Talk:Islam/Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Basic Rules

I've checked both the Quran and Islam articles, neither of them mention with any specificity the rules Muslims commonly abide by. I know for a fact that murder is against the teachings of Islam, despite what some believe, but I don't really know much else about the religion, and I don't have access to a copy of the Quran, particularly one in English...--69.235.142.87 22:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Sharia. We also have multiple English translations of the Qur'an on wiksource, listed at wikisource:Qur'an. Dmcdevit·t 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sharia is Islamic law, established in some Muslim countries. If you need access to many different teachings of Islam click here [1] or if you need access to many different websites with teachings of Islam click here Dmoz.org Open Directory Project: Islam. Hope that helps, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hagarism, Moghuls

An anon added a long discursus re Wansbrough, Crone, and Hagarism. I don't think this is necessary. If the anon wants to detail the theory in an article so we can link to it, fine. However, Wansbrough is dead, Crone has abandoned the theory, and it's academically defunct. Pining for the fiords.

Someone else added a long bit to Islam and other religions vehemently defending Islam against charges of intolerance. Not everything needs to be shoehorned into the main article. There's another, breakout article. The few paras in the Islam article are just meant to be a summary and a pointer. Also ... the addition is arguably POV. Zora 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fastest growing religion?

The article claims that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. I have just two questions:

What, exactly, does that mean?
Can we have a source for that assertion, please?

I read the last discussion about this in Archive 9, but the debate there seemed to be less than fruitful. --Ashenai (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

-I would assume that by fastest growing it means that it has more new members in a set period of time as compared to other religions. This seems logical considering the average family size of Middle Eastern families. However, I have no source to back that up, I didn't write the article. Avengerx 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone put that in there and then it didn't get removed, probably because it was far back in a string of edits reverting vandalism (which is ongoing). This can happen when editors (such as myself) glance only at the diffs. I removed it. It is not verified or verifiable. Zora 19:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's at least make a simple google search before removing things as unverifiable. [2] Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That does seem convincing. Thanks! :) --Ashenai (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's an old news story (1997) and journalists, writing in a hurry, often get things wrong. It sounds like a puff piece with info provided by a Muslim organization. An article by a demographer would be more convincing.

When you say "fastest growing" it sounds as if Islam is making lots of converts, but you have to correct for high population growth rates in many Muslim-majority countries. Once population growth is subtracted, it's not at all clear that Islam is attracting more people than it loses. Info re building of mosques in the US possibly reflects immigration, not conversion (though this is complicated by the wholesale move of the main group of Black Muslims into Muslim orthodoxy). Until there's some scientific consensus, it seems wisest to leave out "fastest-growing", which seems to function mainly as a boast. Zora 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, why would you subtract population growth? The title is for Fastest Growing Religion, which a high population growth could affect. If the title was "Most Number of Converts", then you'd be 100% correct. However, we must factor in population growth. Avengerx 22:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think "fastest growing religion" is misleading. For example, Paganism, while much smaller has by far greater year upon year uptake than Islam. While even smaller religions probably have even greater year upon year uptake (as a percentage of members). Also, most studies show atheism is growing far faster than any other mainstream relgion. If Islam is quoted as the fastest growing religion a side-note should be appended stating that atheism and smaller religions such as Paganis) are not being counted - Canderra 03:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are some info (Islamic resources are not included for neutrality reasons):

In the World:

On April 17, 1997, CNN said that Islam is the fast growing religion. [3].

In contrast, The Christian encyclopedia (David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 16-18) gives a different picture with many statistics concluding that Islam is not the FGR.[4].

A book by Robert Morey: "Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World's Fastest Growing Religion." [5]

PBS (a private, non-profit media enterprise owned and operated by the nation's 349 public television stations) states that Islam is the FGR. [6], [7]

Daniel Pipes ("A Christian Boom", New York Post, November 26, 2002) argues that Islam is not the FGR. [8]

In the US:

A survey of the University of New York (between 1990 and 2001, restricted to the US). It shows that Christians showed about a 0.05% growth in numbers, but a 9% decrease in percentage of the total population. Muslims showed an impressive 109% growth during that time. There was in contrast 1675% growth in Paganism. [9].

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine (May/June 1996, pgs. 13, 107 ): Muslims in America: The Nation’s Fastest Growing Religion by Washington-report.org

On November 21, 2001, The Seattle Times reported that Islam is said to be the fastest-growing religion in this country, with 6 million to 7 million adherents. Since Sept. 11, some mosques, especially on the East Coast, report up to four times the average number of converts. And many of them are women. [10] (an account registration is required to check the archive).

On September 8, 2002 In These Times, a publication of the Institute for Public Affairs, featured an article entitled "The Forgotten History of Islam in America." It states that Yet the appeal of Islam in America is undeniable - indeed, it is the country's fastest-growing religion...

On July 13, 2005 the Voice of America reported, Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the United States... [11]. (I believe some wikipedians know a lot about this article.)

On October 1, 2005 The Rake magazine reported in an article called "Who Are the American Muslims?" that Islam is America’s fastest growing religion [12].

In Europe:

On October 1, 2003 The New York Times reported that while people here [France] have grudgingly accepted a growing Muslim presence in their midst, many still resent displays of religious and cultural symbols suggesting that the country's second largest and fastest growing religion is here to stay... [13] (An account registration is required)

On November 27, 2003 The Washington Post ran a feature article stating that Muslims represent the fastest growing-group in Europe, a boom fueled by high birth rates as much as immigration. [14]

On May 16, 2004, Malta Today published that Europe is the home to a diversity of different religions, and it is no secret that the fastest growing religions in Europe are not the Christian religions but Islam. Malta is unique in this respect. [15]

On June 26, 2004 Reuters reported, It is only a short metro ride from Milan's chic designer stores but the city's most controversial mosque may as well be a world away... making Islam the country's second, and fastest-growing, religion. [16] (story removed)

JihadWatch.org [17] sourcing from the New York times article "Europe Fears Islamic Converts May Give Cover for Extremism" published in July 19, 2004.[18]

For any more info requests or details, there's a project lead by Dr. Diane Eck from Harvard (professor of comparative religion and Indian studies) called "The Pluralism Project" [19]. the Pluralism Project has been engaged in mapping the US growing religious diversity and sharing that knowledge in the form of publications, a CD-ROM, and outreach efforts to schools. The project is funded by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations. Subscriptions for newsletters: staff at pluralism.org. Telephone: (617) 496-2481. Fax: (617) 496-2428. Mailing Address: The Pluralism Project. 1531 Cambridge St. Cambridge, MA 2139

-- Cheers -- Svest 22:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Quotes re Islam being the fastest growing religion IN a certain country don't prove anything, since most of that growth comes from immigration, and high birth rates among immigrants (Third-world immigrants to developed countries usually have much higher birthrates than populations that have gone through the demographic transition).

