Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 10 May 2005

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

• Talk:Islam/Archive 1
  
• Talk:Islam/Archive 2
  
• Talk:Islam/Archive 3
  
• Talk:Islam/Archive 4
  
• Talk:Islam/Archive 5
  

Statements without citing sources

Statements without citing sources

1. The form of the Qur'an most used today is the Al-Azhar text of 1923, prepared by a committee at the prestigious Cairo university of Al-Azhar.
   • This statement never shows that who believe it.

Many others but I think we should go one statement at a time. Zain 12:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first statement is true. See

THE QUR'AN IN PRINT

http://www.ymofmd.com/books/uaq/ch3s4.htm

The Qur'anic text in printed form now used widely in the Muslim world and developing into a 'standard version', is the so-called 'Egyptian' edition, also known as the King Fu'ad edition, since it was introduced in Egypt under King Fu'ad. This edition is based on the reading of Hafs, as reported by 'Asim, and was first printed in Cairo in 1925/1344H. Numerous copies have since been printed.

OneGuy 20:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that some mention must be made of the shahada as recited by Shi'as. The article ends the Kalima at mohammed ur rasul allah. The Shi'as add 'aliyun wali allah' to that. --Notquiteauden 19:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scapula's edits

Someone recently added a rambling and discursive para to the article that was not only marginally literate, it was wrong in many cases. The statement that put my teeth on edge was that Judaism and Chrisianity were the only religions of that time and place that weren't didn't worship idols. Um, Zoroastrianism doesn't worship idols, so far as I know, and Buddhism doesn't unless it's mixed with folk religion. Not to mention the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy was riven with conflict between those who venerated icons, and those who didn't (iconoclasts).

I reverted the article to the pre-addition version. I don't want to discourage Scapula from editing Misplaced Pages, but I'd suggest that he/she start on less contentious articles that are closer to his/her areas of expertise. Zora 20:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problematic statement

The article states "Unlike Christianity, Islam has not undergone any period of reformation...". This phrase makes it seem like Islam is a monolithic unchanging entity, and smacks of outdated viewpoints (i wont use the O. word dont worry!). What do you think about removal?

I've occasionally thought that this should be rewritten. The wording assumes that every religion needs a period of reformation, just like Christianity. Hmmm. I'm a Buddhist and I don't think Buddhism has ever had a period of reformation. It just keeps changing all the time.

Now if I were a Muslim I'd probably be a reformist and believe that many Islamic religious professionals were medieval in their viewpoints, and that the gates of ijtihad should be opened again -- but that shouldn't be an assumption underlying the article. Zora 08:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely that, like any tradition that spans the globe, Islamic traditions are not monolithic, encompass a wide range of cultures from N. America to the Philippines, and have undergone many changes, a number of which can intelligibly be referred to as reformist. For example, in the tenth century, the great scholar and lecturer on Islamic law, Muhammad al-Ghazzali, right in the middle of his regular lectures, interrupted his lecture could speak no more. While those near him thought he had suffered from some sort of physical attack, he had, according to his own autobiography, undergone a profound crisis of conscience. He found an emptiness beneath the impressive body of legal precepts, and left his secure position as teacher of law, and went on a seven-year physical and philosophical journey that led to a major reform of the tradition that could be compared to that of Martin Luther. Ghazzali focused on an inner dimension to the legal traditions, by focusing, for example, on the intention of the person behind the performance of ritual and the precepts of legal rules. Moreover, he contributed to integration of Sunni Islam and Sufism, which by his time become a movement of interior spirituality that criticised the superficiality of legalism and what they considered the moral decline that came with the enormous wealth and power in the Middle East and Central Asia. In fact, Ghazzali was called "mujadded" that is, someone who brought something new, or fresh. His interpretation of the Verse of Light (Sura Noor) of the Qur'an, written after his journey, gives a whiff of that freshness. His autobiography, which covers his crisis, and illustrates his searching, sharp mind, his poignant honesty and is as lucid and self-revelatory as the writing of any a reformer.

What is the likely origin of the view that Islam never went through reform? It is probably the conception that Islam is essentially a pre-modern, medieval tradition. However, between the ninth and thirteenth centuries could arguably qualify as "Classical" rather than medieval, as is commonly understood. Why? This period was formative in several senses: individuals asked fundamental questions about the human condition, there was much diversity of opinion, there was significant dialog between reason and spiritual experience, individuality was respected, and there was a profound and general respect for the validity of one's experience, observation and powers of reason, and finally, a healthy suspicion of received knowledge or tradition.

Another example from that period is an encyclopedia call the "Treatise of the Brethren of Purity", written about 700 years before Diderot, by a group of individuals in many walks of life, in the city of Basra, in present-day Iraq. This massive work covered the knowledge of the day from music to mathematics, from physiology (which included knowledge of the human circulatory system) to natural history, as well as narratives that would today be called precursors of fiction. One of these narratives is called "Trial of the Animals Versus Humanity", in which a group of animals revolt against the domination of human beings, and question the assumption that human beings make that they are superior to animals. These animals do not trust human courts, so resort to the court of Genies (Jinn). This segment of the encycopedia covers probably one percent of the total work, and has recently been called the first example of deep ecology in human history.

My next submission will be a summary of several such texts, and believe that these texts should fall under a new heading in the sidebar "Islam": Literature and Science. I am new to this encyclopedia, and would like someone's assistance in this.

--

Just to add to the evidence for reform in Islam: "Throughout its long history, the community has had to respond to internal and external threats to its continued life and vitality. As a result, Islam has a long tradition of religious renewal and reform, extending from its earliest history to the present." -- Islam: The Straight Path, John L. Esposito, p. xv

"Dissatisfaction with Umayyad rule also resulted in the development of nonrevolutionary reform movements within society....In addition to the disaffected Kharijites and Alids, a host of other critics sprang up....This gave rise, in particular, to the growth of two Islamic movements or institutions, the ulama (religious scholars) and the Sufis (mystics)." -- Islam: The Straight Path, John L. Esposito, p. 48

Furthermore, the Reformation is somewhat of a misnomer. "Reformation" implies a change from within. Regardless of Luther's intent (reformation of the Catholic Church or the advent of Protestantism), the result was a schism. From this perspective, Islam has had many "reformations." With two civil wars and a slew of offshoot movements, Islam is no stranger to reform/schism.

-User:Dws

Appreciation

Sorry to interrupt your work with this, but I have just been reading the article on Islam and your talk page, and I have to express to you all how impressive it is to see such consummate civility and mutual respect in your discussions. --Jmenon

Article requests

For a list of requested article topics regarding Islam, Islamic culture, and the Muslim world, see Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts#Islam. -- Karada 13:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Islam POV

It is my point of view that the entry for islam and the talk page associated is very far from npov it is apparant that it is muslim point of view. there is nothing that I have found, (although I don't have more than a couple of hours to read this one article) about how women are repressed and abused. You all have created a wonderful recruiting page for islam, good for you. Furthermore, you edit out what people put in that disagrees with what you think islam should be, not what it is in reality. I may have missed it, but all of the various sects are not delved into, only what would be pristine islam. God is the only God, and he said 'thou shalt not kill'. May His light open your eyes.

I agree that Islamism is not as clearly separable from Islam as suggested in this article. There should be a section briefly outlining the history of radical interpretations of Islam, rather than simply the plain link under 'see also'. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But this is also true for some other religious articles on Misplaced Pages, especially Hinduism. I don't see Hindutva even mentioned (even in see also section) in Hinduism article OneGuy 22:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hm, in my opinion Hindutva should definitely be linked from Hinduism. I'm not saying we need a long paragraph about Islamism. One sentence is enough, just making it part of the article text rather than linking it without comment. Also, the Islamism article makes it sound like it's a 20th century phenomenon. Afaik, there were similar discussions in medieval Persia, contrasting fundamentalist/strict interpretations with more 'Persian'/mystic ideas (origins of Sufism?). But I'm not knowledgeable about this. Do we have an article where these controversies are explained? dab (ᛏ) 16:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creed "translations"

also, can people please stop messing with the translation of the "creed"? la ilaha illa-llahu means " no god but God". End of story. It does not mean "no god is rightfully worshipped" or anything similar. These are theological interpretations/implications, not translationss. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reason I removed links in "academic sources"

Another #$%@#$ anon editor inserted four links to various websites and publications of Al-Mawrid Institute in Pakistan. That's a little much! I thought that I might narrow the links to one, and looked through them for academic content. But there wasn't any, really. Those sites are directed at devout Muslims who want to deepen their faith; there really is no academic content. I found one paper on a Christian gospel, which started out with a note to the effect that "I'm busy, I didn't have a chance to finish this term paper, but here it is." Unfinished undergraduate papers are not the stuff of a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I would suggest that the anon editor make sure that all those links are included in the Open Directory listings. We link to the Open Directory, so an interested reader could follow the links to the Al-Mawrid site. Zora 11:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prophets

Since you asked, the hadith giving 124,000 is in Musnad Ibn Hanbal. It may not be significant enough to mention on the main page, though. - Mustafaa 22:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Environmentalism and religion

I have added a section "Environmentalism and religion" to the Environmentalism article. Perhaps someone familiar with Islamic theology could add to it. --Erauch 19:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Sect" problem

The sidebar on this and (presumably) every other major article relating to Islam lists articles on Maliki, Hanbali, etc. among "sects." This is not accurate, they are complementary schools of jurisprudence. Note that they are insistent on that point, inasmuch as Qur'an pronounces breaking the religion into sects as a sin. In any given Sunni masjid in US, one may encounter practitioners of all four of these schools of thought, or madhabs. They're better understood as distinct scholarly approaches to how best to perform the same obligations; they're not sects in the sense of competing subgroups. May I suggest we retitle heading as "Schools of Thought" wherever it appears? BrandonYusufToropov 14:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about just using madhab and then defining it? Any attempt to coin an English phrase ends up being as long as a definition anyway. Zora 19:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. You will notice that it is not the madhhabs that are defined as sects; but Sunni and Shia, with the schools of thought within them listed after those two with a colon. And though not exactly the same as, say, Christian sects, Sunni, Shia, Mutaza'ila, etc. are close to what a sect is. What say?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Having taken another look at the sidebar, I'd say that it is misleading, and that the decision to present it that way may have been due to a perceived need to balance the list of Shi'a sects with a list of Sunni "sects" and make a visually balanced presentation. It would seem to be clearest to introduce another category, Madhab or Legal Tradition, and rework the sect list. It wouldn't look as pretty, having Sunni all by itself on one line, but it would be more rational. Zora 22:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can try to add another category, but I'm afraid I don't know how to edit a template. Where exactly is the text I would change? BrandonYusufToropov 11:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

D'oh. I don't know where templates are stored. Zora 12:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found it (with help from User:OneGuy. It was here: template:Islam, and I made the edit without totally messing up the graphics, which was a concern. What do people think? BrandonYusufToropov 18:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks Brandon. Zora 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Misleading. Why are Sunni madhabs in separate section while Shi'a ones are in sect section? Ithna Asharia, Ismailiyah, Zaiddiyah, are all Shi'a OneGuy 19:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to fix that and other issues - tell me what you think. - Mustafaa 19:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any good sources?

