear, thousands converted willingly and joined him, and he also had to fight thousands. - Merzbow 08:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"…underlying motive…"? I really doubt it.Proabivouac 08:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to tell the reader why Muhammad succeeded, it was "his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God". Watt lists several important characteristics of Muhammad which caused his success among which political wiseness is only among many many others. --Aminz 08:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

People can speculate all they want about why Muhammad did what he did, but all we know for sure is what he did. And what he did was convert many and fight many; many joined willingly, and many were fought; simple history that we need to relate. - Merzbow 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad did a lot of other things besides warfare. This is a very simplistic way to describe how and why Islam was successful. I will summerize what Watt has to say about the "reasons for Muhammad's success" and add it in one paragraph. This is a major point. --Aminz 08:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i will comment on the FAC page in a moment concerning this, but as with a number of Beit Or's concerns, i find the one concerning this section to be unreasonable. why we deem it necessary to single out Muhammad's military action against the three Jewish tribes, when none of the other (and frankly far more important cf. Battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud) military events are even discussed, when nothing of Muhammad's political life (Constitution of Medina- the very centre of the dispute with the Jewish tribes; the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, and so on) are similarly not discussed, is totally beyond me. the sentence ending with '.. establishing political and religious authority' covers all of the events of Medina, whether they were military or otherwise. ITAQALLAH 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Prior to what I added, the article did not even mention the very important fact that Muhammad engaged in violence and warfare. Beit Or's commment that this gave the impression that he achieved his goals bloodlessly is very cogent. Since Muslims believe his actions as a general were justified by persecution or the perfidy of his opponents, I don't understand the objection to mentioning this. We can continue to discuss how to word this, and if we should mention other things also, but I think two sentences on his military activities are justified. I agree those two important battles should be mentioned, and perhaps less space spent on the Jewish clans. - Merzbow 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i see no problem in a general statement mentioning the presence of both military and political activity. the second sentence of the two is on the right lines. selecting one series of incidences, such as the exiling of the Jewish tribes, over the multitude of other incidences, doesn't appear to be appropriate. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added mention of Badr and Uhud, and greatly reduced the mention of the Jewish conflict (which I still think is notable enough for a mention). - Merzbow 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Medina

For historical accuracy, shouldn't reference be made to the former name of the city, Yathrib? Presumably that was still its name at the time of the Hijra. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be universally referred to as Medina in all of the history books I've read... we'd just be confusing the reader. - Merzbow 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. But see Medina and Muhammad. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

could we include a parenthesis like "(formerly known as Yathrib)" or something like that? ITAQALLAH 11:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, i've incorporated that. ITAQALLAH 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Challenge on the eternity of Qur'an

I agree with ITAQALLAH that this is too detailed for a basic introduction, especially as the readers will have no idea as to who the kullabiyya, ash`ariyyah, karramiyyah etc so I support his edition .--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Move "divine decree" to subarticle?

Any objections to moving the "divine decree" section down to the subarticle Aqidah in its entirety? Originally we had listed divine decree as an essential aspect of Islamic belief along with five other things (belief in God; his revelations; his angels; his messengers; and the "Day of Judgment"). However, I couldn't find references that support the claim that it's as important as these other five, and it very likely isn't because Qur'an 4:136 only does mention these five. So I think it's misleading to list it next to them. - Merzbow 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

well i think interpreting 4:136 in this way would be OR. there are one or two narrations (i.e. ) which quite clearly list what the essential beliefs are, wherein these six are mentioned. for secondary sources, see: Islam: Beliefs and Observances (2003, Caesar Farah). Chapter: The fundamentals of Islam: Beliefs p. 109): "The principal elements of worship in Islam entail belief in God, His angels, scriptures revealed to the believers in Him, the messengers, destiny (qadar), and the Day of Judgement." also see Classical Islam: A Sourcebook of Religious Literature (N. Calder, A. Rippin) p.144. ITAQALLAH 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this up. - Merzbow 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Divine decree is a controversial issue

This issue is extremely controversial among different sects. Not only have Muslim theologians different ideas in this case but also Sufis have their own interpretation. I propose removing this section or writing all of the interpretations.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for that section is Farah, but only Itaqallah has the full book (I can only see one page on Google Books). I've found a bunch of sources that list all sources of things claimed to be fundamental to Islam, Sunni only, Shi'a only, etc. I honestly don't think there is a consensus of scholars on this. I think it's best to not say the beliefs we list in the beliefs section are essential, only very important. - Merzbow 05:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some beliefs which have been emphasized explicitly in Qur'an comprising belief in God; his revelations; his angels; his messengers; and the "Day of Judgment and some others which have been mentioned implicitly. In the later case each sect has its own interpretation such as Divine decree, Divine justice and Imamat.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

History section

I was about to revert again . Why do you remove the facts Merzbow? --Aminz 05:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My version says exactly the same thing in 1/4 of the words (except for the bit about China and India, which I don't think is relevant). - Merzbow 06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, i don't think it says. 1. It doesn't say that Islamic civilization was most advanced in the whole world for all "medieval" the centuries; it rather compares it with Europe. In fact, comparison with Europe is out of place because it didn't even ranked third. Further, what are those many aspects? Isn't it already compressed by Lewis in: "richest, most powerful, most creative and most enlightened region" Summerizing it further is removing real information. --Aminz 06:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you that the text supports saying "most advanced in the world" (I'll change it), but brevity is a virtue, and although "richest" and "most powerful" are factual statements, "most creative" and "most enlightened" are essentially value judgments, and for a balanced view we'd have to go into much more detail, which we don't have room for. (Creative in what ways? Enlightened in what ways? Certainly not in slavery). So better just to say "most advanced" and bypass all this debate. - Merzbow 06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I didn't get what you mean by slavery. I haven't seen any scholar saying Muslim practice of slavery was not more humane than European practice of slavery in Medieval times. --Aminz 07:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Slavery disappeared from Europe after 1066 (see History of Slavery); it was Europe that eventually forced the Islamic world to give it up. - Merzbow 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

1066! you are not being serious. Please read the first two paragraphs here . Yes, the abolishion movement started in Europe in 19th century for various reasons. --Aminz 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this sentence is POV:Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world during the Middle Ages, but was surpassed by Europe with the economic and military growth of the West. We can't prove it as a fact. I prefer to write the quotation of the scholar who believe in it e.g. "x" has quoted that "Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world during the Middle Ages"--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part do you think is POV. If it was a POV, lewis wouldn't have said it is "undoubtely" true. The main problem is with Karl Meier who writes his own view in front of "According to Lewis,X" as it "X" is really Lewis's view. --Aminz 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I couldn't write what I mean correctly. I meant that we should write it as a quotation.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfect Man

. I disagree. Infact some Muslim believe that he could potentially do sins. mistakes --- A. L. M. 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what Britannica says:

"Muslims believe that Muhammad was the most perfect of God's creatures, and, although not divine, he was, according to a famous Arabic poem, not just a man among men but like a ruby among ordinary stones."

Can you provide another source that contradicts this? - Merzbow 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I've seen nothing on Misplaced Pages which would contradict this.Proabivouac 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Britannica. He is most perfect, best person. However, a person could never be 100% perfect and could do mistakes. If he is 100% perfect then he is not a person anymore. I will try to find source. --- A. L. M. 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I change it to "most perfect"? --- A. L. M. 06:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "The best creature"(Khayr Al-baria)is better. I guess Perfect man is an expression which has introduced by Ibn Arabi. His emphasis, as with any mystic, lay rather on the true potential of the human being and the path to realising that potential, which reaches its completion in the Perfect or Complete Man (al-insan al-kamil).--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Creature" sounds kind of odd. "Most perfect man" sounds best. - Merzbow 07:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thx for the change. --- A. L. M. 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Perfect" is a superlative and thus there can be no degrees of it, ie. "most" perfect. Either decide whether "perefct" is applicable or not, but don't try to make all parties happy by simply committing a blatant (albeit common...) grammatical error... No such thing as "most" perfect... Perfection is, or is not. "Most perfect" only exists in obscure honorifics but technically it is incorrect. John 06:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Reworded to "closest to perfection". - Merzbow 06:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds "perfect" LOL good wording John 08:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Prophecy and divine Revelation

There should be some information about the meaning of prophecy and divine revelation in Islam and I added it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

re your comment on my talk page: sorry, i believed the change would be uncontroversial. i moved the discussion about prophets to the intro of the beliefs section, because the issue of prophets/messengers were touched upon there already so i thought we could compress the section into a few sentences and relocate it there. ITAQALLAH 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

collection and standardization of Qur'an

I added a paragraph about this issue but ALM removed it to reduce the size of the articleit. I disagree with him and believe this part is necessary. Please tell us your idea.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with ALM; the issue can be covered in the subarticle. - Merzbow 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can move some part of history if you concerned about the size.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the limited amount of space we have in this survey article on each topic, I think the details of its compilation are less important than what's there now. At most I would support adding a single sentence on the subject. Free free to add the whole thing to the subarticle, though. - Merzbow 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some less important issues which have mentioned in the history section.

• During this time, the decadence of the Umayyads inspired the formation of a movement of ascetics led by a devout Muslim named Hasan al-Basri. This movement would evolve into Sufism
• It was under the Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun that the events of the mihna ("trial") occurred, in which theological dispute over the Qur'an resulted in the beating and temporary imprisonment of jurists, such as the traditionist Ahmad bin Hanbal.
• Also of importance to Sufism was the creation of the Masnavi, a collection of mystical poetry by the 13th century Persian poet Rumi. The

Masnavi had a profound influence on the development of Sufi religious thought; to many Sufis it is second in importance only to the Qur'an.

