Talk:Islam/Archive 25

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 20

←

Archive 23

→

Iman

{{main|Aqidah|Iman}} needs to be replaced with {{main|Aqidah|Iman (concept)}} - 58.8.15.66 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

~~Why? Please give a reason below, and then change {{tn|editsemiprotected}} back to {{editsemiprotected}}. Thanks, 58.8.15.66 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)~~

Done (sorry; didn't understand at first) 58.8.15.66 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 58.8.15.66 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

www.submission.org

Can this site be included in the External links? It is, in my opinion highly reliable and informative. It's one of the most comprehensive Islam related sites I have come across. Thoughts? Tahmid Tariq (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Shahab (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I personally think that submission.org is not a reliable source. It is far to bias and it is also rather anti-jew and anti-christian. You'll see that if you read the pages linked under the given catagories. --Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This web site represents a tiny group within Islam whose ideas are not representative. So using it as a general source is not ok. 05:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

IN ISLAM IF THE WIFE TRYS TO IMPRESS HER HUSBEND BY LOOKING NICE E.G GETTING HER EYEBROWS PIERCED, MAKEUP ETC WITHOUT PERMISSION IS THAT WRONG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.75.190 (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say its fine if the wife does so. However the appropriate place to ask this question would be the humanities desk.--Shahab (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Islam what does Islam means?

What does the word Islam means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.72.66 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh).^[1] Gavin (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In regard to this I have heard that because it contains the characters SLM that it may reference the word "salaam" (peace) within as well. If there are credible references to such a thing from qualified linguists that would be interesting (assuming that it's not just a linguistic myth). Peter Deer (talk)

Correction

Another technical meaning in Islamic thought is as one part of a triad of islam, imān (faith), amal (action) and ihsān (excellence); where it represents acts of worship (`ibādah) and Islamic law (sharia).[15]

~~Another technical meaning in Islamic thought is as one part of a triad of islam, imān (faith), and ihsān (excellence); where it represents acts of worship (`ibādah) and Islamic law (sharia).[15]~~ --Tenrai 05:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenrai (talk • contribs)

Population

Hi I have changed the sentence of the population from "between 1 billion and 1.8 billion" to "approximately 1.8 billion" + or - 800 million is almost 14% of the world population which is a big margin for error. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You made the error worse (not by %), by stating a certain amount, rather than leaving the range. Why would you take an unknown amount & make it definite? That's fabrication.68.180.38.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

How about 1.3 billion to 1.8 billion? Its hard to find sources citing a lower number than 1.3 billion.Opticals (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall I change it then?Opticals (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ORIGINATOR OF ISLAM!! 6/14/2009

THERE IS A MISGUIDING INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE STATING THAT MUHAMMED(SAW) IS THE ORIGINATOR OF ISLAM. IF THAT WERE TRUE THEN HE WOULD BE THE FIRST MESSENGER, NOT THE LAST. THE TRUTH IS, IS THAT ISLAM MEANS "SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF ALLAH" AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF ISLAM(SUBMITTING TO THE WILL OF ALLAH) SINCE DAY 1, BEFORE MAN EVER EXISTED. THE FIRST HUMANS TO PRACTICE ISLAM AND SUBMIT TO ALLAH'S WILL WERE ADAM AND EVE. THE FIRST MESSENGER TO BE SENT BY ALLAH IN THE NAME OF ISLAM WAS NOAH(ALAIHIS SALAM). SO SAYING THAT MUHAMMED ORIGINATED ISLAM IS A SMALL BUT SERVERE MISGUIDANCE AND CONTRADICTION TO THE FACTS OF ISLAM. I WOULD DEEPLY APPRECIATE IF THAT WERE CLARIFIED IN THE ARTICLE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE OR I WILL REPORT THE ARTICLE AS A MISGUIDANCE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HameedKhalil (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Muslim point of view is clarified in the second paragraph:

They (Muslims) do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

The article takes a general approach to the origin of Islam (how Islam originated thought in general around the world) and is not centered on the Muslim belief of the origin of Islam. Regards--Shahab (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I APPRECIATE THE NON BELIEVER OUTLOOK THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROMOTE BUT YOU HAVE JUST AS MUCH NON-BASIS FOR THAT "GENERAL POINT OF VEIW" THAN MUSLIMS HAVE ON THEIR SIDE OF THE ARGUEMENT, THEREFORE THIS IS A MISGUIDING ARTICLE AND I WILL REPORT IT. WHAT MUST BE REMOVED IN THE 1ST PARAGRAPH IS THAT ISLAM ORIGINATED FROM THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMED, AS HE IS THE LAST AND NOT THE 1ST MESSENGER IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. YOU MIGHT AS WELL CALL US "MUHAMMADANS" IF HE (MUHAMMED) WAS THE ORIGINATOR OF ITS TEACHINGS.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HameedKhalil (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is about the difference between theological teachings and verifiable historical fact. Historically, as an organized religion, Islam started during Mohammed's lifetime. For a parallel in a different article, see Jesus; the article doesn't say that he was the "son of God", though that is what most Christians believe, it just says that that belief is a central part of Christian theology. Whether Jesus was God's son and whether Islam started with Adam and Eve (and, indeed, whether Adam and Eve existed) are simply not verifiable truths, and it would be inappropriate to treat them as facts in a secular, neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Please ask if you have any more questions, and remember that there is no need TO SHOUT YOUR COMMENTS. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I am not promoting anything. I pointed out that both points of view are given in the article. (What I personally believe is besides the point here. On wikipedia we use factual info and not our beliefs, just like Jesus doesn't state that he was the son of God). Secondly I have no idea where you will report the article. You are welcome to report it wherever you wish. Finally there is no need to shout.--Shahab (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Then separate your opinion from islam's. MAKE THE FACT DISCLOSED THAT YOUR OPINION IS USED AGAINST ISLAMIC OPINION BECAUSE VERIFIABLLE FACT ISNT 100% FACT BECAUSE THERES STILL FACT THAT PEOPLE CANT AND WILL NEVER VERIFY, THAT JUST MEANS HISTORIANS ARENT AS SMART AS THEY THINK THEY ARE NOW ARE THEY? .... AND IM NOT SHOUTING... JUST MAKING SURE YOU HEAR ME. THANKS..! P.S., THE FURTHER AWAY FROM TIME WE GET FROM ADAM AND EVE, THE LESS WE WILL EVER KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THE 1ST TWO HUMANS ON EARTH KNEW THE TRUTH... NOT US. AND "ADAM" DID EXIST, ITS VERIFIABLE BECAUSE ADAM MEANS "MAN"... AND NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, LOGICALLY, WE CAME FROM ADAM, THE 1ST MAN WHOEVER HE WAS. SO BY YOU SAYING YOU DONT KNOW IF ADAM AND EVE EXISTED ITS SILLY AND I THINK YOU NEED TO LOSE YOUR RIGHTS TO PROMOTE WHAT YOU BELIEVE AS "FACT"ET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT SIR... I AM MUSLIM BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN IM NOT HUMAN... HUMANS GET UPSET AND YOU'VE MADE ME UPSET WITH THAT NON FACT OF A STATEMENT... THANKS ANYWAYS...