Hello. I'm trying to find some information on why the Abbasid Dynasty in Baghdad weakened and lost to the Mongols. I'm trying to find some good books/cites/articles on the reasons why the caliphate weakened and not just what happened. Does anyone have any good suggestions?

Thanks!

Given that the Mongols trounced everyone for thousands of miles (Central Asians, Chinese, Russians, AND the Abbasids), I'm not sure that it's necessary to conclude that the Abbasids were WEAK. Would the outcome have been any different if the Mongols had arrived earlier, when the Caliphate was still "strong"? Could the Mongols have beaten the Arab warriors of Uthman?

I'm reminded of sf fans and discussions such as "Could the Starship Enterprise beat the Death Star?" Zora 08:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point. However, during the Umayyad dynasty, the empire was very large. After the Abbasids overthrew them and moved the capital, the empire gradually became smaller until it was just the area around Baghdad. I'm looked for the reasons why the empire became smaller. Green789 15:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Was the link that bad?

OneGuy, you reverted the addition of a link to arabic-islamic.org -- or something like that. I had already taken one look at the link and decided that it might actually add to the article. Could you share your thought processes in deciding that it was part of a link spam? Zora 18:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of the site is in Spanish. Put in Spanish Misplaced Pages if you like the site OneGuy 19:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed forum sites

Fansher, I removed the forum sites you added. Those are proselytizing sites, and if we allow them, out of the hundreds or even thousands of proselytizing sites on the web, we'd have to allow them all. Just make sure that those sites are in the open directory (to which we link) and then people can find them if they look. Zora 09:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FA status

Hello all,

I just want to say that I found this article to be an excellent article to Islam. It is clear, seems NPOV (I can't say - I'm a Christian) and well written. It uses summary sections well (though I'm not so crash hot on a section that has no summary form and refers to another article on Misplaced Pages) and the infobox is pretty cool. If only the Christianity article was so good!

Anyway, I'd like to know what we need to do to get this to FA status. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simply go here and follow the instructions. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates --Christofurio 00:31, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- it would be a nice feature article. No idea how to nominate, though.BrandonYusufToropov 11:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite an acheivement considering the amount of vandalism and well-meaning spamming. I think the sections containing nothing but a "main article" link should just be moved to "see also". The "English version of the creed" needs some work (can we get the original Arabic?) what is the difference between Angels (which means, Messengers), and "Messengers"? What is the term translated by "Angel"? Maybe include some stuff from Angels#Islamic_views? dab (ᛏ) 12:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

malak means "messenger" in Hebrew; in Arabic, it has no meaning but "angel", as far as I know. - Mustafaa 23:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With an eye toward nomination, I have cut-and-pasted a key paragraph from the "Islam and other religions" article to fill in that blank spot, and copyedited what seemed to me a few unclear spots in "Islam in the Modern World" -- thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 11:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proper name of Shi'a

Hi, I'm no expert on Islam, so I'm not exactly sure what the proper way to refer to Shi'as is. What should wikipedia use? I've seen the following on various pages:

• Shiites
• Shi'ites
• Shiite Muslims
• Shi'ite Muslims
• Shia
• Shias
• Shia Muslims
• Shi'a
• Shi'as
• Shi'a Muslims
• Shi'i

Also I am confused whether to use:

• Shiism
• Shi'ism
• Shia Islam
• Shi'a Islam
• Shiaism

This problem is illustrated by What links to Shi'a Islam. Needless to say, all of this variety is a bit confusing. I think it would be useful for Misplaced Pages to adopt one standard, and stick to it on all articles. The problem is that it takes quite a while to change existing articles to match that standard. I am willing to do a hundred of the articles linking to Shi'a Islam via redirects, but no more than that (There are just too many). If anyone else would like to help out, just click the above link, find a page, and change the references to Shi'a to be in whatever form is thought best. Let me know what you think at my talk page, or we can have a discussion here. --Jacobolus 07:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

some are more common than other spellings, but it's a matter of convention I suppose, and uniformityu will be difficult to impose on WP. Myself I would opt for Shi'ites, Shi'a, only if because the apostrophe makes it looks less similar to shite :o) dab (ᛏ) 13:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

System problem

During a recent reversion, the final third of the article simply evaporated, and attempts to resave from the same version resulted in the same missing text.

I cut and pasted from the article page to restore the missing text, but I know there are some ugly spots and missing internal links. At least the text is now current, and Godwilling I will fix the links later on. BrandonYusufToropov 14:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've used up my three reverts for the day ...

... and the vandalism of this page continues. Help, please. BrandonYusufToropov 19:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've got it. For future reference, though, 3RR doesn't apply to simple and obvious vandalism, so feel free to revert that as much as you like. —Charles P.  19:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

atheism

could somebody check out Atheism#In_Islam, please? I was under the impression that shirk and kafir were not overlapping concepts, and that kafir was more or less equivalent to atheist. The article now claims "the concept does not exist", I am not sure who inserted that. dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I added a pronunciation of "islam" in Arabic. I'm not a native speaker, though, so please remove if it's too crappy. - karmosin 08:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

wtf? and then you replaces islam with muhammad with the edit summary

"And then he crapped up the name of the Lord, and the Lord was wrathful..."

-- is this some sort of surreal vandalism? And why is the file called "ar-islam"? I suppose the audio file should include the article, al-islam, and if it is to be at all useful, be spoken by a native arab (Saudi? Bedouin?) dab (ᛏ) 09:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh... Sorry! I can't read Arabic, so I must've accidently gone to Muhammad and copied the text there. I was looking at both pages at once. And I was trying to make a joke with the description because I thought I had messed up the Arabic text while editing and thought i set it right.

And the file name is "ar-islam.ogg" because that's the standard for naming soundfiles on Commons. "Ar-" is the 2-letter ISO 639 code for Arabic and those instructions are clearly stated at Commons if you just look around. Also, try not to assume the worst because of one mistake. I don't enjoy having "wtf"s thrown at me for no good reason.

Now I know I'm not a native. But since no one has uploaded any samples of Arabic, is the pronunciation bad enough to merit no pronunciation at all? - karmosin 09:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

sorry for the "wtf", no offence intended -- I just couldn't figure out what was going on :o) I understand the "ar-" now, I was confused because the file should properly say "al-islam" (and be named "ar-al-islam", I suppose, then). I am obviously no native either, but your file seemed to get the accent wrong, it said íslam, while it should be islám (with a long a), the i- being just a prothetic vowel (to the root slm, "peace etc.". regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then. Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to love to learn some Arabic, but I have my hands (or rather my mouth) tied with Chinese, German and Spanish. Is the word "islam" usually refered to in everyday speech as "the islam"? For example: if someone answered the question "What religion are you studying ?", would the proper answer be "al islam", and not just "islam"? Let me try one more recording and if I still don't get it right I'll leave it to the Arabs.

Btw, does the prothetic vowel become a sort of schwa or does it simply not occur on its own at the start of a clause? - karmosin 14:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's almost invariably used with the article, i.e. "the submission" as opposed to some submission of someone to somebody, just as the koran always has the article, "the lecture", as opposed to some unspecified lecture. The prothetic vowel is necessary before any cluster of two consonants, see arabic grammar. it is an i-sound (but I suppose dialects will vary). I strongly believe that if we're going to have sound files to illustrate pronunciation, they should be recordings of native speakers (Arabic has how many? a quarter of a billion? shouldn't be too difficult to find one :) dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly not enough of them know that there's even an option of uploading sound files since there are no sound files in Arabic at Commons nor here (to my knowledge). Now unless this second attempt really is horribly substandard, how about we try to be bold? I mean, what's the worst scenario, really? An upset Arab replacing it with a native pronunciation? :-) This, if anything, is a good way of letting people know there's the possibility of creating sound files on wikipedia.

Here's the second attempt: listen - karmosin 21:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

well, it sounds like "al ísslam" to me, but I am open to other opinions. dab (ᛏ) 10:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you can be bothered, you could extract the word from a qur'anic recitation. It occurs e.g. 3:19 or 61:7, you could rip it from a recitation on (the faq says the files are freely redistributable). In this mp3 file, the word occurs at ca. 1:42–1:45 (but it is chanted, not spoken in a natural voice). dab (ᛏ) 10:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't hear any difference at all between the chanter's and my own "i". I'm also definetly not stressing it; that much I know about phonetics. The chanter's "a" is more closed, though. Almost on the brink of becoming a Swedish e:. Is that due to dialect or the chant?

In any case, I modeled my pronunciation on sound files from Nationalencyklopedin, which are cleary pronounced by a native speaker who clearly pronounces the "i". Incidentally, he also doesn't use an article, but I'l trust your syntactic judgement on that one.

