Talk:Islam in the United Kingdom

Comments from 2005

It would be beneficial for a Scholar of Islam to review this page, particularly from the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marma1 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

There is repetition and some conflict between sections 1 and 2 of this article, which need to be tidied up. Also, there is no Telford in Surrey - what is meant by that reference? Mark O'Sullivan 10:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As the page is about Islam, any notable personalities should be Muslim and not take into account their origins, e.g Shami Shami Chakrabarti. Ibruman 13:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

history

I've started a section on history, which I admit is very thin. Perhaps people will expand it... Gwaka Lumpa 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have merged into the introduction. I would suggest it is re separated.

I think in some way we ought to note;

• the vibrancy of the community
• the effect on university and intellectual life (books etc)
• the political effect where, for example in Woking where I live, the community can swing elections

PLEASE also remember to use the preview pane, there are alot of tiny edits clogging up our watchlists

Thanks Cosnahang (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I think we should be careful that information is put in the appropriate article. There is an article about Islam in England and what you are describing would appear more appropriate in that article rather than here. This article should be about 'United Kingdom' aspects such as UK-wide organisations. 86.150.206.234 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

More needed on the Pakistani Muslim community

Hi - I'm a Bangladeshi Muslim myself but I think it's rather odd that there's such a large chunk on British Bangladeshi Muslims and such a small amount on British Pakistani Muslims. I'm not trying to start some simplistic numbers game here, but I just think the Pakistanis deserve a bit of a longer writeup. That's all - cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personalities

Hi, a number of sections on this page need to be tidied up. The Personalities section was getting very heavy with names and all a bit too much. I have now broken it off into smaller sections although if it gets too large, it may need its own page.

Please could anyone stick to the following pattern although suggestions welcome:

• All personalities should be British Muslims, not just anyone with a Muslim name etc or foreign Muslims. So that's British born or British citizens.
• Try to include people with wiki profiles or those of which you intend to create a profile
• Please keep all descriptions non-biased. Please do not describe anyone as 'prolific' or 'extremist', just plain and simple who they are and what position they hold or what they do.
• I have removed some profiles, such as councillors and mayors from regions within England, Wales etc. because this would result in too many names of unrecognised people.
• All profiles are there to give an insight into the varying people who represent different branches or views of Islam and an indication of the lifestyle of British Muslims. All individuals featured should have had some kind of impact or have created some kind of debate amongst different British communties with their faith being an identifiable and important aspect of that individual and/or their work.

I think it looks a little neater and is easier to digest and understand now, users should be able to find what they're looking for. What do you think? UK 007

I have removed the long description after Yvonne Ridley's name and kept it consistent with the others, have also put her in alphabetically as the rest - thanks for adding her. UK 007, 29 March 2006

Again, someone moved around the personalities to suggest bias rather than provide easier navigation. All of those individuals under 'activists' are as such. Yes, some are moderate and others are extremists, depending on who you ask but they are all active in their own cause. There's no reason to break the more extremist off into a section entitled 'notorious' so as to give them some kind of ego trip. I hope that's okay but these random acts of occasional editing seem to come from unregistered visitors. I have moved them back to where they were. If you feel they must be changed, please give your reasons. Thanks. UK 007, 9 April 2006

The following individuals under Personalities//Sports are in need of verification of their nationality as all were born abroad and in the UK for work. They are all footballers it would seem: Robin van Persie, Abou Diaby, and Mohamed Sissoko. Most are European Muslims so that needs to be checked. The claim that Persie is Muslim needs citation or it may have to be removed. Thanks. UK 007, 19 December 2006

Yusuf Islam

I've put the word "musician" back in. He's a musician amongst other things Gwaka Lumpa 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I assumed most people would realise that the word 'Artist' usually encompasses arts generally and Yusuf Islam is more than just a musician creatively. However you may keep 'musician' in if you think it helps. UK 007, 29 March 2006