As Shahab pointed out to you above, the Muslim view is addressed in the article. The second paragraph of the reads:

Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, God's final prophet, through the angel Gabriel, and regard the Qur'an and the Sunnah (words and deeds of Muhammad) as the fundamental sources of Islam. They do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Islamic tradition holds that Jews and Christians distorted the revelations God gave to these prophets by either altering the text, introducing a false interpretation, or both.

The Muslim point of view has been addressed, in spite of your LOUD, REPEATED assertions to the contrary. Please have a look at Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral points of view, verifiability, and civility. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

lol thanks, you just made me upset by saying Adam isnt a verifiable fact, thats like saying youre not sure yet if you really exist. and we had to start from one man, counting starts at one, not 20. exerything starts at 1. Adam=Man... your "facts" are slightly off... but i see what your saying... thanks.HameedKhalil (talk

Well, actually, there's no proof that there was ever one human. Because logically, in the theory of evolution, evolution does not instantly occur, i.e. there was never a baby born where one could say: "okay, you're a human but your parents are not." but I suppose you were referring to the theory of creationism? --Île flottant (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you get upset because someone says one of your beliefs is just a belief then you need to step back and reconsider whether it is appropriate for you to be editing this article. Try to maintain a balanced point of view. I mean, from my perspective Muhammad was a heretic but that is purely my belief. If I was to get offended when other people said he wasn't or so on then how would I be able to edit constructively? We need to detach ourselves sometimes. It isn't always easy ofcourse but it is necessary. Gavin (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In The Koran 2:30-34, Adam is not described as the first man, but as a vicegerent sent by Allah to the angels on earth. Some angels on the earth respected Adam, and some did not. Among the latter were the unbelievers, for example Iblis (from "Diabolis"). Was this the original religion which Muhammed came to restore? St.Trond (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you read the story right or are missing something. Humans as a whole are all viceregents on earth, the quran uses the word khalifa, of which Adam was the first. Also that part of the narrative is from before the "fall".

Ladies and gentlemen, remember that this is not a forum for discussion of Islam in general, and any discussion of the subject matter should be related to the article and how it can be improved with reliable third-party sources. Our differing opinions on the interpretation and teachings of Islam are, without reliable third-party citation, generally irrelevant. A lot of this seems like it should be discussed more on the Islamic View of Adam page instead anyway, but that's just my perspective. Keep a cool head folks. Peter Deer (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd sentence

Can someone explain the following sentence: "In Islamic theology, divine preordainment does not suggest an absence of God's indignation against evil, because any evils that do occur are thought to result in future benefits men may not be able to see." If anything the two ideas (that God remains indignant about the existence of evil, or that God allows evil because it leads to future benefits) seem contradictory. Sestibel (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi point taken, this sentence is very ambiguous, so I have removed the sentence temporarily, can we make it read as "In Islamic theology, divine pre-ordainment does not suggest an absence of God's indignation against evil, because any evils that do occur are thought to result from man exercising free will" NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 06:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd wording of first paragraph

I'd like to make a suggestion for an edit of the first sentence of the article. Split it in half. "Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔislæːm] ( listen)[note 1]) is a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion based on the teachings of the Qur’an, a religious book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh), and the Islamic prophet Muhammad's personally demonstrated examples (collected through narration of his companions in the volumes of Hadith) for implementing them." Change the bolded section to read: "religion. It is based". Overall, the entire first paragraph is extremely difficult to read, and I think that it should be revised. I noticed the same problem with Christianity and Judaism pages. While I agree that most of the information presented at the top needs to be presented at the top, it certainly could be reworded or moved around within the top. Also, do there need to be citations at the top? Shouldn't citations be moved into the interior of the article? For example the sentence that explains the word islam and notes that it is a homograph. EVEN the Etymology and meaning section doesn't state that the word is a homograph. Why is the intro more specific than the sections? One particularly confusing sentence that shouldn't be in the top: "The word Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.237.136 (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph states that Islam is and "Abrahamic religion and SUPERSTITION"! Superstition? Islam forbids superstition and if it is a superstition than so would be Christianity and Judaism. Wikipedia does not state these other religions as superstitions and should not label Islam as a superstition. In fact, wikipedia mentions that Christianity forbids superstitions!

