Talk:Islam/Archive 24

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Topical Archives
External Links
Archive index

Block quote

Demographics

This is regarding this addition [1]. It was previously removed by another editor, then again recently by me. It has been reinserted now, and I do not wish to get into an edit war.

Due to immigration and high fertility rates among Muslim communities, Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity in many European countries. Why I think the first part should be removed:

• This is not supported by the sources provided
• The evidence for higher fertility rates increasing the population significantly is not established. Furthermore, many immigrant groups, regardless of religion have higher fertility rates. Why does this pertain particularly to Islam?
• It is a blanket statement, and ignores the more subtle demographic profiles of many of the countries in Europe. Recurring dreams 13:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a suggestion to the Editor who inserted the statement to source it and possibly place it in the section on Demographics or Modern times. Which reminds, the Section listing the major population centers in various regions does not do so for Europe.--Tigeroo 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

the BBC source says that these factors make Islam the "fastest growing religion" in Europe (and not that it's the second largest religion in Europe because of these factors). Recurring dreams is quite right, it's overly simplistic. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless we are ready to have a serious discussion about the factors contributing to the growth in Muslims, we should avoid making blanket statements.Bless sins 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too marginal for this article. There are thousands of basic social science textbooks that will tell you that Muslims came to European countries as a result of immigration mainly from formerly colonised countries, and that subsequently their numbers have increased through a combination of continued immigration and demographic factors. Demographic factors include not only a higher birth rate (which tends however to reduce over time and converge with the rate in the indigenous population) but also a lower death rate, resulting from the young average age of the original immigrant population.Itsmejudith 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Last sentence of lead section: Only about 20 percent of Muslims come from Arab countries. Doesn't it mean come from or live? I don't have the source so I don't know but come from seems to include Arab migrants to other countries which are Muslim. That may not be what the source is suggesting. Just a clarification. Thank you Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reposting this comment

This section is the very opposite of balanced if it ignores the preaching of some clerics today who equate jihad with a holy war against Israel. I added some referenced information on this subject (from a non-biased source) which was promptly removed, with a comment to take it to the talk page. I know the intention is to present Islamic in the best possible light, but there is no excuse for ignoring a phenomenon that is so significant today -whether or not it is pleasant to hear. This is supposed to be an encyclopdia and to help people understand the world. By making believe jihad does not exist in the sense of armed struggle against "infidels" (which includes Israel) you are making a joke of Wikipedia as an information source. I wrote that "some Muslim clerics" think this way. To ignore that is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to deceive the reading public. --Gilabrand 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give full details of the source so that everyone can evaluate it? If you're not already familiar with Wikipedia policy on verification you might save time by having a quick look at it. Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The source was clearly stated when I entered the information. The source is Memri (The Middle East Media Research Institute "(MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization". --Gilabrand 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is fine for a current-events article, but not for this article, which should be restricted to sources by scholars only. - Merzbow 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stating it again, though, so that we didn't have to trawl back through the page history. And I think Merzbow is right about the source for this particular article. Itsmejudith 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the bigger question is why single out mention the current Israeli-Arab confrontation as Jihad. There are quite a few other Jihad's being waged around the world right now and a lot more through history. The purpose of this article is an view of the Islamic concept. While resistance to Israel is a jihad Opposition to Israel is not what Jihad is about, I hope you can see the difference, this article is about the latter while the former belongs as an entry in a list of Jihads, or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam/Archive_21&action=editcurrent Jihads etc. I think it may have been removed because it just invites trolling and deviation from the discussions on the article--Tigeroo 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Many Christian Arabs want the destruction of Israel too.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 15:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

hierarchy of religions

According to Friedmann Islam maintains a hierarchy of religions wherein it occupies the uppermost place followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and polytheism.

