Talk:Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Former featured article Islam is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article has an assessment summary page.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Islam:

Post-FA work to improve the article:

  • The History section still needs to be shifted a bit more in the direction of religious history away from political history. It also needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly
  • Article reviews have pointed out the citations. Primary sources alone are discouraged. And many books cited here only have title and author.
  • The "Islam Topics" section at the bottom of the page seems to have a code glitch and is not displaying properly.
  • Add more to the history, culture, science, and Mathematics section(s) and what Muslims contributed to Europe.
  • The relationship of Islam and politics should be discussed in a section devoted for it. The section should cover the fact that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law), the fact the religion has been used as a tool for political profit and warfare (for ages), the fact that the suggested mode of government leadership was to "choose from the best among yourselves" (no kings), the fact that a fatwa as known today is not what is defined by sharia law (baseless political tool), and many other issues.


Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

An angel presenting Mohammed (upper left) and his companions with a miniature city. In the Topkapi Palace Library, Istanbul.

The following image has severe copyright problems. This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies only to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. But it does not applies to countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus more then 70 years. Some of these countries are:

The author is also not known and the image is copied from a site www.zombietimes.com. Hence, we can't afford such an image whose copyright is disputed on this extremely important and vital article.Septate (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't insult our intelligence by raising a copyright argument against a historical image, Septate.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have not insulted so called your intelligence, because I am also a part of wikipedia community. Its right that I have a particular bias for this image but that does not mean that I am making pointless argument. Just click on image and read its licensing status. You will get the answer.Septate (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, your argument is pointless. Images from the 14th century are not copyrighted in the United States. Only US copyright law applies to Wikipedia, as that is where the servers are located.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Septate, Kww is of course right. But even if he weren't the copyright term for Ivory Coast is life + 99 years; for Colombia is life + 80; for St Vincent is life + 75; for Mexico is life +100. The valid copyright certificate on the image states "This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less." A 14th century image is not an issue in any of those countries, even if it were the case that the law of Florida didn't govern this, which it does. Your deceptive editing has just got you blocked: I assume this is one of your all too obvious tricks rather than an honest mistake. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why this picture was made or funded by the Ottomans, this painting represents an event that never happened, no Angel came to the Prophet Muhammad with a city. If this painting is to be utilized then put it up on the page of the Ottoman Empire...this painting has nothing to do with Islam in any way...its not a dome...note a verse...not a mosque...not a page...not a map...its place in Islamic Art would even be controversial...using this picture to represent Islam is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.118 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Fastest growing religion"[edit]

The lede had previously maintained for a good while that Islam was 'arguably' the fastest growing religion in the world. It was recently edited to read that Islam is "the fastest growing religion in the world". I had reverted it back, but it was changed again saying that some source calls it such. One of the sources actually say that Bahai are the world's fastest growing religion. Ideally, a source concerning demographics like the report from Pew Research should be used. But no credible source meant fastest growing religion, rather if anything they meant fastest growing 'major' religion since nobody has info on every random little religion. "Arguably fastest growing major religion" is most objective. Little disappointed that statement was allowed for so long. Sodicadl (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe it states fastest growing major religion, I am not sure of numbers for Bahai but I wouldn't think they are a major religion, than again not sure what constitutes that I assume major world influence and numbers so for that reason I suppose you could argue Islam has been the fastest growing Major religion in the past X years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.92 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim that "Islam is the fastest growing major religion" should either be removed or should be provided with accurate sources. The sources that are included currently hardly back up this claim. The first source, an article on Foreign Policy is not accessible, the user must pay to be able to read it. eventually I was able to get ahold of it and the article does not prove sources to back up it's data. The second source, on PBS, seems to me like an propaganda article, with just like the first no sources to back up their figures. The last source, an article on the US News website written by Thomas W. Lippman, was written in April 7, 2008, This source is far to outdated and the claims made in this article are not backed by sources but are merely his own personal opinion. The sources provided do not suffice and should be removed, this is very sloppy. People should cite accurate sources like The CIA World Factbook for instance. Tamazgha12 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Topkapi image[edit]