Friedman and Lewis References

Friedman and Lewis has been referred extensively in the article but when I checked the ref tag I can only find the authors name and the page number, there is no mention of the book(s) that it is quoted from. Does anyone know the name(s) of the book(s), which are used here? Unless the names of the books are provided we should replace these references with different ones. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 07:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Breast / intelligence

In the Etymology and meaning section, Netmonger has changed the translation of an extract from Al-An'am (6:125) from "expands his breast" to "expands his intelligence". The new version is nonsensical when restored to the context of the ayah, which goes on to explain that Allah constricts the breasts of some people contemplating Islam "as if they were climbing/ascending skywards". This is a lovely poetic play on the still-common perception of the torso as the seat of feeling and thought ("heartache", "gut feeling") via the physical sensation experienced in the chest when attempting to climb a steep hill. Using the word "intelligence" utterly destroys this image, and indeed the whole concept of faith as something beyond mere intellect. Please, can this be reverted to "breast", or "chest"? David Trochos (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of dissent, I've now reverted the translation to "breast". David Trochos (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@User:David Trochos. Just an aside: This verse is considered to be one of the many scientific miracles of the Qur'an. After man was able to fly and go up in the upper layers of atmospheric air, he discovered that the higher he went up, the less oxygen and atmospheric pressure there would be, which would cause a great difficulty in breathing and constriction in the bosom. That is what the verse has stated thirteen centuries before the flight of man. →This would be noted when climbing to altitude, particularly for older people or people with lung problems. Simple observation of an air filled bladder going into water will tell you this. No miracle needed. RJ245 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't really comment on the 'intelligence' vs 'breast' debate though, however I must say that being the rich-language that Arabic is known to be, a word could have several meanings depending upon its context. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Israr Ahmad's Theory of Revolution

Mr. Fawad Ali Lauhany has presented an eleven staged process of revolution in his M.Phil thesis, entitled, "A Critical Analysis of Dr. Israr Ahmad's Views on Islamic Revolution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawadlauhany (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

14 months and counting

Stifle originally locked this article against anonymous edits on 16 May 2008. While I appreciate this is a hot button issue right up there with Judaism and Kurt Cobain, I cannot see the catchphrase of Wikipedia's anyone can edit slide by without noting that it has been over a year since anonymous edits have been allowed on this article. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate forum to raise this issue is WP:RUP--Shahab (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To anon: so get an account. Zero^talk 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To Anon, if you have a specific change you would like to make then currently you can propose that here on the talkpage; However when wp:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions is introduced you will be able to protected articles, though your edits won't appear to the readers until they've been patrolled. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular edit to introduce at this time. I have a problem with "temporarily" locked articles that are locked beyond good sense. I have posted the same thing to chocolate and Judaism - X months and counting. If an article is, in the community's evaluation, best served by an indefinite lock then do so. Do not mishandle the temporary lock in order to "protect" sensitive articles. Silver does not equal gold. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

number of verses in the Qurʾān

There is not ONE fixed number of verses in the Q. because there are several traditions of counting, the best known difference being: is the basmala counted or not. There are many different end-of-ayas, not always resulting in a different end number, but often doing so.

One should add "some" or "according to the second Kufan system of counting" or something of the sort. 85.178.90.41 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jihad

you said that:

jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to universalize Islam.

for the expansion of Islamic state. this is totally wrong. jihad in warfare is to take back not to conquer. please change it. this would almost said that Islam is a religion that ask the believers to declare war with other countries.-a caring muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.121.180.248 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph does go on to state "Most Muslims today interpret Jihad as only a defensive form of warfare"- and historically there are issues like the military takeover of the Iberian peninsula. David Trochos (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Islam is not a superstition

{{editsemiprotected}}

The first paragraph states that Islam is and "Abrahamic religion and SUPERSTITION"! Superstition? Islam forbids superstition and if it is a superstition than so would be Christianity and Judaism. Wikipedia does not state these other religions as superstitions and should not label Islam as a superstitions. In fact, wikipedia mentions that Christianity forbids superstitions. Can the term “superstition” be excluded from Islam’s definition, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salma robs (talk • contribs) 10:30, 31 August 2009

Please change "Abrahamic religion and SUPERSTITION" to "Abrahamic religion" (remove superstition) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salma robs (talk • contribs) 10:33, 31 August 2009

Already done Welcome and thanks for pointing out this vandalism. Another editor had already noticed and reverted the vandalism before your posts, but perhaps you are seeing an earlier version because the page is cached somewhere between wikipedia.org and your browser. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Islam vs. islam

"According to Islamic doctrine, Islam was the primordial religion of mankind, professed by Adam" islam with a lower case i means a way of life, Islam with the Capital I is the religion, likewise muslim with a lower case m means one who submites themselves to God (EX: Jews, Christans, Muslims), Muslims means one who practices Islam (Beleves there is no god But God, And Muhhamed is his prophet). in that scence, Adam could not have been Muslim. sorry for any misspellings75.69.241.180 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your saying, but I suggest you read up on Islamic views of the Prophets (Peace be upon them all) & Adam & Eve. But if this is just a case of spelling then I'm not sure. And Islam is not really a way of life, it means submission to god, and a Muslim is a Submitter. But to be honest with you, I’m a Muslim and I am really not sure what you mean. Wait for someone to come along who does. --Azhar Badr (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think by the word islam the poster is referring to the general message of God which Muslims believe that God's earlier messengers brought to mankind (their varying traditions and laws are different in technicalities but fundamentally the same) and by the word Islam he is referring to the law established specifically by Prophet Muhammad (which is what the religion means to most people today). Similarly the difference between muslim and Muslim. I have not seen a reliable source which describes this difference by the spelling of the first character of the words, hence unless any reliable source is available I recommend not tampering with the status quo. Regards--Shahab (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1.57 billion Muslims i the world in 2009 (according to The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life)

A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 1.57 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion. [1] --Ezzex (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can read abouth this subject on the the Conservative Fox News' site: [Nearly 1 in 4 People Worldwide Is Muslim].Agre22 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Should the topic of Icons and Symbols be addressed?