I think this is his idea. In Islam the religions divided to truly monotheistic comprising what all of the prophets of Islam have taught, distorted monotheistic comprising what we know as Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism today, polytheism and atheism. Islam guide to first group, tolerate the second one as dhimmis and fight with the last.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree. I don't think the Prophet had any problem with Judaism or Hanafiyah in their essense. Being a Christian, or a Jew doesn't matter (this is very clear from the Qur'an). What matters is submission to God. Religion is not classified by name in Islam. It is classified by piety and fear of God. Some may classify it in certain contexts but certainly not in theology. --Aminz 06:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of you may want to read WP:NOR. Beit Or 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, what? Judaism is not truly monotheistic? --Aminz 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a Christian, or a Jew is another matter. I don't mean all of the non-Muslims go to hell. this is another issue which Muslims disagree about it. I speak about the religions. I mean that what have been taught by the prophets were corrects and Islam accepts them but during the the time the monotheistic religions distorted to some extent and finally abrogated by Islam. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

this is explicitly the viewpoint of Ibn al-Qayyim; Friedmann makes that absolutely clear. not all scholars agree, Friedmann mentions classical Hanafi jurist al-Sarkhasi who places Judaism above Christianity because of the latter's trinitarian doctrine. the general order appears to be Judaism/Christianity, then Zoroastrianism (and possibly others), then polytheism. ITAQALLAH 11:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, please read carefully. Christianity is generally ranked above Judaism because Christians recognize Jesus, while Jews do not. The opinions placing Judaism above Christianity due to monotheistic considerations are in the minority. Beit Or 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What I see, is him using the words "According to" when referencing the two sources and only mentioning any consensus beyond a general agreement that "People of the Book" (Christians/ Jews) rank above Zoroastrianism and polytheism in religious percepts. At anyrate, the author states that he "discerns" the hierarchy "in some sources" pg.38. Infact the entire chapter focus more on the concept of Muslim thought considering the Classical Muslim jurisprudence conception of a superiority of law/ civilization/ religion and how this "motif" of superiority has had, in his opinion, a cascading "ramifications in numerous fields of thought and practice." Unless I missed something it might be a bit of a stretch to extend it onto the supposition that there is a such an official Islamic hierarchal list. Nothing in his work states that.--Tigeroo 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like original research, on your part. Padishah5000 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is actual quite trivial information with little value. There is NO such formal official Theological list as such, merely postulations. The more important concept is quite simply thus : Islam is how to get it right anything else is WRONG. The other Abrahamic faiths/ belief system is the next best thing only because they are the closest belief system to that of the Islamic concept of right, with polytheism being the worst because it is the way off base. Also there is significant amount diversion even in classical thought on how that plays into the states relationship. One concept was supremacy one and another was that of citizenship loyalty, that they would not uphold the Islamic nature of the law of the land. Even the other laws stated therein have other concepts, such as patriarchal familial structures which makes the fathers identity the adopted identity of the kid etc. These can easily be referenced and brought up to balance the POV displayed by one authors conception, but the question is what purpose does this serve except bloat the article. Let the details go to the appropriate sub-page where it can be hashed out properly.--Tigeroo 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there isn't any standard rank. We should say Islam, Ahl Kitab(comprising Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism) others(comprising pagans, atheists, etc)--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Padishah5000 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove clarify tag before building consensus.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How significant is this? This smacks of fringe theories because there is no official status or theological codification of such a concept except in the sense of "we are correct and who is closest to us is more correct" beyond the treatment of the concept of dhimma. I suggest this mention is both fringe & undue weight as well as not particularly relevant. As for the other concept of superiority, all religions/ philosophies consider themselves them the correct belief system and as such inherently the superior way of life. It smacks of an backend POV entry in this sense given that no other religion page devotes such attention to extrapolating some facets in drawn out detail on jurisprudence while providing contracted details on others; WP:Undue weight. There is no official status within the religion or jurisprudence for such a concept and as Friedman himself notes considerable dissonance both within the schools on its treatment philosophically as well as over historical time on how this concept is treated. It is primarily a philosophical / social view: pg 38 "In addition to the unquestionable exaltedness of Islam, in some sources a hierarchy between the non-Muslim religions can also be discerned." Here he is confirming the above and further suggests he is extrapolating a personal conception rather than a tenet of belief i.e. while recognizing that such thoughts have shaped Islamic societies historically such a view is not inherent to Islam; i.e. more like the relation of Jew & Gentiles and unlike Castes and Hinduism and does not warrant detailed discussion here. pg 29 He even quotes Grenbaum to that effect that Islam was not unique for this attitude prevalent in medieval times where every civilization presumed its superiority and stellar virtues and the introduction also mentions on how Friedmann explores how this concept of superiority has influenced and evolved in theological thought.--Tigeroo 05:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and read Friedmann and have some further concerns. on page 12 he quite clearly states the limits of his work as limited to classical thought and "ethos" and does not talk about extensive modern developments or thought except for sporadically. I am moving the quote here for work before reinclusion