I have an idea -- since this debate keeps coming up again and again, and it can't really be handled in an overview article, how about moving all the info here on the talk page to Demographics of Islam? Then we could add a link somewhere in the body of the article. (NOT in the opening para -- that is really too much "boasting".) Zora 23:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You're still not accepting that high birth rates can rightfully contribute to Islam being the Fastest Growing Religion. Why should we discount this major factor? Avengerx 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Rightfully? Is having high birth rates something to be proud of? It's usually associated with poverty and backwardness. I'd also say that it's environmentally irresponsible. Zora 23:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I could drag it out of you. You are intent on making value judgements about Third World cultures, rather than debating the issue at hand. I am an athiest American with absolutely no ties to Islam, however I can accept that the high birth rates of the third world make Islam the Fastest Growing Religion. If this were a debate of the dangers of population growth, I'd agree with you whole heartedly. Unchecked population growth is one of the most dangerous threats to global health. However, the debate is whether or not Islam is the fastest growing religion. By accepting that Islam is spread through the high birth rates of third world countries, (as well as richer Arab countries), we must concur that Islam is the Fastest Growing Religion. Do you agree? Avengerx 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering about all this fuss! Certainly, Islam is the FGR in terms of birth rates (re poverety, etc...- which is a fact) and not in terms of converts (which is more likely to not be the case). - Wrong. Converts of natural religions (mostly in Africa) convert to 2/3 to Islam and 1/3 to Christianity. I don't have any number of conversions between Islam and Christianity although Islamic converts are most certainly more numerous. What determines the quality of a religion is it's content and this discussion should focus on that!

It is not the case to be proud of or not, we are discussing facts in WP. All the planet know that the Muslim world is the most poorest of all societies. The issue here is about facts. This is what should be mentioned in the article: Islam is considered to be the FGR is terms of birth rates. Period! Why add or reduce anything from that? - because it's wrong.

Excerpts from The Christian Research Institute[20]:

"Is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world? Is it the fastest growing religion in America? The demographics tell us that the answer is yes to both questions.

According to most reports, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.( Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 183; Miller, 396–400.) For example, in Europe, according to United Nations statistics, between 1989 and 1998 the Islamic population grew by more than 100 percent (to about 14 million or 2 percent of the population).(Wendy Murray Zoba, “Islam, U.S.A.” Christianity Today, 3 April 2000, 40.) At the current rate of growth it is estimated that Islam’s population by the year 2025 will be 1.9 billion (about 24 percent of the total European population).( J. Dudley Woodberry, “Missiological Issues in the Encounter with Emerging Islam,” from The World of Islam CD (Colorado Springs: Global Mapping International, 2000).)

Just how is the Muslim population growing? The growth rate of Islam in Western nations (including the US and Canada) primarily comes through: a high Muslim birth rate and immigration (e.g., Muslims moving to the United States), not from converts (non-Muslims becoming Muslims). As we shall soon note in regard to converts, however, two groups are vulnerable to Muslim evangelism.

Nevertheless, both Christian and Muslim sources assert that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States. (Edward Gilbreath, “How Islam Is Winning Black America,” Christianity Today, 3 April 2000, 52–53)

While specific figures may be debated, what cannot be debated is the phenomenal growth of Islam. According to United Nations statistics, the Muslim population in the United States grew by 25 percent between 1989 and 1998.30 In 1990 there were only about 50 Islamic schools in America. Today the number is over 200.31 Since about 1990 the number of “registered Islamic centers and mosques” has tripled to “more than 2,500.” (Ba-Yunus, 20; Dretke, 1)

Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 183; Miller, 396–400. Wendy Zoba in a Christianity Today cover story entitled “Islam, U.S.A": “Islam is gaining most of its U.S. converts in prisons and on university campuses. The majority of American converts to Islam — 85 to 90 percent — are black.”(Zoba, 42.)

African-Americans make up an estimated 42 to 45 percent of the Muslims in America. (Further references include, Joseph P. Gudel, “Hate Begotten of Hate,” Forward, Fall 1986, 9–11, 23–25; Poston with Ellis, 109–66; 247–61; Gilbreath, 52–53. Azim Nizamuddin, “What Muslims Can Offer America,” Islamic Horizons, March–April 1418/1998, 35; Poston, 22.

Carl Ellis places the actual number of African-American Muslims at 2.6 million. Of these, only 18,000 to 20,000 are members of Louis Farrakhan’s organization, the Nation of Islam.(Gilbreath, 53). In addition, the number of American women who marry Muslim men and convert is estimated to be about 7000 per year. (Dretke, 4. According to Dretke, this statistic is mitigated by the fact that many of these women revert back to their Christian roots when their children get older (i.e., above 7 or 8 years old). Also, cf., Zoba, 42.)" -- Cheers -- Svest 23:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I think you have a point, why don't we say, "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, largely due to the high birth rates in Middle Eastern countries." Can we agree on this? Avengerx 00:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, largely due to the high birth rates." Period! Are you aware that Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nigeria do not belong to the Middle East?! -- Svest 00:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

Putting birth rate material in the intro paragraph of the article is absurd. Perhaps an (*) can be used? Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please Svest, let us not get furious over a syntax error of mine. Sorry, I did make a mistake by mentioning solely the Middle East. I think Anonymous Editor has an idea, though I know not how to implement it. Avengerx 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize Avengerx. It was not personal. AE's always got ideas ;) -- Svest 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Sorry

Thanks mate. Avengerx 00:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why has no one picked up my suggestion re putting all of this in Demographics of Islam? And then linking? Zora 00:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Zora. That's the most obvious solution. The material should be inserted after the Main article:.... stuff. -- Cheers Svest 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

I also agree, it just makes sense, regardless of your stance on the argument. To Demographics it should go! Avengerx 00:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually this fastest growing religion information is already present in the demographics section, but yes it should also be present in the demographics article. The original discussion is about the first line of the article (not demographics section). I think the demographics section of the article is fine as is, but it can use a link to the main article as per Svest and Zora, and also be added to the main demographics article per AvengerX. If it is really relevant to have it in the intro paragraph of the article then perhaps adding "considered by many to be the fastest growing religion in the world" with the specifics summarized in the demographics section of the article will work. :) Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Linking to main articles using format of "main articles" was successful in Demographics section. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Superb work on all parts. Avengerx 01:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I feel the time has come to merge both "Islam by country" and "Demographics of Islam". What does everyone think? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, merge, I would have done it but I've got just too darn much on my plate at the moment (looking at messy house, full of half-finished cleaning and organizing projects). Most people felt that it should go under Islam by country BUT -- "fastest growing" isn't an Islam by country kinda topic. Myself, I feel that Islam by country should redirect to demographics of Islam, not just be merged and abandoned. However, I'm probably prejudiced in favor of the title I picked, so I'm not going to make a fuss if people like a merge or redirect in the other direction better. Zora 01:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we not finally create a bleeding Growth of Islam article to discuss this in depth? This stupid issue has been holding this article hostage for ages, and frankly, who cares? The fastest growing religion (in absolute terms) is invariably the religion of the starving masses, in Africa, and in slums all over the world. Probably a mixture of capitalism and Voodoo. Maybe Christianity, maybe Islam, fine, do an article about it, but I fail to see how this is a point that makes Islam either look good or bad, so why all the fighting? Christianity started out as an underdog religion. Maybe Islam is the planet's underdog religion now. Maybe not. Just quote the demographics and be done. 81.63.114.127 18:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