This is a a rather good article -- but one thing I felt was missing, was a section on how Islam stacks up in the way of iconic or visual symbolism -- or the general lack thereof.

For example, many people assume the star-and-crescent is a symbol of Islam -- but this article doesn't mention it. Shouldn't the whole bit be explained that while this symbol is on many flags of Islamic countries, it really was spread by the Ottoman empire and is not strictly an official Islamic symbol?

Likewise, one could mention the reluctance to really use visual symbols among Moslems, and how this relates to the avoidance of idolatry (graven images). Even that Moslem filmmakers generally will not even show Muhammad (or even Jesus) on camera directly, out of respect.

In other words, Islam really distinguishes itself from the other five or six biggest religions in the reluctance to use (or scarcity of) symbols and images. Seems to me an introductory article should have at least a paragraph on this. Before I jump in, want to know if others agree or disagree, or if someone else wants to do it!

--Tim Musgrove —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Religious biases in Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia

While Google Translate is far from perfect, I couldn't help but notice that religious biases are entrenched in both the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedias (Hebrew having a Jewish POV and Arabic having a Muslim POV, naturally). For example, Google Translate renders the relations between Judaism and Islam in the Arabic Wiki (in the article on "Islam") as

Islam and the Jews

يعتبر اليهود في القرآن أعداء للمسلمين بل هم الأشد عدوانا للمسلمين: ﴿لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا ۖ وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُمْ مَوَدَّةً لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ﴾ [34] و من السيرة النبوية والتاريخ الإسلامي يتضح ذلك من المواقف التي حصلت مع النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم محمد بن عبد الله و يهود يثرب وجاراتها والتي انتهت بإقصاء ثلاثة مراكز لهم وهم بنو قريضة وبنو النضير وبنو قينقاع , وكذلك مشاكل الخيانة التي تكررت منهم في العهد الإسلامي [35] [36] . The enemies of the Jews in the Koran for Muslims, they are for the most aggression against Muslims:) for the most people find their enmity to the believers and the Jews who have been involved and find the nearest in affection to those who believe, who say that the Christians are priests and monks and they are not proud ([34] and the biography of the Prophet and History Islamic evident from the positions obtained with the Prophet, may Allah bless him and peace of Mohammed bin Abdullah and the Jews of Yathrib and its neighbors, which ended in excluding the three centers for them and the children and the children of Gereida Alender and children Kinka, as well as problems of treason, which were repeated in the Covenant of the Islamic [35] [36 ]."

Meanwhile, the Hebrew Wikipedia, in its article on "Islam", doesn't talk about relations between Islam and specific religions, but a few paragraphs (in the section on Sharia) are rendered by Google Translate as

Above all, Muslims must maintain five major team, called "Five Pillars of Islam". מוסלמי אשר אינו מקיימן, ספק אם הוא יכול עדיין להיקרא מוסלמי. Cayman Muslim who does not, it is doubtful he can still be called a Muslim. דבר חשוב הוא, מפני שאדם שנולד מוסלמי וחוזר בו מדת האסלאם נקרא מֻרְתַדּ (مرتدّ) ודינו מוות. The important thing is, because a man is born a Muslim and returns a religion called Islam Mrtd (مرتد) punishable by death. בפועל, לא מקובל לגנות מוסלמי שאינו מקיים את המצוות באופן סדיר, אלא אם הוא מתריס כנגד הדת. In practice, not acceptable to condemn a Muslim who observes the commandments on a regular basis, but if he defiantly against religion. הרוב המכריע של המוסלמים אינם יכולים לעמוד במסע למכה, וגם העיר עצמה אינה יכולה לקלוט מספר גדול כל כך של עולים לרגל, כך שהמוסלמים מקבלים בהשלמה את העובדה שמצווה זו אינה מקוימת על ידי רוב המוסלמים. The vast majority of Muslims are unable to journey to Mecca, and the city itself can not absorb such a large number of pilgrims, so that Muslims are resigned to the fact that this commandment is not fulfilled by most Muslims.

יש זרמים באסלאם, שמונים מצווה נוספת כמצווה עיקרית שישית, זוהי המלחמה בשם הדת, ( ג'יהאד جهاد). Streams have Islam, eighty additional commands obeyed sixth major, is the war name of religion (Jihad جهاد). מלכתחילה נקראו מלחמות מוחמד ותומכיו בעובדי האלילים הערבים "ג'יהאד", והמתים המוסלמים במלחמות אלה נחשבו כמי שזוכים לגמול מיוחד בעולם הבא (סורת אאל עמראן, 188). Wars begin with Muhammad and his followers were called pagans Arabs "Jihad", the dead were Muslims, these wars as receiving a special reward in the afterlife (Sura Aal Imran, 188). כיום הפרשנות למצווה זו נרחבת מאוד ונושאת אופי פוליטי. The interpretation of this mitzvah is very broad political nature. טווח הפרשנות נע בין הגדרת "ג'יהאד" כמאבקו של אדם ביצרו הרע ותו לא, וכלה בהגדרתו כמלחמה כוללת בכל מי שאינו מוסלמי. Range of interpretation between the definition of "Jihad" in man's struggle merely cemented the bad, to the definition in all-out war who is not Muslim.

מושג חשוב אחר באסלאם הוא " שהיד " (شهيد - המשמעות המילולית של המילה היא "עֵד", ויש חוקרים הסבורים שזהו תרגום של המילה היוונית "מרטיר", שמשמעותה זהה). Another important concept in Islam is a "Shaheed" (شهيد - literal meaning of the word is "up", and researchers believe that this is a translation of the Greek word "Martyr", meaning the same). שהיד הוא מוסלמי שמת למען הדת או תוך קיום אחת ממצוותיה. Shaheed is a Muslim who died for the religion or the existence of Commandments. מוות תוך כדי תפילה, בזמן המסע למכה, תוך כדי שליחות דתית וכדומה מעניק למנוח את התואר "שהיד". Death while praying, while the journey to Mecca, a religious mission while giving the deceased so the title "Shaheed". גם מי שנהרג בג'האד מכונה "שהיד". Even those who killed Jihad called "Shaheed". בארצות ערב מקובל להשתמש בתואר "שהיד" גם לגבי חיילים שנהרגו במלחמה. Arab countries acceptable to use the title of "Shaheed" is also about soldiers killed in war.