• , Humayun, and Akbar (later known as "Akbar the Great"). Although stable under Jahangir and Shah Jahan, decline set in after the death of Aurangzeb,

In brief I believe that whatever has been mentioned in the history section of this article has less importance than collection and standardization of the Qur'an. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

dear brother I agree with you, however still it will be good to "reduce" the size even more. Hence we could mention just one line about collection of Quran and reduce size from other places like history section too. We are very much out of desired size. -- A. L. M. 11:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shi'a and Shahadah

Regarding this edit: . Momen's book doesn't list the Shahadah as one of the eight "ritual practices" of the Shi'a. The Practices_of_the_Religion article, which is completely unsourced, also doesn't list it as one of its ten practices. So I think we should make it clear that the Shi'a don't see it as a "pillar" in the same way the Sunni do. (If anyone can point to any reliable sources which give more information on what the core practices of the Shi'a are - whether there are 8 of then, 10 or them, or something else - please do). - Merzbow 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm a Shia and I know what you mean, but I think it may cause readers misunderstand the issue. They may think there is disagreement on this issue between Shia and Sunni while there's only different in importance. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Shia doesn't mention it among pillars because logically it relates to beliefs. However it's a confusing issue and I oppose to revert whatever I removed. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some way we can word it to make it clear that it is not considered a pillar by the Shi'a, although it is still important; otherwise we would be communicating incorrect information to the reader. - Merzbow 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried another way of wording this; by using the word "technically" the text now does not imply that the Shi'a consider the shahadah to be less important, just that they classify it differently. - Merzbow 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Sufism

It's doubtful that Hasan Basri is the origin of Sufism. All of the Sufi orders introduce Ali or Abu Bakr as their origin. In addition classic sources like Tazkerat al-aulia of Attar has mentioned some earlier figures like Uways al-Qarni as the first Sufis.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lapidus supports Basri as the creator of the first widespread Muslim ascestic movement (which eventually evolved into Sufism). I've seen no history book that supports Ali or Abu Bakr; that sounds like wishful thinking on the part of Sufis. - Merzbow 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Although classic literature haven't historic authenticity but we can't neglect them. It's important to represent what Sufis think about themselves.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

True; I haven't easily been able to find a source regarding this however. - Merzbow 03:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can find numerous sources in Persian but I don't know whether they have been translated or not. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

most Sufi orders claim their chain (sanad) goes back to Ali (only one or two trace it back to Abu Bakr); but again, where the origin of Sufism lies, and where it split from general ascetism, is a different matter. ITAQALLAH 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The first book which has written and try to describe the orders of Sufis is طبقات الصوفیه in Arabic which has been written in the 10th CE by Mohammad Salami. I guess this book has been published in Netherland in 1960. Then Khwaja Abdullah Ansari and Attar used this book as their source.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are several mistake in this sentence the decadence of the Umayyads inspired the formation of a movement of ascetics led by a devout Muslim named Hasan al-Basri.

First, Sufism wasn't the result of the decadence of the Umayyads. Second, although Hasan al-Basri is notable but Sufism was not a political movement which had just one leader or founder. I will added the names of the most notable founders of Sufism En Sha Allah.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure if Sufism was a result of decadence; Ummayad's decadence I think has contributed to its development though. That early Sufism's idea of renunciation and detachment from worldly concerns for the pursuit of God was a reaction to Ummayad's pursuit of wealth and conquest does not mean the idea was completely new. There were earlier Muslims (such as Abu Dhahr) who were critical of the luxury lives of their contemporary who had recently become rich. We may want to point out that this was only early Sufism (Sufism was much developed later). --Aminz 09:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's made clear by the following sentence "This movement would evolve into Sufism.". - Merzbow 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

re:

i think the previous expressions in both instances are more concise. with the Muhammad section - we have one paragraph summarising his life very briefly - there are a lot of events of importance not mentioned at all (Isra and Mi'raj, Constitution of Medina, Treaty of Hudaybiyya, etc.) it is thus appropriate that we retain this level of unspecificity rather than detailing one particular event. ITAQALLAH 09:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Arrow's change, which seems to me appropriately brief and factual, excepting that I do not much like the phrase "at the hands of," which is almost never used in positive contexts.Proabivouac 09:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Aminz, i think the recent edit (concerning the brackets) is too evaluative as opposed to a brief narrative of Muhammad's life. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 09:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1.4 billion vs 1.3 billion

None of the sources in the Demographics section support a figure larger than 1.3 billion. If 1.4 billion is desired another source must be provided. - Merzbow 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this? Islam by Country 216.99.51.128 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That won't do. See WP:V, WP:CITE, and other related articles wikilinked from those two. Note, from WP:CITE: "Note: Other Misplaced Pages articles cannot be used as sources.". Looking at Islam by country, I see that not all the figures presented there are supported by cited sources. -- Boracay Bill 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We're FA now!

Thanks to everybody for their hard work. This is proof that a controversial, high-profile article can indeed reach FA status. We are now perpetually obligated to keep it at FA quality; in other words, don't take it off your watchlist. - Merzbow 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

then shouldn't someone archive the FA discussion?--Sefringle 02:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to all contributors. It is really a great article.

It is already archived Sefringle. Just click on "show" and you'll find it. It is done automatically. -- FayssalF - 03:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We should appreciate whoever have worked hard on this article. There's a list of them . According to this list Zora and BhaiSaab have more than 200 edits. Then Aminz, FayssalF and Itaqallah who have more than 100 edits. In addition Merzbow has helped a lot to make GA and then FA article. I'll give branster to them and thank others especially who have done more than 50 edits in this articles.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Special thanks to User:Dev920 and User:Merzbow for their efforts and initiative. -- FayssalF - 03:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations all round. BTW The contribution counter mentioned above has a delay of 34 days apparently, so excludes all recent contributions! A 34-day delay must be a record for electronic data transfer. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

excellent work, congratulations. The mind boggles at the high FA standard exepected these days, but that's actually a good thing. It appears that it is now significantly harder to get "GA" than it was to get "FA" two years ago. dab (𒁳) 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The process is brutal, but I think it has to be; the average Britannica article seems to be better-written than most FA's have been until recently. It was massively helpful just reading through other FA nominations to see what typical objections would be; this is what turned me on to Tony's criteria, for example, which led to several more copyedit rounds. I secretly hope that the reason he didn't comment on the FA was because he skimmed the article and was happy with the prose, as opposed to just not having enough time. :) - Merzbow 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope it won't be regarded as POV if, as a non-Muslim, I add this sentiment to the congratulations: wa mā tawfīq illā billāh. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I didn't go through it close enough to support--only made a few comments. Thanks to all of you who did the recent work bringing it to FA quality and, of course, to Zora for all of her work in the past. Now, the real challenge is keeping it FA quality. :) --gren グレン 02:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments you did make were very useful; I think I fixed the last of them just a few days ago. - Merzbow 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Shia - Sunni split

The article implies that the split happened after the war between Ali and Muawiyyah after 661 "This dispute over leadership would give rise to schism in the Muslim community. The majority accepted the legitimacy of the three rulers prior to Ali, and became known as Sunnis. A minority disagreed, and believed that Ali was the only rightful successor; they became known as the Shi'a."

EoI says(Shia article):

"In the lifetime of Muḥammad, his close kin enjoyed a raised religious status of purity recognised by the Ḳurʾān. As his kin, there were counted the descendants of his great-grandfather Hās̲h̲im and, to some extent, the descendants of Hās̲h̲im's brother al-Muṭṭalib. They were, like the Prophet himself, not allowed to receive or to handle alms (zakāt) as these were considered unclean. In compensation for this exclusion they were entitled to receive a portion of the k̲h̲ums, the fifth of war booty reserved to the Prophet, and of the fayʾ , property which fell to the Muslims without war effort. After Muḥammad's death, the establishment of the caliphate by Abū Bakr on the basis of a privileged position for the tribe of Ḳurays̲h̲ as a whole, and the confiscation of Muḥammad's property, deprived the Prophet's Family of the special status, as they were disinherited and lost their title to their Ḳurʾānic share of the k̲h̲ums and fayʾ. The Banū Hās̲h̲im vainly protested against these developments by refusing to pledge allegiance to Abū Bakr for six months. The disestablishment of the Family of the Prophet after his death was the ultimate motive for the rise of the Shia."

--Aminz 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Other problems

"Tensions escalated into what became the first civil war (the "First Fitna"), in which numerous companions of Muhammad sought to avenge the slaying of Uthman."

