Talk:Islam

Sects or Schools of thought

The best understanding for the meaning of Islam you will get if you read a good book on Islam, written for a Western audience in mind, like "Ideals and Realities of Islam" by Hossein Nasr. The meaning of what you are terming as "sects" are not really so like you are thinking in terms of Christianity (which doesnt have religious law to the same level Islam has and where theology accounts for the main difference). A better way would be to use the term "schools of thought" instead of sect. The Shia tradition and the Sunni folds are two basic divisions, but there are a myriad of ideas existing within them which combine together in many ways. Like a Sunni Muslim can take his fiqh or jurisprudence from a particular school of thought, take his theology from another school of thought, his spiritual practices (if any) from a particular Sufi school of thought (or Sufi order). For example, one might be a Sunni, with fiqh from the Hanfi school, theology from Ibn Taymiyaa, spiritual practices from the Chishti order. Another Muslim may take his jurisprudence from the same school as the previous Muslim but his spiritual practices from another school. In this way, there are many combinations, some more probable then others. I hope the situation is a little clearer.-Shahab (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "Islam" is to "Salaam" as "unapologetic" is to "apologetic." Same root, but not relevant to mention as if Islam means Peace.Cutugno (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Virus of the mind

Richard Dawkins forwarded a viruses of the mind theory in 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind) i feel this should be mentioned somewhere in this article and all other articles describing religion. Religion is an interesting psychological phenomena, and theories on how religions spread certainly deserves mention, if only as a link under see also heading. I am unsure about other theories of why religions spread, but any serious ones should be included as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natit (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here, it looks more like a general view about religion, not specifically about Islam. Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest it should be added to all religion articles, i added the same suggestion to Christianity, if you look up for example the common cold it has an entire chapter devoted to how its spread, yet religion it has not even mentioned the theory that says it is a virus on the mind. Meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme_theory) as a word is fairly accepted, a google search returns 182 million hits for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natit (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You could suggest it at religion, but it does not belong here or at Christianity. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the actual spread of a virus(as the theory states) or bacteria does belong in the article about the disease. While i agree it does belong in religion as well, it certainly belongs on the articles regarding the actual "strain". If people are wondering about the cause of Christianity or Islam the natural article wouldn't be to visit the religion page. Many different diseases spread the same way, but you don't have to visit the Medicine article to learn how an actual virus spread Natit (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You're making an assumption here - that it is commonly accepted that religions are spread by particular 'pathogens'. With reference to Medicine, of course different diseases need to state the causes, simply because different diseases have different causes.Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I hold no illusions, i know it is far from commonly accepted, if it was it should deserve far more than a footnote =). What i do claim is that something that affects 3-6 billion people (belief in a personal god), deserves mention of the different causal effects of such beliefs. Such as the Viruses of the Mind theory or how Freud describes why we believe: "Firstly because our primal ancestors already believed them; secondly, because we possess proofs which have been handed down to us from antiquity, and thirdly because it is forbidden to raise the question of their authenticity at all." in The Future of an Illusion. There are many theories and the should at the very least have a mention in See also section Natit (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems the discussion in Christianity also suggests adding it to Religion article, if this is what other people feel is right i suppose i can accept that. I still feel as it should be stated as causal effect on each article, but one step at a time i suppose. How do i go about haveing it added to Religion? do i create the same discussion there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natit (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the theory describe different causal effects for each particular faiths?Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The theory describes different vectors, though it does not go into detail about what vectors belong to what faith as much as it describes how the different vectors work. It would probably be original research to attempt to bind vector types to faiths, but maybe someone other than me knows more on that subject, it has been over a year since i read it, but i can try to find time tomorrow to read it again, i have a headache today =( Natit (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just go to the talk page for Religion and start the same thread there, and tell them that your going there was suggested here and at Talk:Christianity. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually after reading more closely it is mentioned on the religion page under Evolutionary theory and religion as meme which viruses of the mind would be an subset of Natit (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And make a link to human under every article about a person. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Importance of the Sunnah