Eventhough I really like that chant, the extremly low quality and clearity make it pretty useless as a guide to pronunciation. I suggest we use what we've got and hope some native speaker will come along and be urged to do a proper recording. I mean, it's not like I'm pronouncing it Audio file "Crappy Swedish and American islam.ogg" not found... - karmosin 12:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

(*lol*) fair enough, let's see what the natives say :o) dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that's bold! :-D

Islamic Civilizations

I am new to this encyclopedia, and would like someone's assistance in this. I would like to suggest an additional heading under the category "Islam" which so far, understandably focuses mainly on doctrine and religious communities, schools and orientations, but also has architecture. I would like to suggest a heading that contains architecture, as well as a wide range of other phenomena. Islamic Civilizations is in the plural because as a world tradition, the faith has interacted with a wide range of cultures: pre-Islamic Arabian, African, Iranian, Turkic, Indian, South-East Asian, Chinese, etc. This category of knowledge goes beyond theology and practice to encompass culture, scientific knowledge, medicine, technology, the meaningful relationship different Muslims have with their natural environment, with different cultural traditions, as well as the understandings and practices that are hybrid and creative integration of different traditions and cultural practices.

Islamic Civilizations covers various works from around the world such as poetic literature, stories, philosophical and scientific treatises, travel accounts, maps, and encyclopedias. This section would thus embody the pluralism and breadth of concern that is to be found in any tradition that encompasses about one billion people spanning the globe, over a period of one thousand four hundred years.

I shall start in a small way by describing texts that demonstrate a small piece of knowledge that would fall in such a category. Between the ninth and thirteenth centuries was a period of scientific and cultural development among Muslims and others who shared a cultural space that could arguably qualify as "Classical" rather than medieval, as is commonly understood. Why? Despite some degree of political turbulence, this period was formative in several senses: individuals often asked fundamental questions about the human condition, there was much diversity of opinion, there was significant dialog between reason and spiritual experience, individuality was generally respected, and there was a profound and general respect for the validity of one's experience, one's own powers of observation and reason, and finally, a healthy suspicion of received knowledge or tradition. During this period, many texts developed, mainly in Arabic, some of which are in English translation. For example, in the tenth century, the great scholar and lecturer on Islamic law, Muhammad al-Ghazzali, who lived in in Baghdad, which was then in the middle of a period of creative ferment. Right in the middle of his regular lectures, al-Ghazzali stopped his lecture and could speak no more. While those near him thought he had suffered from some sort of physical ailment, he had, according to his own autobiography, undergone a profound crisis of conscience. He found an emptiness beneath the impressive body of legal precepts, and soon left his secure position as teacher of law, and went on a seven-year physical and philosophical journey that led to a major reform of the tradition that could in some respects be compared to that of Martin Luther. Ghazzali focused on an inner dimension to the legal traditions, by focusing, for example, on the intention of the person behind the performance of ritual and the precepts of legal rules. Moreover, he contributed to integration of Sunni Islam and Sufism, which by his time become a movement of interior spirituality that, for the most part from the "outside" criticised the superficiality of legalism and what they considered the moral decline that came with the enormous wealth and power in North Africa, Western, Central and South Asia. In fact, Ghazzali was called "mujadded" that is, someone who brought something new, or fresh. He could be critiqued for being conservative, and hermetically sealing his innovative synthesis. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the Verse of Light (Sura Noor) of the Qur'an, written after his journey, gives a whiff of his respect for the inner life and his freshness of mind. His autobiography, which covers his crisis, and illustrates his searching, sharp mind, his poignant honesty and is as lucid and self-revelatory as the writing of any a reformer. Both his interpretation of that famous verse and his autobiography have been translated into English.

Another example from that period is an encyclopedia call the "Treatise of the Brethren of Purity", written about 700 years before Diderot, by a group of individuals in many walks of life, in the city of Basra, in present-day Iraq. This massive work covered the knowledge of the day from music to mathematics, from physiology (which included knowledge of the human circulatory system) to natural history, as well as narratives that would today be called precursors of fiction. One of these narratives is called "Trial of the Animals Versus Humanity", in which a group of animals revolt against the domination of human beings, and question the assumption that human beings make that they are superior to animals. These animals do not trust human courts, so resort to the court of Genies (Jinn). This segment of the encycopedia covers probably one percent of the total work, and although it is not ecology in the modern sense, and represents a rudimentary but genuine observation of animals and insects, has recently been called the first example of deep ecology in human history. I will obtain the references to the above texts and post them ASAP. My next submission will be a summary of several such texts, which should, hopefully, encourage others who know other such texts to summarize and reference them. ~saffroncoconut

You don't need anyone's permission to start an article. It needn't be linked to Islam at first. If you want to start writing articles about Islamic scholars, jurisprudence, literature, just go ahead. Just do a search first to make sure that it's not covered already.

Note: search on various terms to make sure you've looked everywhere the subject might be filed. As a newbie, I set up several pages that I later discovered already existed, under slightly different names.

Once you start accumulating the little bits, it will be clear how things should be organized into categories (note that they can belong to more than one category). Also, there IS Islamic material in Misplaced Pages that's NOT linked to the Islam article. Frex, there's hijab and Islam and clothing, which need to be combined, really, and Sufism, Islamic music, Arab music, etc. If you want to set up some categories that don't already exist and start cross-linking things, that's fine too. I don't think it should ALL go to the Islam article -- we'd end up with ten zillion links. But we could link the Islam article to a few link-collection pages.

Starting with the major categories and working down may not be the best approach. I'd also be somewhat concerned about the idea of an "Islamic" civilization. While Islam may have provided the framework, a lot was contributed by the Christian and Jewish dhimmis. Whenever you start with a huge, vague conception, you end up with vapid generalities and lots of arguments. When you start with the bits and work up, I think you're going to have an easier time getting consensus on how existing bits should be classified and organized.

Welcome! Write lots! Explain what you're doing on talk pages! Zora 01:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A round of edits by non-communicating editors

Several editors went to work on the article without any explanation of what they were doing, or why. I reverted, and I invite those editors to come here and talk to the rest of us about changes. This article is a result of a long period of consultation and negotiation. It is better to work collaboratively in such cases.

Skywalker added a link to a Russian website that doesn't appear useful to people searching for general knowledge about Islam. Xbla (or some such name) was busy simplifying and deleting -- edits that in some cases I thought made sense, as stripping away an aura of Muslim religiosity that has gradually accreted -- but such edits are bound to be controversial, and I think should be done gradually and carefully. Zora 18:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, article "Fundamentals of the Islamic Ethics" is one of independence view, but it may be very interesting becouse author have a good spiritual practice. Excuse me for my bed english. Best regards, Skywalker.

regarding a round of edits by non-communicating editors

As it been remarked in earlier discussions, the text, as it stood after Grenavitar 's 01:05, 14 Mar 2005 reversion, was tainted with religious proselytization and bias while masquerading itself as an objective presentation of facts.

Though parts of the article could be informative and helpful to the reader, there was also present, a noticeable religious slant.

More precisely points in contention are:

A) The article was salted with assertions one would expect in a religious sermon,

B) It presented disingenuous misrepresentations about actual beliefs and practices.

C) It made a shrewd attempt to draw legitimacy by portraying belief of a relationship or camaraderie to Christianity and Judaism, which clearly does not exist anywhere in the world today.

D) It makes deliberate omissions of important facts and qualifiers such as relating to the true nature of dhimitude in Islam,

E) It makes subtle condescensions towards non-Muslims faiths.

F) It lists blatant distortions of population statistical information.

It seems like a far cry from the honest scholarship that one would expect from encyclopedic researchers.

I have attempted to correct this by eliminating the some of faulty sections, which fit in the four types of categories above.

Hope this helps

You may have a case regarding the population facts (I do not know about this) however I don't believe you do with the rest of your edit. You show no basis for removing the etymology of the word "Islam". You change "fellow Abrahamic religions" to "competing Abrahamic religions" which if anything adds the opposite bias. You change God to Allah making him different although God is a concept and Allah is a name for that concept therefore Allah can always be called God. It is Muslim belief that God gave his message to many of the Jewish prophets, John the baptist and Jesus and their followers distorted the message. The reason it was revealed to Muhammad is supposed to be because his predecessors communities bastardized the words. These are the beliefs of Islam and removing them so that it sounds harsher is wrong. The text compares itself to the other religions and tries to make itself look better and it is the obligation of an encyclopedia to report on the traditions of the people and what the text states. The text is an historical document and if it asserts these things then we report them. Christianity assert Jesus is God and we report that so I fail to see how this is any more biased. It is considered to be final revelation and your removal of that more or less asserts that we should remove this article too for bias. Your edits are leaving out beliefs of the people who follow Islam which is bias in itself. gren 06:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I still stand by the points I made=

I am afraid, Grenavitar, that your statement reflects your personal opinion which you have allowed to color your actions when trying to suppress the restoration of the NPOV. Essentially , your version of the article presents a sanitized face that is meant to be favorable to Islam and demeaning to other faiths. You, yourself could not help blurting out your true opinion of other faiths which you evidently regard as inferior and not as a fellow faith. This being one of my points above. I hope you can take a moment to regain your NPOV on this topic. Try to consider carefully the points I made above and see if you cannot recover an NPOV on this. Your attempt to label my changes as vandalism is ridiculous and a pretty uncalled for tactic.

X, not everyone working on this article is Muslim. The article as it stands (now that I've reverted it) is the result of many months of work by editors of various faiths. The non-Muslim editors (such as myself) have tried hard to include everything that the Muslims think is noteworthy about their religion, but state it so carefully that Muslim belief is described as belief and not stated as fact.

If your experience on Misplaced Pages has been of working on derelict or abandoned articles, then it hasn't prepared you for dealing with an article watched by a large community of editors. You can't just come in swinging. You can either approach your edits one by one, gradually, and argue for accepting them on the talk page, or you can write an alternate version, put it up on your user talk page or a subsidiary page attached thereto, and then call for comments.