2 main sects

Not happy with using the word 'sect' for both Shia and Sunni. The Shia are a 'sect'. I agree that 'sect' means any division, but the principal use of the word 'sect' is in describing a splinter/smaller group separated from the main group. Note that the Christianity article uses the word 'branches' just before giving the 3 'coherent groups' and 'denominations':

Christianity encompasses numerous religious traditions that widely vary by culture and place, as well as many diverse beliefs and sects. It is usually represented as being divided into three main branches, at least since the Reformation:

Catholicism (includes the largest coherent group, the Roman Catholic Church, including Eastern Catholics, representing over one billion baptized members),
Eastern Christianity (includes the second-largest coherent group, the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Oriental Orthodox Churches),
Protestantism (many denominations and schools of thought, including Anglicanism, Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, Anabaptist, Evangelicalism, Charismatics and Pentecostalism)

Consistency ? I think we should have some. ---Mpatel (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Firstly it's not wrong what we have now by any means. Both are sects in the sense of sub-groups which is one part of the definition. Sunnis are usually not considered the splinter group because of their size, and it does seem to me that historically speaking they probably weren't (whether they be wrong or right). Branches might be better although I believe I usually hear sects associated more with Islam, not that this justfies anything. I'd like to hear discussion on this. gren グレン 12:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's not wrong what we have at present - just that the wording should be more consistent among religious articles. I haven't looked at all the religious articles here on WP, but for consistency, I would prefer to use 'branches' (it just seems better, perhaps more neutral). ---Mpatel (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I gather that many Muslims, and Sunni Muslims in particular, object to the use of the word "sect". They all claim to represent the pure, true faith taught by Muhammad. It's those other guys that are sectarians, not them. I've learned to write around the word. Zora 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Request

Can I please urge editors to give a reference for each translation that is quoted. Sura al-Ikhlas (verse 112) as quoted (?) in the article misses out a crucial word and is slightly misleading - at least when compared to Yusuf Ali's translation. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

History should not strive to hide details

The history of islam would be incomplete if you did not state something to the effect that it was originally spread quite militantly with the approach of 'convert to islam or die by the sword'. Failure to include this makes your history incomplete and somewhat biased. At least be honest.

We don't write stuff here on WP based on hearsay and biased/mistaken/misguided opinions (although we mention those views). Bring some unbiased sources and we'll see. MP

Yes, might I add that this article is not about the history of Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, that's just not true. There was some confusion in the minds of Arabs, in the first few centuries of Islam, as to whether or not one had to be an Arab to convert to Islam. Would-be converts had to find an Arab sponsor and then be enrolled in his tribe as a client. Mass conversions were discouraged, as this eroded the tax base. Zora 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This Zorastrian influenced website would seem to contradict this and it seems there has been much research undertaken on this website: http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/offensivewartospreadislam.html

That article is not particularily credible. I'm relying on solid academic works like Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Zora 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify if the following is untrue. I thought it was common knowledge among ALL credible history books that Islamic hoards essentially conquered nearly all of the areas in which they are now predominant over a period of several hundred years. They did not just conquer and then just happen to bring along their religion as an after thought. They usually conquered in the name of Islam and with the specific goal of spreading islam. Those who were conquered were often killed if they did not convert and many converted because of fear of death or other coercion (seeing what happens to those who don't convert). Which of the following current day regions were not added to the Islamic empire in this way - someone please explain how else you think these countries were islamicized if not forcibly: Jordan, Iraq (former Babylonian area), Iran (former Persian areas), Pakistan and parts of India, All of North Africa (including Berbers), Turkey (formerly Asia Minor), Many parts of East Europe (some parts were then 'reconquered' by Christians), Spain (later mostly 'reconquered' by Christians). Why is it so hard to simply explain accurately that the expansion of the Islamic world was largely due to militaristic conquest with the explicit goal of spreading Islam? Which credible historian would deny that that military conquest played a major role in the expansion of Islam if not THE overriding and predominant role?

ANSWER: While India (Pakistan is only a few decades old) to Spain was conquered, true, only a fraction of the population ever converted. Compare India, ruled by Muslims for 700 years, with for example Post-Inquisition Spain. It is ridiculous to assert that there were systematic forced conversions over such a huge area. Almost everywhere in the M-E there are still Christians and so on, to this day.

- question: how did North and South America, Australia, Asian countries (Philippines, Russia), South Africa and many European countries get their religion?

Does this surprise anyone, since Islam's founder Mohammed was himself a warrior unlike the founders of most 'modern' religions?

- He was a warrior?!? Sure...

Was Jesus a warrior?  Was Buddah a military leader?  The attempt to omit the truth upsets me because when we are afraid to speak the truth because of political correctness - the bad things in history have a way of repeating themselves.

1. forced conversions just did not happen 2. the Religion was spread wide by Arab traders. African countries and East Asian countries which were never conquered bear witness to that 3. not every region that was ruled by Muslims has become completely Muslim (Balkans, Greece, India) 4. conversely, Central Asia, e.g, was conquered by the Mongoles and Islam was only afterwards adopted by the rulers who spread it further 5. the early wars of the Arabs had very few casualties 6. not every war that was won by Muslims was necessarily started by them 7. was it Mohammad who attacked or Mohammad who defended himself?

Aramaic/Alaha

I appreciate the edit of AustinKnight. It simply gives more strength to the discussion about Allah Vs God that was tackled earlier. -- Svest 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Thank you, Svest. Sometimes the simplest truths are the most profound. --AustinKnight 15:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Welkies AustinK. More details can be found Talk:Islam/Archive 9#GOD Vs Allah. Cheers -- Svest 18:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Good discussion. Another major point, and uncommonly known as well, is that the Aramaic for "One God" is "Khad Alaha"; note the similarity between "Khad" and "God." My educated sense is that this is the true root for God -- meaning literally "oneness" when used by itself. Too bad it isn't generally known that we need both sides' attempt to describe the Almighty...God and Alaha...to form "One God."--AustinKnight 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Literally, in Aramaic khad means one. (see George Lamsa). On the other hand, in Arabic, ahad means one! This would suggest that khad is ahad and both are one and both are God!