על פי התפיסה המוסלמית, העולם מחולק לשני חלקים: דאר אל-אסלאם (دار الإسلام) - בית האסלאם, האזור שכבר מוחזק לאזור מוסלמי, כמו ערב הסעודית וחלק מהמזרח התיכון, ו דאר אל-חרב (دار الحرب) - מקום המלחמה, האזור שבו מתגוררים אלו שאינם מוסלמים, כמו אירופה . According to the Muslim perception, the world is divided into two parts: Dar Al - Islam (دار الإسلام) - House of Islam, the region has already held a Muslim region, like Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, and Dar al - Sword (دار الحرب) - a war, the area where These non-Muslims live, like Europe. הקמת מדינה לא-אסלאמית באזור של דאר אל-אסלאם מהווה בעיה קשה בהשקפת העולם המוסלמית, ויש מוסלמים הסבורים כי אי אפשר להשלים עם מצב כזה, אלא באופן זמני ומוגבל. No state - Islamic region of Dar al - Islam is a serious problem the Islamic world view, and Muslims believe that it is impossible to accept this situation, but temporarily limited. השריעה מטילה מגבלות על לא-מוסלמים החיים במדינה מוסלמית. Sharia imposes no restrictions on - Muslims living in a Muslim country. רק בני דתות מונותאיסטיות (ובעיקר נוצרים ו יהודים ) רשאים לחיות במדינה מוסלמית והם מוגדרים כ" בני חסות " החייבים במס גולגולת ונתונים להגבלות. Only religions monotheistic (especially Christians and Jews) are allowed to live in a Muslim country and they are defined as "dhimmis" taxable skull and data limitations.

Perhaps if Jews learned more Arabic and Muslims more Hebrew, both Wikipedias would be more NPOV. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Many Israeli schoolchildren are taught Arabic as a school subject. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that it's much different for English-speaking articles, speaking as a white-as-the-driven-snow American myself. Each article language is going to reflect more the editing biases of the people editing them, it's unfortunate but it just means we have to watch ourselves carefully. Now I don't know the situation with the Arabic and Hebrew wikis, but depending on the topic there might be serious vandalism and edit warring going on and there are some pages that simply won't get the attention and care (there are plenty of those here too, and often the same subjects). So, in regards to THIS article, and THESE editors, what do you propose be done? Peter Deer (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Distinction between Sunni and Shia

The artcle spells out only modereately this fact, but you should really make it more clear what the main premise is between sunni faiths and the shia faiths. This is especially so because they are the main two factions of Islam's sub-branch casuing too many wars in the world. One farther point is to state that Muhammad (pbuh) is the main pillar of prophethood in both streams of modern Islam. I think this section could well be better explained/documented for the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.24.129 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

About the picture in the top of the article

The first picture in the article "A Muslim prays during the Hajj pilgrimage at Mecca", this is actually not praying. This Muslim is doing Dua which is different than praying. Please, someone change it. --XXx Mouri xXx (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How about changing prayer to supplication--NotedGrant Talk 13:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Performs Dua" would also seem to be appropriate. Peter Deer (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Excess of primary source citation

It seems that a lot of the sections are falling into the big no-no's of citing primary sources, the etymology section being particularly guilty, as it seems to rely almost entirely on primary source analysis. To quote the policy; "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source". Sadly this seems to be a commonality in this particular article, as the reflist will readily show.

I'd just remove them per WP:SYN, but I don't want to gut a mostly stellar article when they are technically sourced (albeit improperly). I was wondering if I could get advice and help in this regard. Peter Deer (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the primary source, i.e. the Quran is in the public domain. What is then the problem, other than that the quote to some extent has to relay the content? St.Trond (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not a copyright issue, it's a policy issue regarding synthesis of primary source material. Thus, domain is not the problem. Peter Deer (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also see WP:PSTS-Shahab (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So fellas, what's the game plan on dealing with it? Peter Deer (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I support not removing any improperly sourced sentences. I suggest that we hunt up secondary sources instead and gradually insert them. Any important issue can be debated on this discussion page. Lots of people keep this page on their watchlist and if a proper source is not being found and this is indicated here I am sure they will come forward and provide the sources.-Shahab (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As much as I hate ad-hoc citation, that's probably one of the better ways to go without disrupting the article. Tell you what, how about I tag a bunch of the stuff^{[improper synthesis?]} and give it a couple weeks, that way folks who see the article will get the opportunity to adhoc cite it and the stuff that is still an issue after that time will be visible to be dealt with. How does that sound to you guys? Peter Deer (talk)

Sounds good to me.-Shahab (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Becomes?