Misplaced Pages is rather bad at teaching editors HOW to work with the community, such as it is. You have to learn by banging your head against the wall, as I've done too many time <g>. Please accept this advice from a veteran wallbanger. Zora 18:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your edit was also bad in other respects than npov. Don't expect people to clean up after you. You broke the formatting of boldface Islam. You removed information for no good reason. Your tearing into the first section of the article makes it clear you have not read the entire article: You just seem to have read the introduction and decided to make it less "Islamophile" as a kneejerk reaction. It is true that some points of the present article could still be npoved. For example, the assertive "as it is, after all, the direct word of God to mankind." of the introduction is redundant, and you could politely argue for its removal. It is conceivable that the less attractive sides of Islam should be mentioned here, rather than stashed away in Islamism. To that effect, you could suggest a balanced "Islamism" section (this would be the Islam in the modern world: What is "fundamental'? section which, unlike the intro, is pretty recent, and could still be substantially improved. Have you even got so far as to notice that section?). Just tearing through a half-read article like that, however, will simply get you nowhere. dab (ᛏ) 18:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of that redundant line. It made it seem like you were repeating it to convince the reader and now it is less preachy. gren 20:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Xl... an article of a religious nature will always have a sense of bias that a scientific one can more easily remove. It is a Muslim belief that their revelations have been kept perfect whereas Christian and Jewish ones have not been and they therefore surpass Christianity and Judaism in terms of truth. This is their belief and we are obliged to report this even if we do not agree. When you write an article about religion you must first report what the general mass of adherents to the religion assert as the basis for your article and this will inherently sound biased towards their beliefs. However, any educated reader should realize that we are reporting the beliefs of a group biased in their own favor and they should look further to see critiques of the religion. As for my bias, I am not Muslim either but I do have a great sympathy for the religion as I do for Christianity as well and POV is added through means of trying to remove the reporting of beliefs of any religion and I see it I will try to stop it. gren 19:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Women in Islam

After four years, not a single contributor to Misplaced Pages has had created an article (even a stub!) on the role of Women in Islam. One must wonder why, especially since people have repeatedly brought this subject up for years. I do understand why many people might be frightened. For several years I have read many articles in newspaper about death threats towars those who openly discuss this subject. (Unless, of course, the article is limited to presenting traditional apologetics.) Frankly, it is about time that this changes. Misplaced Pages has articles on Christian views of women, the Role of women in Judaism, Feminism in the western world, and in many other areas. I thus will create a short article on this subject, and request that others unafraid of writing in our NPOV style help out. RK 21:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, be bold and create the article. --Samuel J. Howard 12:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Death threats for writing a Misplaced Pages article on Women in Islam, huh? What newspapers do you find those in? Anyway, back to the real world... The idea of woman imams has recently become a topical issue, which may interest editors of this article. - Mustafaa 05:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You misread my words and point, Mustafaa. The death threats are being made to Muslim authors and journalists, and to women imams, and to anyone involved in promoting a liberal version of Islam. These death threats have been reported in both American and European newspapers for years. RK 18:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your statement implies that there is something inherently wrong with a 'conversative' version of Islam, and certainly there are many people, particularly in the West, who have such a disdain for conversativism or fundamentalism in Islam. IMHO, however, the people and behaviours that you are referring to have absolutely nothing to do with liberalism versus conversativism or whatever. They are violent fanatics, pure and simple, and unfortunately there are many of these in the Islamic world at the moment (let us forget that such fanaticism is relatively recent in the history of Islam).
Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews are certainly conservative, and there are many amongst both groups who are fundamentalists, but the Wesetern media never confuses even the most conversative, fundamentalist Christian or Jew with those who would commit violence in the name of the aforementioned religions. When Baruch Goldstein committed his act of terrorism, nobody condemned conservative or fundamentalist strains of Judaism, and rightly so, since such an act had nothing to do whatsoever with religion or religious conservatism. But it had everything to do with fanaticism, and there are those in Israel who support the actions of such an individual, and they, in turn, are considered lunatics. But certainly not religious conversatives.
Point is, you may not agree with conservative Muslims, but their conservatism does not automatically make them violent zealots ready to send someone to their death for speaking out in favour of women's rights, just as the conversativism of an Orthodox Jew does not automatically make him an extremist with a violent hatred for Palestinians.
To give yet another example, the Ayatollah Khomeini, prior to the Iranian Revolution, was considered by most Iranian Islamic theologians to be a far-left liberal (I kid you not). Most of the conservative Ayatollahs were on the side of the Shah, and opposed Khomeini's so-called "reforms." Most Western liberals (including such leftist luminaries as Michel Foucault and former President Jimmy Carter) supported Khomeini as well. And we've all seen how "successful" that revolution has been, yes? The problem is not conservativism or even fundamentalism, since most religious people of any creed, no matter how conservative they are, are not inclined towards violence. It is that vocal and violent minority found in all socities who choose to wrap themselves in whatever religion or secular ideology most convenient and available, and then go off on some killing spree to justify their insanities. And they do just love seeing their names in all the papers, don't they? Ghostintheshell 03:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, and this is a bit off-topic but I feel is something consistently overlooked by those critical of Islam (and Eastern traditions in general), is the fact that when we are talking about pure Islam, we are ultimately talking about the Qur'an and nothing else. The Qur'an, by it's own account, is the only authoritative book of scripture. And this is common in Eastern traditions where personal interpretation is held above all else - and certainly in the case of Islam personal interpretation of the Qur'an is the only authorititative method. Again, this is all illustrated by the book itself.
All these so-called Islamist groups with their self-styled madrassas and lunatic mullahs advocating all manner of filth and rubbish and calling for death threats against those they perceive as heretics or whatever - these are all not only a bunch of (usually) uneducated idiots (the Taliban for example were notoriously uneducated, especially in all matters Islamic), but from a theological perspective, they have no spiritual authority whatsoever. Nowhere in the Qur'an can there be found any support for organised clergy or special schools or anything like this.
The Saudi's, the Pakistani extremists, Hamas, the Taliban types, al-Qaeda, and so forth, these are all widely reviled (even in the Arab world, especially in Lebanon, Egypt, and Morocco) and for good reason, because they are against Islam, as their very actions not only work against the faith, but there is no Qur'anic justification for their murderous actions. And again, this has nothing to do with conservatism or fundamentalism.
Islam is essentially a traditionalist faith, and thus like Orthodox Judaism and traditional Catholicism/Orthodoxy is conservative. In some ways more so, in others less so. After all, from a historical POV, Islam itself can be seen as an attempt to return to a pure, back-to-the-basics Judaism. But unlike the others, Islam has no organised body which represents the whole, and thus it is very easy for someone or some group to pick up a Qur'an and attempt to speak for everyone else. This tactic, of course, never works, but they do end up cultivating a group, always cult-like and dedicated to spreading violence to both Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Again, to say that these types are fundamentalist is highly prejudical since this implies that Islam advocates senseless killing and terrorism, which it does not. A terrorist is a terrorist, just as a criminal is a criminal. If someone is a Muslim fundamentalist, then they cannot be a terrorist since a literal interpretation of Qur'an will not lead someone to fly planes into buildings or beat or kill a woman because she is an imam. To say that Islam needs more "moderates" or liberals implies that Islam inherently is a dangerous religion. And that is pure bigotry. Ghostintheshell 06:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I don't know which country/continent you operate on, but death threats for things that the extreme right finds inconvenient are not something to be trivialized. For three generations, we have dealt with that. One groups of students I worked with had to stare down the barrel of an AK-47 (one of us literally, at one point) for having the temerity to organized an evening that included musical entertainment (just music; sung by people standing very stiffly and very modestly dressed) for students of a major engineering school in Pakistan in 1984. It drives me nuts to have the student organization that did that (the pointing of the gun) and it's parent political party mentioned as one of the more "moderate" Islamist groups. (One of the largest in the MMA.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Having been busy with Algerian Civil War for some time (not to mention Abdelkader Alloula), I know full well that death threats for things that the extreme right finds inconvenient are a serious problem. However, I find RK's suggestion that people might be "frightened" to write a Misplaced Pages article about women in Islam appallingly unrealistic and rather condescending. It suggests at once that every Wikipedian's name and address are publicly available, that some radical "Islamist" group somewhere is tracking Misplaced Pages for people whose writing they dislike, and that such an article will in itself, no matter how NPOV, drive such people (whoever they may be) into a murderous frenzy - and that every contributor to Islam-related topics must believe all this! It would have been more polite to assume good faith reasons for the article's nonexistence, such as the most obvious possibility - no one had gotten around to it yet. - Mustafaa 23:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, now. One doesn't have to be actually threatened to be stifled. Self-censorship--or, over about a generation or so, the complete disappearance of alternative points of view in all but the fringes of a body of opinion--can happen without clear and present threats. As an example, just consider the dominance of the Zionist POV in modern Jewish society, especially in the US.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly true; every culture has topics in which alternative POVs are virtually unknown, and sometimes this is a good thing (as, for instance, the near-complete absence in most societies of multiple POVs on cannibalism.) But that's a rather broader and more complicated issue. - Mustafaa 01:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Islam growth today

"In the U.S., more people convert to Islam than any other faith, especially amongst African Americans." This is unsubstantiated , where are the statistics on this? What about people who convert out of Islam ?

"There are approximately 5 million Muslims in North America." This is also unsubstantiated , considering that there is not statistical count of muslims in North America. Where do these numbers come from ? Xlaba22

---

The Pluralism Project (a Harvard associated project run by Diana Eck) estimates between 2.56M and 6M Muslims in America.

A perhaps less reliable source:

"At present, the number of Muslims in the United States is estimated to be on the order of between 5 to 8 million. It is the fastest growing faith in this country." --Colorado State University Muslim Students Association. No citations in article (They due mention several books, the last of which published in 1993, in the article...one can infer from this that the article, and the statistic, is from 1993 or later.)

