Talk:Islam in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PonileExpress (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 4 March 2012 (Shaquille O'neal Inaccuracy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Shaquille O'Neal Image Misleading

O'Neal is not a Muslim. I have done Google searches and the truth is that his adopted father is a Muslim. He was raised in a dual Muslim and Christian household based on the religions of his parents. He himself has stated that he does not identify as a Muslim, however.

Incredibly biased information

According to an article in the Washington Post, "backed by money from Saudi Arabia, Wahhabis have built or taken over hundreds of mosques in North America and opened branches of Saudi universities here for the training of imams as part of the effort to spread their beliefs, which are intolerant of Christianity, Judaism and even other strains of Islam."

That would essentially mean that more than 10-20%, at least (they give no concrete figures; they simply say "hundreds"), of the mosques in the United States endorse Wahhabism. This is complete nonsense; in fact, the largest mosques in the USA are Shia Mosques in the Southeast Michigan+Toledo area that primarily cater to Iraqis. Moreover, South Asians are the dominant Muslim community within the United States overall, and they follow the Hanafi school; Wahhabism is practiced almost exclusively by Saudis and others from the Arabian penninsula. Do such radical claims even deserve mention? This essentially amounts to an insult, an accusation and a provocation, not a valid criticism based on evidence. -Rosywounds (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means help the entry by editing constructively. I'm sure you are entirely correct, but unless you get a good source or two I can tell you in advance that there are a serious bunch of POV pushing editors who monitor this entry and who will revert good edits based on their bias unless they are sourced (in fact they will do so even then but at least then you have some ground to stand on). Good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get a picture of the fort Hood shooter or Faisal o go in the "American Muslim" photo slot. 38.100.151.206 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)NOTFOOLED[reply]

"Some progressive Muslims want mosques re-designed to make them more woman-friendly"

Actually, in the 1960s and 1970s, a number of mosques were already relatively "woman-friendly" in some respects, until a new wave of more recent immigrants to the U.S. insisted on imposing stricter customs. AnonMoos (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early 20th-century

This article seems to ignore the fact that in the 20th-century before WW2, "non-mainstream" forms of Islam (Ahmadis, precursors to the Nation of Islam, the Nation of Islam) were rather more prominent in the U.S. than "mainstream" forms of Islam. And for a large number of Americans of that period, the first time they heard about American Muslims (or Americans claiming to be Muslims) was during the press coverage of the infamous "Allah Temple of Islam" related human ritual sacrifice murder by Robert Karriem in Detroit in 1932 (see Wallace_Fard_Muhammad#Founding of the Nation of Islam)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Wdm.gif

The image Image:Wdm.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another image

I'm wondering what is the notability of the "Meditation II" image. Even if it is relevant, how is it specific at all to Islam in America, as opposed to Islam in general?VR talk 07:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It relates to a violent incident in Chapel Hill, N.C., so the U.S. angle is present. It was produced by a Muslim and consists of passages from the Qur'an, so the Islam angle is also present. However, it also gives undue emphasis to an artifact produced by a sick mind, implying that it is typical. I've removed it, just as I would remove an image relating to an abortion clinic bomber from a general article on a Christian denomination in the U.S. The image is already present in many other articles more directly related to the image, and linked from this article. In fact, I've seen it before on WP and have found it very interesting and appropriate. Just not in this context. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this image is not of the violent incident, which would be different altogether. And yes I agree that images should present something of due attention. After all, they are said to speak a thousand words.VR talk 04:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PEW's data on Muslim ethnicity

The article currently states:

"However, when Muslim respondents were asked about their race in a recent Pew Research Center survey, 37% answered White, 24% answered Black, 20% answered Asian, 15% answered "other/mixed race," and 4% answered Latino."

However, according to this source (also by PEW) the data seems to be a bit different. Can somebody please clarify?VR talk 07:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it. It may have been tampered with by a vandal. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Islam in the United States

I once created such an article, but it was merged back into this one, per consensus here. The consensus also stated that this article could be recreated should there be enough material present.

