Talk:Islam/Archive 16

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archives: Talk:Islam/External links, Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10

---

---

210.187.7.122 (Anonymous) to Zora

Ok, I would have to say Zora: it's not your article but its everybody else's too. Gren, pls help!

This time, I don't really want to revert to my originals because I've read the article again and generally I would accept it as it is and perhaps it has been made more succinct this time. You win some, you lose some.

However, I think the article on Jhizya on the Dhimmis needs to be put in although briefly as you mentioned there is another link discussing on this. But I believe the Jizya tax NEEDS to be mentioned as it was a very important matter at that time.

Please let's NOT mention jizya tax, as it's covered in the main article, and it's a very contentious topic. It's an opening for the anti-Muslim bigots who come here and want to depict all Muslims as violent jihadis who oppress dhimmis. In fact, I thought it was one of the usual suspects who put in the bit re jizya.

I probably did crowd the paragraph on Syaria' since you say there is another link that covers it so I might consider putting it there. Anyway, thanks for summarizing that para.

You said : [I don't think I've added anything controversial -- I've just deleted lots of cruft. Furthermore, I suspect that none of the regular editors wrote it, so I don't think I will have hurt any feelings. At least I hope I haven't.]

No, I don't think you've heard anyone's feelings, Zora (at least certaintly not mine) but you shouldn't just be looking at regular editors. Many new readers like me stumble upon Wikipedia and this Islamic entry every day and they might have very useful things to add which I believe, IS the open spirit Wikipedia is based upon.

Going direct to the MAIN article on Islam and starting to edit it is not the most helpful thing to do. This main article has had thousands of edits since I put it on my watchlist -- might have been a year and a half ago. Most of the edits make it worse, not better. Everybody wants to jam everything into the main article! It gets way too long, and unreadable. This should just be a summary, a survey. All the DETAIL should go into what we call breakout articles. It's a shame that everyone gets so focussed on edit wars re the main articles, when there are so many things that NEED articles and don't have them. Biographies of caliphs, articles on famous mosques, palaces and citadels, biographies of poets, calligraphers, musicians, historians, theologians -- good articles, not just stubs. Everybody seems to have opinions about "Islam", but few people want to do work that requires actual research -- not just googling up material on the web, but buying and reading books. If you read Arabic and have a good library, anon, you could do valuable work on hundreds of articles, not just this one. IMHO, communicating the richness of Islamic civilization to people who don't know anything about Islam except lies is a good, kind, and necessary task. Zora 11:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You said : [Human fate established forty days before birth? Huh?) There were many confident proclamations of stuff that was just plain wrong, or contradicted by material elsewhere in the article. There was much pompous, bloated verbiage and bad English.]

Yes, the Quran states that human fate IS established forty days before birth. Which again underscores my point that orientialist or academics who think they know all about Islam should not be allowed to contribute as compared to real genuine and KNOWLEDGEABLE practising Muslims.

210.187.7.122 5:34 pm, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll defer to people who know more than I do -- and I often do -- but I don't think that means turning all the Islamic articles over to Muslims. That's just NOT OK by Wikipedia rules.

As for the forty days thing -- I can't find that in the Qur'an. I've tried various search sites. However, it is in a hadith from Muslim (1528). If you can't give me a reference to an actual sura and verse, I'm going to have to assume that your memory slipped a little here. If that's so, no shame; I've made some bigger mistakes myself. However, it does seem kinda unfair for you to assert that I'm too ignorant to be allowed to write on Islam when you yourself seem to have demonstrated some human fallibility. Zora 11:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Springcleaning

I just finished copyediting the article. I didn't do everything that needed to be done.

There is so much churn in this article that if you only look at the latest diffs (as I often do), you don't see changes made earlier. Hence various hands (probably anonymous) had filled up the article with pious references to the Prophet and sectarian or even bizarre statements. (Exact ratio of djinn to angels to humans? Human fate established forty days before birth? Huh?) There were many confident proclamations of stuff that was just plain wrong, or contradicted by material elsewhere in the article. There was much pompous, bloated verbiage and bad English.