Muslim population of North America (Canada and the US) is put at 323.1 by IslamicPopulation.com. If you define North America geographically (as opposed to the general European conception) and include Mexico, the population stands at 428M (according to the same source, with Mexico having 104.9M Muslims).

I accidentally thought growth stats were needed, and I dug up the following up before I realized it was unneccessary, but here it is anyway:

As for growth, ReligiousTolerance.org has an article with multiple sources with most pointing to Islam being the fastest growing world religion.

The Islam scholar John L. Esposito also says "that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States..." source

Dws 11:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated references in the article

I have removed the references to other prophets which are not mentioned in the Qu'ran. If the article is to reflect the beliefs of Islam it must not introduce extraneous interpretations by editors. The statements "including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus" implies acknowledgement of these names in the Qu'ran yet these names are no where to be found in the Qu'ran so why is it made ? Should we also include all other self appointed prophets of the world who also are perceived by their followers to speak the words of God?

If you wish to reinsert those names please make your case and provide references. Xlaba22

Muslims believe and follow many things which are not spelled out in the Qur'an -- just as most Christians believe in doctrines, such as the Trinity, which are not spelled out in the New Testament. Most Muslims (except the Salafis) accept the authority of the hadith (traditions), and especially the sahih hadith of Bukhari and Muslim. By insisting that the Islam article be "Qur'an only" you are in fact imposing an extremist version of Islam. Please do some research on Islam! Zora 18:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irregardles then you should provide actual references to substantiate your claims . I realize you may not have been the originator of those particular references to other prophets's name but since you chose to defend this , please provide us with quotes from the hadith that support those claims. The purpose of the article will be better served with direct quotes than a vague " this is what they believe" Xlaba22

I did put the names as well their Quranic references in this article, please check all verses. I think now those names shall be returned back. Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, and so on are indeed mentioned in the Quran. The names Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and so on are derived from Biblical characters based on similarities in their story. DiN 19:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hadith (all Bukhari)

• "This is a thing which Allah has ordained for the daughters of Adam."
• "Then Adam will remember his Sin and feel ashamed thereof."

Books that mention them

• What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims by Suzanne Haneef
• Islam: Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar
• Muhammad: Man and Prophet by Adil Salahi

I picked up three rudimentary books on Islam I have in my possession at the moment and they all mention Adam and Abraham. The Hadith collections (a major source of Islamic teaching) mention them often. It just comes down to you being wrong, there are countless examples if you would take any effort to search. Add them in as footnoots to the article if you want references. To make this extra easy go to Hadith search from USC and search for the names and see the references. Or search the Qur'an for that matter... ~_~ gren 19:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gren. I should have just checked one of my own translations of the Qu'ran. The index to the Arberry translation has MANY references to Abraham, Adam, Moses, and Jesus in the text of the Qur'an. Plus ten references to Prophets. D'oh <g> Zora 20:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reformation

Is this comment regarding 'reformation' in the introduction necessary? I've changed it from "Unlike Christianity ..." to "Unlike other Abrahamic traditions ..." but that seems just as prejudicial and biased. This line makes the Eurocentric assumption that Islam *needs* to be reformed - in other words, there is something inherently wrong and dangerous about Islam (see my comments made above in response to RK), and that it needs to be made "liberal," whatever that is meant to imply.
Just to make things clear to everyone, Islam is not Catholicism, nor is it Reform Judaism, both of which are Westernized Abrahamic religions. Whether Islam can be Westernized is open to debate, but I do not believe that it should be implied that such a Westernization would be proper and required. Does Tibetan Buddhism need to be reformed (i.e. Westernized) as well? What about Hinduism? Honestly, I simply do not understand this Western obsession with destroying other peoples' traditions and forcing them to reconcile their belief systems with the Western world. Not even the Japanese have forced their Shinto faith to become Westernized or liberalized or whatever.
At any rate, 'liberal (or reform) movements in Islam' is all very good and well, but I do not believe it should be linked to the Christian Reformation or whatever. Ghostintheshell 23:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree with you, at least in part. There's no reason for Islam to repeat the same process that Christianity underwent. I would say that any venerable tradition has the challenge of facing and absorbing what's NEW, whether it's textual criticism or evolution, especially when what's new contradicts things that people previously took for granted. The pace of change has accelerated enormously in the last few centuries, but it's the same problem every believer faces at every moment: how do I interpret the teachings NOW? The difficulty of doing this is radically increased when the guardians of the tradition refuse to admit that there's any difficulty at all. IMHO, they've fossilized -- and hence are no longer alive. Zora 00:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The earlier statement drew attention to aspects of Islam which is widely viewed as in need of change, particularly in the area of Freedom of other religions to practice freely and in the open, including both monotheistic and non,The emancipacipation of women,Tolerance of apostates and freedom to leave Islam,Freedom of speech and freedom of thought.,Freedom to disbelieve without stigma or punishment.The comparison to Christian reformation is a much softer way of of making the point than listing the above points directly. --4r2emi 14:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your obvious prejudice against Islam aside, the issues you are referring to are all political, and have nothing to do with Islam itself. There are many Muslim countries in this world, and most of them are not like Saudia Arabia or the Taliban. Perhaps you would like to think that, just many other anti-Muslim bigots, but that's your problem. Plus, the Christian reformation is just a bad example, plain and simple. It didn't really "reform" anything, and it's primary result was a schism between the Protestants and Rome. But the Protestants were just as conservative and "hardline" as the Catholics, if not more so, as evidenced by the extreme austerities of groups like the Puritans and the zealousness of modern Evangelicals. Ghostintheshell 04:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not the originator of the original section regarding reformation, but I do think it made a good point. Reformation is discussed extensively in a wide array of books dealing with Islam and modernity, some of which you may want to read directly. Mentioning it in the article seems quite appropriate as it is reflective of current public discourse on the topic of Islam. On the subject of the listed issues, I am afraid that a great deal of Muslims do not share your POV ,indeed we would like to see you stand on any street in the Muslim world with a sign promoting those freedoms.--4r2emi 05:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I've stated before, there have been a number of reform movements in Islam - Wahabism, for example, which originated out of Saudia Arabia and which heavily influenced the Taliban. But that obviously is not the same type of reform we are talking about, since the Wahabi's are eerily similar to those Puritanical Christians who first settled New England. And you will recall that the Puritans were Christian reformers, which is why they left England for the New World.
Now, as to your statement that the "majority of Muslims" do not share my POV - you really cannot expect to be taken seriously with a statement like that, do you? Do you know how many Muslims there are in this world, and how diverse a community it is we are talking about here? Do you honestly think that the vast majority of Muslims, or even any large percentage of Muslims agree with the sott of religious tyranny to be found in Saudia Arabia?
It might surprise to find out that most Muslims are very much against the Saudi regime, most especially Saudi Muslims (particularly those who are not part of the Wahabist cult, i.e. the majority) themselves. Did you know that most Muslim-majority nations are secular? Do you know anything about (or better yet, ever been to) Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Bosnia, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco - to name a few prominent examples? Did you know that in those Muslim-majority countries like Iran where self-styled Islamist regimes are in power, that such regimes are extremely unpopular and despised by those nation's population? Do you know anything about how the majority of Afghans (majority of them very religious) felt about the Taliban?
Your statements are so illogical and ignorant, that I should even bother to reply, but unfortunately attitudes such as yours are common in the West, as evidenced by the popularity of commentators such as Daniel Pipes and the like, anti-Islam this, anti-Islam that, ad nauseum. You can be a bigot if you like, just don't hide behind all this innuendo of "reform" and "modernity."
There is plenty of modernity in the Muslim world, and there is plenty of political reform underway. Of course, does the West really want secularism (which is the most popular form of government in the world, including the Muslim world) in Muslim countries? From recent political events (you will recall the Saddamite regime was staunchly secular and the pre-Taliban government in Afghanistan during the 80's was secular as well), it would seem that the Western powers want Islamism to spread. Not everything in this world is black & white, and Muslims are human beings, not stereotypes you can condemn at will. Last I remember, most Russians were against Communism, but that didn't stop those like you to condemn and stereotype them all as tyrannical collectivists. Ghostintheshell 11:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have an article on Religion and modernity or some such title, discussing how various faiths have reacted to the increasingly fast pace of change in the last few hundred years. Then we could link the Islam article to that one. That is, if it doesn't already exist ... ??? Zora 05:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but one could also create a section (or separate article rather) dealing with reform movments in Islam - from religious extremist reform movements like Taliban to secular and liberal type reform movements, and so forth. Because reform can mean many things, and it can be good or bad. As it is, there is already a link to liberal movements in Islam, which of course deals with a very specific type of reform. But I think there is also a great deal of misunderstanding in that non-Muslims assume that Islamic law (Sharia) is in effect all over the Muslim world, which is simply not true.
You have these people such as the individual above who think that every Muslim country is like Saudia Arabia, which is not only a very stupid and uneducated thing to prmote, but grossly erroneous. It's the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell type of mentality. Quite frankly, I've debated these types of issues in the past with ignorant types concerning Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, and Hinduism, and it was all very much in this same vein - having to argue against stereotypes and disinformation. It's ridiculous and one has to have plenty of patience, and unfortunately, I can't say I have much tolerance left for this sort of stupidity and prejudice. Ghostintheshell 11:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Get honest people on the growth of Islam

OK wikipedians, its time to get honest about the growth of Islam numbers. As you may have noticed I corrected the wild marketing exagerations and produced some clear and sensible statements on the matter. We have all known for a long time now that this section has been exagerated by any means possible , however honesty must prevail here. Try to understand this , honesty will get everyone a lot further than lies. --Wibidabi 04:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am just curious as to why the Christianity page uses 1.24 as the growth rate for Christianity and 1.76 as the rate for Islam. Are these facts backed up? and if not will someone change it? gren 05:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wild marketing exaggerations? All I see is that Wibidabi removed a sourced claim with no explanation, and changed an unsourced (and now sourced) claim to another unsourced claim. Whether the figures supplied are wrong or right, he'll have to argue his case a bit better than that. - Mustafaa 11:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the points Wibidabi made, I myself had said this before and it is amazing how we all have been tolerating the obvious marketing puffery in this section. --4r2emi 15:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You agree, but you present no argument whatsoever. The question of whether these estimates are correct is a factual one, not a question of opinion, and your opinion is of little relevance without supporting factual arguments. - Mustafaa 23:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reversed edits by Alimustafakhan

A Muslim editor named Alimustafakhan made many changes to the Islam article, none of which he discussed here and most of which moved the article towards a more overt Muslim piety. I have reverted to the last pre-Ali version. I will be putting a message on his talk page asking him to be more circumspect in making changes to an article that has been the subject of so much work, controversy, and hard-fought compromise. Zora 16:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ameen. :) BrandonYusufToropov 19:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Man

Where in the Misplaced Pages does it explain the Islam teaching on humans as vice-regents of God? Thank you for your help. I will be watching this page.Tom Haws 18:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Added new section on Apostasy

Anon

And that's all you're going to say about it? Not even reveal yourself? The anon author has piled up every bit of info possible that would make Islam sound vicious and cruel, and suppressed everything that might put the matter in perspective. Not that I approve of killing people who leave Islam -- just that so far as I know, this is actually fairly rare, and may have a body count lower than witchcraft and heresy persecutions in Christianity. But that remains to be proved ...

