Misplaced Pages

I fixed it some more <g>, removing the editorializing re the "correct" pronunciation. Zora 22:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeenhasan's edits

The addition of the "Disputes" section on the surface seems like a good idea, and the material that Zeenhasan added is well-written, balanced, and useful, but .... I'm worried that this is going to open the door for another inflation of the article. At one point this article had turned into another version of Islam, just less well-policed. I trimmed the article down RADICALLY, to just a discussion of the word. If we open the article up to a discussion of who's a Muslim and who's not, then it could balloon. I'll wait and see what happens before I say "I told you so". I could be wrong (what a shock!). Zora 18:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure enough, someone just reverted away my edits. However, I've added a cultural Muslim article and linked to it, which will hopefully prevent a revert war.--Zeeshanhasan 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Classifications

Striver keeps adding his classification scheme to this article. It's his own little hobbyhorse. There is no evidence that any other Muslims accept or use this schema; there are no references supporting it. It's just that Striver seems to love classifying and listing things. Please leave it OFF. Zora 08:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, stop it, it just says that Muslims can be called different things. What is your problem with that? --Striver 11:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I do agree that Striver is clearly obsessed with classification. But I must admit that the links Striver added are obviously relevant in this instance. What I do have a problem with is its presentation. Above the links it says "Muslims inward can be described as:". How exactly can Muslims (which means, as it says in the opening paragraph, one who submits to God) be classified as a fasiq (shameless sinner), munaqif (hypocrite), and kafir (a complete disbeliever). Obviously none of those terms describe Muslims. And how about the term "Muslim" being used to describe Muslims? That sounds like circular logic. I believes those links should instead be moved into the "See also" section under a different heading. joturner 18:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you did not know it, but a Muslim is a Muslim even if he does not belive in it, it is enough to say the Shahada. A Muslim is not someone who submits to God, but somone that says the Shahada and does a few things. What he believes in or not is none of our concern.

A Muslim could be pure hypocrits, not beliving a word of it, but as long as they pretend, they are Muslims what conserns us. We can call them munaqif, but not Aposate or Kafir.

A Muslim could also be someone that agrees with alcohol being Haram, but still drinks in public, that does no make him non-Muslim, it makes him a Muslim alcoholist, a fasiq.

The quran it self distincts between a Muslim and a beliver :)

--Striver 05:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Distinction between a believer and a Muslim

Striver, I've read one academic essay that suggests that that medieval Muslims were much more concerned with faith (iman) than Islam, and would describe themselves as believers rather than as Muslims. I'm not sure that the Qur'an verse can necessarily be interpreted in the fashion you describe. Since I don't think we have any editors who could deal with this matter, it should be dropped. I've removed it. Zora 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"medieval Muslims"? The verse addreses Muhammads contemporaries. "would describe themselves as believers rather than as Muslims" suggest the same thing as the verse, that there is a distinction between Islam and belief. Its not going to be removed, the verse is as clear cut as it gets, there is no alternative way at looking at it. --Striver 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Category

Quote:

As I understand it, and I think this can be Qur'anically justified, at the very basic level Islam sees two types of people: Muslim and non-Muslim. However, each of these two categories have further categories within themselves, which includes mu'min (believer), 'alim (scholar), salih (righteous), munafiq (hypocrite) for Muslims and Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), mushrik (idolater), dhimmi (non-Muslim who has submitted to paying the jizya tax) as well as a myriad of others. In addition to this -- and actually somewhat irrespective of these categories -- is the question of what relations should be like between Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors, whether hostile or non-hostile, on a political or even geo-political level.

http://www.mereislam.info/2005/05/anti-islamic-books-in-public-schools.html

--Striver 10:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But this sense of grievance, though correct, also emanates from an inadequate understanding of the word Kafir and its implications on their part. Few people are aware that the lowest depths of Hell are reserved in Islam, not for the Kafir, but for those people who may be today claiming to be Muslims. For God in the Quran condemns and consigns to the lowest depths of Hell, not the Kafir, but the munafeqeen (the hypocrites) who profess to believe in what they do not accept at heart: the Kafir on the other hand has at least the forthrightness to proclaim his beliefs. So the greatest insult is not in being called a Kafir, but in being called a Munafiq, a term that can only be applied to someone claiming to be a Muslim.