At the time the article was tagged for merger, see this version, it was approximately 1,500 bytes. Currently, in my sandbox, it stands at nearly 13,000 bytes.

Do you guys think that the article History of Islam in the United States can be recreated?VR talk 05:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't some things from Saga America by Dr Barry Fell be added to this section? Such as when he mentions "muslim schools in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Indiana dating back to 700-800 CE" [1] Faro0485 (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have these comments:

  • I think the main article benefits from a historical overview of the subject, and am not eager to switch to working on a separate "history of" article.
  • I agree there will probably come a time when we will need a separate, more detailed "history of" article.
  • That time has not come IMO. Besides, I don't think the sandbox article is ready for prime time. It needs a lot of editing, may have OR (e.g. in the first sentence dividing the topic into three arbitrary historical periods), and IMO could make better use of sources. Some of the sentences are just puzzling and need to be eliminated or (briefly) explained.
  • I'll try to participate in the sandbox, but the main article is a higher priority.
  • Barry Fell's books are not reliable sources. His claims do not belong in Wikipedia, except in the article about Barry Fell himself. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 04:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox article was there in prep for another article. Since the main article is of greater priority, and since its in mainspace, I'll go ahead and add the content from there to here. Any edits, concerns can then be addressed here instead of my sandbox/my talk page.VR talk 17:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gender variance

Any statistics on male female proportions? Faro0485 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I think I saw a book once that documented it. I'll see if I can find it.VR talk 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

Just informing editors here of this related deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (2nd nomination). Comments would be helpful.PelleSmith (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Women

Anyone noticed that all of the pictures put in the article as examples of American Muslims are of men? There should be some women included as well. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim regarding "Saudi sponsered Wahhabism"

Hi I am just looking at this incredibly biased, propaganda pushing slanderous article and have noticed some inconcistencies.

For starters, the source given here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/030626-alexiev.htm

is it used to "prove" saudi's somehow sponser terrorism But it also cinforms that terrorist incicdence have taken place in Rayadh (the capital of Saudi).

So what you are in fact saying, is that saudi is breeding haterd of saudi with their doctrines? Might it be argued that the terrorist ideology is ANTI SAUDI given that they have declared takfir on teh saudi rulers and declared jihad against them? They recently tried to blow up a saudi prince for example.

I dont have time now but Im going prove to people that this myth is nothing but sufi propaganda. They cant defeat the salafi's in a theological debate so they resort to slander

Dawud.Beale (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honor killing

Added Honor killing in the United States, as all/most of them are conducted by muslim americans, clearly relevant to article. Tackylappy (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of pics

Concerning the choice of pics in the infobox, were there really no notable female Muslim Americans we could include?--Louiedog (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 14/16 of the pics are black Muslims when the demographics section reports only 25% of American Muslims are black. This choice of pics gives a sample that is conspicuously not representative of the population as whole.--Louiedog (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 2 pics of women who are Queen Noor of Jordan and Ellen Burstyn. The reason why most of them in the picture are black is because the majority of famous Muslim Americans are African Americans, because they are well established and are easy to find. I think the reason why there aren't many Arab/South Asian is because most are recent immigrants therefore not many are notable. Dimario (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reasoning is a little hard to swallow also one not need to be famous ,to be notable,i will be looking in on this--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Ice cube has not confirmed he is a muslim, and it seems he has been misquoted by some editors. Could somebody remove his picture ? This is the most quoted source which is from 2000. but ice cube has since made references of church in his lyrics for example "Go to Church" which is from 2006. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English in US mosques

Here is a source: "U.S. mosques debate the use of English." Associated Press. February 21, 2010 WhisperToMe (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early 20th century

This article seems to gloss over a little the fact that during much of the first half of the 20th century, Ahmadis and precursor groups to the Nation of Islam (later the Nation of Islam itself) were more prominent than "orthodox" groups. The first that many people in America ever heard of American Muslims was either Hi Jolly or the sensational November 1932 murder in Detroit[2]... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, if true