Consider Christian positions on things like abortion, drinking, going to the Saturday dances, smoking, petting, driving Hummers, using technology, or bathing. There are or have been varying groups within Christianity who have disagreed, and there is/was no Christian consensus on these issues as the Bible says nothing, is vague, and/or contradictory. I'm sure Muslims faced similar problems with the Qur'an (or for that matter, Mormons in regards to the Book of Mormon). All Muslims, presumably, must obey the Qur'an, but can they differ on the Sunnah? I understand Shiites don't, while Sunnis do. Hence for the latter, the Sunnah might be as important as the Quran, and certainly indispensible to the faith (much like the D & C is with Mormons  ;-)  . Are there any other books or "hadiths"?Civic Cat (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shiites do follow other books of hadith. These books have different authors. For ALL Muslims, the Quran is the first, primary source of guidance. The books of hadith even (Sahih Hadith) are known to not be 100% accurate accounts of the Muhammad's words, and so much less authority is given to them than to the Quran. Rangerunseen (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Srahmadi, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hello, Salam, what is the meaning of "the last prophet of Islam"?! Islam just has one prophet. suggestions: the last prophet the last prophet of God the prophet of Islam

Srahmadi (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

comment - please provide reliable sources to implement your suggestion. However the linked article's heading Prophets of Islam runs contrary to your claim. Maybe its best to discuss in its talk page. The introduction of the article suggests that previous prophets brought sharia which had the same basic idea of Islam. Maybe that's why the article heading is termed as Prophets of Islam.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The point of 4 marriages In Islam.

It is famously known that Men in Islam are permitted to marry upto 4 women, but this topic is almost never fully explained. Polygamy for a man is permitted only and only if he can avoid theses: 1. Case “A”: spending less time with the wife might be because of other factors too. For instance, the husband’s job is based on overtime or even it requires lots traveling per year. So, do we say that he is not allowed to get married because there is certain time he is not sharing it with his wife or his children. Therefore, if a person is rich enough, rather than spending his time at work and traveling from one country to another, he can spends that time with another wife in a more aptly and equally controlled way. Keep in mind that, if a husband has more than one wife, he has to spend his time with his wives coequally.

2. Case “B”: Less attention to the wife might occur because of other reasons too. If the husband is so much occupied by his job, business, or studying for sure his wife will not get adequate attention. And if she does get some attention and caring it will not meet her expectations. In this matter, Should we tell those kinds of husbands to divorce their wives or not to get married if there have not been married yet. Nevertheless, the wife should understand her husband circumstances. She should bare with him the side affect of marrying another wife since she did not from the beginning had objected about the idea of polygamy and made a condition in her marriage contract.

3. Case “C”: That is right and the emotion of woman and her interest should be highly considered by the husband. However, if the conditions of polygamy are satisfied and the husband’s desire is above normal then what would be the solution. Should he just go a head and cheat on his wife with women that usually hang out with any guy. And by that he will be transferring diseases, committing adultery, and threatening the family stability. Especially when cheating on the wife becomes habitual with any lady that clicks on his emotion.

4. Case “D”: Family malfunctioning is a wide general problem and is not exclusively a result of polygamy. Moreover, it is because of unwise decisions and acts regardless of the size of the family. A person might find a disordered family though it just consists of: husband, wife, and one child. But, all of its members are conveniently ignorant and irresponsible.

5. Case “E”: Applying that case in the family is a disaster. And, its argument is so weak because what if there is a big family. Or, what if that family consists of more than 5 or 6 members does. Should the wife start aborting lives to control the budget of the family? Even in the case of using lawful birth control ways, it would be forbidden in Islam if they are used because of the fear of poverty. The Muslim, above all, has to rely on God, in any aspect of life , because God is the one that bestowed upon him/her before any one else, and because of His bestowing and wisdom you have the tools and abilities to make money: “Kill not your children for fear of want (poverty): We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin” Quran 17:31.Therefore, that case is a big deal for those who really weigh things based on money and materialism but it is not so with pious people if the money where coequally and wisely shared. Nevertheless, money is not everything. The husband who is rich now might be poor tomorrow. And the husband whose job is very good today might be jobless one day. But Moreover, the Muslim, above all, has to rely on God, when he is involved in any thing, because God is the one that bestowed upon him/her before any one else, and because of His bestowing and wisdom you have the tools and ability to make money: “Kill not your children for fear of want (poverty): We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin” Quran 17:31.

6. Case “F”: That argument could be used in any big family even if it falls under the Monogamy practice. Organizing the population is fine with Islam as long as no abortion is involved even in the early the development phases when the fetus still in like fertilized egg or zygote. So, a husband who has two families with acceptable number of kids rather than having big family with numerous numbers of children will not threat population.

