Talk:Islam

Demographics

It should be mentioned that Islam had 1.9 billion followers in 2000, now they have 1.57. One reason is because the Muslim birthrate are now normalising in the West. The second could be that the Muslim birthrate is stagnating in most parts of Asia. Why is there no mention of the millions of Muslims converting out of Islam? And the increased persecution in the Middle East and Asia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the source for the 1.9 bln muslims (yr 2000) number ? The article (cites the) claims, that Islam is fast growing - not decreasing ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect Needed

Please add {{Other uses|Bomb (disambiguation)} to the page to help redirect all of us infidels. Thank you 76.200.118.133 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling

Under the History section, subsection "muhammed" the city name is misspelled in one instance as "Madina" instead of "Medina." I would have changed it but the page is locked. Someone with editing privileges should fix this. -Dave K.

Done--Toddy1 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

upgraded summary for the two branches of Ahmadiyya

Can someone please verify if this is a good upgrade? No text nor sources were removed, this is intended to be a straight addition, with some alterations to give more specifics. The sources were provided by User:Saleemthebody, but my *own* understanding of this particular split-denomination is entirely from *wikipedia* articles, which we all know may not be 100% trustworthy in all cases.  :-)

Ahmadiyya is an Islamic reform movement (with Sunni roots) founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that began in India in 1889 and is practiced by over ten million people around the world. Ahmadiyyas are divided into two subgroups, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad the subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad the second coming).

If this suggested version passes muster, please stick it into the article for me, since the page is locked down, and Saleem has not gotten back to me. If any troubles crop up, please ping my talkpage, I'm unable to create a watchlist-entry for this talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

p.s. See analysis of WP:UNDUE over here. User_talk:Sp33dyphil#Islam TLDR, I don't think two sentences is overblown, even if they are pretty dense with links and sources. 10M people is a good-sized chunk. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

English versus Arabic

I undid a revision that changed the heading from "God" to "Allah". We do not translate everything into Arabic; Angels would be "malaika", revelations would be "wahy", fasting would be "sawm", government might be "hukumah". Where to draw the line? Even for those who do not know Arabic or the Arabic word for God, the English title is more accessible, while its contents explain the etymology in detail. I would judge having all titles in English, instead of some, is something we can get most editors to agree to. Sodicadl (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Has there been previous discussion about this? This strikes me as somewhat odd. Yes, as one of the Abrahamic religions, one would generally say that Allah is equivalent to the English word God, and moreover the deity being described is the same. However, in terms of usage, Allah is not just the arabic word for God by non-english speakers. It's the specific nomenclature for the deity used by muslims in English as well as arabic. I'm not sure one can make the argument we should be using God because this is an english language wiki..the use of Allah is not just an untrasnlated version, it has a specific connotation. It delineates the generic word in English for the Abrahamic deity ("God") from the specific word for that deity in Islam, Allah. There is nuance beyond the rough approximation of both words...they are not just the same word in two languages. And looking about, this is generally the approach we have taken in many other articles....Al-Aqsa is "the farthest", but we call it Al-Aqsa. There are pretty yawning doctoral differences betyween the way the Abrahamic traditions specifically conceptualize the general deity. I think it's hard to make the argument that Allah, as commonly used, is indistinguishable from using "God". I also think we'd be hard pressed to find the preponderence of sources to support this decision. What are the arguments for using God instead of Allah here, in the context of the specific name for the deity? I don't really have skin in the game so to speak, but I'm trying to figure out what, beyond the general approximation of the deity in the two traditions, makes "God" a better use than "Allah" in an article about Islam. The wiki article for the specific conceptualization of the Abrahamic deity is entitled "Allah" not God (Islamic). I don't think "Allah" is any less accessible than "God" to anyone who's read a newspaper in the last 30 years. "Allah" IS in English...just because it's not an English word to begin with doesn't mean that in the specific context of naming the Islamic personification of the Abrahamic deity is failing to translate. They are not specifically equivalent enough to make that argument. I am suggesting we change this to Allah, to match the existing Wiki article on Allah.204.65.34.128 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Allah" is extremely well known in English, much more so than the other Arabic words mentioned. In fact, if you consult recent dictionaries you will see that many consider it to be an English word adopted from Arabic. There is nothing wrong with using "God", but the argument given for not using "Allah" is incorrect. Zero^talk 03:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