Surprisingly, someone else from Austin shares somehow the same opinions discussed here (not sure if your name is the same as of the guy who discusses the issue here [21]) - ;). Interesting discussion is found there. Cheers -- Svest 21:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

You know Austin...very much on the leading edge of things. :-) --AustinKnight 22:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

lol ;) Is it better than Dallas? Kiddin'!!! -- Svest 22:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Al-Ikhlas sura begins with:

Qul huwa Allahu ahadun {Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;} -- Cheers Svest 21:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

etymologically, of course, god is unrelated to Arabic; see article for a discussion. 130.60.142.65 07:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Historically, of course, that's really unknown. I found the etymology of "God" to be quite unenlightening...as expected, since "God" is a pre-historical concept. For instance, with regard to alleged "Germanic" origins for the word "God": Ah, so? Well, let's see...the concept of "God" goes back in time far, far further than Germanic races. Yes? So...what was the word for "God" prior to the inhabitation of Germany? May I suggest -- given its ancient history and relevancy -- that the Aramaic be considered as a better "origin" for "God"..? :-) --AustinKnight 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. I think you need to take a good long look at signifiant vs. signifié. The root etymology of the Germanic word is well established. If you don't find it 'enlightening' that's really your problem. Of course 'Germanic' has nothing to do with Germany. 83.77.216.101 15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me be of some assistance to you, then. The root word for "God" is unknown. It has been traced to Germanic, but that of course had a prior root itself. With respect to the word "God", the pre-Germanic "origin" is of great dispute. Does that help? --AustinKnight 16:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

With regard to "not making any sense" pejoratives: "I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it." – Pablo Picasso --AustinKnight 16:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how this discussion turned out to be out of subject! Please read the title of this section; we are discussing the relationship between the Aramaic Alaha and the Arabic Allah. -- Svest 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Criticism of Islam

Surely this article should include some mention of the many criticisms of Islam? In particular the widespread concern about the oppression of women and homosexuals instituted in the name of Islam. Canderra 03:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a whole article on the subject -- Criticism of Islam. Zora 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A brief recap -- please read

For those who have not been following this page consistently over the past year or so, I want to draw attention to the lengthy debate over the inclusion of the "apostasy and blasphemy" section here, the details of which may be confirmed by appealing to the archives of this talk page.

Here's what happened.

Certain editors insisted that a subsection addressing penalties for apostasy and blasphemy was essential this article, on the theory that an appreciation of the details connected to punishments for these crimes was central to any understanding of Islam.

I (and, if I recall correctly, other editors) argued that a] this level of detail was inappropriate to the article, and that the subject should be addressed by means of a link to Apostasy in Islam, and ...

(considerably more important than a]) b) this editorial approach was inconsistent, inasmuch as there was no separate section detailing the handling of apostasy, now or in the past, in Christianity.

Those advocating for the inclusion of the "apostasy and blasphemy" section in Islam said, more or less, "Fine. Let's be consistent. Go put it in Christianity. See if anybody deletes it."

I did, expecting that would eventually be deleted.

It was.

There is now only a link to Apostasy there -- not Apostasy in Christianity, mind you , but Apostasy -- at the end of the section entitled "Variances in Belief", which is an approach far, far less critical of Christianity than the section here is critical of Islam.

However, this deletion of the apostasy section in Christianity apparently took place during a long wikibreak for me, and after the subject had been dropped here.

I'm raising it again.

Please be advised that I'm preparing to revise the section in question, judiciously and without partisan bias, so as to ensure consistency across WP. BrandonYusufToropov 12:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a link to the apostasy in islam article, because of the complexity of the topic. There are various dimensions. --JuanMuslim 15:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

AS we can see that there arnt any sections of that sort on Christianity article , just a link to Apostasy in Variances_in_belief. A very tiny article on Jews in apostasy exists , but it isnt even linked to Judaism page . And there is no such article for Hinduism . I think consistenct should be ensured across WP , & we should follow same standards for all . So I would say , give a link to Apostasy in Islam in See_Also section . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال}^/c 20:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is unsurprising that there's no story on Apostasy in Hinduism, since it isn't clear that phrase would have any meaning. Name me a Hindu apostate! --Christofurio 20:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Name me a Hindu apostate". Okay -> Ambedkar. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ask Swami Vivekananda and Bhagwan Ramachandra about the word devadoot. -- Svest 23:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

The issue regarding the Apostasy and blashemy section was put to rest ages ago, you can re-read the archived discussions to refresh your memory as to why the consensus was to have the section as it is and you should know better than to try to revive a revert war again. --Wibidabi 12:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little mystified as to why:

a) you have decided not to address a single one of the points I raised above, and

b) you have ignored the clear consensus in the above discussion here on the talk page.

As I have been reminded on many occasions by other WP editors, the fact that an error becomes "imbedded" in a page over time is not an excuse for overlooking the error. In this case, the error is primarily one of consistency across WP. Please review the recap above very carefully before you edit this section again, and do not make edits for which there is no consensus. BrandonYusufToropov 13:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

We have been through this over and over again, so there is no need to act as though we have not. The earlier discussions on this subject are clear enough . The points you bring up are similar to the arguments which were taken up during the initial discussions. Do we have to go into another round ?--Wibidabi 13:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me be clear here. Consensus on Christianity is that this sectiion topic is irrelevant to a primary article about a global faith. Correct or incorrect? BrandonYusufToropov 13:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not spread the dispute to other pages like Christianity into this, you very well know that the topic is critically important to this article. Additionally your attempts to bring other editors into the distpute [22] seem disingenous , are you trying to strong arm you way with those tactics?--Wibidabi 14:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you were quite eager to use Christianity as the standard before the inevitable ebb and flow of rational discussion washed away the "Apostasy" section there. As for multiple editors having input to Wikipedia articles ... isn't that kind of the idea here? BrandonYusufToropov 14:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to an apostasy section in Christianity , if that is your beef then take it up there.--Wibidabi 14:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wibidabi, please notice how the Apostasy subject does not need to be added to this article because it is already in the list of Islam-related subjects or linked to this article. Apostasy has a separate article, we do not need a bulky article here about that subject. You will not find apostasy having importance in any other religion article. And I warn you one last time that if you violate the 3rr I will report you. So please do not revert again and participate in discussion instead. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ , Apostasy is an essential concept in the theology of Islam which focuses so much on believers versus disbelievers. IMHO it appears to me that you , along with other like minded Muslim editors , are mostly seeking to sweep what you perceive to be a rather unsavory topic out of sight. No offense but I would certainly welcome the views of a wider body of wiki editors rather than the same old group of Muslim Guild editors --Wibidabi 14:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The essetial concepts of Islam are the Five pillars, none of which feature apostasy. Apostasy is far from essential, if there were no Apostates then Islam would continue on as normal, thus proving how non-essential it is. Your argument does not stand. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"The essetial concepts of Sunni Islam are the Five pillars."