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight9908.html --Striver 10:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In modern times, the word mu`min or believer is often used casually among the Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But if we examine the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, we find ample proof to suggest to us that, to be a believer is something sacred, honorable, and most importantly, rare. Acceptance of Islam does not equal iman (belief), and it can even lead someone into the fire (naar), as in the case of a munafiq (hypocrite). http://www.oneummah.net/library/modules/mylinks/viewcat.php?cid=20&orderby=titleD --Striver 10:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"When the hypocrite talks, he lies. When he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he is trusted he betrays." If a person is innocent of these vices mentioned by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), he is innocent of hypocrisy . These characteristics are the touchstone and the distinction between the believer and the hypocrite . Take this touchstone and this mirror, and use it to examine the face of your heart. Look to see whether you are a believer or a hypocrite, a monotheist or a polytheist .

http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?cPath=44&products_id=72

--Striver 10:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you start talking about who IS a Muslim, or a believer, and who isn't, and making subtle distinctions between them, you're going into religious territory that Wikipedis should not touch. It's controversial and it's khutbah, not encyclopedia, material. Zora 10:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This would be an interesting way to teach new programmers the otherwise dry subject of class inheritance.

But I believe that you have missed a few classes. The class Believer inherits from Muslim. It contains the attribute: faithEnteredHeart --this comes from ayah 49:14. Also I think that your current class Muslim should really be an interface. Within it the class Muslim should be implemented. At least one attribute is: submitToGod(fivePillars); http://www.mpadc.com/forums/attachment.php?s=c2a154a1ae011aac5f02210170f12b71&attachmentid=410&d=1080649056

http://www.mpadc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16252

Thirty First Hadith: The Kinds of Hearts

http://al-islam.org/fortyhadith/33.htm

TABLE-2: TYPES OF INDIVIDUAL ACCORDING TO RELIGIOSITY LEVELS

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:6cz-dPrnZIgJ:www.pide.org.pk/pdf/psde%252018AGM/Towards%2520Divine%2520Economics.pdf+believer+Muslim+munafiq+category&hl=sv

Zora i have clearly shown that things run much deeper than Muslim-Kafir.

Of course you wont belive it, since Madelund didnt tell you so, but im geting tirred of you opposing me for fun... --Striver 11:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you start talking about who IS a Muslim, or a believer, and who isn't, and making subtle distinctions between them, you're going into religious territory that Wikipedis should not touch. It's controversial and it's khutbah, not encyclopedia, material. Zora 10:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing Striver's edits again

Striver, there's no need for that Qur'an cite. It really doesn't explain anything. Nor is there any need to link to all those lists you created, which are empty, pointless vanity articles. There is a List of Muslims, that's enough.

I put back the concentration camp cite just because someone MIGHT look for it here. (I've read material re the camps that used the word Muslim.) It's off at the bottom of the page, all by itself, it's clearly indicated that there's no documented link to Islam, and it doesn't hurt anything or anyone. Reaally. Zora 11:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an quote

Is that the only Qur'an quote to use the word Muslim? I don't think we need the quote, but a reference to any verses that use the word Muslim might be useful to readers. Like this:

"The term Muslim is used in the Qur'an in these verses: XXXXXXX."

Zora 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That verse is presented to show that the Qur'an makes a distinction between Muslim and beliver, "since the heart is not pentrated with belief". --Striver 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Without any framing or interpretation, the quote doesn't make sense. If you do frame or interpret, then you're presenting your own personal version of Islam. If you quote various tafsir, then the article balloons.

Striver, this article has had to be continually cut down, because it should just be about the term "Muslim". It is not a place to expound on who is really a Muslim, or what Islam means. That should be in the main Islam article. Zora 05:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Musselman Reference

The reference to the world musselman during the Holocaust keeps re-appearing at the bottom of the article. Not only is there no source stating that the word relates to the alternative word for Muslim, but it's also in the incorrect place. Based on the Talk page from September, it seems like no one believes the mention is relevant. Therefore, I'm taking it off until someone proves otherwise. joturner 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Added to last section