This may imply that Ali was responsible for slaying of Uthman. We should explain this in more details. --Aminz 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the Ali passage per your second point. Have to think about your first point. - Merzbow 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear the historical split occurred after Ali's death. It may have had its ultimate roots in events before then, like those mentioned above, but there was no schism. Therefore I don't see anything inaccurate about the way it's currently worded; this additional detail should be added to a subarticle. - Merzbow 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Aminz 03:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We should mention that although the split happened after the war between Ali and Muawiyyah but there were disagreement about choosing Abu Bakr as the caliph from the beginning. I added this While a few of companions didn't accept him because they believed Ali ibn Abi Talib,the causin and son-in-low of Muhammad, was appointed by Muhammad.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the pages of Shi'ite Islam on the basis of an online version which may be different with the offline version.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

In relation to this edit of mine , please see where I've asked Itaqallah to clarify the point. I just thought it would be good to add a reference here on the talk page. --Aminz 03:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

the wrong concept about Islam which many are having

Assalam alaikum actually Islam was not found by Prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H). many of the non-Muslims think Islam is found by Prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H),as it is given in many of the websites also. Islam was started by first man on earth who was sent by God (Prophet Adam). Prophet Mohammed was the last Prophet sent by the God.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hishad (talk • contribs)

In theory, yes; in reality, probably not. There was no Islam before Muhammad; likewise tehre were no muslims before muhammad.--Sefringle 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The article makes the distinction between the secular and Muslim viewpoints on the matter, without taking a side. - Merzbow 02:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello I was looking through featured articles....

Do featured articles get shown on the main page? When will this article be shown? Thanks.--0rrAvenger 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A request has been filed, but it will probably take a while. - Merzbow 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures appear in the main page in the order they were featured. Articles no. The articles appearing on the main page are scheduled by User:Raul654, the ratified featured article director. Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page. -- FayssalF - 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose to nominate it for especial day like Aid Fitr.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, Do you know where this list is?--Sefringle 06:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really Sefringle. Maybe somewhere off-wiki? I've had a look at this but found nothing. You can ask him. -- FayssalF - 03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Denominational subtopic articles

I just attempted to use the Sunni and Shi'a summary-style subtopic articles to get information about internal organizational differences between these two branches of Islam and about possible differences between them regarding views on advocacy of Separation of Church and State (and, if interested, please see changes I have made to that other article). I wasn't too successful in finding the information I was after in the mentioned subtopic articles.

I had the thought that it would have been useful to me as an information-seeker if the subtopic articles on the various branches of Islam were structured similarly to one another -- with similar section/subsection headings and section/subsection ordering, and thought that I would pass that thought along here. -- Boracay Bill 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. -- FayssalF - 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tone

Hello, I'm not overly keen on the whole tone of this article. references like the following text

Belief in the "Day of Resurrection", yawm al-Qiyāmah (also known as yawm ad-dīn,
"Day of Judgment" and as-sā`a, "the Last Hour") is also crucial for Muslims.
They believe that the time of Qiyāmah is preordained by God but unknown to man.

Seem to me to be obviously written in the third person and feel condescending, as if stating that the believe system is not true. Would it not be better to change "They believe" to a more neutral "It is believed"? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.15.4 (talk • contribs)

No, because the passive tense is usually quite vague. It is almost always better to say who is believing, saying, or doing something than leave it up in the air. - Merzbow 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual development By the late 8th century

I had added By the late 8th century the first collections of Hadith,speaches of Muhammad, were gathered, the first historic books of Muslims were written, the first Madrasas had emerged and different school of theologic thoughts and juriceprodential sects were formd. Then the movement for translation of the books of other culturs began and in the 9th century Abbasid dynasty established House of Wisdom which was the biggest library and translation institute in the Muslim civilization. and Merbow removed it and said sorry to remove this, but it's too much, unsourced, and inaccurate in places

You can shorten it if it's too much. You can add source because I don't have any English book about this issue. I propose using History of Islamic Philosophy by Henry Corbin. Inaccurate in places!!! No the place is completely correct.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The hadith weren't his speeches, they were recorded anecdotes about Muhammad and his close companions that often included his words. I think the history section already sufficiently covers theological disagreements and legal developments better in other places. I don't think the establishment of a library is important enough to mention here. - Merzbow 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but you may misunderstood. So I clarify the issue. In the first century of Islamic history Muslims had been forbidden to write the prophet's Hadith. Since 99 AH they allowed to do so. They began gathering his Hadiths and in the second century numerous collections of these Hadiths were gathered. About 400 collections have been collected by Shia's. At the same time the first historians like Ibn Ishaq and Abu Mekhnaf collected the history of Islam. Ja'far al-Sadiq established a school in Madina which includes at least 4000 students. Hasan Basri made a school in Basra. The first schools of theological thoughts and jurisprudential sects were formed. House of Wisdom was not just a library like what you're familiar with. It has collected the cultural and intellectual legacy of other civilizations comprising Roman, Greece, Persian, Indian, Egyptian, etc. Unfortunately the story has been written from the middle in this article. There's written The Golden Age saw new legal, philosophical, and religious developments. Islamic law was advanced greatly by the efforts of the early 9th century jurist al-Shafi'i; he codified a method to establish the reliability of hadith, a topic which had been a locus of dispute among Islamic scholars. Philosophers Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi sought to incorporate Greek principles into Islamic theology, while others like the 11th century theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali argued against them. Finally, Sufism and Shi'ism both underwent major changes in the 9th century. Sufism became a full-fledged movement that had moved towards mysticism and away from its ascetic roots, while Shi'ism split due to disagreements over the succession of Imams while it was not the beginning of the cultural and intellectual development. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

This artile is bound to have a bias and what caught my eye was teh so called Golden age between 750 and 1250. This is in fact at a time when the Arab conquests were stopped in the mid 8th century, the Byzantines launched successful counterattacks and when the Fatimid and Corduba caliphates emerged. The Crusades are mentioned only to mention Saladin's triumph in Hattin. A biref mention of these points regarding this age in my opinion would provide a more rounded version of the history of Islam and her respective kingdoms (which of course were far from united).Tourskin 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This name doesn't represent military advancement or political stability but it expresses cultural, social and economical development. Most of the Muslim scholars live in these years and almost all of the innovations and explorations have been done ion that time.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Inter-Religion task force

Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion/Inter-religious content task force. Do people who edit religion articles want such a task force? If so or if not, speak out. --Shirahadasha 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

History section

The section starts with the dawn of Islam by Muhammad. I suggest we summerize the pre-Islamic history and the background in a sentence or two. Any feedback? --Aminz 06:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. All depends on the details. - Merzbow 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we can for example summerize the following quote(s): "In the case of the nomadic Arabs, shut up in their wilderness of rock and sand, Nature herself barred the way of progress. The life of desert does not furnish permanent advance beyond the tribal system, and we find that the religious development of the Arabs was proportionally retarded, so that at the advent of Islam the ancient heathenism, like the ancient tribal structure of society, had become effete without having ever ceased to be barbarous... The northern Semites, on the other hand, whose progress up to the eight century before Christ certainly did not lag behind of the Greeks, were deprived of political independence, and so cut short in their natural development..." (Source: The religion of Semites,p.34) --Aminz 06:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad section (again)

i see no reason for a rewrite; the previous version enjoyed wide consensus, was well-sourced, and was appropriately balanced and neutral. i find the coverage in the rewrite a little selective in focus. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK as long as that POV and basically OR sentence I removed stays out, or is rewritten. - Merzbow 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the section makes no mention of the other general meanings associated with the word, and is at times rather sweeping and unspecific in its language. a lot of the information (such as jizya, dhimmi, etc.) has already been covered in the later section. ITAQALLAH 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The material on jizya and dhimmi is very closely related to jihad so it's better to leave it there. The section on other religions still needs some, and it's a more appropriate place for more general material. Other than that, i don't see any specific objections to the current version, which is coherent and impeccably sourced. Beit Or 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are so "closely related" as you claim, can you quote a passage from EoI's article on Jihad that makes the connection explicit? They are related but not as you claim. --Aminz 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, if any. If you want to argue about the word "closely" , then you may want to find a different forum for such hairsplitting. Beit Or 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to justify your "claims". Everybody can make claims. If you take a look at http://www.answers.com/jihad&r=67, you'll see that neither "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" nor "Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia" nor "Islamic Dictionary" mention jizya or dhimmi. --Aminz 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't have to present evidences against your claims, but you need to justify it in the first place. --Aminz 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I seem to recall arguing earlier (and unsuccessfully) that this material, "Forced conversion was rarely practiced or sanctioned, and non-Muslims in a Muslim state were traditionally allowed to live as dhimmis," was a very typical attempt to "correct a misconception" by rebutting something which was never actually said. Now I see we are making the opposite argument. I don't understand how Beit Or's material on dhimmi and jizya can be irrelevant, yet this Esposito material, which is about the very same thing (though less informative and with a different rhetorical thrust), is relevant. If anything, I'd think what conquered peoples do have to do is inherently more topical than what they don't have to do (of which there is a potentially infinite list.)