Islam maintains a hierarchy of religions wherein it occupies the uppermost place followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and polytheism. This idea of Islamic supremacy is encapsulated in the formula "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it." Accordingly, Muslims are not allowed to place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions. Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, non-Muslims may not inherit from their Muslim relatives, and a testimony of a non-Muslim is inadmissible against a Muslim. A non-Muslim who insults Islam must be put to death, according to most schools of Islamic jurisprudence, or flogged and imprisoned, according to others.

This stance is a position peculiar to Friedmann within a certain historical constraint, therefore becomes a bit of WP:OR when extended as a generalization and common rule. It also appears at places to based on a selective and partial reading of Friedmann. Simple examples,

1. The notability and widespread or even officialness of the listed hierarchy vs. social perceptions. Note Sarkhasi is am important early hanafi jurist. Hanafi's are also currently a major school, it is hard to guage from the source either way on todays ranking for the socalled hierachial ranking.
2. The importance of the Islamic supremacy concept as intrinsic Islam vs. influence on thought process. Friedmann is limited to a medieval thought process so it does not reflect any changes that may or not have taken place since. Remember jurisprudence has evolved considerably in light of revision on the social conceptions. The Modern world context interpretation of the Exalted Concept is lacking we only have an interpretation one from a Medieval social conception masquerading as a grounded law.
3. The limited influence of the "place themselves in a position inferior to that of other religions" doctrine in Islamic theology or needs better qualification vis-a-vis marraige & slaves i.e. where social vulnerable position would make one prone to interference with religious practice.
4. For the non-inheritance aspect Friedmann himself mentions that it was a minority view.
5. Amendment to non-Muslim who insults Islam, it applies to Muslims equally.

In principle the historical position of the dhimma vs. Muslim citizenry is fine, just details needs to be worked on for improved accuracy, notability and weightage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:#top|talk]] • contribs) Tigeroo (UTC)

All of these "concerns" are solely your original research. Beit Or 19:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually most are issues raised are found in Friedmans own work. The concerns simply summed up are fall in these categories:

1. accuracy of all of these stances stemming directly from a codified principle of exaltedness (else it's extraneous)
2. the notability and non-timebound applicability of Friedman's suppositions(else it's undue weight)
3. it postulations being mirrored in other works as well.(else it's non-notable)--Tigeroo 10:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen this "hierarchy of religions" concept mentioned by any other author. If nobody but Friedmann is advancing this theory, then it's not notable enough for mention. - Merzbow 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Friedmann is relating, for the most part, the opinion of Ibn al-Qayyim: "In addition to the unquestionable exaltedness of Islam, in some sources a hierarchy between the non-Muslim religions can also be discerned. A discussion of such a hierarchy can be found in Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya whose Aḥkām ahl-aldhimma is probably the single most comprehensive medieval work on the law applicable to the dhimmīs. In his perception, Islam is followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and polytheism... ... According to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's understanding, Christianity is second to Islam in the hierarchy of religions. It is considered better than Judaism because Christians believe in both Moses and Jesus, while Jews do not include Jesus in their list of prophets. Al-Sarakhsī contends, on the other hand, that monotheistic Judaism is better than Christianity which believes in the trinity. 139 According to all views, the Zoroastrians are one rung lower on the ladder than the Jews..." ITAQALLAH 01:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the opinion of just one jurist, though. - Merzbow 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is amended by another. Note that Friedmann himself is postulating a theme by "discerning" a hierarchy. There is no mention of any official or codified one. A more common and general theme more relevant here and one that is both much more easily verifiable and notable is simply that of dhimma.--Tigeroo 10:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I see no codification per se of this hierarchy in accepted Islamic law, so the text should not represent the situation as such. - Merzbow 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i concur. the only distinction of note made is between those who are people of the book, and those who are not (which i believe is already mentioned). it's certainly not correct to say "Islam maintains a heirachy of religions..." ITAQALLAH 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What I see here is broad agreement that there is at least a heirarchy of Islam, ahl al-kitab, others. The dispute is first about the relative positions of Judaism and Christianity - which, as there does appear to be a genuine dispute among Islamic jurists, can be solved by writing "Christianity and Judaism" rather than "Christianity, Judaism. The second, whether there is any distinction between these and Zoroastrianism. Is this also being challenged?Proabivouac 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "hierarchy" is still the wrong word here. It implies that those religions lower on the "hierarchy" are still valid, but lesser somehow, just as the Vice-President of the U.S. is still a recognized politician, but of less power than the President, in the hierarchy of U.S. political offices. Islamic law, however, does not consider other religions to be "valid", it just allows for their adherents to be tolerated to varying degrees. The situation doesn't fit the term "hierarchy"; I'm not sure if there is a catch-all term that fits it, so I think it best just to describe the situation without attempting to summarize it in one word. - Merzbow 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Friedmann saying a heirarchy "can be discerned" "in some sources" may not quite be enough to warrant us stating that "Islam maintains a heirarchy," especially when the last member is disallowed altogether. However, we do need to discuss how the ahl al kitab and how Zoroastrians fit into this, and the article currently doesn't do this. Come to think of it, the article doesn't do a lot of things since Tigeroo's last edit.[2] I'm glad we're here discussing things, but that kind of blanking of perfectly relevant and pithily stated information is completely inappropriate for a featured article, and because it's protected, we can't fix it. I wouldn't be surprised to see it delisted.Proabivouac 04:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully the process for delisting an FA is very long and involved, and seeing as this article is almost identical to the version that passed FA, the chance of that happening is very slim. Regardless, I certainly support some kind of compromise between the two versions in that diff. - Merzbow 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a marked distinction huge difference in this contrasted from blanking. The whole point of me pasting the material and then listing my "issues" with here was not to blank it out but so that we can up fix the issues I raised with this segment that are causing 'disinformation', and then restore the amended version back into the article, I felt it might be a simpler process than having numerous corrective edits and reverts etc because this requires a bit of an involved change. Simpler fixes that I see as can be achieved by additions or redactions I just tagged or started threads on. I will happily agree to whatever option the editors prefer as the mode the of discussion. Seeing how a couple of back and forth corrective edits appear to have gotten the article locked, I would think this is a better way.--Tigeroo 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Merzbow. i would certainly like to see a compromise between the two versions (one contains too much for an introductory coverage, the other contains too little), and hopefully we can work towards developing that now before full protection is removed to save us the unnecessary warring. ITAQALLAH 14:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK so we have agreement on one item, the hierarchy. The next one again is the according to this principle xx and xx have occurred. Is this also a contention peculiar to Friedman or is this a more notable theme. Once again I can cite sources that can demonstrate that the principle of Exaltedness and the ensuing "Accordingly" attributions as elucidated again appears to be peculiar to the hierarchy concept Friedman is exploring. I.e. More easily verifiable sources state: Women are not to marry non-Muslims because the based on the presupposition that children adopt the father's religion. On the non-inheritance issue Friedman himself minimizes it by saying it was a minority opinion among the really early jurists (later jurists either allowed mutual inheritance or entirely disallowed mutual inheritances). Generally the listed interactions are correct but their common root is one that again one that only appears to be discerned by Friedman as a background theme. It would be more appropriate to create a general list and leave off a discussion of the underlying assumptions as this wanders into variable territory.--Tigeroo 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