Since the last para is proving to be controversial, as I feared, I'm making an attempt to make it less provocative. It is indeed true that religious squabbles often ended in declarations of takfir. Hence it's not just the Ahmedi or the Shi'a who are the targets -- it seems like every group of Muslims is regarded as unbelievers by another group of Muslims. Zora 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked at Anonymous Editor's edits and then thought a bit and rephrased that last section rather thoroughly. Judging a group deviant by the "principles of Islam" -- or some such wording -- implies that the writer knows what the principles of Islam are, and can judge others by these principles. However, since every group believes that it alone knows the true principles of Islam, this is not really a good yardstick. All you can say is that some groups accept or reject other groups as fellow-Muslims. Zora 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am okay with the change, however, I believe that section shouldn't exist at all. This article was better when it was just simple and factual and not argumentative. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The section is vital, in terms of pointing out that there isn't a concensus on the concept of who is a muslim. This page deals with the concept Muslim, not Islam, and there role of the last passage is not to judge who is a Muslim or not, but to point out that there are diverging views. --Soman 23:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a and Sunni

again, i am editing !!! from where have you brought this falsified statment (Many Sunni regard the Shia and the Allawi sects as non-Muslim.), if this is right, the percente of those who do this not more than 5 % of unknowledged people ... please insert in encylcopedia NO PROPAGANDA !! any one will understand this .. stop attacking others !! and accusing them!!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.138.119.119 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if I understand you, but specifics regarding Shi'a and Sunni relations is covered in Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations Ohnoitsjamie 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Pigs

What is it about pigs that muslims don't like. I don't get it. User:slamdac

Eating pigs is wrong in Islam and it is also in Judaism. I could explain why but instead here's a good article about this . --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslims "keep kosher" to a certain extent. Animals must be slaughtered in a certain way if the meat is be "halal", and some animals, such as pigs, are entirely off limits. Zora 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this article to thwart an annoyingly persistent vandal with a rotating IP address. Feel free to de-protect when he has gotten bored. DJ Clayworth 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Muslim

Zeenhassan, please don't try to widen the definition of Muslim to include "cultural Muslim". It's inherently argumentative, as it seems to claim that you can be a "Muslim" without any religious belief whatsoever.

It's not news that there are many many people who are formally adherents of various religions but who take their religious obligations very lightly. These may be "Christians" who go to church once a year, on Easter, or Muslims who never do salat or go on Fridays, but keep Ramadan because everyone else in their family does. There are people whose religious affiliation is so merely formal that they may participate only when dead -- as they get a Christian or Muslim funeral.

However, the existence of such folks doesn't mean that they should be accepted as the standard by which being a Christian or a Muslim (or a Buddhist or a Hindu or whatever) should be defined. Zora 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora,

Regarding your first paragraph, from my perspective it is possible to be Muslim without any religious belief whatsoever. In much of the world, religions define communities as much as personal beliefs. Those communities are often distinguished by language (for example in India, where Muslims spoke Urdu more frequently than Hindi) and a host of other cultural factors. Perhaps your different perspective simply reflects a more Western location where people primarily have a European or American cultural/national identity, and religion is only relevant to personal beliefs.

Regarding your last paragraph, Is it the business of an encyclopedia to decide who gets to be Muslim and who doesn't? NPOV requires that if people exist who consider themselves culturally Muslim, then we should use terminology and language to fairly describe their perspective. --Zeeshanhasan 07:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You say, "from my perspective" ... that seems like prima facie evidence of consulting ONLY your own opinions. You have no references! Is there anyone besides Zeeshanhasan who believes in "cultural Muslims"? Unobservant Muslims, yes, but cultural? I have never heard the term, and I read a lot (books, journals, newspapers -- even European and Indian newspapers). Show that this is a notable opinion (held by a significant number of people) and then of course we'll include it. Zora 08:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at the list of links attesting to usage of the term "cutural Muslim" on the cultural Muslim article. --Zeeshanhasan 11:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for help on Forgiveness article

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Islam heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Islam's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 04:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion of submitting to God

AE, Timothy is right -- that second sentence you added is unnecessary and quite awkward. If you MUST have something in there about about Islam, just say that previous prophets submitted to God, which is Islam, and that they were therefore Muslims. You can do that with three words rather than a duplicate sentence. I'm going to wait a bit and if there are no objections, change it. Zora 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't add it, it was already there and I don't agree with what Timothy did by removing it completely. I thought it repeated too so I shortened it later. --a.n.o.n.y.m 22:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Therefore, Muslims also believe that Islam existed long before Muhammad."