Apostacy is not a part of the the Shia branch or roots of religion either. Go spread apostacy in the Salafi or Wahabi articles, they love to make takfir on me and call me blasphemer and stuff... most Muslims, including most Sunnis, dont have that mind set. Al Qaeda is NOT Islam. --Striver 15:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to answer questions. Someone wants to know more about a given topic, so he/she checks the encyclopedia. Often this person will have questions he/she wants answered. The article should cover the common questions that a reader brings. One question that a reader will bring to an article about Islam is the one of apostasy. Yes, this is due to prejudice, in great part, to Muslim-bashers warning that Islam is a one-way street (you can get in, but you can't get out!). Still, it should be answered. Using the word apostasy. Yes, it's embarrassing -- because there are still Muslims who strongly believe that apostates should be killed. And some of them are killing apostates. Christians, notably, did this in the past, but they aren't doing it now. So is this a shame for Islam? Yes. Don't try to cover it up under "Variances in belief". If you think it's a blot on Islam, admit it and try to change it. Zora 18:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

To which I would add that the concept of Apostasy is more fundamental to Islam than the Five Pillars. The totality of Islam is hinged on the notion of belief and the rejection and eradication of unbelief. Mainstream Islam cannot tolerate unbelief and historically has always taken extreme measures to destroy unbelievers and apostates when it could. For a brief period in the 9th and 10th century some schools of Islam demonstrated a diffent approach and a successful one , of tolerance and creative inquisitiveness as in Spain Al-Andalus , but those schools were quickly labelled as heretics and apostates by Mainstream Islam and quickly replaced by the purist intolerant version. When Islam is dominant in a region then the Islamic state inevitably will take steps to undermine and depower any other belief system . When Islam is not wholly dominant then it uses more surreptitious means to accomplish the same ends. The goal is always the same , the eradication by force or by suffocation , by the state or by the mob or by assasination of all unbelievers at any cost.[23] --Wibidabi 18:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In this I think you're wrong, Wibidabi. I certainly don't want the Islam article modified to express your beliefs in an inherently intolerant Islam. Islam, in history, is just the sum total of what believers have done, and believers have, at various times and places, been cosmopolitan and tolerant. At other times and places they have been murderous bigots. Same is true for just about any religion! IMHO, this says something about humans and not about any specific religion. Indeed, your belief that Islam, and Muslims, are inherently evil might be an illustration of the same mindset that kills apostates. Zora 18:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora : Well irregardless of my opinion or yours, go to BBC news and explain to me what you see in the headlines.--Wibidabi 18:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ordinary Muslims, in modern times, who convert to other religions regularly recieve death threats from other Muslims, even in North America. Many specific examples can be cited, eg: 1999? - North America: James A. Beverly, professor of theology and ethics at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, ON, Canada writes a monthly column in Faith Today magazine. He said that he met with a former Muslim, who is now a Christian, at some time before 2000-JAN. That individual left Islam, remains living somewhere in North America and has become the target of death threats because of his apostasy. He feels that he has required police protection. Things like this are no longer prevelant in Christianity, Hinduism, etc. (and may never have been).
Public apostasy from Islam is punishable by death according to state law in several present-day Muslim countries and this practice has seen wide-spread practice in modern times through the state aparatus or through rioting mobs, vigilante groups, terrorists, or "lone gunmen." No such parallel exists in other religions. This is a human rights issue that is extrmemely relevant to Islam in modern society but is non-existant in other present-day religions such as Christianity and Hinduism.
Many Muslim wikipedia editors have an axe to grind against Christianity and Hinduism. We have people from the Indian subcontinent who are deeply entrenched in a very partisan view on Hindu-Muslim conflict. We have Brandon Yusuf who is a Muslim who converted from Christianity. He automatically tries to justify everything that is wrong with Islam by demanding that we accept that those things are equally wrong in Christianity. So he insists that the Apostasy issue in Christianity be given prominsence in a seperate article on the subject as well as on the main article Christianity. This is an irrational demand as well as a violation of WP:POINT. The issue of murdering and executing apostates is not an issue in modern day Christianity or Hinduism. Perhaps these Muslim editors who have an axe to grind against Christianity and Hinduism would like to explain what, in our present-day context, makes the issue of apostasy equally important in all religions and not just Islam? Perhaps they could list a few countries where Christian or Hindu clergymen have passed official state laws making apostasy from Islam / Christianity / Hindusim punishable by death, or where there are rioting mobs and vigilantes murdering anyone who is publicly percieved as "insulting Islam / Christianity / Hindusim"?

-- Zeno of Elea 18:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well Zeno does again what he does best . Add a picture of cresent on Islam template without concensus ( because he knows Islam better than its followers ?? ), & write big paras filled with stuff that isnt much relevent to the ongoing discussion . Anyways.....

There is nobody here who has an axe to grind with Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism . Actually we have a whole group of people who have an axe to grind with Islam . They use the word Secular muslim as a camoflauge .

If anybody here would have an axe to grind with other religions , we would have been the ones invading their main articles & inserting our personal POVs/personal understanding of their religion/what we read on anti-xxxxxx sites as a fact . I dont see it hapenning anywhere.

Indian sub-continent or BYT,s conversion has nothing to do with the current discussion .

The logic here is very simple ( for people who want to understand )

Apostay isnt a very important thing in Islam , its the popular myth publicitised by people with an axe to grind with Islam . The same people are trying to do it here .

As every religion Islam is based on (1)Aqaid (Beliefs), (2) Ibadaat (Prayers), (3)Muamlaat (Practices/Deeds) . The apostasy stuff comes somewhere near the end of Muamlaat . Anybody who had the time to read Quran ( from Quran...not from phobic sites which distort the meanings ) can have an idea of what is the importance of apostasy in Islam . Monotheism , belief in prophet , prayes( five pillars) & good deeds are more important in Islam than anything else , not apostasy . What people do or what Zarqavi does isnt Islam , & anybody's personal understanding isnt gonna change Islam either . Neither will headings in the news .

There are several verses in every religion's holy book about Apostasy. If how Islam deals with it is this important , similarly it should be considered important for every religion ( I am not interested in doing this , so dont ask me )

Anybody who likes to go deep into the matter can click the links & read the apostasy article . Main article should include most important things , not something that is burried deep in Hadeeth books .

The christianity article gives a link to Apostasy article , not Great Apostasy . And no I havent got an axe to grind with Christianity . Zeno here is very fond of putting meanings in others mouth , I have had a fairly good experience of it . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال}^/c 21:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy in Islam section should be re-added to this article

The data in that section is informative and encyclopedic and relevant to the main topic of Islam.
Note:That section was blanked out by BrandonYusuf perhaps in an effort to conceal unsavory aspects of Islam from the uninformed reader. He recruited foot soldiers from the Muslim guild group of editors to back him up in his endeavor. See his messages of 10/28/2005 and 10/29/2005 BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs). He can of course do that as there is no rule against it , but it shows you the tactics used to strong arm a POV on this page. --Wibidabi 04:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

