I have no idea, i just know that Imamat (leadership) and nobuwat (prophethood) is not on the list, and thats sunni pov.
--Striver22:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Women
Shouldent Khadija, Fatimah and Aisha be among "Major figures"?
I think there should only be Allah , Muhammad , Companians . B/c companians includes everyone , Omar , Abu Bakar , Ali , Fatima , Hussain .If we pointout people by name , it'll be a long list . Farhansher12:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, Muhammad is the only existent figure so I think it's fine not to have women (although we might add wives too). Names will just add POV because if we add Bakr we need to add Ali and if we add Uthman we'd need Hussain or something... so... maybe add the wives for women or people of the house? (I think that's reasonable since they had a fairly large effect on Muhammad) grenグレン17:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Muhammad had so many "wives" that there is a seperate template for them. They clearly cannot fit into this template. --Zeno of Elea20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Yah, which is why you link to the wives page. Not to each wife. not individually... like, we didn't list Bakr, we listed Sahaba so we don't list Khadija, we list Wives or use a better term if there is one People of the House? I forget. grenグレン21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Islamism
Why is Islamism in it? Political movements do not go in religious templates. Are we going to start putting the Judaism template on Zionism?Heraclius15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the first reason is that politics and religion are historically more closely linked in Islam than in any other major world religion. Second, the political manifestation of Islam has increasingly come under the spotlight in the last four years. I think it would do a disservice to this encyclopedia's readers to omit a topic which is widely discussed currently. Third, Islamism is an Islamic religious belief (from the Islamism page: ...religious views of Muslim fundamentalism which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state). It is held by conservative fundamentalists, but it is an Islamic belief nonetheless. As Islamism is an issue of current salience and significance, especially to people who might be researching Islam on this encyclopedia, I think it merits inclusion squirreled away down there at the bottom next to Jihad. (Also, Template:Jew does feature a link to Zionism under the heading of Jewish political movements). —thames15:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess what I meant was that when I went to the Zionism page there was no Jewish Template, just an Israeli template.Heraclius15:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Karl's idea is a good compromise. Should we add [[Islam as a political movement|Political Islam]] to the template? —thames16:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think Judaism having a Kingdom is pretty political... However, you do often hear the Muslim catch phrase from Dawa books of "Islam is more than a religion, it's a way of life" and while... I think it's self-aggrandizing to say that (Catholicism is a way of life if you practice it like they want you to ~_~) it is something commonly said. Off the top of my head I'd say that Islamism is better because I'd think it would deal more with theology of Islamic political theory (Qutb style of whatnot)... but, I haven't read either in a while... (see below) grenグレン17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
And why is that? the Islam as a political movement seems to be the better article of those two, and it clearly offer the reader much more historical information and background of this side of the Islamic religion. Not just information about contemporary political islamist movements. -- Karl Meier16:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The political Islam article is very convoluted and has sections that are both very anti-Muslim and very pro-Muslim. Islamism is a much better article.Heraclius16:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Then start working the PoV problems, that you claim is there. In my opinion we should link to the article that offer the broadest range of information regarding this issue, not one that only offer limited information about contemporary Islamist movements. -- Karl Meier16:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
After reading the premises of both articles I think that Islam as a political movement is better. Islamism explicitly states that it is about fundamentalism (which seems to be used in a rather pejorative sense)... There are non "fundamentalist" political movements in Islam or at least the potential for such. In Egypt in the early 1900s they reformers talked about how Islam could exist with Democracy... one of the guys went to France and enjoyed their liberalism and found it compatible with Islam. That article has the potential to be more balanced than Islamism and of course links to Islamism... that's what I think. grenグレン17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
A symbol on the template
It know it has been discussed a lot, and it has obviously been very hard to find a compromise that no one would object to, but here is another one: How about a Mosque? Maybe something like what OneGuy suggested half a year ago: [1]? So far I haven't seen anyone making any objections to that suggestion yet? -- Karl Meier20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora, you removed the crescent moon symbol yourself and commented your edit by saying (I quote) "the crescent moon is a symbol of the Ottoman empire." Yet here you say that this cresent moon symbol is "nice" that you would "be happy with that." Your statements are contradictory and it brings the basis of your reverts into question. Can you explain why one crescent moon DOES supposedly symbolize the Ottoman empire while another does not? --Zeno of Elea10:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Um, because it's a compromise and because it doesn't look as stark and aggressive. My textile artist's eye likes it better. Zora10:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh please, it's not a compromise. It's a combination of the crescent moon symbol with some aggressive Arabic script about Muhammad being the last messenger of Allah, who exists as is the only God. The cresent moon symbol is still there. The added scripture is not a compromise for people who are actually opposed to the moon symbol. I dont see why you think the nice moon symbol it's stark and aggressive. There's also a white version of the moon symbol - maybe that would be better? --Zeno of Elea12:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure it's copyright status, and it's obviously unacceptable anyway, because it also has the shahada on it.. For some strange reason I missed that, the first time I looked at it. I've been searching to find a more neutral mosque symbol, that is public domain, but it's actually much harder than to find, than I thought it would be. -- Karl Meier06:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the picture of the star directly over the crescent is the best. But the Shahada can't be seen when the image is shrunk. How about I just fill it in with solid black and make the back transparent. Then there won't be a copyright issue. Cunado1908:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
But then ... there are Muslims who object to the star and crescent, I believe -- though I like the layout, it's balanced, and it doesn't look so cartoonish. Black would be too dark. Dark green would be better. Um, how about this image (Allah in Arabic, rotated and mirrored) from [3]? I reworked it a bit, praps that would make it PD:
Although that looks really cool (I can read Arabic), I think it's not a recognizable symbol of Islam, which the crescent is. I'll remake two of the above images and see what people think. gimme a few days. Cunado1910:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I've made a rough colored-in version of the shahada star and crecent. A cleaner version can be made, and the outlines around the green can either be made black or block green if people want. If I cleaned up the image, would people want it, or should I not bother? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)13:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is the template GREEN? The only explanation so far is that Muhammad allegedly wore a green cloak (but no source). That's quite ridiculous. Why should the template be the color of Muhammad's cloak? Why not make it the color of his pants? Or his shirt? We know for a fact that Muhammad was a merchant and thus probably had a number of cloaks of different color, we also know that near the end of his life Muhammad amassed a great amount of wealth and that included a large wardrobe of fine cloathes (see Maria al-Qibtiyya). So this "green cloak" thing is a rather weak explanation. We also know that Muhammad actually used a black flag (thats right a solid black flag). WE obviously can't make the template black. But why GREEN? The first recorded official use of the color green by a Muslim state was with Fatimid empire which used a green colored flag. Is the template green because some empire (or perhaps some country, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) used or uses green in its flag? This seems like a pretty weak reason too, especially in the face of the fact that certain users have expressed a great deal of opposition to the cresent moon symbol on the basis of the fact that it is "a symbol of the Ottoman empire." So I ask again, WHY GREEN? --Zeno of Elea10:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
: Well, this is one symbol that's widely understood and doesn't seem to be controversial at all. Yes, there are various justifications, but it's all totally arbitrary, really. Why do Theravadin Buddhist monks wear orange? Why do Zen monks wear grey or black? Why is there a complex color symbolism in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox liturgies? I don't understand why you're so upset. Zora10:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not upset about the lime green color of the template. My contention is that the green color symbolism is as much symbolic of a specific empire or dynasty as the crescent moon symbol is symbolic of the Ottoman dynasty. If green is so Islamic, for arbitrary reasons, then I don't see what reason there could be for the anti crescent moon sentiment. --Zeno of Elea12:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I like green, i associate with Islam. I also associate the crescent moon with Islam, in both case not so for any hard evidential resones, but rather cultural. However i oppose the cultural crescent moon just out of spite of the "moon cult" non-sense that is pushed in resent internet era. Its not a integral part of Islam and i have no problem dissmising it if circumstances says so. Anyhow, i like green. I associate it with Islam. And i see no reason to not vote for that color. --Striver14:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
For one thing, there needs to be a color. Your changing it a while ago to purple was silly (as I have mentioned) because that is at least Catholic symbolism and maybe so for other Christians. I was under the impression that that is why the Jesus article used purple since unlike the albumbox project which has specific colors for the type of album, religious templates had no standard color. I don't understand why do you want the space wasting crescent and not the simple color? grenグレン19:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh goody. Another vote! :-p TomerTALK 17:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I like green and the moon symbol also, and also associate them with Islam. You guys have admitted yourself that the only reason you oppose the moon symbol is just out of spite for the "Allah is a moon god" JOKE that has been circulating the Internet. This is hardly a reason for suppressing legitimate encylopediac content, such as the crescent moon symbol. Don't worry about the moon symbol "wasting space" - Wikipedia isn't about to run out of "space" anytime soon. --Zeno of Elea05:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, I believe you know how I meant space. You know, page height and the like. ~_~. In any case when a page's formatting is going out of whack for me and I run my monotir at 1280x1024 then for most people who use lower resolutions it will be even worse. That is space. I also see no reason to pick a symbol that is going to cause controversy it seems rather imprudent of you. grenグレン13:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Out of spite? Possibly. Whether or not people listen to you depends a great deal on how you approach them. When my Zen teacher suggests something, I listen. I don't obey without question, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in cases when I'm unsure. When someone who seems to delight in upsetting other people and causing conflict makes a suggestion, I'm much less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know we're supposed to consider an idea on its merits and not on the basis of who has suggested it, but ... track records count. Particularily when the idea is being pushed, seemingly, in the HOPE of upsetting people.
The template does look a little bare with just ISLAM on top, so a symbol of some sort would be nice. I'm hoping that we can find something that's acceptable to everyone. As I understand it, not only are the crescent and star Ottoman symbols, not only do they give rise to rumors of moon worship, there are also Muslims who feel that they are too figurative, and smell of idolatry. Why NOT pick a different symbol? The shahada crescent-and-star at least dissolves them into abstract shapes and changes the orientation. The mosque thingie would be nice too, if it were PD. I googled and found a lot of nice arabesques, some of them based on just the word Allah. But we'd have to be sure that the symbol was PD. Zora07:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I await the movie production of "Muhammad's Cloaks of Many Colors". :-p TomerTALK 10:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
On the green color. Green was the color of Muhammad's turban I believe, and a green turban in the Muslim world is only worn by His descendants. I think there are more reasons why green represents Islam, but it is recognized by everyone but a few people on this talk page as symbolic of Islam. So if we need a color then it should obviously be green. Although right now it's a kind of puke colored green that should be changed. Cunado1913:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the color wasn't a nice shade of green by any means. I've tried a more muted, pastel version as a potential alternative. What do people think? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)11:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't like your muted pastels--they looked kinda "pukey" to me, so I changed them. Comments? (I'm drawn to wonder what readers are thinking, meanwhile, when they see that the colors in the template are changing from minute to minute... :-p) TomerTALK 13:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I see Zeno didn't like my color choices, and so s/he reverted instead of trying something new. In case anyone is wondering, this is what Zeno said was too dark. Since I really like my choixes better, I made this version too, just to show you a diff for a lighter version. TomerTALK 13:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Unacceptability of star and crescent
I just did some googling on "star crescent Islam symbol" and got a number of sites. Just about every Islamic site said that this was a symbol of the Ottomans, not of Islam. The sites took attitudes ranging from "this is shirk" to "it's regrettable, but hey, people WILL do it". I really really don't think it would be a good idea to use this symbol on the template. Why gratuitously offend Muslims?
I had another thought -- how about a silhouette of a mosque? That ought to be easy to draft, and recognizable. Zora11:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank for your effort! A mosque could do it, but i still strongly vote for the "Allah" calligraphy i mentioned above. That is more Islamic than a builing. --Striver11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I seriously don't understand the opposition to the crescent and star. After reading the entire talk page, and from my personal experience, it seems like the symbol is by far and above the rest the most recognizable symbol of Islam. It is the crowning symbol of Mosques and minarets around the world, it's on the flags of a ga-jillion Muslim countries, it's on the grand mosque in Mecca, the red crescent is the Islamic equivalent of the red cross, a poll of 5,000 people chose it as the best symbol, of the Muslims I know they take no offense to the symbol, and even more, we can't even agree on what might be second place.
And to compare to other wiki pages... Christianity uses the cross, which is not universally accepted by Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses think he didn't even die on a cross.
While the calligraphy is certainly very pretty, although I'm still baffled as to why it's purple, very few non-muslims or non-arabic speakers are going to know what the heck that scribbling is. Therefore, to get going on the silhouette of a mosque idea, I humbly submit this beautiful image, made by yours truly. Improvements will be regarded as productive editing, criticism will be regarded as POV-pushing trollishness. Critiques are welcome, as long as they deal with the fine use of lines and curves, etc. So here, ladies and gentlemen, for your esteemed consideration, is the bestest proposal ever (it took me about 3 seconds in MSPaint, 2 of which were exhausted choosing the brush shape):
P.S. I should have been in bed two hours ago. Someone want to fix it? It's still a little jaggy and lumpy.
I see my efforts were not in vain. Like I always say, there's no better way to encourage people to correct you than by being utterly wrong and acting like you don't know better. Wait. I don't always say that! Oh well. Yours is a vast improvement on mine. :-D TomerTALK 12:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Many Christians take offense to the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity, since they believe it focuses too much on Jesus' death instead of his resurrection, and prefer instead to use the little fish symbol, which references "the Great Commission". Any symbol that is used to represent any religion is going to be seen by some group as "incorrect". The truth of the matter is that minarettes are regarded universally as a feature of islamic architecture, just as surely as the sound of the muezzin intoning from a minarette is universally regarded as a hallmark of islamic calls to prayer. Meanwhile, I've modified the image so that the mosque consists of more than a roof, and added some nifty colors: It now occurs to me that it looks like the mosque is a façade and nothing more, since you can see right through it, but I'll let someone else fix that. :-p TomerTALK 13:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The first is modeled from a picture of the Aswan mosque in Egypt. The second is a combination with your onion bulb dome. Cunado1901:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Oooh, cool, I like the second one. Let's shrink it and use it! It even has the crescent <g>. I noticed .... Zora02:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I put up the second one, just to see how it would look. I think it looks FINE. If there's no consensus, however, we can revert. Zora03:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
After I saw it on the template I got another idea.
I put it on the template to see. I think it looks good, but the spacing and size of "Islam" is all weird. Maybe someone who knows what they're doing can make it look pretty. Cunado1905:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I just reverted it back to Zoras version for now, because I thought it made the template too wide, and the "history of Islam" link had disappeared. Another thing is that the transpartent background seems to work in (my) firefox browser, but not in (my) IE browser. -- Karl Meier06:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I like the two-minaret version. It's just that it's TOO wide. Dunno what to do about the background. I'm still puzzling out Adobe Photoshop. Maybe I should break down and RTFM. Zora07:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The template width is set at 150px, and I set the mosque at 140px, so it didn't change the width. And the history of Islam was linked further down. Is there a reason it should be part of the title?
I made the image GIF and it still doesn't load transparency on my IE browser. If someone wants to deal with it, try this article. My computer is completely in Chinese so I can't do anything if it gets complicated. Cunado1908:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The Mosque image as it stands takes up far too much vertical space, making the template less useful. How can we resolve this problem? —thames14:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I made it the horizontal mosque again but not as wide. See if you like this better. Don't revert cause I made other changes, just edit the page if you want to change. Cunado1916:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Is the Mahdi not Shia? Also, having "Allah" on its own line messes with spacing a little. They are known as the "five pillars of Islam" and with proper explanation on the page I think it's superfluous and ugly to say, "Sunni Five Pillars" on the template. In fact, I forgot, when I looked at the page it even mentions Shia belief... so, I'm reverting that part Striver. grenグレン08:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The Mahdi is both a Shia and Sunni belife, all Muslims acknowledge that Muhamamd (as) prophecies about him. The distinguishing Shia belife is that its the 12:th Imam. As for the Sunni part, if you look at the article you mentioned, it clearly says that the five pillars listed are not the Shia five pillars, rather the Sunni ones. As for God on its own line, im not going to nag about it, but it reflects better Gods supremacy. Thanks for your comment!--Striver08:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora, whats up with the "(rv - Striver! AAAGGH!)" ? Do you claim that the "five pillars" are a Muslim belife? Of course its not, its a Sunni belife, so why do you "AAAGGH" me when i accurately enlighten that? Hoping for quick reply...
I'm gonna have to side with Zora on this one. They are pretty universally known as the "Five Pillars of Islam". Even the name of the page is "Five Pillars of Islam" and not "Sunni Five pillars of Islam".... I was in the middle of changing it when Zora did it. If not us, I doubt other people will keep the sunni part. Cunado1909:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Well then we need to rename the article as well to reflect it being a Sunni categorization. People not knowing its a Sunni categorization cant be used as a argument for not enlightning them, as it stands it gives the inaccurate impression that Shia use the same categorization. --Striver09:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Striver, this is a template on pages we can fully explain but on the templates we cannot... I'm sure Rashad Khalifa is sitting at home crying because he didn't make it on the template. Or, he's dead isn't he? Well, a great majority of Muslims are Sunni... so, they of course will get preferrential treatment on articles giving summaries of things. Secondly they are known as the "Five Pillars of Islam", not the Sunni Five Pillars of Islam. I think three of us agree on this... grenグレン09:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Then why not linking to a article that explains it better? Anyhow, im not demanding a huge explanatory dump, i just want it to show its a Sunni exclusive belife. And that can be accomplished with one single word. As for the Usul al din, do you think shias say "Shia usul al din"? Of course not, but i added "Shia" to clarify its a Shia exclusive belife. As for Khalifa, his branch cant be compared to the Shia branch regarding predominacne, he has a minority, Shia are the second largest. --Striver09:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
After looking at all the links, now I think the whole section of Shia Roots of Islam should be cut. The title links to a section within the Shi'a page, which is only another list of the roots with little more information. Each of the "roots" links to a page that is only a paragraph long that is not very interesting. The template is already huge enough. This should just be deleted.
And by the way, Shi'as do believe in fasting, pilgrimage, alms, and all those. What world do you live in? Cunado1910:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Cut the Shi'a section, cut the link to the five pillars. Have a non-linking header in the first section that says something like "Basic principles" or "Muslim beliefs". Since Shi'a share all of those, there should be no problem. Zora10:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Five Pillars is very well known introductory stuff... I don't think it should have to be removed... I see it all over, and that is even how I learned it in my world religions class. It seems silly because Sunnis are the biggest and the five pillars listed are not really disagreed with by Shia are they? Also the five pillars page talks about the Shia central beliefs... grenグレン10:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
As for the Shia section not being developed, its not an excuse for ommiting them.
It is correct that Shia belive in all the things included in the five "pillars", however, we dont bundle them that way. We have the first part included in the "roots" and the other four parts in "braches". I see no reason to only present the Sunni categorization and not present the shia categorization. Either we have both or none. Shahadah is neither among the roots nor the braches of the Shia categorization, it haves two "roots" that equiviale it. In the same maner, Sunni dont have the "root" of Imamat among the "pillars". Its biased to not included "imamat" as a fundamental part of (Shia) Islam. Either we have both the "roots" and the "pillars" and point out that its the categorization of the diffrent braches, or we just put them in a mesh and call the "Basic principles". But only the "pillars" without the "roots" is biased, and the "pillars" is not a shia categorization, no matter what some school book omits to inform of.
And no, the pillars dont talk about the Shia central belife, only the first of the five does that in a indirect manner. The other four are about the "branches" of the shia belife, not the "roots".
--Striver11:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Striver, there's nothing there in the first section with which the Shi'a disagree, it's just that they organize things differently. We don't have to organize things the Shi'a way. We really don't. There's not room in the template. Zora12:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing Shias disagree with, Shia are a minority, and the template is packed for space. (Personally I'd remove holy cities and replace it with the buildings area but vertical -- even though I still wouldn't add the Shia section). Striver, this is representative and doesn't misrepresent the Shia... I think 3/4 is consensus (and even if that changed for the time being it should go back to how it was)... so, I'd prefer that you yield and recognize this and change it back... if you want to bring in more discussion about this do... but for now I think it's pretty clear what should be done...grenグレン12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora, you are correct int that there is nothing that the Shia dissagree with, and i agree that we dont have to organize it the Shia way, but to organize it only the Sunni way is biased.
Gren, the Shia are a minority, the second largest part of the Muslims. That is correct. Does that mean that they can be ignored? Remeber, its a sizable minority. If the problem is space, we can merge the most important points from both parts into something called "important principles". Maybe include the "pillars" and, prophethood, imamat and qiyamat. What do you think about that?
I have absolutly nothing againts having the ingredients of the "pillars", but i have something against labeling them as "the pillars of Islam" since it implies that only the Sunni view is relevant. And í also object to not including imamat somewhere in the template.
Somebody removed the "Sunni" and also "Ahl al-Bayt". This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to imply that the sunni pillars are generaly accepted by all Muslims as the pillars of Islam. They are not! According to Shias, they are branches, not roots or pillars! Explain yourself.
Um... I've been reading and contributing to the talk page all day, as you have. The consensus is that the word Sunni should be removed. That's what I did. My opinion is still that the whole Shi'a section should be removed, so don't think you're the only editor.
Between all the pillars and roots, the only thing not acceptable to both Sunni and Shi'a is the issue of the Imamate, which is not ignored, it is the fundamental issue of the major division in Islam. I think Muhammad was referring to you when he said "Knowledge is but a single point, but the ignorant have multiplied it." Cunado1916:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Mini-Islam
I was looking at Mecca and saw the this template there... which, I know Mecca is strongly linked to Islam... but, we show nothing about Meccan life or pre-Islamic history. I think that this template should go into a section there but it is rather unwieldly to fit into a section since it is very long... so... does anything think it's a good idea to make a rudimentary little box Islam template for holy cities that are heavily related to Islam (and this could/should be done for other religions I think) but shouldn't really have the full length Islam template.... What do you think? grenグレン12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Allah as a figure
I tried to take Allah off the list of figures. God is not a person, historical or otherwise. I added Ali and Abu Bakr which are actually the most important historical figures, and someone deleted them. What is this world coming to? Their names aren't mentioned in the 'companions' link. I'm going to bed, I hate wikipedia. I won't say that tomorrow. Cunado1916:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. Allah is also used by Arab Christians, adding Allah to this template would be biased and inaccurate.Heraclius17:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Allah talks about the Islamic concept of God which is far more important in Islam than Bakr or Ali. It says important figures... figure is purposefully vague and although not the best way to describe a diety it does still work in my estimation. It doesn't matter that Allah was used by Arab Christians... Mecca was used by the Quaraysh... is that biased? I mean... The concept of God and unity inherent is that is of the utmost importance in Islam... It was rather arbitrary of you to change these things... please discuss this first. grenグレン20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Part of the point is that Allah equals God. It would be like having God as a "figure" of Christianity or Judaism. People attacking Islam try very hard to make Allah as a separate God from the Christian God and I think that is why it is on the list in the first place. Cunado1907:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
good thinking, someone put Saladin on as a figure. but... wait a minute... how did Allah make an appearance again? you and your tricky editing! my sockpuppet will have something to say about that! Cunado19
Would you feel better if Allah is linked as "Muslim view of God" -- I have no problem with that... I am obviously not making my argument because I want people to think Muslims have a foreign and different God... but, because Muslims do have specific views of God. Let me try this... grenグレン16:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether Allah should be in the template or not (and I don't know why someone needed to create the user "Cunado19's sockpuppet" just to participate in this debate), but the current version that people have been reverting to, that lists Allah after Muhammad, is just silly. Either he's included, in which case he gets top-spot as benefits a God, or he isn't included. It looks a little silly to squeeze him in between Muhammad and Ali, like he's just "another of those guys". — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)16:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, in my argument I wasn't taking into account that people really do try to say "Christians believe in God, and Muslims believe in Allah" -- I don't think that way so I don't take it into account. I think Allah should be included because of Muslim's theological views of God and their central importance... these debates have been central to Islam since the beginning and are far more important than Abu Bakr and Ali -- which is just to please different sectarians and although important to Islam are not central enough to be on this template. There can't be two Gods -- that is of the same classical conception -- therefore I have made it link to Islamic conception of God... so those who don't understand that Allah is just used as God in another language will... understand. Is that fine? It's central to Islam... if you feel you have a better way then please tell me... grenグレン16:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The link for conceptions of God doesn't really belong in the figures list either. I agree that somewhere on the template there should be a link for Allah but just not under the figures or next to Muhammad and others. I was thinking that a section could be titled "beliefs" or "teachings" and under that could go concepts of God, all the current Shi'a roots, and maybe a few others.
Since I've done a lot to the template and I've offended people already and called someone ignorant, I won't do any more big changes. I'll leave it to whoever wants to try. This is a high stress page and I'd rather be doing happy pages with empty talk pages. I think the template looks pretty good anyway, much better than 2 weeks ago. Cunado1915:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think arbitrarily removing Allah, one of the most important things in Islam was a little brash... but it's fine and I understand your point. And I agree that figure isn't the best... but... it should also be high on the template. If you have an idea just paste it here. grenグレン19:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Color
Cuando... I can assume good faith, I can't assume decent taste. Really... that is incredibly hideous... I am fighting myself to not revert really quickly.... you didn't discuss it... but, it's so garish... the "pukey color" is in fact a light green which does not resemble any of the puke I have seen... but, at least it doesn't remind me of a billboard in Hong Kong... why... whyy... whyyy... please explain this all to me... and... hopefully... losing will to stop myself from changing it back... discuss before you do changes like that man. Thanks. grenグレン20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It's OK, Gren. Now put that gun down, we can talk it over ... <g> I played around with Photoshop a bit. I took that same green that Cuando used, but greyed it out a bit, and then picked a lighter shade of the same for background. I think it's OK, but this may not get consensus. There are only a few more thousand shades of green to discuss. Let's see -- six digits in hex, that's 65,535 colors, of which a big chunk are green. Let the color wars begin! Zora22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Pastel = Pukey
If you can help it, try to make changes instead of reverting. I just redid all the more minor things I did yesterday. It's a little hard to get "consensus" on this without actually changing the template. If you have an idea just try it, and improve on other people's ideas.
The background should stay the default grey in my opinion, cause the transparency doesn't work on some browsers like Internet Explorer, not to mention it just looks better. If it's grey then the white transparency is almost not noticeable.
The shade of green has to be light enough to still read both the black and the blue letters, and dark enough so that it doesn't look wimpy and like a Hong Kong banner. I thought my color was a good compromise (#00d50f), maybe a little too much on the Hong Kong side. Try this (#00aa0c). Cunado1907:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
New idea
Now the template's colors are a rather pukey pastel green and a nondescript purplish-gray. The objection to using dark colors is that the text can't be seen through them. BUT! I see now that all the section headings are straight text—no links, so! Why not make the drab purplish gray areas that pukey pastel green, and make the section heading area a fine green like the color of the flags of Libya or <begin inspiration>Saudi Arabia<implement inspiration> and make the text for those headings white instead of black? TomerTALK 02:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Implement it yourself. If you don't want it reverted then paste an example on the talk page, and I would suggest a small sample, not the whole template. Cunado1902:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I would, but I haven't been able to pinpoint a good RGB for the proper color. Suggestions? TomerTALK 08:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Crescent Moon (once again)
The current mosque silhouette is factually incorrect. Mosques that use the crescent moon symbol put the symbol on the dome (in some cases) and always on the tops of all the minarets. The current silhouette shows a crescent moon only on the dome and not on the minarets. I think they should be put on the minarets as well. Also, we should ask why we are putting crescent moons in the silhouette in the first place. Wasn't the whole point of this to avoid the crescent moon symbol? Now it is back. If it's back, then why don't we just switch from mosque silhouettes with crsescent moon symbols to just a crescent moon symbol? --Zeno of Elea00:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
OK...then we dont use cresent on the mosque either !!!
Anyways how about mixing Allah with the mosque , i.e. Allah in the shape of a mosque . ( From right to left )A separate minret on the right , followed by another minaret , then another minaret with a cresent for "shad" (dubling of sound) , ending with a dome . Farhansher05:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
A new user named Abu Dajjal put up a new mosque icon with a HUGE star and crescent on top, and inserted his mosque03 in place of Cunardo's mosque02. I've put the unvandalized icon back.
Since Abu Dajjal is a brand new user AND since Zeno of Elea has just been blocked for 24 hours AND since Zeno has a history of inserting stars and crescents just to upset people and since there has long been a suspicion that Zeno is in fact Penname, who has been blocked from editing for a long time ... well, I rather suspect that Abu Dajjal is Zeno, but I couldn't prove it without a look at the logs and IP numbers.
Personally, I must say that I thought that the huge star and crescent version was a bit amusing.. However, Mr. Dajjal should be aware that this is a encyclopedia, and we are not here to make any such jokes. These things only distract us from our purpose, and for good reasons most people don't appreciate it. -- Karl Meier12:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
For the record, the only times that I actually DID insert the moon symbol, it was for completely good faith encylopediac purposes, not to "just upset people" as Zora claims. I am still convinced that the moon symbol is the proper symbol for an encylopedia to use when a symbol for Islam is required, but long ago I gave up on the whole moon symbol issue. The giant moon on the mosque was funny despite what Zora says, and has nothing to do with me despite what Zora says. --Zeno of Elea09:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I reversed the order of Allah and Muhammad (it made no sense to have Allah after Muhammad), as well as Abu Bakr and Ali (again, there is no reason why Ali should be placed before Abu Bakr, whether you base it on alphabetical order or chronologically) and I added Saladin, quite possibly the most famous Muslim figure after the first century of Islamic history. --GNU4Eva13:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
alright, why were my modifications reverted? --18:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should alphebetize the list of figures. Seems like the NPOV thing to do. Hey, maybe someone really does want Muhammad to go before Allah. By alphebetizing the list, we remove room for such POV insertion. --Zeno of Elea09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Usool-e-Deen
Striver has translated "Usool-e-Deen" as "Roots of religion." This is an incorrect translation, unfortunately Striver is not the best translator. "Usool-e-Deen" means "principals of islamic religion," or "fundamentals of islaimc religion." "Roots of religion" just sounds silly and is a poor translation. --Zeno of Elea10:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe roots has just about the same connotations as fundamentals.... and I would hope it's not principals... at least not mean British ones with canes anyways. grenグレン12:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Again
Im telling, the title "Five Pillars of Islam" is missleading, it is NOT the pillars of Islam (Shia+Sunni), its the pillars of the sunni view of Islam! That title is inacurate and missleading, adding to the false notion that shia also belive in the "Five Pillars of Islam". Change it.
And Also, if "Sahaba" are going to be included, so needs "Ahl al-Bayt".
OK, I changed the Five Pillars section to Practices and beliefs, put the Imamate into that, and then removed the Shi'a roots section -- all of which is a reference to just one article, in any case. Will this do? Zora19:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, but Allah being half-way down that list seems a little strange to me. Since you've re-named the section "Practices and beliefs", it seems that it would be appropriate to have Conceptions of God at the top. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)23:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Well then, change it to Beliefs and practices, put Allah and Tawhid on top, then Five Pillars, then Imamate, then the practices (prayer, fasting, etc.). I'll try that, I guess ... Zora00:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, now i see. Well, as you know Zora, Caliphat is not a religious doctrine in Sunni Islam, that way there is no Caliph right now, but Imamat *is* a religious doctrine in Shia Islam, we belive that God chooses the Imam and there can not be a second time where there is not a divinly apointed Imam. So puting Imamat in the socioplitical section is incorrect, its as part of the faith as prophethood is. Further, Ahl al-Bayt is still missing. They are far more important than Sahaba are according to Shias. --Striver05:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I put the Ahl al-Bayt and Imam under major figures, since they're human beings. I took prophethood OUT of the major beliefs section, since it should be covered under Prophets of Islam. I hope THAT will do. Zora06:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought the addition of Saladin was good, actually, and then there's the fellow who's responsible for a great deal of today's Islamic religious practice, Al-Ghazali. He came up with a balance of legalism and Sufism that is still the traditional norm. He's not as well known as the early Islamic figures, but it could be argued that he should be better known. Zora07:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I think Fatimah is more important than Saladin, and I've never heard of Al-Ghazali. Although after Fatimah I have no ideas, so whatever you want. Cunado1912:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora, good, but not perfect :)
1) Not imam, imamate. Imam is a title, and its not the title im refering to, its the institution of imamat im refering to. The instiution of imamat is a fundamental principle of Shia Islam, as well as prophethood (note: not "prophet", but "prophethood")
2)Imam is not a person and should not be among "Major Figures". Its a fundamental belife. There has always been a Imam, Abraham (as) and somebody among his diciples, Moses (as) and somebody among his diciples, Muhammad (as) and somebody among his diciples and so on... However, Ahl al-Bayt are individuals and are correctly placed among "Major Figures" --Striver07:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you meant "Imams"? Like in the twelve Imams after Muhammad (as)? Thats one thing, the institution of Imamat is another thing. --Striver07:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I can live with this :) I did wish that imamate was in the belife section, but gues i cant have everything. --Striver09:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand exactly what you mean about the difference between Imam and Imamate. Take a look at the link for Imamate, which today I created as a disambiguation because previously it linked to an empire called Imamate. The information about the institution of Imamate is found under the Imam link, along with the 12 Shi'a Imams and information about the general use of Imam as a religious leader. Cunado1912:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, it seems that all of the talk above about inclusion of a link to Allah was ignored... but, I like the progress... I have changed "Oneness God" to "Oneness of God" -- it looks the same but of isn't part of it and allah is... I don't see why this would cause problems and it addresses the problem of making Allah out to not be God, this separating it from other religions. grenグレン09:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's looking good! I'm shocked that, after all these revisions, it has somehow managed not to scroll down over seven pages, nor list everybody there ever was. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)
Since the only other suggestion to replace imams was Saladin, and nobody actually changed it, I'm changing Imams to Fatimah as mentioned above. Cunado1914:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Earlier I meant to do this. This is the image I was thinking about for the crescent, I had to make it myself. I make no guarantee to the perfect roundness of the crescent. Yes I realize there are issues with using the crescent. Cunado1915:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Thames, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave this on the template. Women in Islam doesn't cover Islamic feminism, which is an attempt to develop a form of feminism very specific to Islam and quite different from Western secular feminism. There's no reason to confine women's issues to one mention on the template. SlimVirgin(talk) 14:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
PS, I just looked at Islamic feminism and it's only one paragraph. I'm removing it from the template. Cunado19
Hi SlimVirgin. I didn't mean to be curt about the removal of Islamic feminism. I've encountered your work elsewhere around Wikipedia and respect the contributions you've made. My issue with the template is not the over- or underabundance of women's issues on the template, but rather size in general. Since Women in Islam had a section on Islamic feminism, I thought that the template could survive without a direct link to Islamic feminism. Regarding templates, I tend to favor an exclusionist position, including only the top-level overview articles as much as possible. Clearly, it's not an easy position to take, since many people feel that a wide number of articles ought to be included, so that topic areas they care about receive attention. However, we managed to get the template from here [4], to here [5], and I'm trying hard to keep it as slim as is practical. —thames18:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
(1) Following on my comments back at #New Idea, how do change the text color in the dark field to white instead of black? I looked at the editing help for the tables, and know how to do it in simple HTML, but everything I try messes it all up instead of making the text white. Helps? TomerTALK 19:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
(2) If anyone besides me likes this color scheme, can someone make the background transparent on Mosque02.png instead of white? TomerTALK 19:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I hate that dark green. Loathe loathe. I do agree that darker headers with white lettering might work. Zora19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The picture is actually transparent already. On Firefox browsers it looks fine, but for some reason Internet Explorer browsers don't know what transparency means on a *.png file. Maybe there's another file format that will work, but nobody has experimented yet. Cunado1903:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Pastel Colors Suck. :-p The green should really be a bit darker to set it off better now from the white. With your color scheme, black works fine for the text. Any word on a volunteer to transparentize the background on the mosque img? TomerTALK 21:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Color me pleased as punch! :-p TomerTALK 02:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Sects
Wow! This thing has changed a lot since I saw it last in July. So why were the sections on sects, and related religions taken out? --Tydaj15:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I made a new page for Divisions of Islam and put about one third of the template on it.
I took off the addition of Jizya and Dhimmi. They are both just references to the non-muslim tax and the status of non-muslims. This is a pretty minute detail, and the articles even say that they're not really used any more or important. The only place I've heard them brought up was when someone is trying to attack Islam, and they make it off as if they used the tax as a way of converting people (the tax excluded people from the military). So it didn't take long to realize that Klonimus put it on there not because it's an important aspect of Islam, but because all his edits to the Islamic pages are negative. And well, he says so on his user page.
And if you read his user page he proudly says that he has contributed to these:
Cunado, comments like "I'm sure he's hating Islam out of his love for Jesus or something" are inappropriate, ad hominem, and offensive. Please refrain from such comments, even when frustrated by the POV of other users. Thank you. —thames13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with the reasoning behind your deletion--jizya and dhimmi are rather minor concepts, when compared to the other topics included on the template.—thames18:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Imamate, Caliphate, History
I removed "Imamate" and "Caliphate" from the template. Both were piped links, to Imam and Caliph respectively. Those two articles are already covered under Islamic religious leaders, which is already in the template.
Furthermore, I think it's ludicrous the History of Islam remains so low on the template, squirreled away in the See Also section at the very bottom. The History article ought to be much more prominent, since it is a high-level overview article, more directly related to the Template:Islam topic than nearly any other article presently included. —thames20:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.suedasien.net/images/themen/islam/bekenntnis.gif){kind=link}
- Talk 13:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)