This, too, is redundant - the only information the reader might glean from this at this point is that Moses lived long before Muhammad.Timothy Usher 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it. I'll be fine with it you can find a better way of adding that, because Muslims believe that the same message was preached by all the prophets, that Islam existed long before Muhammad. --a.n.o.n.y.m 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this implicit when one says that Moses was a Muslim? Perhaps adding Adam, Noah and Abraham to the list of prophets would achieve the same effect?Timothy Usher 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No it won't. The difference is between the belief that they were all Muslims and that of saying that the religion existed long before. Not all readers will understand if it means the same thing. --a.n.o.n.y.m 22:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that is better. Thanks for your work on this.

Should you be so inclined, I invite you review my numerous edits of Christianity over the past few days, most of which involved simplification of awkward passages and deletion of superfluous text, off-topic points of doctrine, etc. and were met with no protest whatsoever. In other articles, every little shred is fought over tooth and nail, as if wikipedia were itself sacred text.Timothy Usher 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1.5 billion muslims

Although it may be true, there really should be a source stated for this number. Travelbird 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Council on American-Islamic relations put the numer at 1.2 billion. I'll change the fifure acrodingly. If anyone has better figuers, he/she is welcome to correct this (put please only with stated source)

Travelbird 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User from IP Adress 193.164.126.17 lacks self-respect and has vandalised the page. If this user has any issue about the page, let him please address them respectfully in the discussion page. All religions should be respected.

Arabic ≠ "Islamic"

In his edit summary, AE wrote, "not when referring to the specific perspective; Islamic in Islamic article." We must emphasize yet again that these words are Arabic not "Islamic". English-speaking Muslims often use English terms, just as Arabic-speaking Christians use Arabic terms.Timothy Usher 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly and it's mostly the "Arabic" - related perspective that Muslims take, not the "Biblical" or what the "english" one. It's a matter of putting Jesus first makes it pov and incorrect; Muslims don't accept Jesus as "Jesus" in biblical belief. That's why both perspectives were given, but the one that's closer to the Islamic one (Musa) is given first. --a.n.o.n.y.m 05:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor, the biblical Jesus is the same as Isa. Please show me one verse in the Bible in which Jesus says "I am God". It is christianity Jesus that differs from Isa. --Aminz 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you wrote in your edit summary, "the point there is that it isn't the Biblical "english" interpretation that's accepted in this article, but the Qur'anic interpretation."