Coal Mining Areas

The old coal-mining areas of Britain have hardly any Muslims. This needs clarifying. It is probably true of coal mining areas in the north east of England, but clearly not true for the Lancashire or Yorkshire coalfields. DWaterson 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a Muslim in such an area (Newcastle, Northeast england)and do not agree with this: there are important Muslim communities in Newcastle, Sunderland, South Shields etc. Also old coal mining areas like Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire etc all have significant Muslim communities. I have deleted this sentence, it has no factual basis? (20:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

No, there are not many in the Yorkshire coalfield. Only Wakefield has a significant Muslim population. Barnsley is around 99% White. The only place in S.Yorks. with a significant Muslim population is Sheffield, and that was not a mining area. Don't know as much about Lancashire, but I thought that Knowsley, St Helens, Wigan, etc. were mostly White. Epa101 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle is not an old coal-mining area. Sunderland did have some miners, but only a very small proportion in comparison to its other industries. Notts does not have a significant Muslim population, bearing in mind that Nottingham itself was a bit too south for the coalfield. Anyone else in favour of restoring the reference? Perhaps with a disclaimer for Wakefield? Epa101 17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff has a significant Muslim community, and was "built" on coal. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The city of Cardiff is not a coal mining area, how many mines are there in Cardiff? None. Like Newcastle it may have traded a lot of coal, but it has no coal mines itself, they are all in the surounding towns which have pretty much no Muslims.

The section is a little pointless and not really relavent, although it is clear that it is correct and is for a good reason, that is most Muslims are immigrants, and obviously it's not a particularly good idea to immigrate into an area where industry is declining and there is lots on unemployment. I say leave it out unless someone come up with an academic study of Muslim distribution or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OktoberSunset (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just need to make the quick point that Sheffield is not the only place in South Yorkshire to have a significant Muslim population. According to the 2001 census, the town of Rotherham has a community of about 5,000 Muslims - the majority of which are of Pakistani origin. This number has probably increased since 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proportion of Muslims by borough

It would be useful to have the top ten boroughs with Muslim population by absolute number, as well as in percentage terms, if anyone has access to that info. MRD 06/07/06

What percentage of Muslims in Britain actually practice their faith actively?. For example: I'm just looking at the figures, and if all of Bradford's 75,000 Muslims went to the main mosque on Friday, it would need to be the size of a large football stadium. I've no point to make here, and no axe to grind. I'm just curious. 160.84.253.241 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question, though should it have been posted at the bottom of the page? My impression is that many Muslims are fairly observant, and it can not purely be measured by Mosque attendance - work and domestic commitments would reduce this, for example Gwaka Lumpa 14:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I didn't put it at the bottom because I didn't think it was important enough, it was just a casual question. Just for fun...If all of Greater London's Christians went to church next Sunday, there would be 5,200,000 people trying to crowd into each church :-)

What is the source for the top ten figures? - I'd like to check out local authorities 'lower down' the rankings

VERY Good question (the one about what percentage of Muslims in Britain are practicing). I'm a lapsed Muslim (not for any hardcore ideological reason - just that I think observing Islam is too much like hard work and I really can't be arsed). Anyway, I'm fed up with people thinking I go to the mosque and pray e.t.c. just because of the way I look and because of my name. There's loads of others like me in Britain who can't be bothered with Islam anymore and just want a quiet life. I haven't been inside a mosque for five years!

(Removed my own comment) Fair enough...a welcoming bunch, aren't you? :-)160.84.253.241 (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

bs?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1183 132.241.72.20 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

sort it out

why do people assume that Muzzy Izzet and Emre etc are Muslim just because they are Turkish!? I have removed them and dont add people here unless ou are actually sure they are muslim

Emre is indeed a devout Muslim, he has attended the mosque just off the West road in Fenham, Newcastle. He is credited as being the first muslim in the club's history to score the winning goal in the NUFC-SAFC derby

ref: http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2590

HT

HT is a registered political party. It is exiled in Europe as it is banned by all tyrant governments. The House of Saud, in particular, is hell-bent on extraditing them using naive allies like Blair and Bush.