How about adding a section about Islam and persecution? The Christianity article got a large section about that subject, and several editors here seems to be very interested in this article being consistent with the Christianity article. -- Karl Meier 10:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If it's consistent with in tone, style, and level of detail with what appears in other articles on major faiths, I personally have no problem with a section on "Islam and persecution." I would like to get feedback from other editors, of course. Also, on an article of this importance and size (and just as at Christianity) I think it's a bad idea to try to add major chunks of text without consensus. Let's use the talk page to address exactly what should be in this section. BrandonYusufToropov 10:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should keep this article neat and clean. It's good as it is. Additional information including many controversial aspects are found on other articles that are linked to this article or found in category Islam. This article should remain as small and to the point as possible. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have re-added the key facts about apostasy into the article as it belongs there . If we need to go to a wikipedia vote on the matter then we can do that. --Wibidabi 13:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The section makes a concise mention and description of Apostasy and Blasphemy within Islam. It is perfectly informative and encyclopedic. Brandon and company keep reverting it but there is no reason to delete this relevant section.--Wibidabi 13:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Prior decisions must be respected. You can't just come in and override a previous decision that was based on consensus. --Juan Muslim 08:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder who this sockpuppet is

[[24]]

Does anyone have any ideas? BrandonYusufToropov 11:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, BrandonYusufToropov is harassing new editors by calling them sockpuppets without any rhyme or reason. BrandonYusufToropov suffers from sort of psychological state of paranoia that is causing him to behave this way. When I first started editing, he called ME a sockpuppet for MONTHS. -- Zeno of Elea 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he wouldent feel that way if certain people in a certain infamous group did not give him a reason to suspect it. We all know what we are talking about. --Striver 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You might recongize Striver, our resident paranoid conspiracy theorist, from groups such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy, WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild, WikiProject Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild, and of course WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild. -- Zeno of Elea 06:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

why are you talking to the camera, Zeno? Your sarcasm is hollow. You may want to remove the beam from your own eye first. Anyway, Fredwlerr certainly looks like a sockpuppet, but he made four edits and left. Not worth arguing over. Baad 08:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's not worth arguing over, why are you arguing? If you are arguing then instead of simply asserting that "Fredwlerr certainly looks like a sockpuppet" you should explain why you think so rather than what you think of my sarcasm. -- Zeno of Elea 10:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[25]. please, Zeno, if you have so much spare time, why don't you write some useful encyclopedic articles? Fair enough, so Islam is what you are interested in, but couldn't you at least pretend to have a broader interest in building an encyclopedia? How many of your 879 namespace edits as of October 7 were not immediately reverted as partisan? Do you have no other interest than telling the world about the terrible evils of Islam? dab 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Fastest growing religion

Can someone provide sources that present stats that support this statement? Thanks, ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the claim. It reads like a boast, and it's not clear how "fastest-growing" is defined. If the criteria is growth RATE, it couldn't be. Storefront churches can do better, over the short term. If the criteria is number of adherents, then it's not clear how much of that is conversion and how much is population growth rates. If the number of Muslims is growing just because Muslims have more children, then that's a strange thing in which to take pride. (We breed faster than you do, nyah nyah nyah!) It strikes me that the population growth rates are being used to justify a claim with a subtext of "More and more people are converting! Islam is unstoppable! We will win!".

This should be discussed at length, not packed into one misleading sentence. It *is* discussed at length later. Zora 19:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole idea of mentioning this in the opening paragraph is, in my view, ridiculous, but it keeps coming up. Is there any other encyclopedia anywhere that leads the entry on Islam with this? If it were true, why does it merit prominent mention at the opening of the article? Would we lead the article on Buddhism with the fact that it's the fifth-fastest growing, or the slowest-growing, or whatever? It's like leading an article on Abraham Lincoln with a claim about how tall he was. BrandonYusufToropov 19:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about the issue up there. You can find all sources relative to it there. I am wondering why Zora did remove it when she participated in this discussion that led to establish that Islam is considered to be the FGR in terms of birth rates. Was it a waste of time? ^{Wiki me up}

Even if it's true -- and I really don't care whether it is or not -- there are a lot of things that are true that don't necessarily belong in the opening paragraph of an article. BrandonYusufToropov 10:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That information is already in demographics section. If needed to expand intro, then something that is undoubted and important about Islam should be said. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions of the Prophets

In the 'Prophets' section, 202.163.102.37 has amended the text to add (Salalah ho alaihey wasalam, Peace be upon him) or (Peace be upon him) after several instances of Muhammad's name. I understand this is common practice for many Muslims, but, respectfully, it isn't common practice in common English.

I have reverted the amendments for now, but would welcome any debate on the subject. -- Caroline Sanford 10:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

We are constantly removing these from articles, and probably will be forever. Trick is to do so politely; people simply don't understand it's a secular encyclopedia.BrandonYusufToropov 10:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not really debatable. Some users are trying to build a "bot" to automatically remove the "PBUH" insertions. Obviously Wikipedia articles cannot put "peace be upon him" or "PBUH" (abbreviated form) after every mention of Muhammad the "prophet." If we did that then Wikipedia would have no integrity as an encylopedia. While the "PBUH" insertions would be beneficial to the cause of Islam, they are clearly detrimental to the cause of Wikipedia. We can only assume that all random people who edit Wikpedia are loyal Wikipedians editing in good faith. You might want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG/Manual_of_Style. -- Zeno of Elea 10:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Svest 00:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Consensus and consistency

... are fair standards and utterly relevant points of discussion for any additions to this (or any other WP) article. BrandonYusufToropov 13:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets practice what we preach then , if you want to be appear encyclopedic you should not go around recruiting proxy wiki warriors ( ie farns, irish, etc..) to fight your edit wars for you and to strongarm your POV.--Wibidabi 13:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

With respect ... discussing articles with actual, live human beings, who then choose to make edits and do so under a consistent username that everyone can track ... unless I miss my bet, all of this is what we are here for. And I believe you yourself have pointed this out quite recently. Or something very close to it. [[26]]

So we find we are very much in agreement on this, as I am sure we are in agreement about the importance of consensus and consistency. BrandonYusufToropov 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wibidabi many of us are regular editors to this page and would have participated in the discussion anyways. So using the excuse of recruting proxy warriors when all of us are established editors having made several dozen times more edits than you, is ridiculous and does not give you permission to start making major controversial additions to the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[27][28]Some more * Integral parts * of Islam . lol . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال}^/c 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes these things are important, however accuracy and factualness are far more important than consensus and consistency.
No offense but you and a group of fellow travellers have been playing a cover-up game for too long on these Islam related articles, probably because you think you can get away with it, working the loopholes of Wikipedia.
You have continually purged the facts that bother you from these pages, and if you can't do it right away you collude with other Muslim editors to help force the version you want in, and if that does not work you wait some time , often months and then try it again when you figure you might have more success.--Wibidabi 00:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to make controversial statements on high-profile articles such as this one, the least you could do is give some references for them. - ulayiti (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam yhe best way of living

islam is the best way of living,it preaches good and forbidds bad,the example for us to live in islam is the life of prophet MOHAMMED aliahiva salam

hey, the Bible teaches the same. The trick is to be a decent person, not to follow this or that prophet or messiah. The division runs between decent people (Christian, Muslim, and other) on one hand, and fanatics and/or assholes (Christian, Muslim, and other) on the other, it doesn't run between the religions. If you need Muhammad or Jesus to tell you you shouldn't be bad, you still have some maturing to do. Baad 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for personal attacks here, as well as really no constructive purpose (as I see it) to this article to be talking about one religion being "the best way of living." Seeing as how this article HAS been vandalized recently and on occasion, talking about religion/lack-of-religion being "better" or more "mature" does nothing to help the situation and is just going to provide more fuel to the fire. Northern Aurora 05:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are taking many comments of this kind seriously especially from an anon. Editors are dealing with vandalism from both sides. So no need to worry Northern Aurora. -- Svest 12:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam in Korea

