Talk:Spread of Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 

This article has comments here.

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

This article has comments here.

Quite Biased[edit]

As a non-Muslim, I read this out of curiosity. The level of bias I feel is apparent in the article convinced me to doubt the authenticity of the facts. This is disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.198.40 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV needed[edit]

This article has a few passages with clearly biased points of view and should be written much more neutrally. Examples of quotes include "The infamous Hakim (Al-Hakim bi-amr-Allah, the sixth Egyptian Caliph, 996-1021, who became the god of the Druze) determined to destroy the Holy Sepulchre (In 1010.)" Infamus? God of the Druze? What? "Yet, in spite of all, Christianity failed, and Islam succeeded in gaining the Iranian race." I think there is a much better way of saying that. --213.174.190.59 17:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Spanish section talks of the 100 or so years of the Convivencia as if it extended throughout the 700 years of Al-Andalus (some of the Muslim kingdoms were extremely cruel) and reflects this idea of Islamic enlightenment against a European cruelty which was also only a particular time and aspect. This is racist. It should be improved. I'll try to find the time, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.102.232 (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC) yes i am not a muslim and i find this quite biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.109.207 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Conversion[edit]

The sentence "and the Qur'an in the other offering victims a choice between one of the two" one of the two what? This sentence is vague and ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talkcontribs) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

While not wanting to cause overmuch trouble, I must ask: Can an article about the Spread of Islam NOT mention its armies and their role? "Trade networks connected many regions which helped the spread of Islam." If that is mentioned so prominently, and soon, in the article, shouldn't war be included? Does anyone believe Islam spread from Arabia to France in under 100 years through Trade? Just wondering aloud. Cutugno (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor title[edit]

The title of this article, Islam Spread, sounds like some sort of butter or margarine product. I don't understand why this page was moved from Spread of Islam to here. I'm going to move it back because Spread of Islam is grammatically correct and this is not.--Lendorien 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Spread of Islam is the title I had in mind when I came here (without any searching).--Adoniscik (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Might well this sentence: non-Muslims were subject to some restrictions on participation in political life. . . Be more accurately stated : "non-Muslims were subject to restrictions on participation in political, and even social life." Cutugno (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


I still think it is a poor title. 'Spread' is still a margarine-like word, and worse, it has links to pathologies, e.g. the spread of disease. The page 'spread of christianity' redirects to 'history of christianity'. I think this page should be titled the same - 'the history of islam'. Amphibio (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge suggestion[edit]

I don't think this page should be merged with Islamization. Spread of Islam is mostly (or should) deal with the historical aspect of the religion's spread, whereas "Islamization" is a more recent concept, mainly to do with the more recent political manuvers. .--bandishhh 22 June 2007.

As an editor interested in historical aspects of Islam (and author of The coming of Islam to Indonesia (1200 to 1600)), I agree with bandishhh's assessment. Merbabu 08:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge does not mean simply that this page dissapears. Maybe what is needed is for the recharecterization of the Islamization page then or having it redirect to this one. Right now it has a lot of information that I see is pretty much an overlap with what we have here and it can all go into one page. Either here or there or even somewhere else. Right Islamization seems to trace the historical spread of Islam better than this page.--Tigeroo 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup to-do[edit]

  • Spotty sourcing. Some sections are well sourced, others not at all.
  • Different styles of sourcing. Some sections use different styles of sourcing than others. styles need to be unified.
  • Data duplication. Some sections seem to repeat information.
  • NPOV check. May contain issues with a lack of a nuetral POV. --Lendorien (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Corrected the spelling of the word "persecution" in the fifth paragraph of the section on Early Islam, which had been misspelled "persuction". -- 9:40, 02 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.0.245 (talk)

Map would be good[edit]

At least one map with details would help the reader to make a better picture about the topic.--  LYKANTROP  10:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added one, but more are needed. The page is currently very text heavy and consequently dull. Fig (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection[edit]

Silver padlock

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag Needed[edit]

This article is completely biased. It overlooks and glosses over forced conversions and is dishonest about how Islam treated Jews and Christians. Please add a neutrality tag and/or fix the article. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Phases[edit]

RiseofIslam (talk · contribs) is removing it from the sections. please explain your position and build up consenss first--DBigXray 12:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Islam in the Eastern Europe[edit]

Why is there no mention in this article about the spread of Islam in Eastern Europe (modern-day Russia and Ukraine)? Its spread begins with the conversion of the Volga Bulgars and large numbers of Khazars to Islam, followed by their conquest at the hands of Mongols, and later the establishment of the Golden Horde, who's majority Turkic (Cuman & Kipchak) were Islamized, along with the ruling Mongols and others, all of whom would become known as Tatars by the Russians. The Islamic period here would end when the Russians conquered the khanates that resulted out of the disintegration of the Golden Horde and forcefully assimilated a large part of the Muslim population.

I think this is very important for the history of Islam, yet it is rarely ever mentioned in many Wiki articles dealing with Islamic history, and when it is, the Tatars are usually misrepresented (whether innocently or purposefully) as "Mongol invaders converting to Islam and oppressing the Russian people", when in reality the Russians had not yet settled the areas of the Golden Horde and the majority of "Tatars" are descended not from Mongols, but from indigenous Finnic, Iranic, and Turkic peoples; the Mongols only formed a small elite ruling class.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernirm (talkcontribs) 18:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 'Fernirm', and as for a neutral POV that should be mentioned, I know what you are talking about with the belief of the islamic invasion mentality of early Russia, however it is Russia that gradually grew into those areas which were often not ever populated by Russians or ever owned by Russia/Muscovy/Kievan Rus (mostly around the Kazakh border and very southern caucasus). Its a matter of finding the sources from anthropological/archeological data and presenting their academic views in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talkcontribs) 08:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

IP Removed "he believed" from summary.[edit]

In this diff and IP removed the words "he believed" from "The spread of Islam began when, around 613 CE, the prophet Muhammad (570 – 632 CE) began to share the revelation which he believed God (Allah) had started to give to him three years previously." Is this appropriate? Does this make the article fall into or out of line with articles of a similar nature? I don't spend enough time working on religious articles to know, but I thought I'd bring it up. Zell Faze (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well he believed does not sound very academic but in an attempt to not show bias language is used that neither acts as if it was absolutely true or absolutely false, therefore wording it in a way that shows this might have led to the he believed, I still think it should be more along the lines of, he is said to have witnessed etc. As in how a documentary might say, the lion is taking a nap, we could talk about it without making about his personal belief etc. which I think could be contested, I believe claim is another word used, although not sure on what consensus there is around this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talkcontribs) 08:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)