This passage, "In broader usage, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. Among other things, it can imply striving to live a moral and virtuous life, to spreading and defending Islam, and to fighting injustice and oppression" was being given seriously undue weight, when "For most of Muslim history, jihad was taken to mean armed struggle for the expansion and defense of the Islamic state." If we're to include it, we should do so along with the Shi'a "greater vs. lesser jihad" concept. Metaphorical usages of Jihad are just not that important.Proabivouac 21:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad in Islamic jurisprudence should be given priority, for that is the connotation when the word jihad is typically used. i don't see how giving mention to other uses in Muslim life (the greater/lesser jihad discussion isn't relevant here) can be considered undue weight at all, especially when EoI mentions it - "Jihad: etymologically signifies an effort directed towards a determined objective. (Cf. ijtihād : the work of the scholar-jurists in seeking the solution of legal problems; mujāhada or, again, jihād : an effort directed upon oneself for the attainment of moral and religious perfection...". ITAQALLAH 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to confuse etymology, meaning, and concept. EoI talks about the Arabic word "jihad"; this section is about the Islamic concept of jihad. These are not one and the same thing. Beit Or 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

you are limiting the "Islamic concept of jihad" to its application in jurisprudence, when it clearly has uses beyond those boundaries. ITAQALLAH 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term "etymology" is somewhat of a red flag here. I must agree with Beit Or that the derivation of words is basically irrelevant, as this is not an Arabic etymological dictionary.Proabivouac 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the quote does express it's used to refer to "moral and religious" perfection, so it's not just a question of Arabic etymology, as it possesses a religious dimension. the Esposito ref also substantiates that. ITAQALLAH 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing Arabic language and Islam. It's like saying that crusade is not a necessarily a medieval expedition aimed at retaking the Holy Land from the Muslim, but can also refer to efforts against one's moral or societal vices, for example, a "crusade against drugs". Yes, just like "jihad", the word "crusade" can be used in many different meanings (including religious ones), but then an encyclopedia is not a dictionary. Beit Or 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

not quite: the EoI is stating that jihad also refers to attaining religious (i.e. Islamic) perfection, and Esposito says the same. so this particular derivation has a context in Islamic teaching - which should be noted. ITAQALLAH 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, please observe that while EoI gives some cursory treatment to the etymology and figurative meanings of jihad, 99% of the article is devoted to warfare. I don't see any reason why Misplaced Pages article should not follow suit. Beit Or 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

it states quite plainly in the introduction that it will restrict the discussion solely to warfare (that is, after all, the primary meaning), yet even then the coverage of the EoI article on the fiqhi aspects of jihad is pretty patchy. ITAQALLAH 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, you have made sweeping changes without regard for consensus, and then revert citing 'massive removal' of 'pertinent information'. there is no need for repetition of the jizya/dhimmi material - that belongs in the discussion concerning Islam and other religions. the reference is of excellent quality - naturally - yet you use rather unspecific and misleading language, for example:

• "there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslims" - misleading, the prose is talking about the non-Muslim state.
• "Jihad against Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ceases when they submit to the authority of Islam" - please at least try to represent the prose within the correct context. it's talking about the tolerance of these communities within the Islamic community despite the aim of universality of the Islamic state.
• "which can be repudiated as soon as the circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities" - of course, there is no mention of what is EoI says later: "It is, however, recognized that such repudiation should be brought to the notice of the infidel party, and that he should be afforded sufficient opportunity to be able to disseminate the news of it throughout the whole of his territory." - and without such qualifications the prose becomes all the more misleading.

the focus of the prose sourced to EoI really is pretty selective. lastly, you excise reliable sources offering other information where the EoI's coverage is thin, such as the other meanings of jihad. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The first of these objections seems to me quite reasonable, accordingly I've changed "non-Muslims" to "non-Muslim states." The second, well, six of one, half dozen of the other - we're not obliged to reproduce any source's rhetorical narrative, the question is whether the facts are being neutrally presented here. As for the requirement to give warning to the non-Muslim state, that seems reasonable to add, the requirement to spread the news is probably more detail than we need here.Proabivouac 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The first comment is indeed reasonable, but the phrase with "states" is not ideal either. What if non-Muslims do not have a state and live, say, as a nomadic tribe? The second has no merit - as Pro said it's more or less the same thing only wrapped in the rhetoric of "tolerance". The third is a great example of what another editor called "defensive writing" on Islam-related topics: "bad news" must necessarily be balanced with "good news"; to wit, "bad news" that truces with non-Muslim states may be renounced at will must be slightly offset with "good news" that Muslims are not that savage and must inform the enemy about repudiating the truce. It's interesting that earlier an attempt to insert some "bad news" about Muhammad prompted cries of "too much space". The same consideration apparently does not apply to the mechanics of truce repudiation. Beit Or 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

you cite the Muhammad section as an application of your theory, where you were adamant that relatively unimportant conflicts with Jewish tribes needed substantial mention despite other, far more significant events, going totally unmentioned to your content (perhaps you've the got theory reversed). ITAQALLAH 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The "relatively unimportant conflicts with Jewish tribes" enabled Muhammad's conquest of Mecca. Without the property pillaged from the Jews of Medina and Khaybar, Muhammad would have been unable to sustain his war against the Quraysh. My point, though, is not about Muhammad, but rather about what I see as a wholly unacceptable approach to writing Islam-related articles (though many contentious subjects suffer from this attitude too), namely, that any information is assessed mainly based on its propaganda value rather than on its encyclopedic value. Beit Or 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

well, why make such a far-fetched connection with the conquest of Mecca (are you really asserting its importance is based upon this?), why not demand mention of what was directly at the centre of the conflict, like the Treaty of Hudaybiyya? yes, i do see an unacceptable approach to writing Islam-related articles, exactly as you relate - and some of those problems i feel are evident in the changes you've instituted. ITAQALLAH 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Vaglieri and Stillman make that connection.Proabivouac 00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm not saying it's untrue at all - the point is that if the conflicts are mentioned because they ultimately contributed to enabling the conquest, why do we not mention the other, more obvious events directly facilitating the conquest? i don't really care that it's not mentioned, it's just that i see some of the same behaviour from those who allege it of others. ITAQALLAH 00:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if there's any obvious and fairly uncontestable parallel I see here, it's between the "though" and "however" clauses, both sourced, both argumentative and meant to be, towards which we seem to be simultaneously adopting opposite approaches:, If we could start somewhere, it might be to agree to avoid these types of clauses except in the most compelling instances, in favor of positive assertions which are qualified appropriately to begin with.Proabivouac 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree with that. i would invite you to reword the first sentence how you see fit. ITAQALLAH 00:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the sentence on "some modern Muslims" is certainly not acceptable for a general article on Islam, and I object strongly to the unexplained and stubborn deletion of the next sentence, which gives important background for the "some modern Muslims" stuff. Beit Or 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which modern Muslims is my question. That way we can judge its significance, to see if it should be here at all. Perhaps it is too marginal. But if we can find that it is significant enough to be here, and appropriately qualified/attributed, I can't see any need to argue against it in text.Proabivouac 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Beit Or, you point to the fact that this is a general article on Islam, yet you have no problem endorsing convoluted hair-splitting about the varying levels of fard, or repeating tangental information already sufficiently addressed in the article. in fact, you don't seem to mind it being mentioned as long as an unequivocal and needless rejoinder is latched on, so this particular point appears rather flimsy. ITAQALLAH 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct that the objection to the long passage about when Jihad ceases is that this duplicates some material found in other religions section? If so, a summary along the lines of, "Jihad ceases when non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule, becoming dhimmis or converting to Islam," might be appropriate. The payment of kharaj can be added to the section below about the dhimmi.Proabivouac 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the fault of the "Other religions" section, which is fixated on the dhimmi issue instead of discussing the more general issues of the Islamic approach to other religions. Beit Or 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

the relationship between Islam and other religions, including when people of other religions are within an Islamic state (hence discussion of dhimma/jizya), is highly relevant to that section. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my comment (well, no surprise here). I was pointing out that the section is fixated on dhimma and omits other highly topical matters; I never said that dhimma is irrelvant to this article. Beit Or 19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

dhimma/jizya is a large part of any discussion concerning Islam and other religions. i noted that as it's already discussed here, there is absolutely no need to mention it again in the Jihad section where it's just redundant. you cite others' "stubborn" deletion of unencyclopedic prose, yet you have shown respect for neither consensus nor compromise, making contentious and sweeping changes without first proposing or discussing them on talk, and then "stubborn"ly rejecting any attempt at compromise or reconciliation. ITAQALLAH 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• that was part of my objection, Proabivouac, and that dropping in when jihad ceases is abrupt and can be misleading, especially if the juristic conditions for its commencing, or the way in which it is to be conducted, go unmentioned (misleading, because it implies that jihad requires none of the aforementioned conditions, that it is universal, ongoing - even today - in the absense of any indication otherwise - and of course, it presumes that all jihad is offensive in nature due to the generality of the statement) ITAQALLAH 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that some of what you say may reflect concern that the reader might equate the traditional Islamic concept of jihad with the "jihad" of militant or terrorist organizations, as that's the only debate about the manner in which it's to be conducted with which I'm familiar. Traditionally, jihad was carried out through conventional military means under the direction of various Islamic caliphates. What to do when there is no Caliph isn't addressed (nor could it have been addressed) in Sunnah. There is something calling itself jihad today, whether this is legitimately Islamic I don't know (in fact I think it inherently impossible to decide,) but this is no longer being discussed in this section - perhaps mention of it should be restored?