Check out Islam in Korea. freestylefrappe 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Blind revert by Zora

Why do Wahais get manny lines, while Ahmadis only get a blind and total revert?--Striver 15:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This: [29] [30] is unfair. --Striver 03:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Various copyedits by Jibbajabba, Zora

I hope I've got Jibbajibba's username right. In any case, most of his/her edits consisted of changing spelling from British forms to American ones. So far as I'm concerned, this is pointless. So far as I know, both British and American spelling are accepted by Wikipedia. Aren't there more English-speaking Muslims in the UK than there are in the US? Perhaps this should be the determining factor.

I removed an unnecessary verb. Jibbajabba changed "Muslims" to "Muslims did" and I changed it back. The brief form is perfectly comprehensible and more elegant. IMHO.

Finally, I made one contentious edit. After the HUGE fights re the apostasy section, it was neutered down to "Differences in belief" and reduced to one sentence. It seems to me that that's an attempt to hide the problem. (And I regard intolerance as a problem.) You folks know that I'm not out to defame Muslims -- however, I want to go at the truth head-on. If the main article is about apostasy, then the section title should include that word too. And there should be some indication as to why this is a difficult issue. Zora 19:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasons for removing the Surah. That was probably your edit that concerned me most. The surah is the clear word from the Qur'an where the belief of the divinity of God alone is mentioned. Also the apostasy section should still be kept with the title "Variances in Belief" because it is one of the few things that differ from country to country. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I found those Qur'an quotes intrusive and not particularly useful. They induced MEGO (my eyes glaze over). A Muslim would probably feel differently but most of the encyclopedia users are not Muslims. Wikipedia makes the text of the Qur'an easily available in case any of the readers want to confirm statements made in the article.

I would feel differently about this if it were a question of a disputed Quranic passage, in which case quoting the passage (if not too long) would help make sense of the dispute.

I'm sorry, Variances in belief is just not an informative title. It could mean ANYTHING. The main article is about apostasy and blasphemy, and how these have been defined, and punished/not punished, over the whole spatial/temporal range of Islam. Therefore "Apostasy and blasphemy" is a direct and informative title.

I think you'll get more sympathy for Islam if you face the issue head-on. Hiding and fudging just makes you look evasive and Islam look shabby. It's an issue EVERY religion faces. What do you do about the fuggheads that do evil things in the name of something in which you believe, thereby discrediting it? You admit it and say that you don't think they are right. Zora 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your entire message mostly the ending. Are you attacking me for discussing something that you deleted? That's a lot of "you"s. And "sympathy for Islam", when all I did was ask you to explain your removal of a Surah that directly explains something that preceded it? I don't know what is wrong, but please see WP:Civility. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

AE, the last part of the message was re the preference for "Variances in belief" instead of "Apostasy and blasphemy". You did address that in your previous post.

As for quoting the surah -- it just interrupts the flow of explanation. The quote is reader-hostile and not necessary, IMHO. But I have an idea ... if you think the quote is absolutely necessary, how about putting it in smaller type, in a box off to the side? I think that they call these "info-boxes" when they do them in magazines. That way it's there, but doesn't interrupt the flow. Zora 21:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You may think that the Surah interrupts the flow, but that is where it belongs. It is an important part of Islamic belief and as a major verse from the Quran it belongs in the paragraphs of this article as does the large Bible verse in the Christianity article. I will not change the title of the "Apostasy and blasphemy" section, but that section altogether seems much more like criticism of Islam rather than basic beliefs. Also about your last message, saying "I think you'll get more sympathy for Islam if you face the issue head-on" does not sound friendly or civil and I choose to treat it as a personal attack until you clarify. It seems hostile and unnecessary. As for the boxes, they will just make the article harder to read and more distracting for the reader. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to attack you, just your position. Hmm, let's look at my language. I characterized the emasculation of the Apostasy section as "hiding and fudging". Would it have been better if I had said "evading the issue"? That's more elegant, if less direct. I said "it makes you look evasive"; I didn't say that you were evasive. Aha, I see. I should have said "it makes one look evasive". I meant a corporate you (all Muslim apologists), but you interpreted it as singular. Will you accept the emendations offered? Zora 22:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What position? All I did was question your deletion of a section of the article. I would have done that on any other article with any editor. Really not an excuse to make an attack Zora especially when you removed the section by using "copyedit" as an excuse. I would expect you to be more civil.Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Your position re the proper title for the disputed Apostasy and blasphemy section. Zora 02:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, really not an excuse to make an attack Zora. I would expect you to be more civil. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, if you want to go by numbers, there are about 1.6 million Muslims in thE UK and between 1.3 and 7+ million in the US. There's a lot of discrepency over the idea that many Muslims are distrustful of the government or don't want to answer polls or whatever (the former argument is actually true of the ones I know), but it's safe to say there are 3-4 million. --Jibbajabba 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Omar Mukhtar" and...

All,

Remember the film The Lion of the Desert? And remember the famous film Mohammad, Messenger of God (film) that you all loved to watch?

The director of these films was one of the victims of Jordan's recent bombings.

There should be links to these pages, or maybe an article like Movies in Islam ?

And there should be pages comemmorating all Islamic directors maybe.

My source of info about his death was [31].

His name was مصطفی عقاد

Be cool.--Zereshk 03:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw him last year at an ASACA (syrian cultural association) meeting. One of the few Arabs to succeed in hollywood. Here's his article : Moustapha Akkad.Yuber^(talk) 04:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Yuber^(talk) 04:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Other movies -- Talk:Muhammad/archive 2#Aren.27t there any Movies about Muhammad.3F -- Svest 11:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Apostasy

Variances in belief does not mean apostasy. Variances in belief is a vague, meaningless, wishy-washy phrase almost devoid of meaning, and completely inadequate as a description of the issue. Some Muslim-majority countries punish or execute people deemed apostates and blasphemers! Some have these laws on the books, but don't enforce them! I don't think there are any editors here defending these laws, are there? We can take it that no one approves of them?