Note: Islam does not officially recognize any images of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other prophet, it does not officially recognize any images of Angels, it does not officially recognize any images of Satan...therefore wikipedia should remove all images that do not come up to Islam's standards...furthermore any obscure painting made anywhere in the world that depicts the Prophet Muhammad or Angels or even Satan should not be recognized as official by anyone182.182.99.129 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia content may describe but isn't dictated by religious ideology. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This has been discussed over and over and over. Wikipedia is not an Islamic encyclopedia. Should we tell readers to not eat red meat on Fridays, or to not eat beef ever, or to not worship anything? No, because this encyclopedia merely presents information instead of telling people what religion to follow. If someone is too much of a bigoted fanatic to deal with that, whatever their beliefs are, they don't have to visit this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Who ever said anything about Wikipedia being an Islamic encyclopedia...I only said that any image made anywhere in the Muslim World depicting the Prophet Muhammad or Angels should not be treated as official by anyone. I believe it is a duty to be neutral and fair about Islam, instead of advocating the rights of some obscure Topkapi paintings and the so-called last "Ottoman Caliph of Islam"...great injustice is being done and many issues that are not related with Islam are being promoted in an unfair manner.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And who died and made you caliph? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson what dont you understand go to a nearby mosque meet Muslims talk to their leaders they will tell you that images of the Prophet Muhammad and some Angel giving him a city is nowhere to be found in "Islam" at all and are imagination of some deluded artists living centuries ago, their paintings mean nothing to contemporary Muslims at all.182.182.93.247 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So we should only portray a historical institution as its youngest adherents? 1400 years of tradition should be excluded in the face of what only modern persons believe? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson if u are goin to put in an unfounded unknown picture of the Prophet Muhammad in thi article then you'd better put the old Gospel of Barnabas's picture in the Wikipedia's Christianity page because that too is unfounded and unknown to Christians...are we even now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.0.196 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is about getting even, you should leave, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. The Gospel of Barnabas was known to Christians for centuries, as well as atheist, Jewish, and others, and all honest scholars of any religion will tell you that it borrows language from Dante, indicating that it was written after the fourteenth century -- well too late for anyone to honestly regard it as legitimate. Only someone lying for his own gain would claim that it's legitimate. If you had tried to argue that the Book of Enoch should be mentioned in the Christianity article, I wouldn't have a problem with that since it is accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The Gospel of Barnabas was never accepted by any group Christians, while the picture of Muhammad was accepted by (at a minimum) medieval Persian and renaissance Ottoman Muslims. Do you know which Caliphate was one of the largest, the second longest lasting, and one of the most influential? The Ottomans. Whether or not any thinks they were legitimate or illegitimate doesn't matter -- they are one of the most noteworthy cultures to identify as Islamic. To not include anything of theirs would be like not including anything Roman Catholic in the Christianity article, or not including anything Tibetan in the Buddhism article, or not include anything Indian in the Hinduism article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR version of the above - Apples and oranges >:D.--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk about Islam leave the strange picture of the prophet and forget the Ottoman Caliph...talk about Islam and how it is and how it has been in the last 1400 years...Ian.thomson...don't do injustice here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.118 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here for information purposes and not to make the reader follow islamic ideology. Tamazgha12 (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism???[edit]

What does the situation of Muslim immigrants in Europe or the West have anything to do with Islam itself.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Images of the Prophet[edit]

Do a study or follow the Pew Research Forum, hold a referendum...you will know that a vast majority of Muslims do not recognize the image of the the Prophet Muhammad or any Angels...furthermore its a contentious issue and such images should be discussed in a separate article where images of the Prophet Muhammad and even statues such as the one in the U.S. supreme court can be mentioned.

It should be very clear that all Muslims do not use images of Angles or that of the Prophet Muhammad in their mosques or places of worship, such images are nowhere to be seen in the Muslim World. Therefore the editors of the article Islam should have a contemporary approach not the one promoting conflicts about some obscure paintings made centuries ago in the Muslim World that have no real importance or recognition by Muslims today.182.182.93.247 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See previous discussions on this. Personally, and along with the beliefs of much of the community here at large, the images do have value here on this encyclopedia, and we do not pander to one particular set of beliefs. A Muslims opinion on these images is no less or more valid than a non-Muslims view. Furthermore, Wikipedia or its editors are not promoting conflict. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
182, there is such an article, Depictions of Muhammad. It mentions the U.S. supreme court, as well as pictures used by muslims today (Iran). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It is against the islamic rules to draw the pic of Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W.) and of Angels. There is no any picture available in Quran or in valid Hadith books. To draw pics is forbidden in islam. If someone have make pic that is fake. It is right of each person to protect his religious belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awais ali1 (talkcontribs) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Caliph talk[edit]

If you want to discuss Caliphs in this article then you will have to discuss Sultans and Khans. If any image is to replace that of the so-called "Last Ottoman Caliph" it should be a calligraphic representation of Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Mansa's, Amir's, Agha's should also be mentioned.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comparing the quality of the current version with the former FA version[edit]