some reasonable points, i do think mention of Islamic exaltedness is necessary. we just don't need to be excessive in providing four examples to drive the point home, when one or two can do. as for the Friedmann discussion concerning inheritance, it has been shown that its linking in to the discussion about exaltedness isn't nearly as pertinent as other examples. ITAQALLAH 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern is not that there is a list of "manifestations", or the concept of Exaltedness. I just see the direct linkage that Friedman creates between the two as non-traditional. Typically sources ascribe a different reason as the primary directives for the above listed and different manifestations for the concept of exaltedness than the ones Friedman states. Anyrate, if other sources can be shown making the same linkage I don't have any issues with the linkage.--Tigeroo 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i think you are quite right. there is a stark difference in jurisprudence between the text explicitly enacting the legal obligation/prohibition (`illa), and the speculated wisdom or rationale behind the ruling (hikma). it's certainly not the case that the theme of exaltedness is the `illa. from this perspective, the observation/linkage made by Friedmann appears to be just that (an observation) instead of a reflection of a traditional linkage, but i will go over his text again. in any case, if you are able to find good sources substantiating your point then we may move forward. regardless, as i have said above, this part of the article discussion needs to be trimmed. ITAQALLAH 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Humphreys (again)

This latest addition to Jihad flatly contradicts the earlier part of the paragraph:

"Through history Muslims have regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as even more critical targets and most Jihads have either been defensive in nature or directed at other Muslims with martyrs guaranteed a place in paradise."

This is the first part of the paragraph:

"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 establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule"

Obviously both cannot remain as written, so I've reverted the latest addition. If that summary of Humphreys' views are accurate, so far he seems to be the only reliable source saying this. - Merzbow 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see no relationship between the martyrs clause and the rest of the sentence.Proabivouac 19:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is just another missing item. No real direct relation.--Tigeroo 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Even withing it's range of meaning as war on behalf of Islam, the term is often used in relation to conflicts between Muslims. Such examples include wars fought against groups of apostates rebelling against proper Islamic authority (murtaddun), dissenting groups denouncing legitimate Muslim authority (baghi), highway robbers and other violent people, and deviant or un-Islamic leadership. The determination of when Muslim leaders may call for jihad and the requisite demands that such a call makes upon the Muslim populace are developed in the legal literature.

- Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia - Section Jihad.

What we have currently is a very classical rendition. From a time when there was only one Muslim ruler and war was presumed as the natural eventuality between any two nations with hostility the norm (conquer or be conquered), in this case the Islamic Caliphate and any neighbors it may have and the presumption that it was impossible to enjoin the good and forbid the evil in lands beyond Muslim rule without persecution, making it further a struggle against persecutors to end persecution. Ergo pre-emptive conquest or rather defensive expansion. Even then we had the kharijites and various other elements who declared Jihad against the Umayyads as a matter of course. Again it ties up with what I was saying is the limited rendition of Jihad coming through in this article. There existed a definition of Jihad both before and after the "classical" version usually encapsulated by Averroes as well. Another quote:

The actual meaning of the term has nothing to do with warring or aggression. It means, rather "Striving", and is commonly used in the Quran and elsewhere as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah). This is striving to do the divine will and fulfill one's religious obligations in the Islamic context, includes protecting the religion from both outside aggressors who would dominate it and from internal sedition or subversion away from what is perceived to be the straight path established by God and his Prophet.