"In 1796, then president John Adams signed a treaty declaring the United States had no "character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen".[24]"

Small problem here, in 1796 John Adams was not the President. George Washington still in office.Eregli bob (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Treaty of Tripoli -- it was signed at Tripoli and Algiers during George Washington's term, but by the time it got to the U.S. and was approved by the senate and ready to be signed by the U.S. President, John Adams' term had started... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population size

There are various figures and estimates for the size of the Muslim population, and the CIA reference (which doesn't give the actual citation) is the absolute lowest of the range. USA Today says there are 2.6 million, CAIR says 6-7 million. A lot of websites say 5 to 8 million. Should we change it to a range in the infobox or make a new section discussing this? BrotherSulayman (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something has drastically changed in the last few years, then the high-end estimates (more than five million) are really not credible among most scholarly or professional demographers, and do not match numbers obtained from opinion polling survey techniques... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to cite those polling sources, because unfortunately the issue has become controversial and there are a variety of political groups in America making opposing claims. I suspect the CIA's source for the Muslim population in America is the Pew Forum's 2007 survey on Muslim-Americans. It says:
"The U.S. Census does not ask about a respondent’s religious affiliation in its national. surveys; as a consequence, there are no generally accepted estimates of the size of the Muslim American population. The Pew study projects approximately 1.5 million adult Muslim Americans, 18 years of age and older. The total Muslim American population is estimated at 2.35 million, based on data from this survey and available Census Bureau data on immigrants’ nativity and nationality. It is important to note that both of these estimates are approximations."
The source I gave cites (possibly the same) Pew forum data at nearly double the size of the one in the CIA's source used for the infobox. BrotherSulayman (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been several years since I looked at the matter, but both 1.5 million and 2.35 million are significantly less than five million (as is also twice 1.8 million), so it doesn't appear that my comments would require any revision on that basis... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then shall we change it to 2.35 million and add a clarification about the controversy on the page? BrotherSulayman (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I would object to is mentioning estimates of 5 million or more as if they're neutral or credible (which they aren't). Otherwise, do as you please, as long as you can find a source for it... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

duplication

Benjamin Franklin's non-sectarian Philadelphia meeting-house now seems to be mentioned twice (I may have been partly responsible for this duplication, if so , sorry)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disaffected Muslims

The whole "Disaffected Muslims" section is really badly written and out of date. The Islamic Thinkers Society hasn't been seen since 2006, no media reports and their website is old. John Walker Lindh got some media attention in 2001-2002 but maybe should be replaced by more contemporary people of discussion like Anwar Al-Awlaki. BrotherSulayman (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

A citation for the claim that Muslims historically voted Republican is desperately needed. A few Google searches this morning actually suggested that they primarily supported Clinton in 1996. (e.g. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0817/p09s01-codc.html). Since Muslims did primarily vote for Bush in 2000, it seems like their political leanings may have been rather variable in that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.182.121 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's because they've commonly changed political philosophies every 4 years, but because neither of the main political parties is a close fit. Muslims tend to be somewhat "conservative" on moral issues, which would tend to favor a Republican affiliation, but on the other hand, evangelical "Christian nation" talk (and recently, certain types of Tea Party rhetoric) repels them. Some of them liked certain Bush-41 era Republican foreign policies, but the majority were not greatly enthusiastic about the Neoconservative policies of the W. Bush (Bush-43) years. Democrats tend to make stronger stands against discrimination, and in some cases have what could be considered more "progressive" foreign policies, but the Democratic party is also the home of most American Jews, who are overall more influential than Muslims in setting party policies... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove those who never admitted they are Muslim from the list

Why are people who never said they are Muslim in the picture with all the people? Example is Noureen, as it even says in her article she never confirmed she is a Muslim. Having arrived from a Muslim country does not make you a Muslim, neither is having had Muslim parents or grandparents.

The image with all the Muslim people should be changed. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_in_the_United_States&oldid=480100859"