7. Case “G”: That might sound a fair complain and objection but if we research it and analyze it, it would not be that valid and practical. It is just a utopian objection that is driven by emotional reaction. First, because Islam considers the husband as the main supervisor in the family though the wife has it important supervisory role: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Quran 4. 34” It is the husband’s responsibility to find a job, work hard, make money, make the life of his wife and family comfortable and if the wife is working, the money that she makes will be her exclusively and has the full right not to spend it on the husband. Also, while men emotionally -and even physiologically- more rigid and they are more prepared for hard circumstances and environment women usually are more emotional, benign, and sensitive. Such factors, in addition to some others, make the husband more reliable to be in the charge of supervisory. Second, the wife is more toward one-to-one exclusive loving relation. Her complex emotions make her more comfortable in being dedicated to one person i.e. one husband; especially if she feels that her husband is the person that can offer her protection, love, honesty, and tranquility. And that might me the explanation why usually women are more jealous than men. They, generally speaking, go crazy if they feel or even see the husband looking or talking kindly to another woman.

Third and as described above, the wife-in general-considers emotion as a priority, and if she is getting full attention and love from the husband side, she will not feel comfortable in sharing her emotion with another man nor giving him her body since any physical contact should first pass through the gate of honest, valid emotion. However, some women might not be that way, but as mentioned before the law goes with majority. If there are some special cases then they have to be reviewed by an Islamic Court for proper Islamic solution. On the other hand, the husband, especially in the long run of marriage, might give emotion less attention. He, in general, would be more attracted and attached to physical beauty than emotion; since he sees in that attraction an ultimate satisfaction for his desire. That physiological behavior, which widely seen in men, becomes a threat on the relation with wife if it starts growing or becomes uncontrolled. Since, it will push the husband to have unlawful hidden affairs with other women causing less attention and caring on the wife side. In that situation, when the husband’s sexual desire can not be saturated by just one woman - especially when his wife has pregnancy or menstrual related issues or not emotionally ready when he needs her, what would be the solution? Fourth, assume the following the husband marries more than one wife and those wives each one of them marries additional husband then what about the children to whom they belong or to whom they listen. And if the husband wants to apply his supervisory role, the wife of two husbands might end up of two contradicted statement .Also, who is going to spend on the family? Overall, a family, like any other healthy organization, can not have two principals or supervisors. Can a person imagine a country directed by two presidents? So theoretically it might sound good for the wife to have more than one husband, but since Islam considers the husband as the main supervisor of the family it would not be practical at all.

Also, In Islam, a Women can take Divorce from her husband If she has a serious issue and is unhappy. This is called KHULA or to ope up or to free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadeemkasmani (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Islam, which began with Adam

This article, I feel, should put more emphasis on the history of Islam, with minor landmarks, from the Creation of Adam, the times of Noah, the people of Abraham, Abraham's sons, the Exodus, the reigns of David and Solomon, through to later prophets such as Elijah, right to Jesus and then to Muhammad. It will also emphasize upon the Qur'anic belief that Islam began not with Muhammad but Adam.Imadjafar (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. But don't jump straight to the lead, which has been stable for a while. I'd say elaborate on this idea in a separate section first (while avoiding WP:OR, citing new sources, etc), then we can devote a whole paragraph for it in the lead. This article also needs a section for Islam as a philosophical/theological concept, i.e., something similar to the last sentence in the "Etymology" section. Wiqixtalk 16:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, for the simple reason that it isn't true. Islam began with Muhammad. The article already mentions that Islam claims otherwise, and that's enough. ðarkuncoll 17:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thark, whether it is true or not, 'Truth' isn't a criteria for insertion in WP. Having well respected and authoritative sources is. The problem here is that if we take the Qu'ran as the authoritative source on the origins of Islam that trumps all other sources, then what is also to stop us taking the Christian bible as the authoritative source on evolution and many other matters, or indeed the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or any other religions' texts? Each of these texts would regard the claim that Adam was the first Moslem differently, what criteria can we use to decide which is true? As humans we cannot. 'Truth' is a matter for personal reflection and religious, philosophical or scientific exploration, something gained in interaction with the external, internal and revealed worlds. An encyclopedia however is merely a collection of human knowledge and cannot claim 'truth' in the same way that a religious or philosophical text does. If we understand the difference between the human knowledge contained in an encyclopedia entry, and the possibly divinely revealed truth in a religious tract, then we will be able to try to represent what humans know about each topic in an encyclopedic way, a much lower task than trying to discover 'the truth', but still difficult and worthwhile. Riversider (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE

This article is about the faith of 1.2 billion (+) people, constituting 20% to 25% of all mankind. Everyone who edits this article must remember that.