Given they're on the books of at least "[s]ome Muslim-majority countries", I think we can safely assume that someone approves of them (even if we might find them barbaric). Remember, wikipedia is not just for the editors. — JEREMY 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Then let's not try to hide them. After all, the main article makes it clear that only a few states have such laws, and even fewer actually enforce them. Zora 19:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I for one have no problem calling the section "Apostasy and blasphemy," as that's certainly what's under discussion. Where I draw the line is using the section to launch propaganda missiles in a manner that has no parallel in other articles on major religions. BrandonYusufToropov 19:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Signature-fiddling

I've just gone through this page and (against normal protocol) changed the html tags in several users' sigs, because they were affecting the text following them. Having done so I discovered that my own sig is (now) broken. I suspect the problem is due to a system-wide change that will almost certainly have to be reversed because of the chaos it has caused, making my efforts redundant. I hope I haven't offended anyone by these actions. — JEREMY 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone cares, the Village Pump indicates that problem was that HTML-Tidy has/had been turned off temporarily while technical problems were fixed. When it's switched back on, the sig problems will vanish again. Doh. — JEREMY 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Symbols

I've been thinking. If Islam is a green-colored religion, then what colors would be associated with other religions...?

My guesses:

Judaism - blue - the blue of the tallis and the Israeli flag. Christianity - brown (the Cross). Shinto - red (the color of the torii gates, oftentimes). Numerous religions, including Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Shinto - gold (there are or were numerous golden shrines, including the Dome of the Rock and at least one of the ancient Temples on the Temple Mount, and Amaterasu has a symbolic golden mirror). However, I have yet to come up with any particularly symbolic color for Baha'i, or Buddhism (other than that golden shrine in Japan), or Jainism, or Caodaism...204.52.215.107 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sufism

The Sufis (whirling dirvishes, Christian-hybrid shrines, etc) are not Muslim. --Answar 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

comments left on the article page by an anon IP that belong here

- I would like to bring to your notice of this quranic verse which states: - - "Everything good that happens to you (O Man) is from God, everything bad that happens to you is from your own actions". (4:79) - - Which contradicts the english version of the muslim creed stated above - "that Good and Evil are from God", only good is from god, the bad ones is your own responsibility. - - Please correct as applicable

These were the comments left by an anon IP on the article page. I'm adding these here as the regular editors of the page may want to consider the same. --Gurubrahma 05:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

210.187.7.122 Response to Zora (You Keep Reverting My Changes)

I keep getting all my edits reverted by Zora as soon as I put in my additions. My edits are not da'wa related but they are based on facts. Most of the times the paras are incomplete so I shoulder them up with my comments. I would request Zora to confirm whether she is a practising Muslim who continuously update her Islamic knowledge or is she merely a researcher at the academic or university level? I note that Zora is an orientalist with most of her info on Islam coming from non-Muslim text like the ones she got from Cambridge. Her research seems to come from academic books from libraries of American universities. Since these people are not actually PRACTISING Muslims, nor attend classes or have in depth knowledge (to the levels the ulamaks possess), I believe they should not be accepted as qualified contributors on the article of Islam in Wikipedia. The orientalist books are way, way too shallow on Islam and do not even consititute a significant percentage of the total Islamic knowledge library. If one hasn't studied to become a practising medical practitioner, I don't believe one should pretend to be an expert and start diagnosing diseases and giving treatments and medications out to innocent patients. So I would suggest that Zora live it to real practising Muslims to maintain the Islamic entry in Wikipedia. I do not believe that orientalist views on Islam (meaning Western academics who study Islam but do not practise or believe it) should be entertained in Wikipedia.

This gentleman also left a message on my talk page, where he's a little more explicit about the responsibility of Wikipedia to present TRUE Islam and dismiss the views of deviationist sects. I suggest that he read WP:NPOV. Perhaps it may make an impression. Zora 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

To the anonymous Muslim fanatic: please note carefully that this is an infidel encylopedia. -- Zeno of Elea 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be NEITHER an infidel nor a Muslim encyclopedia. Zora 02:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a secular encylopedia, which means that it is an infidel (kafir) encylopedia. -- Zeno of Elea 02:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, might I ask why you have to make such comments? gren グレン 07:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

IP 210.187.7.122, one of the most important concepts of neutrality is that we will not recognize one group within the broad scope of Islam as we define as being correct. All groups claiming to be Islamic are (if they are notable enough to be mentioned in the first place) and if they do have serious opposition from within the Muslim community than that is noted. Please read WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If your view is as it is this might not be the right place for you... because, you have to comply with those poilcies. If you can then welcome, there will never be a shortage of fun... and... well, discussion about these rules. However, if you believe as you do then I'm sorry that wikipedia cannot have editors that go against its core rules. gren グレン 07:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a secular encyclopeida, its a neutral encyclopedia. You dont get to say "there is no god" or "miracles are imposicle". --Striver 10:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"This is not a secular encyclopeida ... You dont get to say "there is no god" As long as you don't get to assume the existance of Allah, this is a secular encylopedia for all intents and purposes. -- Zeno of Elea 05:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I read WP:NPOV and note that it is a core policy of WP. But let us make sure that this doesn't override the truth or what is accurate/correct/right. By this I mean if WP:NPOV simply allows letting a minority say 2+2=5 for the sake of maintaining his or her point of view and then having to include this in to maintain a neutral perspective, would this be correct or ethical? In relation to Islam, there are 71 deviationist sects and there is only one right path in Islam so including every sect point's of view could be a very dangerous path to follow. I guess this IS a problem when including an entry such as Islam in an encyclopaedia. One simply cannot insert faith as an index. However I DO accept that NPOV is a core rule in WP but I would however hope that management in WPOV would at least consider my comments i.e. whether truth or NPOV should prevail.--210.187.7.122 11:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"I read WP:NPOV ... let us make sure that this doesn't override the truth ... I DO accept that NPOV is a core rule in WP but I would however hope that management in WPOV would at least consider my comments ..." Management just sent the word down: you are fired. -- Zeno of Elea 05:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue, 210.187.7.122, is that while there is a truth no doubt we cannot assume our human faculties know this truth. We are therefore agnostic in a most rudimentary sense. If I was Ahmadiyya, you are Shia, and Zeno is Sunni then we will likely have, to some degree, differing beliefs in what is the truth. If we all come together to write an encyclopedia we would get nowhere if we all claimed our views were the truth. So, what we do is report our views because there is no agreement on truth. So, you are correct in what you say, but what you ask for is beyond our human faculties. I sure we could get into a long debate over these points but I merely mean to point out that there cannot be any general knowledge encyclopedia for release to everyone if we make the assumption that one faith is true to the exclusion of others. You must be willing to write objectively (neutrally) about the beliefs of the sects without placing value judgment on them. The moment you push the faith judgments of one group you have gone beyond neutrality. If you believe you know the truth then maybe you are one of the lucky few, but you cannot write about them here as if they are truth. Truth may lose out to neutrality, but in the end it's the only viable way when an agreement on truth cannot be reached. gren グレン 08:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Truth may lose out to neutrality" factual accuracy is one of the cornerstones of any encylopedia, including this one. it is quite erroneous to assert that truth and neutrality can be mutually exclusive. -- Zeno of Elea 08:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Gren. I accept your point. Well said. 210.187.7.122 05:45 pm, 25 November 2005 (UTC)