--Tigeroo 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Did not the Kharijites consider the Umayyads to have apostasized?Proabivouac 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In a simplistic manner of speaking; Yes. Also note, Ibn Zubair's revolt and Ziyad ibn Ali's revolts were also Jihads, much as Abu Muslim's toppling of the Umayyads. These guys did not consider the Umayyad's apostates, just "impious".--Tigeroo 04:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see support in the quotes for language as strong as "...as even more critical targets and most Jihads..." Such phrasing still contradicts the first half of the paragraph. I would rephrase the addition as simply "Through history, Muslims have also regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as targets for jihad." - Merzbow 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging only from the quoted portions above, Humphrey emphasizes jihad against internal dissent more than tyrannical rule.("apostates rebelling against proper Islamic authority", "dissenting groups denouncing legitimate Muslim authority", "internal sedition or subversion" against "deviant or un-Islamic leadership.")Proabivouac 06:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The emphasis and the sentence inserted was pretty much a paraphrase of a straight up Humphreys sentence. The quoted sections above are not from Humphreys but are both from "Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia" sorry if there was some confusion, I quoted a second source for the same information since that was what I thought Merzbow was asking for, i.e. if Humphreys was unique with that particular stance or not. As for the emphasizing internal more than tyranny, that is just a categorization system. Mentioning the categories does not denote equal weightage and I would be loathe to say the emphasis is one way of the other based on just this. The theology over "just rebellion" vs. "fitna" and the threshold between them is another large chapter in Jihad jurisprudence entirely.--Tigeroo 09:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding some or most of the schools of thought believe .... I thinks it's not general idea.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "some" in general is a weasel word to avoid, unless we followed up with specific examples. Also am not quite sure what the some is supposed to refer to, I think the sentence "Through history, Muslims have also.." is both general enough as well as broad to encompass the idea that shifts on stances and thematic variations that can be touched on in the main article better.--Tigeroo 07:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

lead image

Many religous articles of wikipedia have a lead image. This article probably should have one too.--Sefringle^Talk 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

the article achieved FA status without a lead image, and to be honest there's not really an image which would encapsulate the topic or represent the subject in a way expected of a lead image. i think it's best to just leave the template where it is. ITAQALLAH 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro is kind of long, and to fill the blandness, an image in the lead would probably improve the article. I picked the one you put in the front page description, because it makes the article look better as a whole, but if you have a better idea...--Sefringle^Talk 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

the template is just fine, and the image was more pertinent in its previous location. don't make contentious changes on a featured article without obtaining consensus. thanks. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, an something seems to be missing from the lead, and an image would make the article look better. I think the article looks better with that image in the lead. I figured there was consensus because you didn't respond to my comment in two days.--Sefringle^Talk 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the point i'm making is that there's no need for a lead image just for the sake of having one there. if there was an image encompassing the topic then it'd be worth discussing. the image about one of the five pillars, belongs in the relevant section. i suppose we should see what other think, but could you please remove the other statement for which there was no consensus to include as per its being covered later. ITAQALLAH 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll do a straw poll to see what others think.--Sefringle^Talk 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should there be an image in the header?

Yes

1. Sefringle^Talk 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Arrow740 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I think a lead image is a good idea. This one may not be the best, however; it looks like they're praying in a convention center. Perhaps prayer in the Masjid al-Haram would be a better summary?Proabivouac 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
4. The current image is fine. Raul654 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
5. i was hoping there'd be a better image, but i don't really mind the current one. ITAQALLAH 06:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Looks acceptable as is. Beit Or 16:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Good idea.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Yes. --- A. L. M. 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
9. - Merzbow 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Sure, nothing forbids it — a Muslim Іван Коренюк — Ivan Korenyuk 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No

1. The image of Muslim prayer is by no means a representative of Islam. --Aminz 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But would you be OK with a better image?--Sefringle^Talk 06:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what kind of image would be appropriate there, certainly not this one we have. But in general, I have no objection to having an image. --Aminz 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what could be more representative of Islam. Maybe this photo? -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the picture should have people kneeling. The whole point is submission, and that is a gesture of submission. Also Muslims are supposed to do that five times a day. Arrow740 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think image of Kaba and Hajj is a better choice. I suggest using one of these images:Image:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg or Image:Mecca skyline.jpg--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is consensus about using an image. Which one do you prefer?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 
  #1(Featured image)
• #2
  #2
• #3
  #3