No part of the Bible was written in English. It is incorrect for you to assert yet again (, , , ) that the motivation for translation into English is Christianity.Timothy Usher 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't said or meant. The point here is that the "Arabic name" interpretation is closer to the Islamic belief. The English name is commonly connected to the Biblical belief. I don't like it either but that's what it is. --a.n.o.n.y.m 05:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added diffs above to illustrate how one might arrive at this impression of what you meant.Timothy Usher 05:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue about what you think I believe. Please stop wasting talk pages with arguments and concentrate on the issue or leave it alone. --a.n.o.n.y.m 05:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. "The English name is commonly connected to the Biblical belief." So what? It doesn't mean these aren't the established English terms. We shouldn't be using foreign words in order to broadly correct misinterpretations readers might bring to Misplaced Pages, and indeed by preventing translation through constant reverts, you're contributing to the problem you've identified.Timothy Usher 06:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia as I've said before, we keep all titles, dates, etc that are closest to the perspectives. For example, using AD/BC in Christian articles and CE in non-Christian articles or linking the article with most about Islamic interpretation first in Islamic article. I agree that there is a problem with English-speakers not being able to figure it out but this will not make them more aware of it. Sorry but the English name is still connected to the Biblical belief. If you can go change all the Biblical name articles by making them not about the Christian figure as is commonly agreed then I can accept it but we know that won't happen. --a.n.o.n.y.m 06:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody explain to me why "The Biblical version " of Jesus is different from the Qur'anic one. --Aminz 07:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the difference in beliefs. The biblical perspective is of course that of Christianity that considers Jesus as part of the trinity. Islamic belief is that he was a prophet along with many other differences. It's not versions, it's perspectives. And that's why we need the correct perspective linked in the context of the religion the article is related to. --a.n.o.n.y.m 08:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for using the word "version". My English is not good and don't know what I am saying. But it is not the Biblical perspective, it is the Christian perspective. I understand why you want to use two words. As I was guessing you want to make sure that people do not look at the Islamic concepts from their own (e.g. Christian) perspective. I guess you believe that having different words helps the readers to distinguish between the concepts (or beliefs) and clear up their minds for new information. Well, I think this is a sincere argument. Of course using the English word has both advantages and disadvantages. Using the same word on the other hand has some advantages that we discussed before. We just do not agree that which one is better. I have an argument to prove that using the English word is better. Here is my own thought that may not be true. At the time of Muhammad, Pagans were worshipping many gods. They were using the word “Allah” to refer to their highest God (Although Arab Jews and Christians were also using this term in addition to the Hebrew terms for God I think). Qur’an could have used another word for God by the same argument as you said, BUT it took the same word that was familiar to people and people had some ideas about it and then redefined it for people. I think our situation is the same. There is a trade-off here. I personally think using English words is better. Thanks --Aminz 08:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"And that's why we need the correct perspective linked in the context of the religion the article is related to." - If the goal here is to preserve the links, there's an easy solution: ]. Better still, let's see what we can do to bring Muslim editors to articles such as Jesus, God, etc., such that we could link to Jesus without qualification. The idea of a division between "Christian" and "Muslim" articles is un-wikipedian, misguided and the very essence of a POV fork. Deficiencies in other articles are reasons to change them, not reasons to compromise the comprehensibility of this one.Timothy Usher 08:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• "No all articles connect to the name in English too anyways." - what do you mean by this?
• "On wikipedia as I've said before, we keep all titles, dates, etc that are closest to the perspectives." - and this? I thought we were supposed to aim for neutrality.
• "For example, using AD/BC in Christian articles..." - there is no such thing - or shouldn't be, at least - as a "Christian article", only articles about Christianity from a neutral point of view.Timothy Usher 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"I though we were supposed to aim for neutrality" - That's exactly why the accepted perspective of the religion is used first instead of that of another religion. This isn't the place to make new policies about what exactly English names refer to. If you can go change all the "English" name articles by making them not mostly about the Biblical/Christian perspective, as is agreed, then I can accept it but we know it won't happen. I don't see your problem here, since both names were linked anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m 06:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"This isn't the place to make new policies about what exactly English names refer to." - The English names don't refer to religious concepts, but to individuals around whom religious concepts have arisen. For example, the statement, "Jesus was only a teacher" is perfectly comprehensible, and stated often by non-Christians who are favorable to his teachings. "Jesus was a Muslim prophet" is similarly comprehensible - in fact, far more so than "Isa was a Muslim Prophet", because at least English-speaking readers will understand what we're saying.Timothy Usher 06:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"The English names don't refer to religious concepts, but to individuals around whom religious concepts have arisen." I agree with that but that's not the case on wikipedia. But we aren't just talking about the names here, but the article and therefore the perspective that is being linked first. And it's clear that the "English name" articles in this case mostly concern the biblical perspective. This is not all about names, but which perspective is linked. If you can go change all the "English" name articles by making them not mostly about the Biblical/Christian perspective, as is agreed, then I can accept it but we know it won't happen. I don't see your problem here, since both names were linked anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m 06:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Butting in, but y'all needed at least one more opinion... I'm nobody and not an expert ...

To equate the "English name" necessarily as being "Christian biblical" is rather strained for me. But then, the order of two versions of a name, Arabic and 'English', being a large matter is more strained for me.

The name pairs do need to be side-by-side, and I'm glad that each of the pairs are linked (though 'Musa' needs a direct link). And being side-by-side, and in the context of the paragraph, having the Arabic name first seems quite appropriate to me.

Shenme 06:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shenme. Yes it fits into the context of the article and that's my point here. And they're both linked anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m 06:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a.n.o.n.y.m --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirbytime. Timothy once again started reverting without even checking the discussion on the talk page . Timothy, disagreement on the talk page should mean that you stop reverting and you've seen what happens if you continue. Respect the agreement by other editors even if its against your version. --a.n.o.n.y.m 07:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

“Timothy once again started reverting without even checking the discussion on the talk page.” - Anonymous editor, you are, um, saying inaccurate things again. There was no discussion besides you and me when I’d revertedfrom your revert. You are the one who began reverting.