•   Technically speaking, English-vs-Arabic is not the right description methinks, because "God" is the anglicized English-language-word for the Islamic deity, whereas "Allah" is a romanized/transliterated English-language-word for the Islamic deity, which is quite distinct from the right-to-left arabic glyphs used to refer to the Islamic deity. In any case, support changeover from God to Allah when speaking specifically of the deity of Islam, per extremely common use (I would say dominant use but will let folks with more experience have their say) in the sources. By contrast, it is extremely common to say "God" in the articles on Judaism most of the time, once again per dominance in the English-language sources, which do not say YHWH, nor the Hebrew-language-glyphs thereof. Speaking theologically, there is still a huge gulf, but speaking in terms of the linguistic prevalence in WP:RS, Allah is typical for describing Islam, and YHWH is only used in very specialized circumstances when describing Judaism. As an aside, nowadays the christian sources almost invariably say God, whereas in previous centuries The Lord methinks was more common. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam, third edition (so far) uses "God" almost exclusively. Second edition uses "God" or transliteration "Allāh", e.g., main article is titled "Allāh", but generally uses "God" within the body. Blackwell Companion to the Qur'ān generally uses "God". Cambridge Companion to the Qur'ān generally uses "God". Qur'ān translations: Ali, Pickthall, and Khan use "Allah"; Arberry, Bell, and Jones use "God". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What about general-readership sources, like World Book / Britannica / Encarta / and friends? When we talk about the ancient Greek gods, we usually say gods, or The Gods maybe... as do most sources, if memory serves. We don't say "God" when we refer to Zeus as the chief deity, although we might say "the god Zeus did this" or maybe "the god Hermes did that" colloquially in some section describing a narrative about one of the Olympians. The situation with Islam it trickier, since it is monotheistic and Abrahamic, just like Christianity. But I'd like to know what the various old-school printed and CDROM encyclopedias did, and specifically, whether or not they had an article Allah/Allāh, and if so what they used in the body-text thereof... and secondly, whether in their articles on Islam/Muslim/etc whether those old-school tertiary sources spoke of Allah/Allāh in the body, or of God, or of god, or of deity, or of some other phraseology. Does anybody with access to some printed general-purpose sources feel like helping out? Thanks much to Atethnekos for the specialist-sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ISLAM

Respested Sir, I am a Muslim I read this topic(ISLAM) on Wikipedia but in this topic our Prophrt MUHAMMAD(Peace be upon Him) name come without Peace be upon Him or(PBUH) I request you kindly edit this or give me authority to edit this topic. I am very grateful to you.

Best Regards, MUHAMMAD IRFAN Irfan447 (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Muhammad. --Stfg (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Text regarding Usury needs to be edited.

Please change 'Usury allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk' TO 'Usury which allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk is prohibited in Islam' 183.83.203.146 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

but how do they know when it's islamic new year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.230.199 (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No moon symbol?

Many Islam buildings have a moon symbol on them, so how come the symbol isn't in the article? GMRE (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@GMRE: See Crescent#Pre-Islamic and Islamic uses for the present significance of the crescent moon in Islam.
Apart from this, I think material can be included here, too. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 16:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Some modern buildings have it but the old mosques did not have a moon symbol. If you visit old cities like Cairo and many other old cities in Muslim majority countries and look at old mosques, they do not have a moon symbol. If you read old book you find that the original mosques in Madina like Masjid Al Nabawi and Masjid Quba in Madina during the time of Muhammad just had four walls and a reed roof along one of the walls. They were very simple and were used as places for education and most of the money was spent on education and feeding the poor in their community, not on the buildings. It says nothing about a moon symbol anywhere in the old Muslim books and there is nothing about a moon symbol in the Quran --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Distinction: Islam vs. Muslims

I wish to reopen the discussion waged previously (at least once, for example as “Muslims believe this, Muslims believe that”, from 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)) about making the distinction between Islam, the religion, and muslims, its followers – because there are significant differences between the official teachings of this religion, and what its followers make of it – just like there are significant differences between the Pope and the Vatican vs. Catholics.

The notion that ‘Islam’ is not preferable to use as the subject of many sentences or verbs, I think is not tenable. First of all: Islam happens to be the subject of the article, so there is good reason why the article’s statements should be about it. For statements about muslims, there’s a separate article about them.
Second: the argument that ‘Islam’ is ill suited as the subject of many verbs because it is an abstraction doesn’t hold up – Islam isn’t just some abstract idea (like the word ‘idea’), but a full-fledged religion with all the trappings (see the article!). Key source materials; normative statements and example by its authority figures etc..
Thirdly: the argument that one can’t make categorical, broad-sweeping statements about Islam, and that it would therefore be better to make equally categorical, broad-sweeping statements about its followers, makes no sense.
Fourthly: when such categorical, broad-sweeping statements about muslims go into what they believe, there is the additional scientific challenge of backing that up with suitable research / sources.

I therefore argue to let statements about Islam be phrased as such, as much as possible, and to be channeled through statements about something distinguishable from it, as little as possible ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion you are referring to is at Talk:Islam/Archive 16#Muslims believe this , Muslims believe that.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC) (The user who raised this issue in that discussion has a very impressive block list.[1])--Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct, but how is that users block-list relevant to the arguments ? What is your argument ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have as yet not made an argument on the talk page. I have merely provided links relevant to the discussion you referred to so that people can think about the issues.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Islam & Sharia law vs. the To-do list for this article

The To-do list for this article states that it: ".. should cover the fact [?!] that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law), ..".
This is not a fact at all ! This seems to be an opinion of the editor, and far from neutral !