Savile Town

The reference to the savile town 97% muslim population comes from the cristians people's alliance [1] and reads: "the area has become 97% Muslim according to local observers". That is in no way sourced correctly and needs to be removed. I will do this soon unless anyone has anyone objections. especially important as this is being quoted as true in recent discussions regarding the mosque being built in east london. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feudonym (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

The 97% figure might be wrong, but Savile Town is important to mention in this article

Some 5,000 Asians strong, the Savile Town community has become one of the most orthodox centres of Moslem learning outside the east. It has the largest purpose-built mosque in Europe. etc [2] Misheu 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.kirklees-pct.nhs.uk/fileadmin/documents/meetings/march_07/KPCT-07-42%20Report%20estate%20strategy.doc See point 4.3 here for information from a less spurious source. Believe me! The figure is not far wrong. Epa101 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This was almost offensive

The section on religious and ethnic demographics among the Muslim community Britain was borderline offensive, and i'm not even British. It was blatantly and disgustingly biased toward the South Asian community and the South Asian community only, with a number of unsubstantiated numerical claims and obvious bias for and against certain sects. In addition, while the status of the British Asian Muslims was delved into in great (too much) detail, the articl actually claimed little was known about Britain's Arab Muslim community. It even referred to a mosque with an Arab majority as an "Arab run mosque". I don't see how that can be construed as anything other than thinly veiled racism. On top of this, there was no mention of black (African or Caribbean) Muslims. Not that there was too little mention of them; there was no mention of them. At all. Like they don't exist or something. I have to admit that keeping my objectivity was difficult upon reading this as I don't understand how someone could think a section like that would be acceptable for an encyclopedia. I removed the more useless and baseless claims and inserted some material about African and Afro-Caribbean Muslims, but this article still needs a lot of work. MezzoMezzo 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too quick to take offence. It looks to me like a good faith effort from editors writing from their own experience -- the problem is the lack of references for the assertions made rather than conscious prejudice. There isn't a lot of good data on head counts for different strands of Islam, but the 2001 census data on religion and ethnicity might explain why that section was slanted towards South Asian traditions: it shows that British Muslims of South Asian descent comprise at least 2/3 of all British Muslims. I agree that the article does have a South Asian slant and your changes are an improvement but the sentence that you added about a large diaspora of African and Afro-Caribbean Muslims isn't much better than the ones that you complain about; Whilst there is a substantial number of Black African Muslims, the census data shows that the number of Black Caribbean Muslims is very small and what little research there has been on converts to Islam in Britain doesn't support the idea that there are a large number of converts from any ethnic group.[3] --Duncan Keith 07:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't allege that it wasn't a good faith edit - I don't think any slight in there was intentional. Actually most of what you've said here is more or less how I feel, with the exception that I do still take offense to it a bit. As for the lack of references, it does pose a problem. The British census was eye opening as far as the smaller number of Afro-Caribbeans - would you consent to still including a mention of that community with the addition that it is one of the smaller ones? As for the PDF, i'm not exactly sure but isn't Yahya Birt a guy that has a blog? Would that really count as a source? MezzoMezzo 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. I just saw your recent edit, very very good. I like the citation and the nice table you have made up there. This begs the question, with that put in there, is the following section about organizations and ethnic descent necessary for the article? It may be superfluous at this point. MezzoMezzo 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The prose in that section certainly can be slimmed down, but it needs someone more knowledgeable about the mapping between ethnicity and Islamic movements than me to do it. I also agree that it's important to mention the Afro-Caribbean Muslim community, not least because the prominence of Richard Reid and Germaine Lindsay means that some people will be looking for background information in this article. The Yahya Birt article does have a back-of-the-envelope flavour to it, but he is a serious researcher and I would think it an acceptable reference until something better turns up. --Duncan Keith 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is true. I like what you've done so far, so perhaps what we can do is leave it as is for now while looking for further information on it. MezzoMezzo 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Organization of British People who have left Islam

The following should be included under the above heading or similar:

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain was launched on Thursday the 21st of June, 2007 for the purpose of supporting individuals who have chosen to apostatize themselves from their former religion and provide society with information about the members which more accurately represents their views and numbers. 74.103.60.55 05:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems interesting. Do they have a website? Also, is this necesarily warranting of its own section or more appropriate under a subsection? MezzoMezzo 06:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The German affiliate has gotten coverage in Der Spiegel as well: [4]. Arrow740 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not heard of any website of theirs as of yet, but they did get coverage on the BBC, as you can see here: Ignore Islam, 'ex-Muslims' urge, by Dominic Casciani 74.103.60.55 13:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Definately looks notable. Are you sure it warrants a section separate from the rest of the article though? We could also make a subsection underneath political organizations and pressure groups or religious currents and organizations. It is an organization, and i'm not sure if just this one group warrants a section apart from others. Just a thought. MezzoMezzo 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made the article. The reason why it deserves its own section is that, its different from the other organizations. All the other Islamic organizations are from Muslims. This one is from ex-muslims. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anglocentrism

This article is anglocentric. There should be separate articles on this topic for England, and Wales. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of controversy criticism

There is absolutely no criticism/controversy on this page. This seems very odd as I've heard ALLOT of criticism of Islam from the UK especially after the London bombings. There is also nothing at all mentioned about the negative representation of Muslims on TV either. 220.239.35.98 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, there is a significant anti-Islamic attitude in Britain, due to 7/7, the rise of the BNP, the mega-mosque etc. This really needs to be reflected. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

several topics need to be addressed in relation to discrimination and criticism.

the strong media bias against Islam.
The legitimization British sharia courts
7/7 bombings.
Discrimination against Muslims
The substantial funding from Saudi Arabia for Islamic interests.
The rise of radical Islam in Brittan. 

Uranium-junkie (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sections missing

Some of the sections for example large numbers of information of History has been moved to other articles. It must be reminded that the history refers to the history of Islam in the whole of the United Kingdom, rather than just in one particular region. Islam in England articles are just excess, a sectional can be created over here of England, and much work has been done by a user on this article, and is quite a shame to be moved. Mohsin (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the revert you have just done. I have spent a lot of time trying to cut out material that shouldn't be in this article and to improve sentence structure. If you disagree with some of my edits, why not revert them individually rather then reverting a months worth of work? The version you have returned to is full of glaring problems: for example, figures quoted, such as the Pakistani, Indian etc proportion of Muslims refers to 'England and Wales' and not the UK. The situation of Islam in England is very different from elsewhere in the UK as the vast majority of Muslims live in England and they are a far higher proportion in that country. I am very tempted to revert, but I'll wait to see what others have to say first. 86.150.206.234 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted - a lot of work has been done on this article (including my contribution) and it would be better if individual changes were reverted rather than a blanket revert to a version from a month ago. About 15 editors have made contributions that are lost in a mass revert. I have tried to improve the focus of this article and reword more succinctly. Please look at my individual changes and revert any you think harms the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just realised that you've reverted - I had been checking out an article and didn't notice until I'd added it. I suppose this means this is a further waste of my time as it may just be reverted again! I don't want to be part of any edit warring! I think I've learned a lesson here to only do a few edits over a long time rather than get too involved in a few articles, as I have done recently. (I think I'll take a break from editing for a while and I'll see what the articles look like when I return.) Bye 86.150.206.234 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Source

Gilliatt-Ray, Muslims in Britain, Cambridge University Press, 2010, may be useful to anyone working on this article. Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadis not considered Muslims

Ironically in this article ahmadis are documented / shown as Muslims and the photo is also of their place of worship.
Ahmadis should not be considered as Muslims as they have been declared Non-Muslims in the Constitution of Pakistan and widely persecuted in many Islamic countries such as Pakistan , Saudi Arabia, Iran, ...,etc. Also their following is not more than 2,000,000 globally, i.e. people who identify themselves as Ahmadi, Qadiyani, although their ow organization inflates the figure to 200,000,000.
I recommend the administrators to lock this article and remove the picture of Qadiyani / Ahmadi place of worship and any reference of Ahmadi / Qadyani in this article about Muslims in Britain.Khalid bin waleed 04:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid bin waleed (talk • contribs)