What conditions for commencing and manner of conduct do you think important here?Proabivouac 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

yes... jihad as discussed in juristic primers can quite easily be unintentionally equivocated with things that may or may not be considered jihad - especially when media discussion about the topic and its usage of the word in a modern day context - and that most of our audience will likely be more aware of the latter context than the former. a few conditions for: offensive jihad - requires an amir of a state; an actual declaration, preceded by an offer to the state to submit. as for conduct, there are specifications such as targetting combatants only, not implementing legal punishments (hadd) in wartime, as well as others. i'd opine that a sentence like "Jihad may be declared against a non-Muslim state if it refuses to convert or submit to Islamic rule" is a little more acceptable than one that starts with "Jihad ceases..". ITAQALLAH 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged things somewhat (mostly with an eye to make the section shorter.). Beit Or's cessation conditions naturally follow "perpetual in nature", so I've left them there, but moved the declaration material to the lead. I hope this works for everyone.Proabivouac 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

these are some very productive changes. i think this version is more acceptable. i do think we can do something to trim the second paragraph, and i propose the following: the first para finishes with "Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against a non-Muslim state if it refuses to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule." i was thinking we could continue that para with "As such, Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities." - therefore, we can then do without the rest of the repetition in the second para because jihad's perpetuality is linked to the refusal of the non-Muslim state to convert/submit (thus we don't need to state that jihad will cease if they do so, when we have stated that jihad will commence if they don't do so). the material proposed for removal is all covered in the Islam#Other religions section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that - I really don't know. I see why you're saying its duplicated (although the current Other religions section neglects kharaj), but I'm not certain this is less relevant in one section than the other. One frames it as a coherent active narrative - jihad continues until a tributary relationship is established, purchasing for the ahl al-kitab dhimmi status- the other presents dhimma as an enduring condition under Islamic authority, with tribute presented as its secondary feature. (I also observe that the portion of the Qur'an which has been traditionally interpreted to speak to this matter follows the active narrative exactly.)Proabivouac 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i see.. how about we retain mention of jizya/kharaj (as that is directly related to the cessation), and defer mention of dhimma ("...,thereby receiving the status of dhimmis,...") to the other religions sect? ITAQALLAH 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Umayyads

Itaqallah, I hadn't meant to revert this edit, only my own attempt to restore the Esposito material about forced conversion being rare - which didn't really work, because the paragraph is about jurisprudence, not practice (and anyhow doesn't say that conversion of dhimmis is required.) However, since I have reverted it, what is the problem that you'd meant to correct?Proabivouac 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the first part of the sentence is nowhere to be found in Lewis, even implicitly (from my own reading anyway). the point Lewis is making about the economy was that the majority of economic reliance was upon dhimmis - however, as there was a mass wave of new mawalis (soon outnumbering the Arabs) who subsequently did not need to pay jizya and paid the lowest zakat rates, then this resulted in decreased revenue and increased expenditure. as a result, conversions were at times actually discouraged. the prose in the article doesn't reflect that, and as i was copyediting to trim the text a bit i removed the extraneous point. i also reinserted the information re Abu Muslim, for mawali discontent was only part of the reason for Ummayad destruction. Shi'i resistance to the Ummayads, in alliance with individuals like Abu Muslim, found some support amongst mawalis. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

i'll reinstitute that change if you're happy with it. ITAQALLAH 17:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not the knowledge necessary to arrive at an opinion on this, though I may develop one as the situation becomes clearer. My reversion of your material was inadvertent (look at the edit times!)Proabivouac 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read Lewis (and other sources on this subject) carefully. The whole point of the existence of mawali was that non-Muslims couldn't convert to Islam merely at will: they first had to find a willing Arab patron who would accept them as clients (mawali). If Lewis is unclear on that point (though in my reading, he is pretty explicit), then probably Hawting is (The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, p. 4): "Although it can be debated whether the Koran was addressed to all men or to the Arabs only, the Umayyads and the Arab tribesmen who first conquered the Middle East regarded their religion as largely exclusive of the conquered peoples. There was no sustained attempt to force or even persuade the conquered peoples to accept Islam, and it was assumed that they would remain in their own communities paying taxes to support the conquerors. Although from the start there was some movement of the conquered into the community of the conquerors, the separation of Arabs from non-Arabs was a basic principle of the state established as a result of the conquests. This is clear both from the procedure which a non-Arab had to adopt in order to enter Islam and from the fact that there were, from time to time, official measures designed to prevent such changes of status. Islam was in fact regarded as the property of the conquering aristocracy." Beit Or 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i see. thanks for the extract. ITAQALLAH 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Selective representation

I am busy now but can someone correct Beit Or's selective representation of the significant reasons for the downfall of Ummayad. --Aminz 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Aminz 03:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad section; POV tag

I think a POV tag needs to be added the jihad section. As far as I know there is no unique scholarly opinion on the issue of permanent peace with non-Muslims. What does "jihadist" mean? Is that an english word? --Aminz 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See for example, War and Its Discontents by J. Patout Burns Georgetown University Press says:

"Islam, as a belief system with a specific scriptural foundation and an accompanying sacred history, took root in many different societies and cultures. In none, I think it's fair to say, did Islam as such repress any existing developments that were towards nonviolence. There is no theological reason an Islamic society could not take a lead in developing nonviolence today, and there is every reason that some of them should."

So, the POV bits of "there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states" should be taken out. --Aminz 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, that quote says nothing at all about Islamic doctrine.Proabivouac 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamic theology is part of Islam. --Aminz 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What does he mean by nonviolence? Islam mandates all sorts of violence. Arrow740 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So do the laws of any state, and common sense.Proabivouac 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, jurisprudence isn't theology. Your argument here is totally illogical. See also WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. We are talking about how jihad has been defined, not how Burns (not an expert on Islam anyhow) speculates it one day might be defined. This is one of the flimsiest rationales for a POV tag I've ever seen.Proabivouac 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly views on the relation of Islam, on the whole, with matter in dispute is diverse. On this page and other pages, you should avoid pushing anti-Islamic sentiments. --Aminz 05:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's your religion. We didn't make up jihad. It's frustrating when an editor finds a quote that could possibly be used so as to further his agenda, then refuses to explain who the author is or how he is using key terms. Arrow740 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with jihad. --Aminz 05:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, don't say Pro is pushing anti-Islamic sentiments when he's only insisting that we source the truth to good sources. Arrow740 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Arrow740.Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

...That is some kind of joke, right? Do you all need some help here? Homestarmy 06:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're feeling very generous, you might remove Aminz' baseless POV tag.Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Thanks. --Aminz 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you are well aware that I do not "push sentiments" of any variety. Your arguments here are incoherent and illogical, and your source, not ideal to begin with, does not say what you want it to say.

You are right that there is nothing wrong with jihad, besides our own moral evaluations and projections. The doctrine is that mankind, in submission to the will of God, is obliged to enjoin good and forbid evil, and to that end establish Islamic rule, through force where necessary. If one believes that the benefits of Islamic rule outweigh the downsides of the use of force, then aggressive jihad makes complete sense: one is liberating conquered people from jahiliyya, and offering them a chance to avoid hellfire. Conversely, if one thinks Islamic rule undesirable, or that jahiliyya isn't all that bad, then jihad might not be justified.

What Islam definitely isn't is pacifism; see Sunnah. Burns (and perhaps you) may think it should be, or one day might be, but that's totally irrelevant here.Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What are Burns' credentials in this area? - Merzbow 06:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's his write-up:Proabivouac 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A great deal has been written about the issue of Islam, Jihad, Warfare, non-Violence, etc etc(e.g. see ), and there is a wide range of views; not just the one. I just pointed out to one source. You want another one: check out "An Islamic Approach to Peace and Nonviolence:A Turkish Experience, Zeki Saritoprak, The Muslim World, Vol.95"

You can find pages and pages of arguments from the Qur'an and Sunna... quoting "great Islamic figures of contemporary Turkey" who believe that our era is different from the past; putting the past in the context of its time, argue that "jihad should be through the bright proofs of the Qur’an and not through the use of force"; describing "our time as the time of spiritual jihad, 'struggle against spiritual destruction should not be physical, but spiritual.'". Proab, please don't post on my talk page. If you would like to talk about the article, please use this talk page. --Aminz 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully their "interpretation" will be widespread. However wikipedia is not a place to promote falsehoods. Arrow740 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you want me to post on "your" talk page?Proabivouac 07:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• one major problem i have found with the prose is that it presumes the presence of an Islamic state, while this is an important caveat without which the meaning becomes rather distorted. it's also poor style to discuss when Jihad stops, when we fail to discuss its preconditions and how it is commenced- but even then, that discussion is already covered well enough in the Islam and other religions section. i have tried a tweaking to account for these things, and i hope it is an acceptable compromise. ITAQALLAH 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to this sentence, "Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state..." I agree that is an improvement, and eliminates the redundancy of "defense or expansion" later in the section.Proabivouac 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmis as a Lower Class

I am a bit confused as to why the phrase about dhimmis being a lower status was removed. How is that POV? Muslim law says they have to pay higher taxes (the jizya), which is plainly discriminatory. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't infer from fact X (paying of jizya) that Y is the case (they are lower class). This is original research which has no place in WP. If you can find any reliable sources which show that dhimmis were treated as a lower class, then you can include it with the relevant reference. → AA — 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry about that. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All these kind of edits which are done without references are POV. If you wish to change the use multiple references and do not add your personal views here. They will be reverted back. --- A. L. M. 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, such edits are not necessarily POV. However, at least one of them DOES violate WP:NOR, as AA pointed out above. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent ideas about Jihad

Learn about Islam from featured article: "Thus jihad is perpetual in nature; there can, theoretically, be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only temporary truces, which can be repudiated as soon as the circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities ". Woh that is great and sourced too and administrator User:Briangotts even do not allow to take it out .--- A. L. M. 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like OR again as the EoI does not make any such statements (and there are no other sources indicated). → AA — 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was added without citing any additional sources and seems to be OR. → AA — 15:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the EoI does refer to its perpetuality, but then again the EoI does indeed mention the opinions of eminent, early jurists like Sufyan ath-Thawri who considered the offensive jihad to be mustahab as opposed to wajib. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not ILIKEITPEDIA. Al-Thawri's school of jurisprudence disappeared without a trace about a thousand years ago. Please do not try to bring those views that have good propaganda value instead of those that are dominant. Beit Or 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't see the relevance of your comments, i'm simply mentioning what the EoI itself feels appropriate to mention. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is for suggesting edits to the article. If your comment above on al-Thawri didn't suggest any, it shouldn't have been made. Beit Or 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that's missing here is an short explanation of how the Shi'a view on jihad differs from the Sunni. - Merzbow 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some recent scholars