There's an Apostasy article on Misplaced Pages already, with a section on Islam. If there's anything both new and demonstrable in anon's contribution, it can be moved there. We can add a link to the Islam article. Zora 02:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This section belongs on the Islam page, it is very relevant to the topic and is not designed to emphazise the negative but simply present actual realities of belief. If you do your research , you will see that it is a fair portrayal of what is actually believed by Muslims. Why would you want to "hide" this information out of sight because you might deem it too controversial or unpalatable to your taste? If you feel it not NPOV enough , then you are welcome to contribute to it , but this issue needs to be presented in full view not hidden in some obscure paragraph of another article. Anon

The "Apostasy" addition to this otherwise balanced and carefully crafted article is deeply suspect in my view -- because it relies heavily on massive-generalization formulas like "Muslims believe...."

I'm a Muslim, and I maintain that there are comparatively few common threads of belief you can accurately conclude that sentence with.

Try this on for comparison: "Christians believe that people who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior will go to hell." It makes a catchy sound bite, and you can certainly find Christians who will maintain this ... BUT the sound-bite omits, for instance, the Catholic teaching regarding purgatory. That's not a minor detail. That's Mount Everest. I think we may just be stepping over some mountains here.

Is anon saying that Shias and Sunnis view this issue identically? That all Sunni scholars believe wearing a belt to be apostasy? Where are the sources that clarify who, specifically, believes what? What identifiable Islamic authorities (as opposed to non-Muslims with a grudge against Islam) are we quoting or summarizing? Let's bear in mind that treating Islam as though it were monolithic, permitting only a single view on every issue, is a sign of Islamophobia.

I vote we take this off and let anon, or someone, edit it for the necessary hour or five until it doesn't stick out like a sore, and deeply subjective, thumb. BrandonYusufToropov 14:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the section is particularly unfair. Sure, it is much too wordy for the main article, it should just summarized, and point to the main article, kafir/takfir. I don't think your comparison of "Christians believe X will go to hell" is appropriate, since no theological speculation is involved with defining when one is considered to have left the fold. Furthermore, traditional Muslim society and fundamentalist Islam are clearly differentiated. Also keep in mind that Christian society was as least as "cruel" until at least the 17th century. Such laws are the hallmark of a pre-modern society, not of Islam in particular. Btw, many Muslims I have spoken with are actually proud that Islam is comparatively 'monolithic', at least in comparison with Christianity which looks like a disintegrating mess besides it. So my suggestion is, export to kafir, summarize here, plus add relativations and Shia/Sunna differences where necessary for npov. imho, the kfair and takfir articles should be merged, btw. dab (ᛏ) 15:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, ANYTHING looks like a monolith next to Christianity... (sorry, couldn't resist). :)

How do other people feel? Should this stay? If yes, who is going to take responsibility for condensing it and removing the (massive) generalities that (for instance) treat Shia and Sunni as essentially indistinguishable? BrandonYusufToropov 17:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) 17:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy with just having links. But if anything stays, it should just be a one-inch or LESS para, with a link to a fuller discussion. In fact, there are several other sections that could usefully be treated the same way. But that's a different argument. Zora 18:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep it here. The length issue does not seem to be a problem. This section is very informative actually.Brandon can certainly expand on the differences between the Shia and Suni POVs if this is relevant.--Wibidabi 23:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have merged Brandon's new additions to the earlier version as the original text contains a lot of useful information which details fairly well Islamic beliefs in regards to apostasy. We ought to improve on the article rather than discard good information.--Wibidabi 00:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary. This article is already way too long, as it tells you when you edit it; what we ought to do is split info off to more specific articles. - Mustafaa 02:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This issue does not belong to such an extent on the main page. Maybe expand the section about this in Apostasy (which should be looked at) and make a page about Apostasy in Islam. I think this should be dealt with from different perspectives as well. A Shia perspective , a traditional Sunni perspective as shown through Hanafi or Hanbali or whatnot. (On that subject who was the guy who codified Hanafi laws and where can I find it online or in book form) I know progressives quote Al-Baqarah ayat 256's "no compulsion" to show that there should be no penalty and it should be as much a non-issue as punishment for apostasy is in the modern Christianity. All of these viewpoints (and probably more) deserve to be addressed and even some of the more brutal practices should be addressed... but in the right places. We don't start our talk of Christianity with the inquisition. gren 03:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) By the way, that reminds me... why do none of the four Madhhabs have much information on them? That's kind of crazy in my opinion.

I disagree, the issue DOES belongs on the main page as it is a crucial part of the core beliefs of Islam. In Muslim religious circles, in sermons at the mosques and in predominatly Muslim regions the issue of apostasy is an integral part of Islam. Some time non-Muslims confuse the milder mitigating views of secularized Muslim governments with those of Islamic religious authorities and scholars and conclude that those views must therefore not be part of contemporary Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. To deny the importance of apostasy in Islam is a form of apostasy itself.--4.167.193.200 15:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the issue does come up and it is reverberated twenty fold in the west because it is so very unwestern. If you take a look over the Islamic past you will not see this as a major issue, surely it came up but it is not major. Also, there is much debate on the issue and any attempt to present it as Islam = kills apostates would be defamatory. In any case, we cannot make this page as horribly biased as ] where it cites hadith before Qur'an and we should not overstress this issue which has arisen with a realllyyy insecure post-colonial ummah (the leaders that is) gren 17:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

npov it then. We cannot have more than a "one inch paragraph" on the topic here, but that doesn't mean the death threat to apostates shouldn't be mentioned. Take the detailed discussion to Talk:takfir. Anon, if you are not prepared to collaborate towards a detailed and balanced kafir/takfir article, it appears that you're only interested in adding Islam-bashing statements to the more visible main article, rather than adding to the specialist information contained in WP. Once we have a stable takfir article, it will be much easier to give a fair summary here. dab (ᛏ) 08:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to recognize we are addressing this subject in at least Sharia#Muslim_apostates, Islam#Apostasy, and Apostasy#In_Islam and we must therefore work to keep these three (and any more?) synchronized and since this is technically a large enough subject we could then make Apostasy in Islam and have those pages just be small intros leading to a real article. In any case... we need to keep those versions concurrent. gren 12:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Wibi version should remain in the main page. It is not bashing or defamatory or too long or duplicative , it is a statement of predominant beliefs within the faith presented in a clear and understandable manner instead of hidden behind vague,ambiguous politically correct whitewashed statements. Darwin3 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section should stay, but it can be shorter. It is longer than its main article, at present. Worse, it doesn't link to its main article. Plus it should be checked for factual accuracy (i.e. Shia/Sunna differences should be looked into, etc.). Apart from that, it's fine. Compare the "Christianity and persecution" section on Christianity. We do not want to either bash or whitewash either Christianity or Islam (or any other group), and both have their share of skeletons in their closets, along with their bright sides (also, we do not (not!) want to start haggling over which skeletons are "worse". Let the facts speak for themselves). If nobody else does it, I'll start aligning it with takfir soon, but I cannot vouch for factual accuracy. dab (ᛏ) 06:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My two cents on the text in question:

• It's too @#$%^&*( long.

• It's not within a mile and a half of being balanced.

• It throws an otherwise superb article off balance.

• Linking the one-inch condensation I wrote to the previous hyperventilating, rambling mess is not a compromise, but rather a mess expansion initiative.

• Best available options are either a) delete or b) develop another one-inch condensation if mine is unacceptable for some reason.

• If you honestly think this needs to be discussed in depth on Misplaced Pages, link to a separate article.

• Get an account and a name.