This has already been discussed, see Talk:Ahmadiyya Muslim Community#Please Take this Page out of Islam Heading and Talk:Pakistan#Ahmadis. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If British Ahmadis self-identify as muslims, then they are. This is Britain, and the Pakistani constitution means the square root of uck fall to us. If you insist on bringing third-world sectarian squabbles to our country you're going to make yourself unpopular. British Ahmadis will decide if they're muslims or not - not Pakistan and definitely not you. FergusM1970 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Peaceworld111 this issue was not resolve. If you want to resolve this issue answer this CHALLENGER even your Khalifa was Silent and avoids this sort of discussion. I would also request you to avoid putting misleading information on Wikipedia THIS IS A FACT FINDING PORTAL NOT A A PLATFORM TO PREACH FAITH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid bin waleed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss issues such as the one you have presented. This indeed is a fact finding portal and as far as i'm aware there is nothing wrong with my revert. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fergus is right... if a group self-identify as Muslims, then they are. It's not up to some "true believers" on Wikipedia to censor them out of existence.Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mosque image

Is there a reason why a well known mosque image was not used. There is no decision on that only the largest mosque can be used, this can easily be argued with using the "oldest mosque" instead (which is used in Islam in Spain page). I've seen a few "Islam in X" pages and many seem to be focused on placing Ahmediya mosque images for one reason or the other and not the most well known mosque. I suspect there is work going on with missionary zeal. Asifkhanj (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, of course not, there are no hard and fast rules which suggest that the largest mosque should be used (though something to be appreciated for). But when you say a well known mosque image should be used... it becomes quite a subjective issue... However, with reference to the current image being used, in my opinion it doesn't lie outside a well known mosque image range. I googled 'mosques in uk' for reference... 1 ...its popular enough? However, if you see the articles edit history, i reverted the other image because the current image is angled much better than the other and focuses on the mosque. The other image's angle is just not right, with half the mosque hidden behind the trees and half image is of grass. Moreover this image looks much more scenic.opinion.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice some arugument in your talk page. There were issues with the angle, amount of the image that is the mosque, the side of the mosque, etc... So by this account I can change the mosque of the "Islam in Spain" and put Madrid central mosque image there? I think you are being subjective about the mosque image. When I do web google (image google ranking is different) - Birmingham Central mosque, London Central Mosque, and East London Mosque come up. I did see the history of edits and reverts without much talk in the talk page. So if I were to put up an image of one of the three mosque which (scenic is objective) has mostly mosque showing the dome and tower, will you revert it? Asifkhanj (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Do you want to replace the Basharat mosque in the Islam in Spain article? I think it fits well with the history subsection.
• With respect to this article, I provided a reference of images because we were discussing images. Rankings vary depending on what your searching for, where you are searching from etc... and by subjectivity, i mean well known images are not defined by just web search rankings, image rakings it depends on numeroues factors, including factors that lie outside the internet, books, journals, news and what not... What I mean is that a single search such web search ranking does not necessarily define image popularity ranking, it can only tell us whether something is well known enough or not and that was the point of my reference.
• Lastly the best mosque image out of the other three i think is Birmingham central mosque, though I certainly prefer the Baitul Futuh mosque, it certainly looks much nicer to me and hence more scenic. From a neutral point of view I don't see why anyone would want to replace the current image with either of the three.Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

*'Mosques in uk' vs "uk mosques" in google images give different results and the order of image is not a good criteria.

*It would be nice to know you are not emotionally attached to a single mosque - Baitul Futuh. Is there absolutely no other mosque image to use - preferably Birmingham Central mosque as you mentioned that the probably the decent out of the three mentioned.