• My vote is for #3 --Sefringle^Talk 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #3 is best representative of Islam as it exists in the everyday life of the average Muslim. Arrow740 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #2 has a spiritual quality to it. Itsmejudith 07:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #1 first choice, #3 second choice; both are immediatly recognizable to the layman as having to do with Islam. #2 less-so. This picture must stand-alone without a caption when it hits the Main Page. - Merzbow 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #2 I support in lead. --- A. L. M. 08:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #2 I support in lead. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The first image focuses too much on one man, who looks like he is practicing Qi Gong or is about to cast a third-level spell. It's not a gesture one associates with Islam.Proabivouac 06:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It might not be one associated with Islam for the Western World. In the Arab World, the sub-continent, Northern Africa etc. the classic "dua" pose is as easily identifiable as the "sajdah" which seems to fascinate the Western world a lot more, possible because it is more striking from their cultural perspective??--Tigeroo 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on Islam with about one-billion membership. A picture focusing on one man (who is probably recognizable for those who knwo him) is thus inappropriate. The third image, which shows a group of people, none of whom is identifiable, is perfect. Beit Or 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• #1 It picks the central symbol of Islam the Kaaba and has the Mosque minarets and domes in the background.--Tigeroo 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• #3 Number three, which appeared on the main page, has grown on me.Proabivouac 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• #3 of course. The other two pictures show some specific places and are more appropriate in articles on them. The third one is generic and thus perfect for an introductory article on Islam. Beit Or 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• #2 The Kaaba is the central symbol of Islam and exists from the time of Adam and recognised around the world. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• #2 - i don't mind #3 at all (#1 is less appropriate here), i personally prefer #2 over it. ITAQALLAH 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• #3 - just because it is the easiest to see in the thumbnail view - Maiios 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Result

OK. That's 2 for #1, 4 for #2, and 4 for #3.--Sefringle^Talk 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, no preference emerges from the vote. Ask a statistician. Itsmejudith 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fair to use both #2 and #3 in the lead or find another images with expresses both of the contents(Salah and Haj) . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

analogical reasoning

There is written analogical reasoning ((qiyas)) is one the four fundamental roots of Fiqh while in Ja'fari jurisprudence 'Aql is used instead of it.

Mortaza Mutahhari has quoted:

The early Shi'ite logic concerning the first of the two trends is extremely sensitive and interesting. As for the first trend, that is, regarding the problem of justifiability or unjustifiability of qiyas, Shi'ah rejected qiyas on the basis of the express texts (nusus) of their Imams... in spite of strongly disapproving qiyas, they formally affirmed the share of reason in ijtihad. The Shi'ite fuqaha' and the usuliyyun officially recognized reason as one of the four sources of fiqh[3]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Twelvers viewpoint of Jihad

Twelvers distinguish between offensive jihad and defensive jihad.

• Abdulaziz Sachedina points out that in Shi’i Islam, waging an offensive

jihad requires the permission of the Imam. Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina, ‘‘The Just Ruler (al-sultan al-adil),’’ in Shi’ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite Jurisprudence (New York: 1988), 105. Quoted in Roger M. Savory (note 30), 18, 37.

He has explained this issue in another works:

• The Just Ruler in ShiʿiteIslam. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1988
• The Just Ruler in Shi'ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite Jurisprudence Oxford University Press Inc (USA), 1998 (page:105, 106 and 115)