"Recently, some Muslim scholars have said that jihad only obligates warfare of a defensive nature." Maybe so, but this is the general, introductory article on Islam. It must be about the most common views and practices, not on what some (which?) scholars have recently said. A discussion of the whole range of opinions is fine, but please confine it to subsidiary articles. I undertand Merzbow complaint that the next sentence only serves to debunk this one, but, sorry, they can only leave this article together. Beit Or 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We might rephrase this by attributing it and avoiding the appearance of taking sides...though I observe that the word "recently" pretty much makes this clear without saying it out loud.Proabivouac 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• the EoI mentions some of those authorities who didn't regard the offensive jihad as wajib (ath-Thawri and some other classical scholars). absolutely: this is indeed an introductory article, yet the focus and tone of your version is misleading and inappropriate, as i have mentioned in a few sections above. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made much of a case against it. You just seem to be saying that some classical authorities differed on the level of goodness of offensive war. Arrow740 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

if the classical authorities differed as to whether it was mustahab or wajib, they are differing over whether or not it is obligatory. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I've made a very specific point on a specific issue to which you gave no adequate response. Rants like "the focus and tone of your version is misleading and inappropriate" are uncivil and do not help your case at all. Beit Or 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, please spare me the wikilawyering. if you're going to make baseless accusations of incivility, then please do so without espousing your own. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't address his points? Arrow740 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i've already expressed that the opinion concerning jihad has been covered in the EoI. yet, it's being argued that it's too much for an introductory article. i have also expressed concern with the general tone of the changes made: if this sentence is too much, what on earth are we doing repeating information already in the article - for which most of a section is already dedicated? what are we doing discussing in an introductory section about when and how it's fard kifaya/`ayn, or when the jihad is stopped, or the repudiation of truces, when we neglect discussion even about it's pre-conditions, how it's started, the basic rules of jihad, as well as other more pertinent information? ITAQALLAH 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone whose ancestors' country suffered an Islamic holocaust I can tell you that just who jihadis are supposed to kill is more relevant. Arrow740 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

an appeal to emotion is not a valid encyclopedic argument. ITAQALLAH 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appeal to emotion, but a reasonable comment that the bloodiest conquest in human history is not covered in this article well enough. Beit Or 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

that's not the point he is making in this particular discussion. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You must have read some other comment then. Beit Or 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with this statement: "Jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection". Innumerable reliable sources make the point that jihad has this interpretation as well. - Merzbow 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not an Arabic dictionary. Just like the word "crusade" in English and many other languages, the word "jihad" in Arabic can refer to lots of things. An encyclopedia entry, however, must cover the Islamic concept of jihad rather than the Arabic word "jihad". Beit Or 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

as argued above, jihad as a form of striving to obtain religious perfection is a concept in Islam (as verified by EoI, Esposito, and probably others), and not just an etymological argument. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

False, jihad is the effort, which encompasses and is most commonly understood as warfare, aimed at establishing the global domination of Islam. This is what academic sources, including EoI, and works of authoritative Muslim scholars say. Beit Or 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

nobody is denying what jihad is commonly understood as, however: . ITAQALLAH 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

However what? Please do not make self-referential comments. Beit Or 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Esposito as usual is overly apologetic on these matters, even Lewis says that some modern Muslims use it in a moral and spiritual sense. Britannica splits the difference, saying that "Modern Islam places special emphasis on waging war with one's inner self. It sanctions war with other nations only as a defensive measure when the faith is in danger." Also: "Islam distinguishes four ways by which the duty of jihad can be fulfilled: by the heart, the tongue, the hand, and the sword. The first consists in a spiritual purification of one's own heart by doing battle with the devil and overcoming his inducements to evil." The sentence is clearly supportable. - Merzbow 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

look, no one is denying that "some modern Muslims" may something. The question, however, is about the views that were and are (if no longer, then show me the evidence) dominant in Islam. In addition, no one is saying that Islam can only be spread by the sword, but please go beyond the quotes. Pick any reasonably scholarly text on jihad, and you will see that it's overwhelimngly about warfare: how it commences, how it's funded and conducted, what are the duties of the fighters and ocmmanders, how to divide booty, how to conclude a truce and how long to keep it, what conditions of surrender to demand from infidels etc. By turning the section into a piece on "jihad-is-not-what-you-thought-but-a-spiritual-struggle-for-self-perfection" ths article invades deeply into Esposito's territory. Beit Or 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

we know what the primary meaning of jihad is, this is why the section dedicates most of the discussion to its application in jurisprudence - and it makes crystal clear that jihad in the books of all jurists refers to combat. to suggest that the addition of one sentence has turned it into "a piece on "jihad-is-not-what-you-thought-but-a-spiritual-struggle-for-self-perfection"" is a distortion. i referred you to my other comments, because they expressed quite nicely what i wanted to say. ITAQALLAH 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah is right on the mark here. The modern concept is notable enough for a one-sentence mention. Your beef is not with us but with the editors of Britannica; they found it notable enough for two sentences (in an article only slightly longer than this section). - Merzbow 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as worth mentioning, but as it's obvious that consensus to remove it will not be achieved, I'll settle for due weight as a footnote to the main idea, which is where it is now. Annoying, but no big deal.Proabivouac 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument that we must imitate Britannica's judgment regarding the due weight issues is self-defeating. As I have pointed out above, the EoI, which is much more scholarly and comprehensive, gives very little attention to this argument, only to dismiss it as apologetics. Beit Or 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Like the "Islam means peace" red herring, which is similarly mentioned in many sources, we all (including our sources) know it's insubstantial and basically irrelevant, yet many want to include it anyway. I guess it makes people feel good. What can you do?Proabivouac 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"the EoI, which is much more scholarly and comprehensive, gives very little attention to this argument, only to dismiss it as apologetics." -- i don't see its dismissal. the word jihad is frequently used in Islamic discussion (outside fiqhi discourse) to refer to purification (i.e. jihad an-nafs). ITAQALLAH 01:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere have I seen a reliable source claim that "Islam means peace"; the strongest I've seen it put is that the two words share a root. - Merzbow 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mughals

If we're going to have one sentence on Islamic rulers of India, it's quite insulting to the memory of the millions of murdered Hindus to have it be "The Mughals were noted for their achievements in art and architecture, exemplified by the Taj Mahal, which Shah Jahan built as a memorial to his wife." Arrow740 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

is this the most pertinent tidbit of information concerning the Mughal empire? ITAQALLAH 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a working assumption that all pre-modern empires climbed their way to the top over the bodies of hundreds of thousands. This doesn't excuse the Mughals, but neither does it make them notable for doing such. - Merzbow 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about forced conversions, and death to those who refused. Arrow740 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Christians, Jews, etc. all did the same thing. The Catholic and English Protestant have all done it -- convert or die -- too, I suspect even more recently than the Islamic Rulers of India. I'm not insulted that someone in my lineage was killed because of their beliefs, nor do I care. Thanks, Monkeyblue 06:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about millions of people here, cultural imperialism at its worst, and I'm not excusing any other such brutal acts. Why is it that many whites on WP often need to say that western culture was bad whenever problems with Islam are brought up? Arrow740 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know who is "white", Arrow? The above user appears in fact to be blue. I think the reason that people compare the rise of the Islamic with the rise of the Christian states is that the latter was so very much more brutal. Itsmejudith 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a misapprehension we need to correct. Arrow740 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Such was definitely not the case in India, which is what Arrow740 is talking about. I'm not certain how important this is to the article, but you'd have to look to Genghis Khan (or the twentieth century) to find something comparable.Proabivouac 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to see some references for this in order to judge how and if it should be noted. - Merzbow 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, we must include the period of Delhi Sultanate, which is arguably atleast as important as the Mughal empire in every respect. Second, since this is supposed to be the history of religion, it would perhaps be better to talk about developments pertinent to religion instead of art and architecture. Some key ideas include Barelwis, Deobandis, Ahmadis, Chishti Order, Din-i-Ilahi, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i believe we did have mention of the Dehli Sultanate and some of the basic chronology of the Mughal empire, but much of it was excised to bring the article to < 85kb ITAQALLAH 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would perhaps have been a better idea to take out mention of a memorial someone built for his wife instead. Again, as I mentioned, I think more important than mentioning the ~200 years of Mughal rulers (they lingered on for a bit longer in a nominal sense) and ~300 years of Delhi sultans, and what they did and constructed, is to talk about the religious aspect of this 500 year period. Remember, roughly every third Muslim on Earth lives in South Asia, and their concept of Islam is very much shaped by the historical developments in this region in the last 1000 years. deeptrivia (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

that's a valid point, i'll provide a link to a previous version which had a bit more about the history in India, but do make any additions you feel would would be productive. ITAQALLAH 02:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam#Jihad, last paragraph

The most most recent version of the Jihad section has for its fourth paragraph:

"Recently, some Muslim scholars have said that jihad only obligates warfare of a defensive nature. There are also radical Muslims who believe that physical "jihad against unbelief and unbelievers is a religious duty" that justifies terrorism. Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection."