• Just out of curiosity, how much real estate on the Christianity page is devoted to apostasy and to the details of the practice of excommunication? BrandonYusufToropov 14:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

your final point: why don't you go check? The persecution section is slightly more than half our present Apostasy section. Anyway, I haven't seen your condensed version. Why don't you put it back, but export the present section to takfir. Then (in another edit) npov it, as you see fit, over there. Then we can discuss your npoving over there, and your condensation here. Btw, am I wrong in assuming that takfir would be the main article for the apostasy section? Or why don't we link there? I will support condensation. If your version turns out biased, it will be edited, but if possible, not lengthened again. That apostates have been put to death will need to be in it, just like Christianity discusses how heretics were burned at the stake, ok? dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's there, take a look. I had already included the executions thing. If we raise the issue, that has to be covered, I agree. But "Apostasy -- The Mini-Series" is a problem for me. Hope to look at takfir later and add it to my list, Godwilling. BrandonYusufToropov 14:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's an ok intro... better than the longg thing anyways... I do think it's an issue that deserves to be talked about more (and it's not takfir...) so we could have a full article for it where it can be expanded. Granted we have 1/2 a page on Hanafi... and that's about 20x more important. gren 15:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The version as of 13:48, 19 Apr 2005 should stay until someone figures out how to keep the information in a shorter form without throwing out relevant and informative content. The discussion ought to be focused on what the merits are or lack thereof of the statements, rather than just pulling out the "length " card as a pretext to censure information. By the way it seems to me that the text is fair and balanced to all POVs--Wibidabi 00:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus here on keeping the shortened text, and an even clearer one on the need to shorten it. You have said nothing about what you object to in the shortened version; it would be far more constructive to edit the shortened version than keep restoring your own wording. - Mustafaa 00:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wibiman, I agree that we should not throw out relevant information. I think we may disagree on what is relevant but that is another issue. It is therefore my suggestion that you make Apostasy in Islam (or whatever the correct name would be) and if you can make a balanced article then good job. If you make crap them someone will try and fix it or throw fifty NPOV tags in your direction. The main point is not on the main Islam page. gren 00:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually no there is not a consensus on this. read wibidaba ' s point again. We should try not to censure information at Misplaced Pages regardless of our POVs ( which is exactly what is going on in my opinion) .--4r2emi 02:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did read his point. He says "instead of pulling out the 'length' card to censure information". I think most of us agree that if he wants to right an article he can, but we do not do this on the main page of Islam, we don't have a huge section on Tahweed and that is about the biggest issue in Islam. In fact the section on Sharia (which apostasy is probably a subsection of) is pretty small. The point being this subject does not deserve a large place on the main page, I don't think this is our POVs talking it's the relative size of the subject. I will state again, make a full fledged article on Apostasy in Islam where you will have no length limit, then we can have a better argument about POV because right now this is about length more than anything. gren 02:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy is not that important thing that it should be included in the main article . Its not a core belief in Islam , its a small subsection of Sharia ( where it belongs ) , that has been publicitised in the west by Islamphobes , & there R different views of it in different madhabs . It should be moved to Apostasy in Islam article where further incorrect information is given , I mean visiting a church will make anybody an apostate ?? Man where is this information coming from ?? The best thing to do would be to give a link here ( in Sharia section )& move it to its own page , where the POV issue will be dealt with .Farhansher 7:40 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Wibidabi, nobody is censoring you, so stop complaining. Your stuff is on Apostasy in Islam now, and it needs work. So I guess you should collaborate with people over there to raise the standard of that article. We can't have every scrap of information on Islam here on the main article. When people start deleting information from the specialized article, there will be ample time to cry censorship then. dab (ᛏ) 07:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it worth the time and effort to rv vandalism? Just disable the Edit feature! how do I raise this issue in the community portal? --The Brain 17:04, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

we do want people to edit the article. It's not 'finished', so it should be possible to improve it. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anybody taken a look at Exclusivistic thought in Islam lately?

Exclusivistic thought in Islam

One part—often seen as the largest or at least currently the most vocal—focuses on the differences takes an exclusivistic and aggressive approach to the differences between Islam and the Judeo-Christian community. Like in other faiths, this can lead to parts of the Muslim community holding beliefs like the necessity of bringing them back to the "Straight Path" by persuasion, or even force, and then acting them out.''

Can anybody explain what this means in plain english?--65.141.40.88 02:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haha... nope gren 02:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit re articles of belief

The old version had "Belief in the books sent by God" -- some anon editor has changed that to "Belief in the book (Al-Qur'an) sent by God. I would revert that, but I'm not completely sure of myself. As I understand it, Muslims recognize the Jewish and Christian scriptures, they just believe that the Qur'an superseded them. Muslim editors please comment. Zora 01:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Muslim but... they believe in all books... but they only have the Qur'an unadulterated. So, practically speaking that edit is right but in truth they should accept any if they had it in its "original form". Also there is some talk about one eternal book... because they common Sunni belief is that hte book has always existed. The Mu'tazila believe that that constitutes shirk... so, it's belief in the eternal book. gren 01:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

strictly speaking, the qur'an is not a "book" (kitab) but a "lecture", i.e. the book was not sent by God with UPS, but he sent Gabriel as his mouthpiece. Muslims certainly do not believe any other books were "sent by God" -- they do believe that Moses and Jesus and whoever were genuine prophets, but the texts about them were written by humans and are hopelessly corrupt. So imho, if we are talking about any book-sending at all, it should be in the singular :) dab (ᛏ) 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wah? No, it is believed that Moses was a prophet just like Muhammad and the Torah was sent to him and he kept it in its divine form (because prophets don't suck) and the people of his time corrupted it so it only exists on earth in a humanly bastardized form. But, it was a book from God in its original form. It should be equal to the Qu'ran but the caveat is that modern day humans cannot know what the original Torah said. gren 13:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have to disagree here -- seems to me that Qur'an cleary specifies that (unadulterated versions of) Injeel, Taurat, Zaboor -- Gospel, Torah, Psalms -- are in fact divinely inspired. Belief is not that they were written by humans, but that they were messed up down the line and (by implication) that traces of original teachings may remain, though identifying what's authentic is a difficult task. Generalized respect for practices and scriptures of People of the Book is, I am pretty sure, an obligation on Muslims laid down in hadith, though I couldn't tell you which one. BrandonYusufToropov 12:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the basic creed of Islam. "Those who believe in God with all their heart and in the Last Day and in the angels of God and in His Books and in His prophets" (Al-Baqara 177). The fact that Muslims do not believe that the current books called the Torah and Gospel are accurate records of the original books is neither here nor there. - Mustafaa 19:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

so would you say it is commonly accepted that the qur'an is a kitab? Or does that sound awkward, would you say the qur'an is in a kitab? (I don't know, I'm asking genuinely) dab (ᛏ) 19:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted References to Birth Rate

I deleted the references to rationlizing that Islam is growing faster than Christianity, due to those countries having a higher birth rate. I do so because one 1) It is bigoted 2) There is no factual evidence to support it. 3) There is not enough evidence to determine what the conversion rate is and 4) In many of those countrys where Islam is supposed to have a higher birth rate, the acutal death rates are equal or even higher than the birth rates. --mpa

ok, but why "bigoted"? Any sources for (4)? dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

the intro

it's much too short now. I suggest moving the first paragraph of "beliefs" back into the intro. dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pruning links

Someone added a pro-Muslim link to the opposing viewpoints section; someone else had added a rather strident anti-Muslim site there. Since it seemed that we were headed down the slippery slope to a link free-for-all, I pruned the opposing views section down to a link to the dmoz directory. We pruned all the links to pro-islam sites down to directories, so that everyone would be linked, but at one remove. It seems like the best thing to do to apply that policy to the opposing viewpoints. Zora 09:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that there are opposing viewpoints and favoring viewpoints that might not be represented by the directories, and that folks might want to add. How do we fix this problem? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Tell people to go to the directory project. Dmoz is another community project and I have never heard of any links being refused. But that's a good point -- perhaps we should put up a short explanation of why we're using the links pages (to make sure we aren't favoring one group over another and yet to keep the length of the page down) and how to get on the links page. Zora 18:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference b/w logical debate & plain insult . That site is not an apposing POV , its a joke . An insult to all sane people . The creater is an idiot/bigot ( who claims to be a ex-muslim ). U cant debate with him , he has some wierd POV about Islam . He says all Sufis were non-muslims , all muslim scientists were non-muslims . Only the suicide bombers & wahabis R actual muslims . He will delete every muslim debate from time to time from his site saying " that was done by a muslim hacker " , he wont ever debate with any muslim scholar , saying I will get killed by muslims , he debates according to his own laws , & will say in the end that he is the only one who has correctly understood Islam in the last 1400 years & the rest of muslims dont know nothing about Islam . He cant write a single sentence without insulting U .

They have got a "project against Islam" running there , specially for wikipedia . 22:06, 6-5-2005 (UTC)Farhansher

So you're saying that the open directory site doesn't include the saner of the questioning Islam sites? I just went to look at it, and it does seem a bit short, and excludes some sites I know (like Ibn Warraq's site or answering-islam) that are at least reasonable -- even if one doesn't agree with them. Is there another directory that we could use? It seems like a mistake to pick and choose sites ourselves, given that Islam is so controversial these days, and if we're inclusive, the list could include hundreds of sites. Or ... I hate to suggest this, but we could either start our own Misplaced Pages list, or try to open up the dmoz one. Zora 22:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooo , sorry I didnt make my point clear b4 . I was talking specfically about faithfreedom.org , & its link on main Islam article . Even answering Islam is much much better than faithfreedom . B/c as I said b4 , there is a big difference b/w "I dont agree with your religion" & "Your prophet was ******* & all muslims are lowest animals" . Hope I make myself clear this time . 4:42 7-5-2005(UTC) Farhansher

I took another look at the directory and it seems OK. We've now removed the direct listing to faithfreedom.org. So everything is copacetic? <g> Zora 05:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yea thanx, nice to have U here with us Farhansher 05:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Why have I removed apostasy section from main Islam article

1 . The main article of Islam should contain what explains the basics of Islam , its beliefs , ethics & cultural concepts , not something that is a small part of Sharia , that most muslims dont consider important .

2 . There is no discussion here on the matter that which fiqah considers apostasy as a crime punishable with death penalty & which consider it as not even a crime .It makes massive generalisations like "Muslims believe" & "muslims define" . Not even every Mufti believes tht Apostasy is a crime . & there are around 1.5 billion muslims in the world , all following different Muftis , the muftis following different Imams of madhab . So there is no such thing as "muslims believe" or "muslims define" in the matter of apostasy .

3 . I dont see apostasy section in any other religion's main page .

4 . There is a whole page for apostasy in Islam & Apostasy in general . If anybody wants to add something new to apostasy in Islam , he/she can add it there .