*The order of images diplayed in Google Images does not mean much. If you look at website popularity the three I mentioned are the top most visited website uk mosque websites.

*Given this, I'd like to go ahead and change the image to Birmingham Central mosque unless you have any more concerns. Asifkhanj (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstood me. When I presented you with a reference I did explain to you later that ranking of any form does not necessarily determine the "popularity of a mosque". Please re-read the second bullet point of my previous post. The point of the reference was just to show you that it met the your criteria that it was well known enough. Hence neither web searches nor image searches are good criteria for rankings, they are good enough to show whether they are popular enough. Hence I agree with what you said order of images diplayed in Google Images does not mean much and the same applies to web searches. Hope you understood this part.
• Added to that, the reason as I see why Birmingham central mosque and East London mosque come in the first two pages of the web searches is possibly because their web addresses contain mosque which adds to their ranking. Is that a coincidence that these mosques are the most popular with the web search mosques in uk? What about London Central mosque, the web address of which is iccuk.org, are you saying it is not popular enough? (note:you are incorrect to say that london central mosque is in the top three).
• No i'm not emotionally attached with the current mosque. It's more like the other way round - what have you got so much against the Baitul Futuh? Most common answer is obviously that it belongs to the Ahmadis as my previous experience shows. I agree on keeping the image per reasons said above, my talk page (which you've read) and other user talk pages. From a neutral point of view I don't see why is there so much urge with you wanting to replace the image. Is there something wrong with the image? Why is the image of B'ham central mosque better? or east london mosque? or london central mosque?
• It has been suggested by other users of the possibility of using two images. What do you think? Personally I think there won't be a good balance between images and text.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think you are trying to change my argument to seem like I might be attacking Ahmedi mosques which is a very underhand way of dealing with this.
• I do not get why are you making it an issue of one is better than the other. Once again if you look at the stats of visitor count for the mentioned mosques - you will see that their websites are visited more - and I'm not talking about google order in the above post.
• You may personally think its a good balance - balance to what?
• You haven't shown why you have an emotional attachment to one mosque.
• You should should the most well known mosques - check out bbc - how many articles have been published with each of the mosques? East London and London Central seem to lead.
• Given the above I do not see why you are resisting changing, reverting past changes by other users, and not being open about using one of the well known rather than as you mentioned - a more personal criteria? Asifkhanj (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Also, as per my points above, we may be approaching a deadlock, do you agree? Asifkhanj (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Its been a while since you've responded.
• Also looking at the page history, I see you've reverted changes by many users and there was edit warring going on between you and multiple users. Asifkhanj (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• you are trying to change my argument to seem like I might be attacking Ahmedi mosques. No I wasn't. I was just indicating that there is a potential that you migh be since you yourself indicated that this was an Ahmadiyya mosque at the beginning.
• You may personally think its a good balance - balance to what? please re-read the last bullet point of my last post - I don't want to be repeating my self, its clear cut what I'm saying.
• You haven't shown why you have an emotional attachment to one mosque. again it seems you have just ignored my last post.
• Suppose for arguments sake that one mosque happens to be a little bit more notable than the other. But the mosque that is of less notability (though highly notable itself) happens to have a better, more quality, better shot image. Now which one should we use? The one with lesser quality (i.e. London Central Mosque, half of which is hidden behind trees, with nearly half the image of grass) or the one with better imagery (i.e. Baitul Futuh). After all we're talking images here, not Mosques! Moreover, though you suggested the likely reasons for using Baitul Futuh was because it was the largest in the UK, cannot itself be completely ignored, it is something to be appreciated for. After all this is a Islam in UK article.
• there was edit warring going on between you and multiple users. No, not exactly. There is evidence to suggest that many of the editors were motivated by anti-Ahmadiyya stance, e.g. the last editor removed an Ahmadiyya mosque in another article 1. In many of the cases it was pure vandalism. Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think there is much we can agree to. The vandalism you mention - it seems that they were actually changing to landon central mosque and you were changing it back. I've got neutral third opinions from wiki users. I've updated the image to be the image of one of the olders which one of the neutral editors has recommended. If you still disagree - please escalate it as per wiki policies, rather than change the image. Asifkhanj (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Active Disagreements