Few years ago, this article was a Featured one. Please compare the current version with this one. In some cases this article has improved but not in every cases. --Seyyed(t-c) 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand FAs had a lower standard then compared to now. On the other hand, the article then was a concise clearly expressed piece of encyclopedic text. Now, as the "Encyclypedia that everyone can edit", it's full of cluttered crap that's been added by every idiot with a bee in his/her bonnet that's tenacious enough to ensure their garbage gets in to the article. Wikipedia has, as we all know, problems and faults but this to my mind is the really big one. That 2008 article could have been better - it certainly isn't the epitome of what it could have been. But too often here you see articles written by a group of well-qualified well-read editors taken to an excellent level then gradually it gets turned into crap by clueless idiots who can barely write English. It really makes you want to give up and take up trainspotting instead. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I do not mean that version is better from every aspect. But, we can compare the versions and improve this one, --Seyyed(t-c) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014[edit]

90.201.45.229 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) best religion and the truth.

Closed request: No clear change to article requested. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove the images of all personalities of Islam[edit]

Kindly remove the images of all personalities of Islam, especially of Prophet pbuh and Angel Jibrael. This thing is not known to the general public but if this matter went into the media and newspapers and the general public came to know of it, Wikipedia could seriously get banned in the majority of Muslim nations. So please remove the pictures before the damage is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.70.248 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Kindly read all the above threads that demonstrated that Wikipedia is not censored. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please remove the images of Islamic personalities as it is against islamic religious beliefs.-- Awais ali1 (talk)
No. Wikipedia is not censored. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Very good article everyone, read through entire thing for first time. Well done to all editors who contributed. I think there's a few very tiny tweaks that may be needed:

1. Does the "s" belong after Aisha’s name here?

  • "…Aisha raised and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr the grandson of Abu Bakr and the grandfather of Ja'far al-Sadiq. Aishas also taught her nephew Urwah ibn Zubayr…"

2. Should a space (_) go between the “works,” and “terrorists” here?

  • "…Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law and may be declared against illegal works,terrorists, criminal groups, rebels, apostates, and leaders or states who oppress Muslims…"

3. In sentence below, should it read “non” believer?

4. Also, should a space (_) go between the words “Islam.” and “The”?

5. Also, does “the” belong before “Islam”? Shouldn't it read "combatants who insulted Islam?

  • "….jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against none believer/non-Muslim/Muslim combatants who insulted the Islam.The ultimate purpose…"

As said, they're only small tweaks 86.27.191.102 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my God, thank you! We usually don't get plainly stated requests for actual changes with good reasons behind them. I've carried out those fixes. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Expand v conquest[edit]

I altered the text to refer to the Caliphate's expansion as conquest, and had the edits reverted as being NPOV. No - if a large army turns up and imposes a new political rule on my country, I have been conquered. That's what the Caliphate did; the fact that it's embarrassing to Muslims makes the reversion suspicious. Let's not mince words here. Expand covers everything from the EU's expansion to include 28 countries from its original 6 by voluntary agreement through to military conquest. 'Conquest' removes that ambiguity. It was achieved by military might; let's use words accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender's Shadow Snr (talkcontribs) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral regarding this matter, but you edits are absolutely POV.Septate (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Muslim conquests? To try and deny Islam was not often spread by bloodshed is absurd - just as absurd as suggesting Christianity wasn't either. Stop taking history personally. Somchai Sun (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree. "expand" is a POV euphemism and "conquest" should be used. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User Septate[edit]

A specific problem among others from Septate's edits that I would like to bring up is the issue of "fastest growing religion" in the lede. The long held consensus was to say "arguably" fastest growing major religion till it was changed recently. As already explained in a talk page section above, one of the sources cited to say Islam is the fastest growing religion actually says that the Bahá'í Faith is the fastest growing faith, so I removed it for being irrelevant. Septate keeps reverting the edits but it would be helpful if the user would explain on the talk page what the user is thinking. Septate claimed in the edit summary "Islam is the fastest growing major religion and bahai faith is fastest growing minor religion" but the user should understand we should not just have to take his system of classification. Even the source that he keeps restoring calls Bahai the fastest growing "major" religion. Sodicadl (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

'Arguably' was not removed recently, in fact it was added recently by you. Furthermore all sources except one state that Islam is the fastest growing major religion. Bahai faith may be growing with respect to percentage but Islam is growing with respect to both percentage and absolute population growth. Hence, Islam is the fastest growing religion in absolute numbers.Septate (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The history page is available for you to check. "Arguably" was maintained for a decent time, then changed to 'one of the fastest growing', which is fine as it is saying the same thing. It was changed in March this year to "fastest growing". You are repeatedly not addressing what I point out, which is frustrating. You said "you can't just remove the source to support your claim." As explained above, the source I removed was against your claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion. "All sources except one" which is another reason it is arguable. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, as you surely know, not Septate's judgement how to weigh absolute growth versus proportionate growth. I hope you make my effort to write this worth it by addressing what I say. Sodicadl (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles surah[edit]