"These disputes over religious and political leadership would give rise to schism in the Muslim community. The majority accepted the legitimacy of the three rulers prior to Ali, and became known as Sunnis. A minority disagreed, and believed that Ali was the only rightful successor; they became known as the Shi'a.[80]"

this needs to be rewritten.. Sunnis are the Sunna followers and they are known by that name long time before accepting Ali as caliph.. hoping you got my point23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression (though I cannot cite my sources on this matter currently, which is why I do not add them in myself) that Shi'a comes from a term meaning "Party of Ali" and before the division they were all known simply as Mu'minun or Muslims. I'll need to cruise by the reference desk at some point and see if I can help out in that regard but that's just what I have on that. Of course, if you have appropriate sources in regards to your point you can cite them. Peter Deer (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Image of written name of Allah

Allah would be written: الله, however, in the image it is written لله, without the initial hamzah al-wasl. This actually changes the meaning from beginning simply the name Allah, to a construction showing ownership - the lack of this hamzah (also referred to as an alif) indicated a doubled (mushaddad) lam, or in English, "L", which is referred to as a Lam Milkiyyah, indicating ownership. Since I don't know how to work with images well, I thought I would bring this to attention of the general public, hopefully someone can fix this. Supertouch (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a properly spelled "Allah" image on the Allah page and "borrowed" it. IF anyone objects please discuss here. Supertouch (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out.--AYousefzai (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for help

i am facing a lot of problems with the article "people of the book"

i keep changing the article to the proper neutral form but there are users who keep vandalizing the article.

i would like someone to place a permanent lock on the article. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

the correct place for such a request is WP:RFPP --NotedGrant Talk 15:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fastest Growing?

I'm not certain that the term "the fastest growing religion in the world." can be used as that is a very subjective statement, thus making the statement a possible violation of WP:NPOV As the article that statement is linked to suggests, "fastest growing" differs based on criterion that is being used. I see that the article is extremely well-sourced, including that particular statement, but I don't believe any religion can be said to be the fastest growing. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that. In percentage terms, a religion which grows from two to four members is growing much faster than Islam, or any other "mainstream" religion. David Trochos (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's confusing. I trust they meant fastest growing in absolute numbers (number of people), rather than relative numbers (percentages). Which makes more sense if it's one of the "mainstream". -- DasRakel ✍ 15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

“

Islam... is the world's fastest growing religion and will soon be the world's largest. The 1.2 billion Muslims make up approximately one quarter of the world's population, and the Muslim population of the United States now outnumbers that of Episcopalians...

”

Source PBS: Islam Today

--119.73.0.119 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course! Depends on how "soon" is defined. See Major religious groups. It only requires the moslem population to somehow grow by 0.8 billion people in an overpopulated world. The article is too kind to accept such an extraordinarily biased statement, adding "arguably". I think that if a hypothetical religion ftongo (just an example) increases from 1 high priest to 1 high priest and 4 adherents, then ftongo is growing the most, by percentage. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles of faith

In the current article it says: "...all of God's messengers since Adam preached the message of Islam — submission to the will of God."

According to the Quran (3,33), the will of God is currently brought to the nations by the descendants of Ibrahim and Imran. Proposed addition after the sentence above is:

"According to Islam the will of God is currently brought to the nations by the descendants of Abraham and Imran." —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Islam, (derived among other things from Quran 30:30, and interpreted through Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Numbers 441, 467) every human being is born in the state of being a Muslim. (What is defined as a Muslim might not be the current usage of the term.) All Prophets starting from Adam preached the same message. Your personal interpretation of the Quran is misleading because you are not taking it in the proper context (& I don't just mean the lines above; rather the larger context). The Prophet explicitly prohibited personal interpretation, due to various reasons. For a novice to correctly understand Quran it is better to follow the orthodox opinions obtained from Islamic theologians. This does not neccessarily exclude independent understanding of the Quran. (For details on the last sentence check the link) Regards--Shahab (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To Shahab: The difference between the Christians' reading of the Bible and the Muslims' reading of the Quran, seems to be that while the Bible may have been distorted before it was written, the Quran is distorted after it is read. St.Trond (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the page on "Allah" the Quran is quoted. The sentence is now restricted to the Quran in stead of Islam. 88.89.126.212 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and this is not the place for personal discussion of Quranic interpretation. Furthermore, the supposed meanings of Quranic verse should not be an issue, as they should not be included except by a reliable cited source. Introducing primary source material to advance a point is improper synthesis. Now, as to the sentence in question, it is not cited with a reliable third-party source, and neither is the sentence after that. If no one objects (please provide basis) or finds sufficient citation, then I shall consider myself at liberty to remove the offending sentences. Does that seem acceptable to everyone? Peter Deer (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Some Errors in the Articles of Faith

As a matter of fact, articles of faith are not God, Quran, Angels, Muhammad, Resurrection & Day of Judgement and Predestination and free will. They are:

Oneness of God;
Revealed Books of God;
Angles;
Prophethood;
Resurrection & Day of Judgement; and
Predestination and free will.

This error must be corrected. Bhaur (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. the first Tawhid.. is literally the oneness of God. Belief is not just in the Quran, or Muhammad. It is a belief in divine guidance, through the reveled books (of which Quran, while special is the final and uncorrupted version) and prophets (of which Muhammad is the last and for all mankind vs. for a nation or age). As an encylopedia the headings need to be technically accurate descriptors, and should be able to read off correctly as bullet points in this case. As it stands, the articles of faith listed are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

- "Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to universalize Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, un-Islamic leaders or states which refuse to submit to the authority of Islam.[64][65]"