I have made some modifications in Apostasy in Islam & Apostasy#Islam , give them a look . Hope its appreciated . Thanx .Farhansher 21:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Farhanshar, that material re apostasy was the result of a hard-fought battle with critics of Islam who wished to stress the less appealing aspects of the religion. I think we compromised on having one para and linking to the apostasy section. I don't think we should remove the para and the link, because this is a concern that many non-Muslims bring to their investigation of Islam. An encyclopedia should answer common questions. The para probably could have used more work -- in particular, some statistics. I would imagine that the number of Muslims officially executed for apostasy in recent years is -- zilch, but it would be nice to be sure. People have been assassinated because individual zealots feel that they must "defend" Islam in this bloody manner, but I don't think that's anything more than the usual human perversity (as we see with anti-abortion bombers and the like). What bugs non-Muslims is, I think, the fact that the Muslim clergy haven't repudiated this law -- which they can't, as it's in the Qur'an. It's as if the Roman Catholics still had written policies demanding the burning of heretics. This is a real problem, and we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug. Zora 22:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Only the para in the main article has been removed , while its still present on its main apostasy page . If someone wants to investigate the matter , he can always go to its main page . Zealots R found in every community , & U cant blame the whole community for them . If OBL gives a fatwa that all westerners should be killed , this doesnt mean that every muslim believes in it . He is not a mufti but a civil engineer . U can follow him in how to make a building , how to blow a building ( b/c of his experience ) , but not in why to blow a building . There is no centrel clergy of Muslims , individually many clerics have done work on the matter & concluded that every form of apostasy is not equal to death ( I have given a link in apostasy page ). Secondly its not in Quran , its in Hadith , thatswhy its not followed by everybody .Farhansher 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't blame the whole community for the zealots, please note. If it's hadith rather than Qur'an, that's great. As for which clerics still accept the death penalty for apostasy and which don't -- well, it would be good to know, yes? Then we could have a para that says something like leading clerics A, B, and C all agree that this hadith is weak and not binding on Muslims, and it's only X, Y, and Z that still claim it applies. Plus figures on any prosecutions for apostasy. As for completely removing it from the article -- no, it's a concern for readers, and they at least need some link to where they can find material on it. If not a whole section or para, at least a sentence relating to sharia, punishments for apostasy, adultery, etc. You know I'm not one of the ignorant Islamophobes that vandalize the article, Farhansher, I'm just trying to be honest and informative here. Zora 11:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems reference to the inquisition was removed from Christianity, too. I say, put both back. at the very least a link (put it in the sharia section, if you like). Islam does have a problem with its zealots, at the moment, and it doesn't help much that they are not theologically sound. The Crusades were not theologically sound either, and still Christianity has to live with the fact that they are part of its history. dab (ᛏ) 11:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora... it is debatable as to what is really in the Qur'an. Moses had 3,000 Levites killed in Exodus for after the calf incident and I'm not thinking Christians or Jews advocate wholesale slaughter for idolatry. Farhansher, it does deserve a place because I am pretty sure at least one of Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali or Shafi schools discuss this in a manner that would scare most people (i.e. killing of apostates). We also know that some prominent Shia imams are against it as well (see Salman Rushdie). This is not a completely marginal issue by any means. gren 14:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well Zora ...I know U arnt one of the Islamphobes , I have seen your edits .

Of course I dont have anything against a link ( I have also said it b4 ) . Its a part of Islamic belief , but a very debatable part , on which different Muftis have different views , & certainly not a core belief . So its better to diccuss the rest in its main article . In the form it was present here , it shows a red hand, which traditionally means "Stop !! this is very important" ( & since its in the main article , so it must be very important ). Then it says "musilms define" that is not the case . Then it implies "muslims believe" , that is again not the case . In the end it says these countries have apostasy laws , not giving any importance to the other point of view .

It would be great if we could know or give data on which cleric says apostasy = death , which says apostasy = his own business , & which says something in the middle . But who will do it ?? And then if U collect data about clerics ABC....XYZ , its again so big that it isnt for the main article . And its still not a unanimous decision on which every Mufti agrees.

As for apostasy/adultary death punishments , every death punishment needs 4 eye witnesses , in respectable standing, whose accounts agree . Adultery again is viewed diffrently among Scholars . B/c Quran says 80 whips , hadith says death . And then death to whom , male or female , & what about rape , should the woman be also killed for it . U cant sum up all these things in one para on the main Islam article , & its not that important to be explained in 3-4 para on main Islam page.

Gren...of course its not a very marginal Issue , but it isnt that important to occupy space on the main article . If some madhab in Islam has scary rulings on apostasy , it should be noted in Apostasy article . Salman Rushdie case is more of a blasphemy case thean a apostasy case . What if somebody says that somebody's mother or father is a ********* & publishes/makes a movie/sells his perception of his parent(s) all over the world , what can the other guy do , when there is no other way to stop the first guy . Think about it , sometimes people consider somethings more honourable than their parents , & more prescious than their money , careers , lives . Though killing is never the answer , as it provokes further hatred , & counter killings .

I am not justifing any form of non-sense killing by zealots ( if somebody is getting the idea ) , just that apostsy section in the form it existed , is not suitable for the main article . Its a controversial issue & a long debate among clerics , & it cant be summed up in a para , & its not that important to have 2-3 para on the main Islam page . Better to have it explained in its own page , with all different POVs noted .

Thanx Farhansher 20:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I tried to make these kinds of points at the time, but I didn't do as good a job as Farhansher. I really think it is more like putting, say, canonization into the main Christianity article, and then making some huge generalization immediately thereafter, of the kind that were made here: "Christians worship other human beings besides Jesus, and they do it just because the pope says they're saints." Well, some of the "Christians" in that sweeping assessment might not agree. Ridiculously vague assertions have no place in an encyclopedia. BrandonYusufToropov 02:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

hey, nobody objects to your fixing inaccurate statements. It's one thing to iron out inaccuracies. It's quite another thing to delete all reference to a topic because the original poster was being inaccurate. It's perfectly permissible to link to canonization from Christianity, you'd just need to make the "just because the pope says" sound slightly less condescending :) dab (ᛏ) 03:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Canonization is a bad example because saints are a non-issue to Christians who don't believe in sainthood. Apostasy is something that exists so all Muslims deal with it in some way, addressing how different Muslims deal with it is legitimate... and I hope we don't make any moronic statements like your example. If so please fix them. gren 04:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• a)Is it really any less moronic than the whole "Muslims believe" and "Muslims define" business? Didn't that come off as slightly condescending?

• b)I'm not saying we shouldn't link' to Apostasy in Islam, but rather that placing spending time and attention discussing it on the article page is a rhetorical technique favored by people who do not like Islam and should be regarded as such. Blood libel gets maybe half a sentence on Christianity. Let's follow that example, ok? 66.30.96.38 14:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

sure, so we agree. canonization is an excellent example, because I claim that even though it is a non-issue for many xians, it is still notable enough to be mentioned on Christianity. It's misleading to say "blood libel gets half a sentence". The issue of Christian violence and persecution at the moment is treated in the following paragraph:

In spite of the widely held belief that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings, Christian adherents have at times persecuted, tortured, and killed others for refusing to believe in their type of Christianity. While most modern Christians would condemn such actions, they were carried out by people who were seen as mainstream Christians at the time. During the Crusades, Christian atrocities against Jews in German and Hungarian towns, later also in those of France and England, and in the massacres of non-combatants in Palestine and Syria initiated a tradition of Christian anti-Semitism, which was further bolstered by the cult of the blood libel, and continued into the 1500s by the Spanish Inquisition. The European colonization movement was endorsed by the mainstream European Christian churches. This endorsement supposedly "legitimized" the exploitation of the colonized lands by the European powers. This colonization led to the destruction of many cultural artifacts, particularly in South America related to the Inca and Aztecs. Conflicts within Christianity itself have led to persecutions of one Christian group by another. Protestants, Roman Catholics and other Christians have persecuted each other in the name of Jesus. In the second half of the 20th century the violent conflict between armed political groups among the Unionist and Nationalist communities in Northern Ireland carried a strong element of sectarianism between Protestants and Roman Catholics.

so if we can cook up a paragraph of similar length on the intolerant and violent tendencies within Islam, I'll be satisfied.

btw, you shouldn't categorize editors depending on wether they "like" Islam. Positive bias is as undesireable as negative bias. Of course we don't want Islam-bashing edits. Nor do we want Islam-hyping edits. I'm interested in the topic, so I guess I "like" Islam more than I "dislike" it, but I do hope my edits are not biased towards either side. dab (ᛏ) 15:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

of course it cannot be treated in detail here. It should still be pointed to from here. You know, so people can click on the link. If the only possibilities were, treat it in detail, or don't mention if, we couldn't link to any articles at all now, could we? We can say it's controversial, that's not the problem. It doesn't have to have its own section either, stuff it under sharia if you like. And any factual errors should be removed (don't tell me it's impossible to make a short but factual statement!). You know, I'm just trying to avoid that the next time the self-righteous Christians blunder onto this page saying we're all "white-washing" Islam, they will actually have a point. (oh, and please, if you want to do me a favour, try to avoid the nerdy U, b4 etc.; I find it really jarring to have those in a discussion on religious law :)

so, in a nutshell, be brief, be fair, be factual, but link to it. (we re-inserted Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and blood libel back into Christianity too, so don't say I'm lop-sided) dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Muslims and Polygamy

I would like to request that anyone here who knows anything about Muslim polygamy (and supposed Muslim polygamy in Western countries) to please see the article on Polygamy and it's talk page. Whatever I do know about the topic I contributed to the article and corrected what I saw as very POV and inflammatory material contributed by an editor called 'Researcher99'. I unfortunately engaged this user in an edit war which was a huge mistake on my part since I am by no means an expert (on Muslim polygamy and polygamy in general), and I have little interest in polygamy. But I know false information when I see it and I feel ultimately that I was in the right and my criticisms correct and valid. But I'm not a Muslim and I'm not an expert, so I would appreciate others who are better informed than I to take this issue on to keep the balance going. Ghostintheshell 19:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)