Why not made the articles surah Al-Qur'an? Irvanputrautama (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The article Sura deals with the individual chapters, while the article Quran deals with the whole book, and this article deals with the religion of Islam.
We write articles according to secondary sources, which would be academic discussion about primary sources. In other words, the article about the Quran cites scholarly books about the Quran. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Region's pro Ismam / Region's Now - Islam[edit]

Region <Bruxelles-Brabant> not heard of Wallonia but to Flandre. (or, move it to the real topic: Flandria, Belgium, Brussels, Wallonia Islamism, anti-Islamism, Arabism / Anti - Arabism, fascism / anti - fascism, racism / anti - racism) Iederzujnhui (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Think they're asking for a link change...not sure...--Somchai Sun (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
None of the relevant words seem to be present. He's also posted pretty much this thing at Talk:Quran. Maybe he's trying to do some sort of search indexing? I've seen that sort of text show up on sites that rely on posting the dictionary to turn up in search results. WP:CIR block, maybe? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia PROMOTING the Caliphate issue[edit]

The page on Islam has repugnant pictures of Angels and Ottoman Sultans who claimed to be Caliphs...perhaps in the future Wikipedia will post pictures of the ISIS leader and promote more extremism...shame on you people182.182.58.247 (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Your accusations are unfounded. Somchai Sun (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Accusations are unfounded to the point where I'm tempted to just blank the conversation under WP:DENY. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014[edit]

The definition given in the first paragraph of Islam is not accurate, and reflects only the opinion of Muslims, while ignoring the opinion of secular Muslims, and secular scholars of Islam. a paragraph needs to be added to describe the position of secular scholars. it should state:

"From a secular point of view, Islam is a monotheistic religion dedicated to the worship "Allah", a Pagan Arabic diety. Allah was the name of the moon (the crescent) which was worshipped as a diety in Arabia for hundreds of years prior to Islam. Subsequently, the title "Allah" was used for the star, the planet Venus, the morning star. In Islamic theology, the star had supremacy over the crescent. This is the origin of the crescent with a star on top of it, depicted on most flags of Islamic states. This concept of worshipping the one and only God, Allah, the planet Venus, is extensively asserted in the writings of the early Muslims. The idea of Allah as an invisible God, which is not a star, is later development. This concept was borrowed during the Ummayad era from Christians and Jews in Greater Syria. This concept was never present in the original thought of earlier Muslims."

Source: Islam in the light of History, 1st edition, 2004. http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Light-History-Rafat-Amari/dp/0976502402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405708003&sr=8-1&keywords=islam+in+the+light+of+history

Ahmadabdalmaseeh (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The book you're citing is Christian fundamentalist propaganda, not what "secular Muslims" believe, or even any academic believes. It's not even common Christian doctrine, as even the Catholic Church acknowledges that they and Islam share the same deity. It's also not Muslim doctrine either. More to the point, this site sticks with secular academia, which holds that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same deity, and that Allah and Elohim both derive from the proto-Semitic *Ilu-. No one is going to carry out your request. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