This statement is sourced to page 17 of Jihad by Reuven Firestone (1999). I checked the page because I found the claim a bit suspicious, so I checked the reference. Firestone makes absolutely no claim about the global ambitions of Islam, or violent Jihad being the primary or even legitimate method of propagation. The second source I could not find online, although seems legit. This is a fairly egregious abuse of a source, so I'm going to give anyone who wants to defend it a week to post an argument as to why I am mistaken, and if there is no action by then I am going to take it down. Maxkbennett (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced to Encylopedia of Islam also, probably the most reliable source we have. - Merzbow (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see some bits of it derived from EofI and bits from Firestone. But it does not neutrally represent either. For example, that page (17) of Firestone starts with "There are therefore many kinds of jihad, and most have nothing to do with warfare." That's a flat-out contradiction to our text. The list "apostates, rebels, ..." in our text is extracted from the same page of Firestone, but Firestone gives them as examples of jihad against Muslims, again contradicting our text. The text of EofI is closer, but quite a bit more nuanced than our text suggests. For example it notes contrary opinions, the fact that jihad in Shia is suspended in the absence of the Imam (i.e. forever in pratice), etc.. A rewrite is needed. Zero^talk 07:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because there are many types of something doesn't mean that a single type is not predominant, and it does seem clear that jihad as warfare is what Islamic jurisprudence (which, like most legal traditions, is conservative by nature and changes slowly, as opposed to popular opinion among Muslims, which the section does address) primarily sees it as. We also have to be careful not to give undue weight to minority views (for example, Shia are only 15% of Muslims). - Merzbow (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What we have to do is to fairly report what the sources say. If we don't follow the source, we are doing original research. Btw, given the importance of Iran in global politics today, the Shia viewpoint is indeed important. Zero^talk 03:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon reading the article from the encyclopedia of Islam, I see that the statement is not as unfounded as I originally thought, but it is still a significant departure from both sources, and I agree with Zero, it needs to be re-written, reflecting the broad, and sometimes vague, spectrum of belief on this subject (as depicted by the sources). Regarding the Jurisprudence vs Muslim popular opinion though, a clearer definition of "Islamic jurisprudence" is needed in this context as in Islam (in my opinion), the distinction between who is an authority on religious matters, and who is not, is often unclear, particularly in contrast with other religions. Just to clarify though, I am not disputing the legitimacy of the sources, but rather the selected passage's representation of them. Maxkbennett (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points. No text is immune to improvement, but due to the controversial nature of this topic and the length of time the existing text has stood, I would suggest that anyone attempting a rewrite please run it through talk first (and referencing a couple of additional, rock-solid sources would help also). It is certainly a tricky topic. The lines between "established Islamic law" and "mainstream Muslim thought" and "what most Muslims believe" do exist, but are often not clear-cut. Many popular English authors on the subject of Islam have an unfortunate tendency to gloss over them without letting the reader know that such distinctions exist at all (often to push a particular agenda, "pro" or "anti"). - Merzbow (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing an important point. Jurisprudence deals with laws. As such it only covers the aspect of Jihad which needs to properly regulated, i.e. violence. Islamic Theology, however will deal with all the moral and philosophical aspects of Jihad as well. This is not a question of popular opinion, but simply that no law will be in place to regulate the exhortation that one must strive to be a better muslim. One will however exist on how one may contend with external pressure that prevents one from being one, without "exceeding the bounds" (quranic phraseology). Any number of muslim texts and treatises, throughout history exist telling the Muslim to be better and make the world a better place and equating it with Jihad. The jurisprudence, posts the limits on how this may be done. With that in mind, I am sure both firestone and Eofl will make more sense, and if that is not clear and one needs to go read the sources to get it, then there may be an issue with the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism and violence

Why doesn't this article discuss the fact that Islam is a violent, hateful religion that oppresses it's people through threats of violence and terrorism? If we look at the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, we can clearly see that it is NOT a religion of peace. These people react to anything that does not agree with them with blatant acts of violence and hatred. Killing people, burning down schools, burning cars, destroying stores, etc. These are the supposedly peaceful acts of Muslims?
Additionally, in many Islamic countries, the people are violently killed for being the wrong version of Islam. Honor killing, maiming, acid attacks, suicide bombings, the list goes on with the types of inhuman behaviors Muslims wreak upon both themselves, and those who disagree with their religion.

So why does this article not include any of the truth? Islam is clearly a violent religion.76.112.36.143 (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
YOU KNOW>>> YOU SHOULD READ THE QUORAN ONCE AND THEN YOU'D UNDERSTAND... ISLAM DOES NOT PREACH VIOLENCE. NO RELIGION DOES. YOU INTERPRET IT AS A VIOLENT RELIGION< THAT'S YOUR BLOODY MISTAKE. AND NO I'M NOT ISLAMIC, I"M A HINDU MYSELF. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of verses in the Koran that talk about doing violence on unbelievers. Additionally, there are many Imams who preach violence and hatred to their followers in the name of Allah. These are not isolated occurrences. That's why whenever something happens that Muslims do not like, they react with violence. Is your daughter too western? Run her over with a car! Did a newspaper make a comic you don't like? Threaten to kill everyone involved! Violence is a very common part of Islam. 76.112.36.143 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, just because you don't like my question doesn't mean it's not a valid question. Reverting it as a rant, or saying it's forum talk or whatever does not cut it. It is a valid question that pertains directly to the article. Why does this article avoid making any ties between Islam and violence? 76.112.36.143 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- - Please, all participants, DO NOT let this discussion drift off into flamage and bad language. If you disagree with anything, please add a counter-argument. And, for the incidents and other statements alleged, please quote references (in line, not using <ref> ... </ref>, as this is a talk page). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Agreed. Gentlemen, regardless of your opinions regarding Islam, you should endeavor to keep a neutral tone and cite sourced information. In response to the initial question. In response to the editor of the article, it is my experience that there is extensive coverage of articles relevant to Islamic terrorism (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many many many more, some of which are referenced from this very article) the reason why the concept does not predominate the article is mostly relevant to Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight. Regardless of how you feel about Islam, Wikipedia is there to produce a neutral description, not commentary. Peter Deer (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have again undeleted this section. Remember: WP:FORUM: this page is not a general discussion forum about the subject, but only about what matter to include in article Islam or its related pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

            Hello there... First of All Islam isn't preaches to kill any innocent peoples.. AS in the Quran "whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind" Ch#5,Verse#32....

Islam is not only for simple person but also for Army troops and other defensive forces (i.e. Police) its preaches what in the Quran..you should read those verses in their textual and historical context. Hate is not good for any person. I want to assure you that we Muslims also do not hate non-Muslims, be they Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist or followers of any religion or no religion. The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder,(…Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.) (Al-An`am 6: 151). If Islam preaches hate and Violence, then why i'm a peace loving person?