1. Mosque Image . Dispute is over the image being used in the in the main article. 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion on mosque image

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. Qualifiers such as "largest" or "most attended" etc. are subject to interpretation and led to quarreling and edit warring. Per the first line in the article (Islam has been present in the United Kingdom since its formation in 1707), the best possible choice for the image would be the oldest mosque in the United Kingdom. – Athaenara ✉ 03:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Of the choices in List of the oldest mosques in the world#United Kingdom, for example, the Shah Jahan Mosque (built in 1889, oldest purpose built mosque in England) would be a good choice (File:Shah Jahan Mosque TQ0159 214.jpg). – Athaenara ✉ 03:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, "most attended" can be subject to interpretation, but I don't think that the "largest" can be. As of 2003, Baitul Futuh was reported to be the largest in Western Europe 1 by the Guradian. Hence there would be little doubt that it is not the largest mosque in the UK. Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peaceworld111 - As you didnt like east london mosque, birmingham central mosque, london central mosque (all referred a lot more on the BBC website), these editors for a "neutral third opinion" said to go for the oldest mosque which is fair enough, and we did. But do not engage in warring as I believe this is the most neutral opinion (I don't think putting putting up two images is a good option as wiki is for the public and not to satisfy our disputes, and two images don't serve a purpose as list of mosques can be found elsewhere). Asifkhanj (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peaceworld111 - It is a very underhand tactic you are doing - you go to Islam in X page and try to put a specific Ahmediyya mosque and try to keep it there. You earlier today requested page projection probably to ensure that Ahmediyya's mosques remains on the main page. Wikipedia is not a place to preach a certain faith. Do not accuse me of being anti-Ahmediyya. Same argument can be used by any sect. Respect wiki's NPOV. I'm going through you pages and see how you are attacking people that don't use an Ahmediyya mosque. Respect wikipedia is not here to present your specific views, but rather neutral views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

General Article improvements

I reckon we should list the Islamic organisations as bullet point format to make them more readable. Anyone think otherwise?19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"which differ dramatically from those held by the rest of the UK population.[7]"

There is an issue with The Independent's article quoted in [7], where it says: "However, the poll also found that the vast majority of Muslims have extremely conservative views on moral issues such as homosexuality and the death penalty, which differ dramatically from those held by the rest of the UK population. "

Due to this the wiki page says: "vast majority of them have extremely conservative views on moral issues such as homosexuality (0% found it morally acceptable) and the death penalty (63% found it morally acceptable), which differ dramatically from those held by the rest of the UK population.[7]"

This implies that the 63% differs "dramatically" from the opinion of the rest of the UK population, however it's common knowledge that around 60% of the UK population back the death penalty in some cases:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2504 "70 per cent think the UK should still have the death penalty as the maximum possible penalty for at least one of the twelve different types of crime surveyed."

So it's clearly false to say that they differ dramatically. I will edit it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusQuinn-Bjornstad (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Multicultural bias

No mention of burning poppies, bombing trains, forcing us to be politically correct or their gang-raping of white pre-pubescent children. Sort it out. The Almightey Drill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

Why don't you sort it out? KillerBoogie (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry Picking

The data mentioned under Identity & Preferences is ridiculously biased. I checked all the references; key positive data points seem to have been carefully and systematically ignored, while all the negative points were highlighted admirably.

Also I hate making baseless assumptions, but the picture "Muslim women in Whitechapel" was clearly picked to portrait the community in a negative light, since the great majority of British Muslims do not dress or look anything like that. Honestly, why would anyone pick a picture like this if they're neutral about the subject?

I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I like seeing this kind of tabloid-style journalism used in a Wikipedia article, let alone an article dealing with a sensitive topic like religion and community cohesion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.64.170.188 (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree I've updated the picture and corrected some skewed facts.92.16.241.81 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)