I see your diff now. Okay. I'd missed Shenme's comment. However, let the record show that you'd reverted twice in the absence of any consensus beyond your own.Timothy Usher 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirbytime, I'm interested to hear more about your opinion so we can discuss it, and edit the article accordingly. Would you be willing to address the points we've both made above?Timothy Usher 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy I see Shenme, Kirbytime's and my comments on this talk page all disagreeing with your version. You just reverted again . Reverting without checking a discussion you're involved in and the diff is here to prove it. You should have known better since you already know what happens when you act this way. --a.n.o.n.y.m 07:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for editing the article without reading the talk page. I am new here can somebody please let me know if my edit against the agreement here? Thanks --Aminz 07:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure an agreement had been agreed yet. I came here from recent changes patrol. It looked to me like another instance of the old "but this is the English Misplaced Pages" problem. And so one view is that the name most commonly used/recognized by English speakers should necessarily come first, if two versions of a name are mentioned. While I understand the need for English here (see my silly whinging over at Talk:Indian_highways), I try to also ask "what is 'best' for explaining the subject." Here the subject is "what is a muslim" and/or "who is thought to be a muslim". And while I don't have to agree or understand, in Islamic belief there is asserted a continuity back to figures such as Adam and Moses. And it seems to be a reasonable thing to emphasize the assertion in that paragraph by putting the Islamic traditional name first. Simply because it is a different ordering from usual, it helps the reader understand the statement the paragraph is making. So as I was saying above, to me the "Musa (Moses)" ordering best serves the article's subject. Shenme 08:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Shenme, I agree that the most important point is that the reader understand what is being said, and that is precisely the reason why I advocated the established English-language names in text. Readers know what is meant by Moses and Jesus. If you are in a primarily English-speaking country, try this: select people at random and ask, "what do you think of Isa?" Then try, "what do you think of Jesus?" The results will be indicative of the level of understanding we achieve by using the Arabic names.

In fact, I dislike the parentheses as well. It's not necessary to provide translations for every word in an article; usually the main one is enough. The only reason these are necessary is because these articles have POV forks labelled by their translated names (rather than "Jesus in Islam", etc.), and we want to preserve both links. It's just an artifact of the dispute, and visually, an ugly one. Readers don't actually need to know in this article (as opposed to in the Moses article) that Moses is called "Musa" in Arabic. Saying Muslims consider him a prophet ought be enough for our purposes here.Timothy Usher 08:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you guys think about the compromise of using "Moses (Musa)"? Musa is stressed and Moses has come first. Thanks --Aminz 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslims as ethnic group in the Balkans

I removed a section that an anon had added, saying that "Muslims" were considered an ethnic group in the Balkans. It's not clear quite what the anon means -- is he saying that other ethnicities consider you a Muslim if any one of your grandparents was a Muslim? If that is so, it should be referenced, not just asserted. Also, it would probably be better to discuss this in Balkans-related articles and perhaps just put a link there. If I'm understanding the anon correctly, this is an idiosyncratic use of the term Muslim. I don't think an observant Muslim would accept someone as Muslim on the basis of a Muslim ancestor. Zora 23:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hagarenes

Cltfn, Muslims called themselves Muslims, or Believers, from the beginning. Crone and Cook argued that Hagarenes was used by outsiders back in 1977, I think it was, but they're no longer standing behind that book. I don't know what terms were used by all the groups that the Arabs conquered. Why don't you learn Byzantine Greek, Syriac, Aramaic, and Pahlavi to find out? :) Zora 09:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, simply not true, if you were to check the primary sources of the 7th century you might see that Muslim is never mentioned , only saracens , or hagarenes or derivations of these 2. I plan on writing a wikipedia article on those primary sources shortly that will make this abundantly clear.No offense but the argument of " they do not stand behind the book " is getting worn out. --CltFn 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the final outcome of the sources debate. The paragraph belongs in the Other words for Muslims section. Ashmoo 03:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Eat Swines

Why dont muslim´s eat Swines?