Note:- Sorry I'dont know where to reply, So... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.14.13 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Expansionism

Why is there no mention on this page of the fact that it is considered the duty of the adherents of this religion to spread the religion to all so-called "unbelievers" and make them adopt their beliefs and follow their "laws" by any means necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michele3.1415 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Because what you say is not true.--Shahab (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's alright then. Phew, I thought history was littered with this behaviour. Turns out I interpreted it wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.137.172 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even though I strongly discourage placing in the main article, Michele is more right than wrong. Check out these direct sources from the Qur'an. Qur'an 2:216, 4:65-81, 2:190-193, to state a few. These unfortunately are not taken out of context and are not mentioned in the website you provided. --Bddrey (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it can be argued that they are taken out of context as well. But the point to note here is that the Quran is a primary source. Primary sources are always open for interpretation. I know some people who point out verses in the Bible and conclude that it is evil. Such conclusions are at best immature & at worst venomous. WP guidelines ask for relying primarily on reliable, third-party published sources. As far as my knowledge goes, no major school of thought within Islam forces non-believers to convert by any means necessary. It is not part of the Islamic law. If I am mistaken and it is so then please use the secondary and tertiary sources from canons of Islamic law etc to add the relevant info.--Shahab (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to this (sorry, I don't know how to log in and what not), I would say that the Quran (this is going to come from the 'primary source' idea of different interpretations) needs to be considered as a whole. Much like you can't take a sentence out of context, I would argue that you can't take these sentences away from the context of the entire book. The Quran is very clear that forcing religion and conversion is not allowed. It also states that even when defending oneself (fighting is only permitted in self defense), if the other side desists, you must desist as well. The quotes you brought forth should be understood as such. 2:216 Jihad isn't an offensive war of aggression. It is inteded to always be response. 4:65-81 I'm confused by what your problem is. The first part discusses those who say they believe, but really don't. "If God asks them to sacrifice what they have, they will hesitate and not desire to do so". The defensive nature of a war is emphasized with 4:76 stating, "And how could you refuse to fight in the cause of God and of the utterly helpless men and women and children who are crying, "O our Sustainer! Lead us forth [to freedom] out of this land whose people are oppressors, and raise for us, out of Thy grace, a protector, and raise for us, out of Thy grace, one who will bring us succour!"".

Your last quoted verse, 190-193 starts off like this: "AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.* ".

Of course this isn't me making up my own interpretation. A lot of it comes from Leopold Weiss. In the end we must remember that people's action do not necessarily sync with what they state they believe. I wouldn't be surprised if most people in the world who claim to be part of a religion haven't even full the book. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't even read 1/2 the book, or even a 1/4th. So if we want to discuss what the religion actually says vs what people's action are, we need to be very clear about this. --User:A Person 10:13 AM 7 July 2009

Unfortunately, the words also state that if someone persecutes a Muslim, they are to slay them. Not adamantly attempt to work with them and convince them to think otherwise. So basically it says, 'if someone insults you, kill them', at least that is the consensus where i found it. However, this is a talk page, not a general conversation forum. Lets try to keep these sort of conversations to a minimum. --Bddrey (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly there is a big jump you are making from persecution (which in the historical context of the Quran refers to mass, and often violent, systematic oppression: see Taif, Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans etc) to insult(which you seem to imply as through mere mockery and words). Secondly as I have already said we need to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. In particular read the section here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#References. Here is a secondary source: The Quran by Oliver Leaman (see page 491). Finally, as noted by A Person above we need to consider the Quran as a whole. This page here has some more input (particularly the last few paras) although this shouldn't be taken as a source for adding info to the article.--Shahab (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation are by definition interpreted. To the protagonist there will always be good from interpreting it better, and the antagonist will find bad from interpreting it better. Unfortunately we do not know which one is the truly better interpretation for absolute truth. Therefore, one is to presume all well performed interpretations as equally truthful. This is unless one has a predetermined ideology that one is more acceptable than another, in this case interpretation is taken as factual and assumed as a natural truth instead of the correct ideology that it is an interpretation of the truth, where the defined truth is unknown.

Spread by the Sword

Can't this issue, of interest to many people, be included? I remember reading the Encyclopedia Britannica stating the Islam was spread by the sword. You say that today, and you are at the very least politically incorrect. But wasn't it in fact spread by the sword? It took Christianity 300+ years to be accepted by the Romans. In 100 years Islam was at the gate of the realm of the Francs. Didn't Mohamed say "Submit, and you will be Safe." ?? How about an honest discussion of this? Cutugno (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

"During this time expansion of the Muslim world continued, by both conquest and peaceful proselytism";

"While the Muslim-Arab elite engaged in conquest";

"Muslim conquests"

and so on. No attempts to whitewash history here. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No arab Muslim converted Malaysia or Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim country in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackswan2 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never read of "peaceful proselytism" associated with Islam. I believe the choices were - fight us, convert to Islam, or pay the tax to keep your religion (with accompanying acceptance of social inferiority). Cutugno (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many nations invited the Muslims over, as their rule was much, much better then the normal rulers of regions, and they made many improvements. Most Muslims only fought for self defence, conquering the lands that were attempting to invade them. 86.172.91.241 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

About as much as Christianity was spread by the sword under the Romans and the Gun in colonial times. It's a rather outsider cultural bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.61 (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Islam was spread in Indonesia without sword but through trading —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitampansakti89 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Just an addition) It was spread with trading and the inter-marriages between already a Muslim state with non-Muslim states. In medieval times, when a ruler converts into other religion, most of its people will also convert to the same religion their rule embraced earlier. Kangxi Emperor (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A good point. Many Muslims in India and Pakistan were converted in this way. When a ruler (of a small state in medieval India) converted to Islam, the subjects followed suit-Shahab (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the Mughals forcefully converted the population after they had conquered each region. warrior 4321 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)