I agree, this article is not accurate to what Muslims and Christians believe.
1. God (the God of the bible) and Allah (not "God" but "The God") are not the same deity. Muslims believe Allah is one, Surah 4.171: "...so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son." Christians believe God is a trinity (Three in one, The Father, The Son and Holy Spirit) 1 John 5:7-8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Christians believe Jesus is the son of God. Muslims do not accept Jesus as the of Allah. God and Allah cannot be the same as they contradict each other. Even a small amount of research into these religions will show you this. Christians do not accept Allah as God, and Muslims definitely do not accept the God of the jews and the Christians as Allah.
2. This article continually refers to Allah with the name "God", even misquoting the Quran 112: "Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." In the Quran it does not say "God" it says "Allah", even in English versions. This is how he is referred to in the Quran:
"YUSUFALI: Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
PICKTHAL: Say: He is Allah, the One!
SHAKIR: Say: He, Allah, is One."
This blatant misquotation of the quran, and the continual replacement of the word "Allah" is inaccurate, and is a purposeful misrepresentation of both the Islamic and Christian religions. All references to Allah should be changed from "God" to "Allah".
By the way Ian.thomson Catholics and Christians are also not the same and do not believe the same things. They are separate religions, no sound Christian denomination acknowledges Allah and God as the same being. It is inaccurate to lump them both together as the same religion (although I acknowledge they are very similar). Jgormanart (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't have any reliable sources, and your original research (which we don't accept) shows a fanatic bias and is simply wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Fanatic bias? How am I a fanatic? I am not a fanatic. I was simply pointing out the differences in each religion and the way the article is written is not accurate to either religion. I used quotes from the texts these groups use, Quran and the Bible, which is accurate to what these groups believe. I was trying to bring to light falsies in the writing, so I stated what these religions believe. There's no need to attack me, that just shows me how unprofessional the editors are here. I was trying to bring it to light so SOMEONE can fix it. (Maybe I should have made a new edit request? I not very familiar how this website work, excuse me for this.) I wasn't trying to start trouble or be a fanatic, I was trying to be true the these beliefs. You may have misunderstood me, when I said that I agree that the article was inaccurate, I was agreeing that article was inaccurate (not agreeing with the "moon god" part). Please show me how I am "Simply wrong". Do you not agree that the quote used (Quran 4.171) in the article was change from "Allah" to "God". I believe that is misquoting the reference because a deliberate change was made. Jgormanart (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
First, your own interpretations of Muslim and Christian dogma is not of any interest to anyone but yourself, I'm afraid. We use reliable sources when publishing material on Wikipedia. Second, the Prophet Muhammad most certainly regarded the God of the Bible to be his God, he claimed Christianity, the Bible/Torah etc to be corruptions of the original "one true religion" aka Submission/Islam. You just need to read the reliably sourced material on this page to discover that for yourself. Third, the wording of "Allah/God" seems to be nothing more than a wording preference, many Muslims use the term "God" when describing their mystical bearded dude in the sky, in the same way Arab-speaking Christians often use Allah to describe their mystical sky-dwelling bearded dude. Allah being translated into God in English is widely accepted and used.

And four, nobody was attacking you, rather critiquing your commentary. If you're going to make fallacious claims such as "Catholics are not Christians" (they most certainly are) and "Allah is not the God of the Bible" (This is not the article on Christian views of Islam) then prepare for some strong responses. FYI, I don't think you're a troll, but personal commentary is not really welcome here. I have some views on Black Holes, yet I seriously doubt they'll ever make it into main-stream academia :P --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify, Catholicism And Evangelic Christianity are not the same religion. According to BBC "Catholicism, however, is distinct from other Christian churches in both its organisation and its teaching." It is separate. Yes, people refer to many different beliefs under the term "Christian" but they are different. Similar yes, but different beliefs, different doctrines. That is not my opinion, nor my commentary, that is just how it is. But anyway, that's not the main point here.
Allah is his name. That is what Muslims believe. I am not trying to show a christian view of Islam, or a PERSONAL view or opinion, so stop reprimanding me, I am advocating for a more accurate view of Islam. When a person embraces Islam, he say: "I bare witness that there is no GOD but Allah, and Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger." The "no GOD but Allah" means that Allah is the supreme GOD. The word Allah comes from the Arabic word “ilâh” meaning “deity, god, divine being” combined with the definite article “al”. Put together, they make “al-Ilâh” or literally “the God” which was then brought together as “Allah”. The name therefore, literally means "the One and Only God".
Referring to Allah simply as God, I think confuses the two religions. I was suggesting changing the wording from God to Allah because I believe it to be more accurate to the Islam, since in the Quran that is how he refers to himself.(Personal note: I have know many Muslims, and have even had Muslim roommates, and have never heard them refer to Allah with the english word god.) You still cannot deny that the quotation from the Quran is inaccurate because it was misquoted. Isn't that a personal preference of the writer to change the quotation from "Allah" to "God"? It is confusing, I am saying Allah should be referred to his his name, Allah.
Yeah telling someone they have a fanatic bias IS a personal attack and highly unprofessional. The only reason I have for comment is to promote a more accurate article of Islam, no to push a personal agenda, I apologize if it came across that way. I was using the text because that is that these religions are based on. Jgormanart (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgormanart (talkcontribs) 19:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You are speaking from ignorance of both Islam and Christianity and also of the English language. This is just your half-baked ill-informed point of view that is based on nothing but your own quite childish analysis. Your personal views have no interest for Wikipedia. We only report what reliable sources say. Millions of muslims across the globe, when they speak English translate Allah as God. Look at this Saudi government website. You will see that the Shahada is translated by the Saudi government (whatever else one may think about them, they are not known as supporters of shirk) as "there is no god but God...." etc. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Forced Conversion[edit]

Since most of the growth of islam is due to forced conversion, we should have a section discussing this, both historically and in the C21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.113.101 (talkcontribs)

And what are your sources for this statement? --NeilN talk to me 23:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)