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source. - Merzbow 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too.Proabivouac 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

waging any kind of offensive jihad requires the permission of the Imam/leader/ruler. if we are talking about the sanctioning required from a shi'i Imam, i believe this has already been mentioned? ITAQALLAH 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that in the twelver the Imam who can do it is in occultation so Jihad is suspended because no one is around who can ensure that it is carried out justly. I believe in later Sunni jurisprudence with the demise of the central caliphate, the clergy also picked a larger role in the sanctioning of a jihad.--Tigeroo 07:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The important fact is that offensive jihad requires the permission of the Shia Imam(divine ruler )so offensive Jihad is suspended during occultation because no one is around who can ensure that it is carried out justly. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

location of Islam template

I origionally put this template right under the image. Now it has been moved lower. Can someone explain why?--Sefringle^Talk 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Regarding this edit, Tigeroo has made a vague argument in an edit summary that our reliable source is wrong. That is not sufficient grounds to remove cited material. Also I direct you to read surah 9 of the Qur'an, Tigeroo. Arrow740 01:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It has not been "removed", it has merely been moved here for discussion and correction, see above for the particular concerns. Also, sure I can read that but that have to do with anything, I don't see whatever you are alluding to or that contradicts with what I have proposed. I would suggest you refrain from analyzing and conducting OR on Primary sources or referring others to do the same, the results can be very varied and won't get us anywhere, just look at theologians even they can disagree on the same.--Tigeroo 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Considerable work notes that this situation was not a normative Islamic prescription but dependent on polical standing." Our reliable sources and the Qur'an prove you to be wrong. Edit according to policies. Arrow740 09:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A second time reference to an "our", assuming a "yours" or a cabal that is predisposed to oppose. Please take a back-seat on the combative approach to discussions, its not healthy. As for the edit you cite, please check all I have done there in that instance is place a tag with a rationale. That is well within policy so I am not sure what you are referring to. As for what the Quran proves on this is score, I think it proves your stance unfounded and do not see the proof that you seem to imply exists.--Tigeroo 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Our" refers to those of us who are editing constructively. Do not remove sourced content. You have been disruptive here for quite some time. If you continue, some further action will be required. Arrow740 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OWN, Wikipedia:Etiquette & Wikipedia:Civility. You have been rather loose with your snide remarks. I would suggest instead that you proffer structured supporting arguments and rebuttals, those would be more conducive towards formulating constructive discussions. I have not received any from you except cryptic one-liners, vague accusations of impropriety and now even vague threats. In this whole section for example, what is it about the tag or the content move? What is the issue? What is your position? What is your basis for that position? Without spelling those and eliciting responses no headway can be made. If it is about the perceived removal, note it is merely "moved" to the talk page for discussion, contribute there if you want to be constructive instead of reversion. If it is fine it can just be copied back in, else it recan be reinstated incorporating comments received. It's a little more productive than endless reversions and "hostile" editing.--Tigeroo 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have here a scholarly disagreement? In which case we need to summarise both sides. Arrow, you know that the Qur'an is a primary source and it should not be the text itself that guides us but interpretations of the text in secondary sources, preferably recent scholarly sources in English. Itsmejudith 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mecca or "Makkah"

This is for information of all that the "Mecca" is not the right way to spell the name of Holy City of Islam. This spelling has become obsolete for quite a long time now. I don't know why some people still insist to spell it that way. The correct and authentic spelling is "MAKKAH". This is more close to the true pronunciation of this word in Arabic and has more vocal proximity to its Arabic origin. I strongly recommend to restore the original spelling (Makkah) in this article.Thanks,mushtanda

a more accurate transcription may very well be Makkah, please refer to the Arabic manual of style, which suggests we prefer primary transcription over strict transliteration. ITAQALLAH 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think current scholarly usage is still almost exclusively "Mecca", so we should stick to that (unless someone can show my statement to be wrong). - Merzbow 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be called what the article is called, and consensus for the Mecca article was to call it Mecca.--Sefringle^Talk 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-muslims in Muslim states

In "Other religions" section, the following sentences is written: "Dhimmis are subject to legal and social restrictions as well as humiliating regulations meant to highlight the inferiority of non-Muslim subjects". This phrase is totally untrue and reflects a purely biased opinion, since no examples or explanations were given to the term "humiliating regulations". non-muslims were treated as fairly as muslims were. A verse in the Quran says:" wa itha hakamtom bayn alnas fahkomo bil'adl", meaning if you are to judge the people then do it fairly. Non-muslims even had less obligations than muslims, since they didn't have to pay alzaka (charity money).