I find all of this quite ugly. It is a hodgepodge of competing ideas which share the distinction of not being especially important compared to the most central and orthodox concept which has just been laid forth (and quite a bit more clearly and informatively then it was before Beit Or rewrote it and this debate began.) It was written to satisfy a committee and looks it, cruft which settles by its nature to the bottom. I would like to get rid of the whole thing, but imagine this might be met with howls of indignant protest.
For now, which Muslim scholars have said that jihad is only defensive? If we can identify them, we can then weigh how significant they are in the scheme of this main article - remember there is also Jihad, we don't have to cover every permutation here.
The bit about terrorism seems especially irrelevant to this section as it stands - wouldn't the more pertinent questions (and still probably belonging in Jihad) be 1) who has the authority to declare jihad against unbelievers, and 2) can jihad be waged against secular Muslim-majority states to establish Islamic rule?Proabivouac 04:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the first two sentences of this paragraph.

Regarding these two: "Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection."

These sentences seem very similar. How do their senses differ?Proabivouac 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rearranged and added some material in a rewrite. Mostly I have removed items are really both historic and even within Islam jurisprudential debates. I think these should be more better addressed in the subsequent full pages. Concept was mention the definition of jihad. Both of them. There is very little to say about the greater jihad because in short it is just try to be a better muslim, part of which is to engage in the lesser jihad. Then just feature the ideas of the military nature of jihad in context of its relation to muslims and the religious doctrine, leaving history, politics and other issues for which there is a wide range of concepts even within just the muslim community, both modern and historic leaving the debates to rage on pages where there is space to deal with the issues with justice by getting into details and contrasting opinions. I think the second part could still need some work but I wanted to go ahead and reset the theme so that it doesn't keep threathening to explode into a larger version for "depoving" debates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigeroo (talk • contribs)

The change was way too drastic, so I've reverted back to Pro's version. Too much emphasis was given to the "greater/lesser jihad" dichotomy, which does not appear to be a dominant theme in Islamic thought concerning jihad. I think we should proceed in baby steps. - Merzbow 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Merzbow.

Also, it's unfortunate that some editors have taken to linking to these BBC pages. (note - sometimes these say "pages not found") They are unattributed and unsigned, do not cite their sources, are poorly-informed and unduly opinionated, and overall are not a credible scholarly source, though the stature of BBC brand as a news agency (itself misplaced where the website is concerned) has misled some to assume otherwise.Proabivouac 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cessation

Arrow740, re this edit, with your addition italicized:

It ceases when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), thereby receiving the status of dhimmis, and when polytheists convert to Islam. In theory, conquered polytheists are given the choice between conversion, slavery, and death. In practice, however, the status of dhimmi was extended to many polytheists as well.

I reckon these are 94 unnecessary bytes: it is already said that jihad will be waged against polytheists until they convert. Am I missing something?Proabivouac 17:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear what happens after the Muslims succeed in subduing a polytheist population. This is an integral part of it. Arrow740 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

i also suggest we remove the sentence afterwards: " In practice, however, the status of dhimmi was extended to many polytheists as well." - this is stated almost en verbatim in the Other religions section ("However, in practice the status of dhimmi was extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and members of other scriptural faiths as well") ITAQALLAH 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Hindus and Zoroastrians would argue that their faiths are monotheistic, but some Hindus do have polytheistic ideas of religion. So, yeah, there likely were polytheistic Hindu dhimmis out there. Just one question: What is a "scriptural faith"? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those of us who worked on Islam and slavery know that "slavery is part of jihad." Arrow740 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The part about slavery is necessary from the perspective of flow as well. If jihad continues until polytheists convert, i.e. after they have been conquered, it must take some form. The enslavement or killing is that form. Thus the execution or enslavement of prisoners is just as much part of jihad as the military campaigns are, and it has been this way since Muhammad. Arrow740 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

there are many factors related to jihad, the large proportion of which remain unmentioned. slavery is not a fundamental aspect or prerequisite for jihad, and captives first assume the status of prisoner of war. it is then, after the amir decides what should be done with them, that they are enslaved, executed, or whatever else is decided. as such, i think elaboration is quite unnecessary. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a fundamental aspect of jihad. The goal of jihad is to control the lives of other people through military action. For polytheists that takes the form of death, slavery, or conversion. Arrow740 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

who says it is a "fundamental aspect of jihad"? and were it to be so, we would see it being given far more attention in the academic sources when discussing the fiqh of jihad. the goal of jihad, as related by academic sources, is to expand or defend the Islamic/Muslim state. the jizya has been mentioned as a compromise to its direct relation to the cessation, but the material on civil statuses (dhimma, slavery etc.) is appropriately covered in the later section. ITAQALLAH 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

also... the argument in this summary isn't an encyclopedic reason for inclusion, and is an opinionated appeal to emotion. i have retained the passage for now, but if its inclusion doesn't achieve consensus, then it's best to go without. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to historical events. Arrow740 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

we don't substitute the presentation of encyclopedia-based arguments with the citation of (a)historical events. ITAQALLAH 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

moon God

We should also mention that according to some researches Allah was the name of the moon God in the pre-Islamic Arabic culture. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm Oren.tal 13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source says that. - Merzbow 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the moon-god concept a myth orginated by some christians as a result of islamophobia? 216.99.52.109 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No source for it, no point in discussing further. Itsmejudith 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

lead image

Many religous articles of wikipedia have a lead image. This article probably should have one too.--Sefringle 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

the article achieved FA status without a lead image, and to be honest there's not really an image which would encapsulate the topic or represent the subject in a way expected of a lead image. i think it's best to just leave the template where it is. ITAQALLAH 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro is kind of long, and to fill the blandness, an image in the lead would probably improve the article. I picked the one you put in the front page description, because it makes the article look better as a whole, but if you have a better idea...--Sefringle 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad section- concerns

Here are my concerns:

1. Article says: "Jihad literally means "struggle" and some Muslim authorities call it the sixth pillar of Islam." While the source says:"Jihad, "to strive or strugle" in the way of God, is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it has no such official status." What the article says is not supported by this sentence. Esposito clearly says "it has no such official status" so it should be said "few Muslim authorities". The best solution is to say that "it is sometimes called the sixth pillar but doesn't have such official status in Islam."
2. The section quickly jumps into within the Islamic jurisprudence while it should first give the meaning of the term in its general context. Esposito continues: "In its most general meaning, it refers to the obligation encumbent on all Muslims, as individuals and as a community, to lead virtous lives, and to extend the Islamic community through preaching, education, and so on."
3. Article says: "In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection". This is nonsense. There are qur'anic verses that use the term "jihad" completely in spritual sense particularly those belonging to the Meccan period.
4. The article should clearly contain the POV that according to some jihad is only defensive. --Aminz 04:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix these for now. --Aminz 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Esposito must be used with great caution, as you know. Arrow740 04:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "the way of God?" This appears to be a direct translation from Arabic that does not quite make sense in English. Also the "unofficial" bit isn't very clearly written as of now. Arrow740 04:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the unofficial sixth pillar is extraneous especially if we are saying it is a minority view.--Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems confusing to just say it means "strive or struggle", because one must strive toward something and struggle for a reason. I think that bit is informative, and the rest of the section makes clear what striving or struggling in "the way of God" entails. "Unofficial" is not entirely accurate since there really is no "official" Islam, but I can't think of a better word. - Merzbow

I came up with an alternative wording that doesn't use "unofficial". Feel free to change. - Merzbow 04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is bad style to force the reader to decipher a phrase of ours by reading the full paragraph. Also the "unofficial" bit is extraneous as you have indicated. Arrow740 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an Arabic speaker answer the question as to whether or not "jihad" has an expressly religious connotation in Arabic? Arrow740 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Because if not, we're being inaccurate. Arrow740 04:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Harb" is the term for war . "Jihad" refers to dedicated effort to a cause, from the root of "Jahd". "Bughat" is for rebels or insurgents fighting for a cause. Jihad is the shortened version of "Jihad fi sabillilah" Or struggle in the way of god.--Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your first point seems reasonable, I've changed it. Regarding the others, Esposito is an outlier on this topic. Other sources (Lewis, Britannica, and EoI I'm told) place far more emphasis on jihad's military meaning; they state the defensive meaning is almost purely modern, and that the spiritual meaning, while pre-modern also, is subservient to the military meaning. If you read the above discussions, you'll see that some editors don't even want to mention these meanings at all, but I think they should be mentioned. But they shouldn't be given undue weight either. - Merzbow 04:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was subservient to the military meaning in "judical" writings; in Islamic jurisprudence- not in Islam- not in say "Sufism": For Sufis, the case is completely reverse. Physical jihad is subservient to the spritual meaning.