As such, non-notable opinions, such as that of Ibn Warraq, should be kept out of here (though they may be presented in criticism of Islam) per WP:UNDUE. Also, please take a look at Christianity and Judaism to see how much "criticism" is appropriate in such general articles.

That said, there is vigorous debate in Islam over the role of women, freedom and democracy. That should be reflected.VR _talk 06:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why are the opinions of Dawkins and Hitchens in this article at all, given that they are wholly absent from Christianity and Judaism? Certainly both men have as strong opinions on those religions as they do on Islam.
• A debate on Islamic terrorism should be reflected in this article. However, Pipes' attacks on what he calls "lawful Islamism" is quite ambiguous, and certainly doesn't reflect the reality. The reality is that the Muslim world continues to cope and fight with terrorism, very few are concerned about "lawful Islamism".
• While non-Muslim criticisms are elaborated, Muslim responses are totally ignored (Fazlur Rahman Malik, Syed Ameer Ali, Ahmed Deedat and Yusuf Estes are only mentioned, no indication of what their response is).

VR _talk 06:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good points VR. -Aquib (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please also check this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam#Does_Islam_means_peace.3F_word_mixing

given undue weight to the word salam, and linking the word salam with islam is also giving undue weight(do you agree?)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Islam means peace? word mixing

Why does the article say "Another word derived from the same root is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'."

The root s-l-m makes up hundreds of words, not just salam, so why only mention that. I see this as giving undue weight

Other words with root s-l-m:

• Aslam, which means submit
• Taslam/Taslim, which means safe
• Saleema which means ‘to be saved or to escape from danger
• Musalam, which means undisputed
• (Derivation of) Salama: implies stinging of a snake

Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyyah who is popular among islamic fundmentalists in saudi arabia. said:

“ Islam is to surrender to God, submit to him, worship him, and serve him.....

The difference arises from the fact that Islam is a Din Submission. Din is the iffinitve of ddna, yadinu, which means to submit or to surrender.

The religion of Islam which god has ordained and promulgated through his prophets is to submit to him alone. It is nothing but submission, worship and service to God and him alone.Ibn Taymiyah Expounds Islam', pg. 316, Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, Washington, U.S.A., 2000.

”

Discussion

Both Islām and peace share the same trilateral root, sa-li-ma, using the same vocalization. On the other hand, some of the words on your list do not make this distinction, i.e., they belong to the same basic trilateral root but with a different vocalization (for one example, sa-la-ma). In addition to belonging to the exact same root, early Arabic scholars often considered peace (al-silm and al-salāma) to be one sense of meaning of islām (the other two senses being "surrender to God" and "ikhlāṣ"). For example, see the 12th-century scholar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi in his al-Tafsir al-Kabir. Furthermore, the quote you cite is related to the theological meaning of islām, but the other two senses are also possible in other contexts. And all three should be mentioned in the etymology and meaning section, there is no WP:DUE issue here. Wiqixtalk 19:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you learn that the word islam came from the word "saleema"/"salima"? Islam derives from the Arabic triconsonantal root sīn-lām-mīm (S-L-M [ س ل م ]). Many words are created from this root word by inserting different vowels between the three consonants. The word you claim islam comes from (salima) has the Derivation of "snake sting". Does islam mean "snake stinging"?

Lissan al-Arab, one of the most authoritative lexicons of the Arabic language, mentions that the word 'Islam' is derived from the root verb istaslama (استسلاما); which means 'to submit' or 'give in' or 'surrender', while the term salam (سلام) means peace, a truce, or a non-warring state.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qgnYAAAAMAAJ&q=He+further+quotes+the+exposition+of+Ibn+al-Athir+saying+that&dq=He+further+quotes+the+exposition+of+Ibn+al-Athir+saying+that&hl=en&ei=drF2Tb6pApCyhAfpw7SBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA

Here are some quotes from Muhammad. Which gives us idea of what Muhammad thought of the meaning of islam

“ By Allah! I consider him a believer." The Prophet said, "Or merely a Muslim (Who surrender to Allah)."

Sahih Bukhari 1:4:247

”

“ A lady asked to the prophet: "What is Islam?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan."

Sahih Bukhari 1:2:47

”

“ "O assembly of Jews! Surrender to Allah (embrace Islam) and you will be safe!" Sahih Bukhari 9:92:447 ”

Clearly Muhammad thought islam was to surrender to god?

Ok, lets say you were right, then what about all the words that have the same root you are talking about. shouldnt we mention all those other words with the same roots as islam also? why single out and mention the word "salam".

You said "On the other hand, some of the words on your list do not make this distinction, i.e., they belong to the same basic trilateral root but with a different vocalization (for one example, sa-la-ma)"

Sorry, but what are you talking about here? your talking about vocalization of islam, if so does the word Aslam (submit) sound more like Islam. or the word "Salam"

Say it yourself "Islam, Aslam", then say "Islam,Salam" which is closer?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sa-Li-Ma is just S-L-M+Vocalization. Most Arabic dictionaries I've seen, for instance, al-Munjid, categorize each group of words and senses based on what vocalization is given to the root. This is done to determine which words are closely related to one another. In this case, both Islam and Peace are categorized in one category, Sa-Li-Ma, while some of the other words in your list, like the one about the snake, fall under a different category. This discussion is also moot, considering that Fakhr al-Din al-Razi clearly states that the term "al-islām" is derived from one of three words: "Surrender", "Devotion", or "Peace" (al-silm and al-salāma). I agree with you though, that the most common theological meaning of Islam is "Surrender to God", and this article gives this meaning more space (and mentions it in the lead). But other theories about the origin of the word are also important, especially in an etymology section. Wiqixtalk 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many scholars who say different things than what you claim Fakhr al-Din al-Razi says about the meaning of islam. So why give his opinion undue weight.

Lissan al Arab is a much more famous book on the arabic language, by Ibn Manzur. He clearly said islam comes from the word istaslama (استسلاما); which means 'to submit' or 'give in' or 'surrender', NOT "Salam"

Either way, lets say you are right, and that islam and salam have a common root (which i dont disagree with), what about all the other 1000+ words that has common root as islam and common vocalization, and common whatever you were talking about? Why mention salam as the only word related to islam?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, i have another question, how can you claim the word Aslam and Musalam, does not have the same root (s-l-m) as islam? That is just an abosulte nonsense. while you claim "Salam" does share same root as islam (fact is their are loads of words which contain the letters S-L-M, not just SALAM).e--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What has happened here, is that because the word islam contain the letters S-L-M and so does the word "Salam", people are saying they are related.

Thats like saying "Love" and "Loveless" and "Lava" are related, because the contain the letters L-V--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions2, please follow rules for indentation as a courtesy to the readers as well as other editors. Thank you. -Aquib (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

According to The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, the word Islam comes from the Quranic root Salima - but this is not to be confused with inferring its meaning from the trilateral root. The trilateral root is not always a clear indication of the meaning.

The word means peace, way to peace, submission. Of course, it also refers to the religion.

Aquib (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think it is fair to change the line:

"Another word derived from the same root is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'"

to

"There are another 1000+ words derived from the same root as Islam, one of which is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'"

This is much much fairer (i hope you can see my point, and why i think the word "Salam" is given undue weight)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not 1000 words, probably only four or five, and only two of which (peace and surrender) have been linked to Islam. The other words you keep mentioning are not relevant, because they were never linked to Islam, and mostly belong to an entirely different sense of s-l-m (at least according to the categorization used in Al-Munjid). Also, Al-Razi is only one example out of many scholars across all Islamic schools who mention or adopt the theory that Islam is derived from Peace ("al-silm to mean al-salāma"). Even Ibn Manẓūr mentions an account that links the word Muslim to al-salāma, which states that a Muslim is one who enters the state of al-salāma. His definition of al-salāma is either a synonym for al-salām or its singular form. Another scholar, Al-Mawardī (in his tafsīr), puts it more succinctly: وفي أصل الإسلام قولان : أحدهما : أن أصله مأخوذ من السلام وهو السلامة , ... . Translation: "There are two theories on the origin of al-islām: One of which is that it is derived from al-salām, which is al-salāma". He mentions taslīm (surrender) to God as the second origin. This theory is also present in other works, like those of al-ʿIzz ibn ʿAbd al-Salām (d. 660 AH), al-Qummī al-Naysābūrī (d. 728 AH), al-Istarʾābādī (d. 891 AH), and Ibn Abī Ḥadīd (this one is even found in an account by Imam Ali), and others. Wiqixtalk 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'd suggest something like: "Among other words derived from the same root are salaam (سلام; peace) and 'taslīm' (surrender), both of which have been suggested by scholars as connected to the origin of al-islām." - with appropriate references. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

About being "last prophet"

"Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔɪsˈlæːm] ( listen)[note 1]) is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allah), and the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and Hadith) of Muhammad, often considered as the last Prophet of Islam." is written in the text.

But Hz. Muhammed is not the last prophet of Islam. He is the last prophet of Allah(GOD) and the unique prophet of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArzumKalfa (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this has been suggested before and this time i've changed it to Last prophet of God giving a link to Prophets of Islam. I understand where you are coming. The reason why it was placed there as last prophet of Islam was probably because of the existence of the article Prophets of Islam. ThanksPeaceworld 20:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add the fifth and sixth beliefs

1. Allah 2. Prophets 3. Holy Books 4. Angels 5. The Judgement Day 6. The Destiny (Qada and Qadar)

Im Indonesian muslim, i learn that six beliefs in my school. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunarta (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, they have been all listed see Islam#Articles of faith. --Peaceworld 09:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Gunarta (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I see. However people cant find in the left green sidebar

Demographics of Islam article

There has been a LOT written about the demographics of Islam and its predicted growth. Would anyone else agree that this deserves its own article? It would discuss:

• Current numbers, including how many of each sect
• Growth that has occured by region
• Predicted growth
• Discussion of methodologies, etc.
• Summarize various opinions on this growth (the different views such as Eurabia would still have their own articles where they'd discuss most of it)

I think the paragraphs in this article are good, but it deserves its own article. As I understand it, it's standard practice to create an entire article for a big subject, to branch off of ones like this.. Also, I feel that similar articles like Demographics of Judaism and Demographics of Christianity would be warranted. Thoughts?--Babank (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Islam by country is a specific demographics of islam article, though it doesn't address issues such as predicted growth etc. --Peaceworld 20:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, and being a List, it is unfit to be an article which discusses things in depth.--Babank (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I don't think your proposal is bad. A comprehensive article could be developed. Here I think though the article Claims to be the fastest-growing religion is quite relevant. --Peaceworld 20:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Introductory section

Hello, Given that this article is meant to be educational and informative, like the rest of Wikipedia, and not a religious tract, I have a request for an edit.

In the Introductory section, between the first and second paragraphs, is the following statement: "Mostly people think that Islam was founded by Muhammad. But it is not true Islam exists since the formation of the World and Muhammad Developed and spread the Islam like other Prophets of Islam."

This appears to be a statement of faith or belief by an adherent of Islam. While indicating what adherents believe has a place in such an article, it should be included in the sections outlining the faith and beliefs of the religion. Alternatively, if included in the second paragraph and prefaced by "Muslims believe..." it would be more appropriate.

In any other article, this type of statement would be flagged by someone immediately. Wisemoon (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It *was* flagged by someone immediately - you. It was only just added, and I have now reverted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that according to the MOS, the section heading Minor Denominations should be written as Minor denominations with a lower case d. Hope someone will correct it. Thanks. 188.65.179.18 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I took care of it. Opticals (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.68.23.25, 26 April 2011

Can we get the pornographic image removed from the top of this article? Not only does it have nothing to do with Islam, it's also quite offensive. No one wanting to learn something about Islam ought to have to see that. 66.68.23.25 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See my answer below. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 41.233.177.11, 26 April 2011

Dear Sir/Madam,

The change I request is not about a text but a picture. This page begins by a picture that has nothing to do with the topic, and is totally offensive. It is obviously intended to put off visitors from reading about Islam. Kindly, find out how it got there and remove it. If this is not possible, allow me to spread the word that Wikipedia is by no means a reliable source for information but is rather an arena to attack religions and ethnic groups on no solid grounds. This is not meant to be a threat or anything, but everybody has the right to request to be accurately presented on a world-wide spot such as Wikipedia, and it is a fact that you cannot help losing your credibility if you allow this fault to persist.

Thank you 41.233.177.11 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. Please accept our apologies for the presence of the obviously inappropriate image. The image has been removed, the user(s) responsible for adding it have been blocked from editing, and the template protected. The image should soon be on a list of restricted, or "bad" images, preventing its display on this page again. If you still see the image, bypass your browser's cache as described here, and it should go away. If it still shows up after that, then please make another request and someone will try and find the problem. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Denominations section gap

There's nothing about the Ibadhi subgroup of Islam. Seeing as it's the most popular form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar, I think it should at least get a shout-out. ☠ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ☠ 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)