The fact is that, according to the article "Application of sharia law by country", about ten countries have applied sharia law in full, or for the most part, including application of sharia (elements) in criminal law.
Another thirty (or more) countries apply sharia law at least to matters like ".. marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody ..". Even though this is termed (personal) Status law, it regulates an individuals position ".. in regards to the rest of the community ..", in other words: between a person and other persons, not just ".. b/t someone and God.. ".

As for how sharia is intended to be used, a neutral article should be very careful to reach a conclusion, and should certainly look at various sources. One aspect worth mentioning is the sharia concept of Jizya, ".. a per capita tax, levied on [...] an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens ..", which is clearly a law pertaining to non-muslims ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Moreover: the lead section of this very article states, that sharia law: ".. touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, providing guidance on multifarious topics from banking and welfare, to warfare and the environment ..". --GeeTeeBee (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Spread of Islam from Afghanistan to Hindustan

Why the history section doesn't mention anything about this important event? It talks heavily about Arab areas and Ottoman empire stuff but not a single thing is mentioned about the powerful Muslims (the Ghaznavids) who first started by defending Ghazna (present-day Afghanistan) against powerful Hindu army led by Jayapala, eventually defeating the Hindus and proceeding to conquer (present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India and Bangladesh) in the name of Islam. Muslims ruled that area for the next 1,000 years. The largest population of Muslims is found in this area and the only Muslim country to have nuclear bombs is Pakistan. Muslims from this area are found in very large number in the UK, North America, all over Middle East, Australia and everywhere else in the world. Their ancestors became Muslims after Ghaznavids conquests of Hindustan. In addition to all this, many famous Islamic figures are from this area.--39.41.188.248 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

Tighten up prose, and fix accidentally-mangled parens, of the first entry in the Islam#Other_denominations subsection. Please change:

• Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming) and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming), but not a prophet.

To:

• Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad the second coming plus subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad the second coming only).

Thanks to Salaamthebody for fixing up the accuracy of my original suggestion made at Talk:Islam. This change-request is not intended to adjust the meaning of the words currently in mainspace, but merely to fix parens and omit needless words.

74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I tried to keep the original wording. It now looks like this:

...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming, but not a prophet).

I wasn't sure if "but not a prophet" was unnecessary, so I left it in.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

Asking that the date of this religion be stated as A.D. .. It does not state this fact anywhere and while many other "religions" broke away from both Judaism and Christianity (Orthodoxy) to become Catholic and on and on .. At least the others say A.D. .

It is only fair that this page show the true date of this formation of Muslim religion .. That is all we are asking ..

74.4.114.94 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

Farida baby (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't said what edit you want to be made. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden and slogan of Islam

I would have liked to see Osama bin Laden being mentioned here because he is a notable figure. If muslims condemn what he did, even that should be mentioned. The slogan of Islam is, 'La Ilahi il Allah, Muhammadur Rasool Allah', which means Allah is the only God and Muhhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet and that also needs a mention - it is just as important. I am new here and would prefer someone more experienced to do this.—Khabboos (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason it does not mention the millionaire terrorist-organiser is explained in Wikipedia:Handling trivia.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Islam is simply inaccurate

In the Wikipedia article entitled, "Islam," Islam is defined as a religion, which completely misses the essence of what it actually is. Islam is primarily a geo-politcal system of governance created to be spread by any means, worldwide. Islam includes a set of religious beliefs, but it is not a religion independent of government. Is simply is not, and any Islamic scholar knows this, as do the following skeptics about the peaceful nature of Islam: Abdullah Al-Araby, Director, The Pen vs. The Sword Publications, Serge Trifkov, Author, The Sword of the Prophet, Robert Spencer, Director of JhadWatch.org

The word Islam does not mean "peace" in the sense of no conflict, but peace that comes from having all of mankind obedient to god's perfect words as dictated to Mohammed by ArchAngel Gabriel, words that have been replaced by later Q'ran entries over time by Mohammed himself, that deprecate earlier verses. "Jihad" means struggle, both personal and at war against infidels, to become martyrs in the name of Allah.

Sure, let's be objective as possible in Wikipedia, but let's not get PC, okay? Islam is a single world governance system with a government called a "Califate," a legal system called "Sharia," and a religion that justifies in the name of Allah, the two fates for all non-believers: Conversion to Islam or subservient second-class status. This is crystal clear. Ask any scholar.

Fundamentalist Islamists follow the teachings of Islam. So called "Peaceful Muslims" are actually not practicing Islam, just a minor piece of it. And btw, Christians are Mesionic Jews either, so let's not be afraid to call a spade a space. I'll say again, Islam is not primarily a religion, but a system of world goverance.

I give donations annual donations to Wikipedia, and expect objectivity and truth, not PC.