The biggest problem left, IMHO, is all the material re schools, trends of thought, and remarks re contemporary Islam scattered throughout the article. All this material needs to be brought together in one place, and organized.

I don't think I've added anything controversial -- I've just deleted lots of cruft. Furthermore, I suspect that none of the regular editors wrote it, so I don't think I will have hurt any feelings. At least I hope I haven't. Zora 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you're restoring material that is far from universally accepted by Muslims, or is badly written, or repetitive. OK, I guess we're going to have to go step by step.

First step -- statement that Qur'an was completely written down during the lifetime of Muhammad is not accurate. There are numerous, overlapping, and somewhat conflicting accounts. Hadith say that the material was recorded on various materials AND in the chests of men, that is, in their memories. One of the incentives for writing down the complete Qur'an is said to have been the death of many of the Companions, who were hafiz, and the fear that if many more were to die, some of the Qur'an would be lost. This account suggests that some of the Qur'an was not written down, but only memorized.

[I didn't write this statement. I added statements after that - the Siddhratul Muntaha bit.] -210.187.7.122

Second step -- The expanded statement re revelations is not necessary; it's covered by a preceding sentence. The article is already too long and verbose, and repetition makes it worse. Zora 14:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I restored some of the material and made it more encyclopedic and neutral. If you need to make these changes that you said above, please go ahead. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

To the new editors

It is better to say "There is no god but God" than "There is no god but Allah" -- just because we have anti-Muslim bigots coming here claiming that Allah is not the same god as the Christian or Jewish god, but a different entity entirely. Using the word Allah in this one place just promotes misunderstanding.

Someone else changed my working in the "Symbols" section to read "Islam says". As Grenavitar tirelessly points out, Islam can't say a darn thing. It's various Muslims who proclaim what they believe is "true Islam". Since Muslims differ (often violently!) on what is true Islam, it is just not OK to use the phrase "Islam says". That puts Wikipedia in the position of declaring what is true Islam and what isn't. Wikipedia is not a member of the ulema and cannot give binding religious opinions <g>. Zora 12:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"It is better to say "There is no god but God" than "There is no god but Allah" -- just because we have anti-Muslim bigots coming here claiming that Allah is not the same god as the Christian or Jewish god, but a different entity entirely." Zora, it is inappropriate of you to go around brazenly declaring that you will sacrifice accuracy and precision in an effort to enforce your POV on the rest of the world and protect wikipedia readers from the views of those who would disgaree with you (whom you so freely label "anti-Muslim bigots.") Who are you to tell Christians or Jews who their god is and what other reigions their god belongs to? And who are you to enforce your original research about which gods of different religions are the same? I could just as well argue that Allah is the same god as Ahura Mazda, the supreme diety of Zoroastrianism. After all, Islam is largely derived from Christiany/Judiasm, Christianity is largely derived from Judaism, and Judaism is largely derived from Zorastrianism. Here are some of the ancient names of Ahura Mazda: the All-pervading, the Creator (of life), the Majestic, the Greatest, the Best, the Just, the Merciful, the most Beneficient, all of which are also names of Allah. Here is the catch: Muslims believe that Zoroastrians are fire-worshipping pagans, and the early Muslims burned down Zoroastrian temples to no end. And, in contrast to Islam, Zorastrians believe that the Supreme Being is both good and evil. Muslims would hate for their God to be associated with pagan dieties, such as Ahura Mazda, or the Supreme Being of Hinduism. And yet all of these gods can be seen as one and the same idea, the "same god." Why do some Muslims like to insist that Allah is the same God as the God of Christianity, when the Christian trinitarian god is clearly very different, or that Allah is the same God as the God of Judaism when the "Hebrew understanding of God was frankly anthropmorphic"[1]? There are certain psychological reasons for why some modern-day Muslims insist that the gods of the prevailing religions in the West are the same as Allah. But the real issue here only concerns one specific part of the article, specifically the translation of the shahada. Should we translate it as "There is no god but God" (as Zora prefers) or as "There is no god but Allah?" There are different approaches to translation, and the proper approach depends on the context. Sometimes the best approach to translation is to sacrifice accuracy in order to convey a certain meaning. At other time the best approach is to uphold accuracy even if it requires using foreign words that are famaliar to the reader. The Arabic version of the shahada reads, "La ilaha il Allah." Literally translated, this means "No god but Allah." The Arabic word "La" means "No." The word "ilaha" is derived from the word "ilah" which is most accurate translated into English as "god." Now we come to the word "Allah." Should we leave it as it is, or should Zora impose her own POV interpretations at the cost of accuracy, and change it to "God?" The immediate problem with translating the shahada as "There is no god but God" is that it the same word "GOD" is used twice, wheras in the Arabic version two distinct words ("ilah" and "Allah") are used. It is misleading, therefore, to translate both as "god" while putting a capital letter for the second occurace. Arabic does not have the concept of capital and lowercase letters. And the shahada uses two phonetically distinct words here. For these reaosns, I changed "God" to "Allah." I do not think that Zora's protestations are well founded (rather, I think they are founded on personal attacks, prejudices and POV pushing), so I'm changing it back again. -- Zeno of Elea 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok "Zeno" let me try to explain something to you. It is not that difficult to understand. we are TRANSLATING a language here. "There is no God but Allah" is fine, but not translated. Do you think we should leave "Ilah" as it is ,and maybe "La" too? As you see this destroys the point of TRANSLATION. Please everybody watch out for this guy, he seems to be on a mission to misrepresent Islam. -Roc

Zeno make a good point here. It should be "no god but allah"--Wibidabi 13:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

we've been through this too often. If "Allah" doesn't translate to God, why do Arab Christians use Allah for "God"? If you're so sceptical, Zeno, that you think this translation inserts inaccuracy, where do you take the confidence to translate "ilah" as "god"? The translation is either "there are no ilah but Allah" or "there are no gods but God", but to translate either "there are no gods but Allah" or "there are no ilah but God" would be inconsistent, and would obscure the etymological connection between ilah and allah. dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do Arab Christians say Allah? Because they are minority in an islamic majority region and have pragmatically learned over time that it is wiser to placate the Islamic majority, by not asserting or displaying contrarian beliefs than the ones prevalent in the region, than to challenge those beliefs. Its the same reason that western women put on the veil when they go to Islamic dominated regions.

The argument that Allah is the same as the Christian God is a Muslim belief derived from verses in the Qu'ran. Yet the Christian entity GOD and the Muslim entity Allah have radically different messages , character and personalities. If these 2 very different entities were the same then we would be dealing with a highly schizophrenic deity indeed. The Muslim retort to that is of course that the Christian belief is corrupted and their Allah is the correct one. Well Muslims can believe whatever the Qu'ran tells them they have to believe, but this is not reciprocated on the Christian side for the very good reason that the Christian Bible predates the Qu'ran and therefore the Bible has no statement as regards later ideologies like Islam, on the contrary it even forewarns against false ideologies with verses alluding to the False prophet.

So can we conclude objectively that they are the same God? No. We can only say that the Muslims claim that they are the same and Wikipedia should therefore clearly reflect that this is what Muslims and only Muslims believe and avoid any implications of sameness of Gods between the Christian GOD and the Islamic Allah . --Wibidabi 15:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense. Is the God of Origenes, Francis of Assisi and of George W. Bush the same entity? If so, he must be very schizophrenic indeed. This is not about theology, but about the word Allah. You can disagree about properties of God and yet use the same term. dab (ᛏ) 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wibidabi's theory about why Arab Christians say Allah is ridiculous. The use of Allah amongst Arab Christians pre-dates Islam. Please see the Ghassanids. Yuber^(talk) 17:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It probably is true that He who Muslims call Allah is the same entity as the Christian and Jewish G-d. The word G-d in Hebrew is either אל El or אלהים Elohim (there is also the Tetragrammaton יהוה YHWH, but that is perceived to be a more personal way of referring to Him). It doesn't take a genius to notice the similarities between the words Allah and El/Elohim. Izehar 17:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean "He"? What if I (or anybody else) believes that "existence" is not a property of this Allah/God/El 'entity'? Will that make the articles superfluous? No. It is about mental and semantic constructs (how "He" reflects in the human mind, if you like). Christians and Muslims agree that there is a "God", they just disagree about the details concerning his various revelations. This old "God/Allah" dispute is entirely beside the point. "Allah" is the Arabic for "ho theos monos", a concept expressed in English as "God". Just using the term "God" does not imply any sort of unity in theological opinions. We wouldn't have to point this out again and again if people did some minimal amount of research before "knowing better". dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The Christian God is a concept created in the land of Israel by Jewish tribes , the Islamic Allah is a concept created by the bedouin arabs in arabia, and they are different entities who preach totally contradictory messages.

Furthermore all the following statements below are equally valid , it is all opinion and conjecture with zero evidence in favor or against any assertion. Its all superstitions and what one choses to believe , or in most case what one is indoctrinated to believe by decrepit and dogmatic ideologues with bony fingers.

• There are no gods
• There is a god
• There are two gods
• There are multiple gods
• There are an infinity of gods
• All of the above
• None of the above

--Wibidabi 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with this Wibidabi? He appears o be talking to himself, because his stange cemantic arguments ahve no relevence to this article. It is not too hard to tell this guy's position on Islam, we all know it's a negative one. It is MY opinion that the hate in his heart leaves him in no position to write on this topic. I think he should look ito some sort of relaxation therapy. -Roc

Do I understand you to say, Wibidabi, that...

• a) Muhammad had no contact with, or knowledge of, Christian and Jewish religious practices, and
• b) Christianity and Judaism had no influence on pre-Islamic religious beliefs, and
• c) The word "Allah" was coined by Muhammad? BrandonYusufToropov 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What would be the point to try to answer questions that neither you nor I have any concrete evidence about what went on during Muhammad's time, (if he even existed at all), since neither you nor I nor anyone alive today was there. All the information we have from that time period is sanctified hearsay, in other words superstition. It is up to you, if you want to buy into it, like people bought into the idea that the Earth was at the center of the Universe and like people today buy into the superstitions we call religions, a sad reminder that culturally nothing much has changed over the past thousands of years.

All we can discuss is what is stated in the Bible and in the Qu'ran and notice that they are each describing radically different entities as their God, but more importantly that each makes fundamental assumptions about the ultimate cosmology of the universe that neither can prove.

Our job at Wikipedia is not to propagate superstition but to give a factual account on various topics. You want to argue that the Christian God and the Islamic Allah are the same , well neither you nor anyone else alive today has any evidence of that , you only have hearsay from the Islamic side, you do not even know what Muhammad really said on the subject as you were not there to hear it. You only have what people generations later said that he said. --Wibidabi 00:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood -- the questions I posed are not comfortable for you. I'm just looking for a clear indication that you are declining to answer them, or even to paraphrase the answers of the most highly regarded (non-Muslim) scholars who have invested their lives in the study of this period. BrandonYusufToropov 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that dab "knows better", it should be pointed out that in this article, either term; God or Allah can be used. Interestingly enough, Encarta uses the word God to refer to Him. Look at this article, look at how they translate the shahadah. Also, as you say that God is the English translation of Allah, then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) may have some news on that (although that convention more properly refers to article titles). So far, theology has not become an issue. Izehar 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Both Christianity and Islam derive from Judaism - just thought you should know. Izehar 17:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to add that apart from Ghassanids there were also the Muntherites. Indeed, the name of the Jewish leader who also was the Highest Priest in Madina before Islam came was "Abdallah Bin-Saba". You'd realize that some comments above are full of original research (re Why do Arab Christians say Allah? Because they are minority in an islamic majority region and have pragmatically learned over time that it is wiser to placate the Islamic majority.) If Allah wasn't the same as Aramaic Alaha or Jewish Elohim than we would have been living in a peaceful planet. For more info, pls have a look at this Talk:Islam/Archive 9#GOD Vs Allah. Cheers -- Svest 19:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

"we've been through this too often. If "Allah" doesn't translate to God, why do Arab Christians use Allah for "God"? -- dab" No dab, we have not been through this at all. We are discussing translation of the shahada specifically. I did not say that "Allah" doesn't translate to God, so please do not put words into my mouth. I am discussing the proper way to translate a specific text, and just because a translation is correct does not mean that it is proper. --Zeno of Elea 07:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to trolls -- at least this vandal didn't mix venality with hypocrisy

• Frankly, I found [this latest bit of vandalism] oddly refreshing. At least the troll in question wasn't lying about trying to, you know, actually present facts. "Just want this religion and all references to it gone, please."
• Option One, of course, would be to avoid vandalizing the article in the first place.
• If you ignore us on that point, though, trolls -- and I suspect you will -- could I ask the next vandal to consider a similarly forthright approach? Rather than pretending to edit the piece, I mean? BrandonYusufToropov 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to Zora From 210.187.7.122

Dear Zora

You're right, only the hadith mentioned the 40-day event and not the Quran. Must have slipped my mind, I was reading about it only the other day. How fallible am I compared to God. I am sorry. I have also changed my viewpoint. Muslims AND non-Muslims (everyone really!) may insert articles about Islam as long as they are correct. Keep up the good work and further extending your depth in Islam! May God guide you! Bye... (P.S. if you need to contact me for any reason whatsoever, my e-mail is : ezanih@hotmail.com) - 210.187.7.122

Thank you. That's beautiful. That's a lovely example of Islam -- says this Buddhist. Zora 05:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"may insert articles about Islam as long as they are correct" seems to be a lie. I have inserted several verses from Quran (I actually own one, do you?) and they have all been deleted. Wikipedia is the most biased source on the net, no doubt. Truth gets suppressed in here.

You don't owe this dude no apology. You putting verses out of context is the hate in your heart for ISLAM manifesting itself on the internet. Don't you know that Islam is the most hated way of life on the World Wide Web?

May Allah guide you my friend. You look very determined and happy with the ill-conceived illusion about Islam being the most hated way of life ont the www. I think you owe an apology to Islam itself.

خرم Khurram 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

More copyediting

I went over the first part of the article. Someone is putting two spaces instead of one between words. This is distracting. Also, various editors who must speak English as a second language had introduced some ungrammatical or unnecessarily verbose edits. The one major change I made was to remove all the detail from Zakat. That is just TOO MUCH for an introductory article and should be left in Zakat. If you hit readers over the head with too much detail, they'll just tune out. Zora 07:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

request for advice

I posted this on the Qu'ran page as well. People have singled out three different translations of the Qu'ran: A.J. Arberry; Abdallah Yusuf Ali; and Ahmed Ali. I have not yet read the Qu'ran and would like a reliable and well-regarded translation. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"There is no god but God"

No one is disputing that Allah == God. This is only a matter of what is the best way to translate the shahada (there are many ways a sentence can be translated). For a comprehensive discussion of this issue, please Talk:Islam#To_the_new_editors. Please stop reverting "there is no god but Allah" to "there is no god but God" without further discussing this issue. In my humble opinion, anyone who continues doing this revert without addressing the issues raised in the talk page should be permanently banned from editing this article. -- Zeno of Elea 09:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for editing help with "Baha'i Faith"

Currently the editing of the Baha'i Faith entry (and related entries) is dominated by Baha'is, who take the opportunity to downplay criticisms and in general slant their information in predictable directions. Please consider this a call for non-Baha'i editors to come have a look at the site, and help ensure balance. Thank you. Dawud 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the Muslim Guild. -- Zeno of Elea 15:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What is that? Dawud 04:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits about rusul and nabi

Excuse me, I don't appreciate whoever keeps going right behind me and deleting the changes I make. Do you own the page? I was correcting and/or expanding some definitional clarifications and someone keeps deleting them. There was nothing controversial in the changes I was making, they were simply explanatory. I do not appreciate this whatsoever. Please stop and allow others to make some changes. I certainly was not being a troll, nor was I pushing any kind of agenda. 130.39.138.205 03:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Amira

• Please provide citations for your sources to help with verifiability. See WP:CITE and WP:CITET for more information and examples. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 03:57

Lead-in

Can we come up with something neutral and informative for the lead-in without offending anyone? I think that's one of the things the article needs to be featured, but I'm afraid to touch the page due to the high reversion, vandalism, etc rates. Jibbajabba 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[I have deleted a great deal of bickering that had nothing to do with improving the article. I will of course not revert any restorations of text that someone finds germane to the purpose of this talk page, if any such text can be found in this morass. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)]

Religious incidents

Ok, why is the mention of the destruction of the World Trade Center and other islamic-based terrorism not listed here? It is like the Nazi Germany page not mentioning the holocaust at all. Jihad has consequences. You can bet those guys in those planes yelled 'allahu ackbar' as they went into the buildings. monty2

Nazi Germany didn't have a complex many-thousand year history based on their beliefs. When I checked Christianity, they *do* have a section which links out to some of the vulgar atrocities commited in the name of that faith Historical_persecution_by_Christians, but the article on Islam doesn't link to Historical_persecution_by_Muslims, (though there are links to Islamism and Jihad), so maybe we could use the christianity article as a template. As far as linking to relatively minor (when considering 1200 years of history) incidents like the WTC attacks, I think linking to all of the atrocities created by religions, in each religion's article, would probably not be optimal. Ronabop 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we link to the other atrocities done by Islam then, if you consider 9/11 a minor hiccup in the "peaceful" Islam?

Agreed. If Christianity can mention Ireland, then we can certainly mention suicide bombings and planes flying into buildings here.GodHead 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello fellas. I see what you are saying. But if you are going to discuss Islamic extremism are you going to discuss the background of it or not. I mean Hitler II (formerly Monty2) is on a mission here. He does not want come up with any solution to any problem, merely to say over and over and over and over that "islam is bad". Hey Hitler II (Monty2) we get it you hate islam. If a serious discussion on islamic extremism and terrorism is going to take place then the causes of these effects should be discussed namely: imperialism and colonization, nationalism of which zionism is a form, and the neo-imperial practices of britan, france and the usa. Also, one should not forget pure, good old fashioned, racism when discussing western born islmic extremism as in france and britan of late and the usa with the nation of islam movement. Hey I'm not trying to excuse terrorism. But there are people out there like Hitler II (Monty2) who are bent on repeating the same old slogan over and over.

Statement concerning interpretation

Assalamo Alaykom, This statement was presented in the page of islam

"Sunnis believe that ijtihad, or interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith is closed since 800 years."

This is wrong!

All Sunnis believe that ijtihad, or interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith is still not closed til now & untill the Day of Judgement (qiyama). Please take kare when you write about religion & specially Islam. thanks, Salamo Alaykom. -- unsigned by 196.218.12.203

There is a strong notion among many that the "gate of ijtihad" has been closed. Schact said "whatever the theory might say on ijtihad and taklid, the activity of later scholars, after the closing of the door of ijtihad, was no less creative of later scholars than that of their predecessors" in his famous Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. There is definitely a concept of closing of the door or gate of ijtihad, although, as the quote says its reality can be questioned. To state it as a universal reality would be off, but its discussion has merit. So, let's go by the scholarly sources and get a good mix of opinions and present them neutrally. gren グレン 08:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

More on Interpretation

With all due respect, Schact is a terrible source, largely discredited by later scholarship (see cites below). The original correction is absolutely right -- the 'gate of ijtihad' has never been closed. In the classical Islamic world (and until the present) a contraversy arose as to who was and is qualified to contribute to ijtihad, but the 'closing of the gates of ijtihad' is an essentially Orientalist notion inserted into Islamic scholarship by colonial and imperial scholars such as Schacht, Coulson, and Goldziher. What the colonial/imperial scholars were trying to portray was an Islamic system that was irretrievably broken. Hence a need was created: the replacement of the 'broken' system with a spiffy Western system, courtesy of the colonizers. It should be noted that eventually every system of law that was not Western was found lacking in turn, from Islamic to Hindu and so on. For more on the 'Gate of Ijtihad' issue, see Wael Hallaq, "Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?" (International Journal of Middle East Studies, 16, 1 (1984), pp. 3-41) For more on systematic Western decimation of Islamic and Hindu law, see Bernard Cohn, "Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge" (Princeton University Press, 1996). Ebzmiller 08:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)ebzmiller

Ah, I have seen and read parts of the article by Wael. I also agree that Schacht should be taken in context; although his book is still a respected source despite it being somewhat outdated. I am not making an argument whether there was a gate, whether the gate was opened, closed, or what. There is definitely a view of (mostly Sunni) Islamic intellectual stagnation from mid the second millenium. The view of "the gate of ijtihad" (and I'm not sure of where the term came from) is a real concept that should be addressed. I know scholarship has been moving more towards discrediting oversimplistic views, or at least adding to them... but. Well, Rudi Matthee when talking about this talked about the closing of the gate and said well yes, there was a degree of stagnation compared to the earlier developments but the stereotypical notion of all development just stopping was oversimplistic. He even used the Arabic term which I have since forgotten. My main point in all of this is to address the term. It is a term used by scholars to this day; although increasingly with reservation and to dismiss it would not properly represent the academic landscape. I am by no means against discussing the sources you bring up, but I am against ignoring that such a concept as "the gate of ijtihad" exists. gren グレン 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, the interpretation on Qu'Ran has been done generations ago. It is generally considered a taboo subject. Stop lying.

-Re 'interpretation on Qu'Ran' -- This is not at issue, although your statement is incorrect in addition to being unsigned. Ijtihad as a method of legal interpretation (which is what is being discussed here) has virtually nothing to do with Qur'anic exegesis. Ebzmiller 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) ebzmiller

-As to the other (clearly informed) comment by Grenavitar, I know its a complex issue and I'm not for ignoring it -- I think it needs to be described by both scholars and Muslims as what it is, and to acknowledge the very critical and possibly inappropriate role of the West in defining Islamic law as frozen in a 'primitive' state from which it required rescuing. From what I understand from Dr. Hallaq, he can find no mention of the closing of the 'bab il-ijtihad' in the sources until very late in Islamic history, and when done by qualified scholars ijtihad was encouraged -- I'll review some notes and find out how late the first mentions of this 'closing' are, but I stand by the statement that this was never an important issue in a pejorative sense previous to a colonial/imperial context of denigrating the Islamic (and other) systems in order to impose a colonial/imperial order in the name of 'progress'. This is not to say that the 're-opening' doesn't need to occur: it is to say that it may be easier to see the way to do that with a full understanding of the mechanisms by which the 'bab' became characterized as 'closed'. There is also an interesting question to be addressed: why is taqlid 'bad'? In the US we have the concept of stare decisis -- both taqlid and stare decisis are essentially the principle that unless there is a really distinguishing aspect to a case, or a really overwhelming jurisprudential reason, the previous reasoning stands. This insures, if not justice, at least the stability of the legal system as a basis of forming rational expections as to what constitutes acceptable behavior. The Islamic legal system did not persist for many hundreds of years because it was stupid and never worked, rather the opposite. I think any rational Muslim could look at the system that had been used successfully for X-hundred years and conclude that they had a good thing going. The reason I argue this point about the gate of ijtihad issue so vehemently in the context of Wikipedia is that as a basic reference I would hate to think that it would play into stereotypes of Islamic law as primitive, or that someone seeking more information would take Schacht as authoritative compared to later scholarship that has taken place since the realization of the dynamic of Orientalism and the importance of power relationships in how history is characterized. Ebzmiller 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) ebzmiller

In the US we have the concept of stare decisis -- both taqlid and stare decisis are essentially the principle that unless there is a really distinguishing aspect to a case, or a really overwhelming jurisprudential reason, the previous reasoning stands. This is the very nature of Ijtihad as far as I understand it. The door of Ijtihad is never closed and it will never close either but in order to do Ijtihad one needs to be a master of eight essentials branches of islamic studies including previous laws (fiqh), arabic language, hadith and quran to mention a few. Any Ijtihad done by a person who does not possess these qualities is not considered legitimate sine it is believed that such a person does not have the required knowledge to reject the previous decisions.

خرم Khurram 16:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To Anonymous editor

[personal attacks from 4.159.5.143, and responses thereto, deleted by —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)]

I'd like to call a Vote on a picture of Mohammed

There are contemporary and Historicals pictures of Mohammed, whether or not Muslims find this offensive is negligible. Wikipedia is supposed to be Secular.--GreekWarrior 19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This post is on the Muhammad Talk Page. Please continue the discussion there.

INCREDIBLY LAZY EDITORS

OPEN LETTER TO THE INCREDIBLY LAZY EDITORS OF THIS PAGE:: HOW IN ALL THAT IS HOLEY CAN YOU JUSTIFY ALL THE BIGOTRY THAT IS SPEWED ON YOUR WEBSITE UNDER THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH. THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION TO FURTHER THE KNOWLEDGE OF EACH SUBJECT. A PLACE WHERE HONEST IGNORANCE CAN BE CURED BY DEBATE AND SINCERE DISCUSSION. WHERE OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT CAN BE ARGUED BACK AND FORTH. I LIVE IN THE USA WHERE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS CHERICHED LIKE A NEWBORN INFANT. I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN DISCUSSING RELIGION AND THEOLOGY SOME PEOPLE WILL GET OFFENDED. TRUST ME AS AN AMERICAM MUSLIM I KNOW THIS. BUT HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALL A STATEMENT LIKE "Islam is poo" AN APT ARGUMENT. ANYONE WITH SUCH HATEFILLED STATEMENTS (AND THERE ARE PLENTY HERE) IS NOT INTRESTED IN DISCUSSION YOU ARE ONLY PROVIDING THEM WITH A PLATFORM TO SPEW THEIR FILTH. are there any Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, bahis or any one else out there who think that such hateful comments are inappropriate. or does everyone hate us. I'm loosing my hope in humanity --unsigned comment by: User:12.73.240.115

Those of us who've been here for a while get fairly cynical too. If you're upset because the article was vandalized -- well, it's frequently vandalized. There are lots of editors watching it, so it usually gets reverted quickly. We may want to request semi-protection, so that anons can't edit it. That might cut down some of the vandalism. If you're upset by opinions on the talk page -- well, we have to let everyone speak. Usually only obscene personal attacks are deleted. A lot of people love to hate, don't they? Sad. Zora 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: OPEN LETTER. I agree that Wikipedia is a place for civil discussion with rational theses and well thought out arguments. Perhaps you can be the first to start! 1) By stop using ALL CAPS, 2) trying to build a rational argument yourself, 3) spell check, 4) proofread, and 5) no personal attacks. Thanks! And my kindest regards.--Muchosucko 15:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting peoples additions?

OK, I understand Islam is full of things that believers of it don't want others to know, but this is getting ridicilous. Every addition that I've made I have backed up with DETAILS FROM THE QU'RAN or one of the books themselves! I have quoted the scriptures! What is wrong with you people to keep deleting these?

You must not write history or an encyclopedia according to other peoples feelings! This article must keep all the facts INCLUDING THE JIZYA and what the jizya is, what is a dhimmi, etc.

I have been trying to add things on here for ages, but to be honest it is hard, I will keep up the academic battle against this vicious and wicked faith, but the Muslims gang up together like they do with suicide bombings and stop anything that dares to question their so called prophet. --GreekWarrior 18:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Qur'an is a primary source and it is original research for us to interpret it. Also, keep your disparaging comment about our Muslim editors off of article talk page. gren グレン 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You know full well Islam is not as peaceful as Christianity, it is the only major religion that does not subscribe to the Golden Rule, it doesn't have anything in it like Sermon on the Mount, or the Beautitudes, or 'Turn the other Cheek'. Where is there anything that peaceful in the Quran? The Quran is a book of hate, I find it offensive, and I want you to remove certain verses that offend me. --GreekWarrior 19:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So if Muslims are offended by having a picture of Muhammed up, its ok? But if your offended by having verses from the Qur'an up, its not ok? And since is subscribing to the Golden Rule a prerequisite for being a peaceful religion? Pepsidrinka 19:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Golden Rule is a prerequisite for a peaceful religion, how on earth can you not expect it to be? Muslims are allowed in the Quran to lie and deceive people. They do this often, Islam robs mankind of it's humanity. --GreekWarrior 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)