Jurists were concerned with specific "laws". Law is concerned with outward actions in the first place (not spritual journey) so it is natural that they mentioned the details of armed warfare in detail. --Aminz 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose adding a sentence on what the Sufis think of jihad if a source can be found and their conception is indeed different. - Merzbow 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz would also have to make a case for relevance. The coverage in the main references for this article of the Sufi view is probably a good argument not to include this tidbit. Arrow740 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not just a tidbit, but a significant aspect of how jihad is conceived. Since jihad is such an important concept, this encyclopedic article must get it right. Itsmejudith 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective of the sources presented here, this is wishful thinking. Arrow740 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not mentiong the sufi concept of "greater jihad" is just oversight. Wether it is modern or not is also debatable but a highly prevalent conception of Jihad in the Muslim world. The physical struggle, i.e. military context is the external aspect or subset of the same. No mention of jihad is complete without the spirtual section as much as without the military one. Asking someone to be a better muslim is not something jurists can legislate it is a subject more apt for sermons, exhortations and philosophical treatise. Nor is it something you can write too much in this section either. Sources are easy enough to find about jihad transcending military action since its quite a prevalent concept. For example Between Memory and Desire: The Middle East in a Troubled Age By R. Stephen Humphreys pg 175, he talks of Medinan references to "people who stuggle with their bodies and their goods beside the prophet" in reference to the struggle to create the Muslim community where jihad refers to struggle in the way of god, as working towards creating a Muslim community. Warfare was again only one aspect of it. War and the Law of Nations: A General History By Stephen Clark Neff pg. 43 speaks of Abd Ar-Rahman Al-Awza and his treatise in the 8th century on jihad identifying four types of jihad (also quite commonly found in Jihad litreature anywhere). Both authors expressly say that Jihad was not expressily a militarily connotated conception and there was the source I had put up earlier as well that showed that the term arose from the time of the struggle to establish the Muslim community in the face of opposition from the Quraish of Mecca. The military aspect again came after and is just part of a bigger concept. The whole Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam and Dar-al-Sulh concepts of perpetual war again are again an evolution of the military conception of striving to establish "god's law by vigirous action" to establish a community where one can live a muslim lifestyle.--Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"The whole Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam and Dar-al-Sulh concepts of perpetual war again are again an evolution of the military conception of striving to establish "god's law by vigirous action" to establish a community where one can live a muslim lifestyle."

After all that about the "greater jihad," we return to the pith: Jihad is mandatory because the law it propagates is righteous by God and beneficial to humanity. Does the article fall short of making this clear?Proabivouac 08:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That jihad can be only defensive is at least a western academic POV if not that of most pre-modern Muslim jurists. Esposito and John Bowker (The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions:"If it involves conflict, it is strictly regulated, and can only be defensive.") say that. --Aminz 06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The jurist Ibn Taymiyyah is recoreded to have taken the position that Jihad can only be defensive even in the 13th century.--Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Some topics should be covered

Great article. Just some remarks: The article, especially the "History" section does not give enough coverage of Islamic literature, science, medicine... and gives the impression that Islamic history is just about wars. For example, nothing in the article explains why the "Golden age" is named like that. Since it's a general article about Islam, Islam's contribution to science and arts is notable enough to be mentioned. CG 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

we did have another section concerning civilisation (cf. ), which discussed art/architecture, science/technology, and literature; but it was decided that it needed a substantial trim (actually, looking over the article, i don't know where it has gone now!). ITAQALLAH 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Many Muslims have advanced the sciences, but I'm not aware of Islam having done so. Can you give an example?

The relevance of the military expeditions isn't that Muslims are doing them, but that this is the greater part of how Islam the religion was propagated (and in a few cases depropagated.) Similarly, if an advance in paper production facilitated the dissemination of the Qur'an, this would be relevant just as earlier mentions of paper were not.Proabivouac 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

The article states in a few places that Muslims are split roughly 85% Sunni and 15% Shia, as does the article on Shia Population. However, this article provides no reference for that and the Shia Population article provides a color shaded map as its reference. I do know that here you can find a citation stating that Shia are just over 7%. In addition, the Encyclopedia Brittanica 2006 edition states that Shia are "less than 10%". I think that more research should be done with verifiable sources to help update the article. There will most likely be a few different estimates, which should all be stated as examples of the differing numerical counts. MezzoMezzo 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Deserves looking into (don't have much time myself as I'm on vacation for the next few days). - Merzbow 05:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We're gonna be on the main page

"This article will appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on 2007-06-23."

Cool. Everyone make special plans to stay available on this day, if you can, to keep an eye on this article. Be careful not to accidentally violate 3RR; only vandalism reverts don't count toward 3RR. - Merzbow 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that possible to make it fully protected few days before it apprears on main page? --- A. L. M. 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection gives arguments for and against semi-protection. Given the article normally is quite contentious, I think it would be beneficial to RPP it. Is there a consensus for logging it at RPP? → AA — 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Full protection is of course impossible for a main-page FA, but semi is logical here. I would consider it very poor form if an admin removed the semi-protection the article has been under for many months. - Merzbow 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just wait until consistent vandalism gets in. Anonymous users have the right to edit too.--BMF81 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually have a tendency to remove semi-protection on articles that have been protected for as long as this one has been - about 4 months. But given the obvious that this article is always a target, its sort of an implicit understanding that this article will remain protect for extended periods of time (like George W. Bush, which has been protected since March 1). BMF81 makes a valid point, in which, the main page featured article is the most viewed page per day, and thus, attracts many new potential editors to Misplaced Pages. And its quite irritating to see, "Misplaced Pages, he 💕 that anyone can edit.", and then click the article, to see that only those people who have been here for a certain amount of time can edit. So while I won't unprotect myself, understand why someone else may unprotect it. Pepsidrinka 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

History Section - Issues

1. Muhammad was never formally a ruler unlike later caliphs. He was more of a leader of an alliance. We can remove either reference if they are contented as the concept is provided at anyrate without specifiying.
2. Hasan al-Basri was a prominent and influential Sufi. Some even debate he was Sufi there were many other ascetics among the Sahaba and non-sahaba. Another famous one is Oveis Qarni. It was a movement without a singular leader as the sense comes forth in the current wording.
3. Muawiya was not "a prominent military leader" but an influential tribal leader who rebelled. He was the Governor of Bilad al-Sham who fought Ali at the Battle of Siffin, and in a sense the actual territory of the caliphate under rule was split under Ali and Muawiya and upon Ali's death Muawiya assumed the mantle for the whole after settling with Hasan ibn Ali.
4. Golden Age, sections say expansion was on via warfare and dawah. Expansion of what, this not at all clear?? The Abbasid Empire was in consolidation mode, territorial expansion was miniscule and generally occured under the breakaway states. It is more apt descriptor to the Umayyad period. So under the Abbassids it becomes expansion of the Muslim world in general at this stage. Expansion of Islam the religion by military warfare or even peaceful prosletyzation are very simplistic explanations for the spread of the religion and if we can't have the debate within this section it might be better to leave off the detail or debates on the mechanics to the more specific pages. It would both suffice and be more specific to say that the Islamic world (note: not the Abassid Caliphate) continued to expand by conquest during this period and Islam spread both within and beyond the boundaries of the Muslim world as the monolithic....
5. Islamic conquest of southern France is again misplaced in historic chronology, it dates to Umayyad period not the Abbassid or the Golden age period.
6. Muslim gains in the Medditerannean pre-Crusade is again wrong. The Byzantine dominance was rexerted in the last two centuries of the millenium. Italian maritime states were rexerting their power and raiding the North African Coast. Normans had captured Sicily. Infact the opposite was true. It the loss of Anatolia to the Turks and land based reversals of the last century of gains that triggerred the plea for the crusades. Wether it was or was not the reason, is another debate also and could be summed up as the quest for rule over the holy land. It might be simpler to state following the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia the Muslim world got enaged in conflict with the Christian world in a series of wars called the Crusades. Some definitions of Crusades even include the Ottoman wars so we might want to remove Saladin as having reversed it because we don't really want to deal with all the details here.
7. Ottoman and Mughals, although islam continued to expand in spain.. strange line that needs to be better integrated.
8. The Mughals, Ottomans and the Taj Mahal, we have drifted away from the topic Islam and into Islamic history which in noway is there adequate space to cover. Skipped entirely the whole Mongol period and ignorned African developments as well as Central Asia. We need to restore focus on Islamic development when looking at the history. Generally as a rule I think after the Golden Age we need to get out of political history it is too fractured and too much going on all over the place and give links to Muslim history and Muslim World as the main pages.--Tigeroo 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, you might be interested in taking a look at a previous version of the history section, which was more detailed. perhaps you can use the text or references used therein to help suggest tweaks with the current version? the history section is by no means perfect, but you can appreciate the difficulty of covering such a large topic as briefly as has been done. ITAQALLAH 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The notion of Muhammad as merely the "leader of an alliance" strikes me as dubious…weren't these "allies" paying taxes to Medina, and the Ridda wars broke out when some stopped doing so?

As for Muawiyya, let's not forget that he was Uthman's nephew.Proabivouac 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said rather than get into semantics leave it at they were united under him unless you want to add "as prophet". There is a only semantic differentiation between rule and leadership at anyrate. Muhammad was the "Nabi" or prophet and while it is not ruler or even leader it carries even stronger/different authority than that of king like head of state.

Ridda war's were about quite a bit more than just Zakat.

Yes, Muawiya was Bani Umayya like Uthman. A sub-set of the Koriesh like the Bani Hashim. Don't get trapped into equating the modern concepts of nephew, uncle.--Tigeroo 00:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, he who makes the decisions and to whom taxes are paid is the ruler. My understanding was that at least some of the rebels were claiming that they were still Muslims, but wouldn't pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.

Having read what you wrote, I still don't understand what the problem is with "ruler." What is your objection to "under his rule?"Proabivouac 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• NA-Class Religion pages
• NA-importance Religion pages
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused