Talk:Islam/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 20

New Section

It is my intention to add a small portion to this article. After seeing the firestorm of craziness in response to my addition of a simple link I thought that perhaps I should post my proposed addition to the article on the talk page and get your majesties permission so as not to incite Another revert war. My proposed addition is below. Seanr451 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


==Islamic Terrorism==

{{main|Islamic extremist terrorism}}

Starting in the last half of the Twentieth Century a growing number of terrorist groups have been identified with Islam. While many Muslims have denounced Islamic Terrorism, the numbers of terrorist groups that have publicly identified themselves as Islamic has grown.

Islamic extremist terrorism is terrorism claimed by its supporters and practitioners to be in furtherance of the goals of Islam. The validity of an Islamic justification for this terrorism has been contested by other Muslims.

Islamic terrorist groups usually have one of two stated goals:

  1. Fighting off oppressors in their local area.
  2. The establishment of a pan-Islamic theocracy.

What about Ismailis?

In the section on other branches of Islam no mention is made of the Ismailis (followers of the Aga Khan). In fact these are metnioned nowhere in the article. I have tried to insert one line to this effect but my line has been edited out. Can anyone explain why Ismailis are not at least mentioned? I know them to be followers of Islam through my acquaintance to several.

Recategorisation

I suppose that category Islam is probably not on many editors' watchlists, so I'll try here instead: I think there should be a reorganisation of the Islam category pages. My major gripe is that there are too many subcategories 'of order 1' (by which I mean subcategories in the Islam category). There is also some overlap, for example, Muslims and Islamic scholars are categories of order 1 and the latter should clearly be a subcategory of the former. There are also many other subcat's of order 1 that can be placed into the category Muslims (for example, Muslim scientists, Imams, Muslim philosophers and Islamic prophets). Also, it's a bit strange having Muslim as well. Given the sheer number of Islam articles, it's also very easy to not spot 'mistakes' such as Elijah Muhammad being a muslim (correct me if I'm wrong on this point). There is so much that needs to be reorganised in the Islam category pages. There should be a category on Islamic culture which can have Islamic art, Muslim music, Islamic festivals and Islamic architecture as some subcategories. Maybe even a category on Five pillars of Islam which can have Islamic Pilgrimage as a subcategory (which can then have articles on Hajj, Umra, Al-Safa and Al-Marwah, Hira, Kaaba etc...). I think you get the idea. MP (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Those ideas sound workable. As long as you're open to feedback, I at least am willing to give you your head for a while. Just remember Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities without necessity :) Zora 08:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made a start at reorganising the categories. I might even start creating some of the categories just now. The task is quite overwhelming. I appreciate any feedback. MP (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should have a look at the talk page of the Muslim culture article, which I created a while ago exactly to provide a place to link art, architecture, etc. Especially since objections have been raised that the term "Muslim culture" is not used in academia often enough to represent a category. --Zeeshanhasan 13:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created some more subcategories (for example Category:Hajj is a subcategory of Category:Islamic Pilgrimage which is a subcat of Category:Five Pillars of Islam). I've also created the subcats Category:Islam and Other Religions and Category:Islamic Media . I've also gone through Category:Sahaba and added a few more Sahaba in that category; I've also only included the most notable Sahaba in Category:Islam. Any comments on this would be appreciated. Also, as there are quite a few female Sahaba (for which the correct term is Sahabiyyah, I think), perhaps there should be a subcat of Sahaba with this name ?

My next plan is to include only the most notable people in Category:Islam. I think we have most of them already, but no doubt there will be some controversy here. I need some help here. Do we include only those people who were important in Muhammad's day, for example, Abu Jahl, or include notable Islamic scholars too, such as Ahmad Deedat and Zakir Naik. Related to this point, there are a lot of Arabic terms and words in the Islam category; maybe it's worth creating a subcategory for this ? 12:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear why people should be in Category:Islam at all, given the people categories. When I reverted an (unexplained) addition of this category to Abu Bakr I was told "Please the Islam talk page for why Abu Bakr should also be in the Islam category", but I can't see any explanation here. He's in Category:Muslims and Category:Sahaba already. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason we have people in the Islam category is that those people are extremely important figures in Islam. It is not necessary that each article about a person should be in exactly one category. Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Abu Jahl, Umar ibn al-Khattab and more are all important (notable) figures in Islam. Some Sahaba are also notable, which is why they are in the Islam category too. At the moment, this is the criteria we are using to place people in the Islam category. We (or at least I) are (am) attempting to recategorise all the Islam pages, as I noticed there were too many superfluous articles in the Islam category (i.e., they could be better placed in a subcategory). It may be better (once we decide that we have enough notable figures in Islam) that we create a new category, namely, 'Notable people in Islam'. MP (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of this ?

Dallan - I came across this article and am not sure if it is nonsense or not. MP (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've not heard of him and I can't find anything relavent on a Google search. Although I have found [1] on Yahoo.

Tetrahedron93 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of useful non-biased links

For the third time, I added a link to a non-commercial non-fundamentalist site that introduces true peacful values of Islam and how it respects all other religions, it is THE most visited modernly written English/Arabic site about Islam today and yet it is being removed by another editor.

Mo Nadi 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we let you link, then we have to let everyone else link, and the link section becomes a foot long. We link to dmoz, which should include all relevant sites. That way we're not playing favorites. Please don't ask for special treatment. Zora 11:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I've checked out the proposed link [2], and I think it's got a lot of useful information about Islam - including discussions on current topics such as the Danish cartoons. If we don't have high quality links like this one, how are people going to find out more about moderate Islam? I think this is a very useful link and believe it belongs in this section. I also would not object to a foot-long section if it contains links of this quality containing non-redundant information from diverse points of view. If the contents in this site doesn't jive with the freaks you see on the TV news, remember that TV news is entertainment, and depicting normal people isn't very entertaining. It's also all the more reason why a link like this is important. I'm not going to repost the link myself without giving folks a chance to response. Rklawton 16:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a link to a rather well known, female Muslim "dissenter" who has published a best-selling book that raises many issues about the current practice of Islam. The site contains a lot of facts, comments, and opinions, about the imperfect practice of Islam today. The author isn't opposed to Islam; she's just opposed to how some people practice it. Since it's written from the "inside," I found this site very interesting.[3] Rklawton 16:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we let you link, then we have to let everyone else link I'm uncertain as to what you mean exactly. Who is "we" and isn't the idea behind wikipedia that anyone can make changes? The statement smacks of elitism. I understand your concern for the welfare of the page, but let us not lose sight of the forest from the trees hmmm. (just in case you misunderstand me- it's not your motives or your opinion, just the way you stated it.) Angrynight 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"We" is the collective of editors who have been working on this article for ... in some cases, years. If "we" bend the rules for you, then other people who want to link are going to be upset. So it's safer just to have a rule and be impartial.
This is a problem on ALL articles. As Wikipedia gets more popular and more visible, more and more people want to use it as a linkfarm, to drive traffic to their sites, for either commercial or ideological reasons. That's why I sound harsh -- it's not just you, it's the thousands of would-be linkers. I spend too darn much of my time removing linkspam. Zora 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, no, no, I haven't linked anything. I visit this page frequently and the statement set off alarm bells is all. My contributions are outweighed by my visits. Angrynight 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Angrynight, I totally agree with you that there is no "we" in Wikipedia as it is an encyclopedia for all as the founder stated. By the way, I am not sure why you refered to the site as "mine"? as I am not the owner or associated with it in anyway. It is a fact that it is the most visited modern site about Islam and reflects the true spirit of the religion so not having it in the links is like ignoring CNN when talking about news sites! As you can see the site is already ranking as one of the top 600 on | Alexa Ranking of IslamOnline, given 4/5 stars by Amazon/Alexa and includes a range of editorial comment, articles and FAQ section about the religion so I am not convinced that it is not worth adding as a reference Mo Nadi 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, having edited the page for a long time as you stated doesn't make you the owner of the page. For instance I edit a lot too but the idea behind Wikipedia is that everyone could and should share the right non-biased content as long as it benifit others, and you shouldn't have an issue with that. Could you please list the names of the other editors you referred to as owners of the page? so "we" can check their point of view on those un-written rules? Mo Nadi 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak for anyone else. All I'll say is that if you add the site (giving it preferential treatment over all the other Islamic sites out there) I'll delete it, and I'm confident that enough other regular contributors appreciate the policy that they'll delete it too. Zora 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Zora, if you really don't want to speak for anyone else (which is not how Wikipedia works), why don't you give those other editors a chance to evaluate the link and decide instead of making that judgement alone? why aren't "they" contributing to this discussion or removing that link? Mo Nadi 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Hudaybiyya(h)

Oh dear, we seem to have 2 articles on the same topic: Treaty of Hudaybiyya and Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The latter was created before the former, but the former is more comprehensive. Hmmm. Merger seems like the obvious solution. MP (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Five Pillars category

The Five Pillars of Islam could have subcategories on Salat, Hajj etc. The reason I want this to happen is that I've discovered more and more articles which would fit nicely into a salat category (and similarly for things like hajj). Thoughts on this ? MP (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. What articles do you think will fit nicely. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of Islam articles such as:

That's all I can find right now; I'm in the process of attempting to recategorise all the Islam articles - as you can imagine, this is a huge task. One problem is that there are so many overlaps for some of the articles (same article in different categories), some of which are not clear (for example, should Quran be in the Islam category as well as Islamic texts category ?). Another problem is that there are so many articles on Muslims that should be recategorised (see the example in the next paragraph), not to mention the annoying problem of having the categories Muslim and Muslims.

Another suggestion: there are articles on Muslims which are in the Islam category (example: Hatib ibn Abu Baitah) - my suggestion is that only notable, well-known Muslims should be in the Islam category - these and any other less well-noted Muslims should be in the Muslims category (or a subcategory thereof). MP (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes we can always add more later. Yes I think Qur'an can be in both categories. Also your suggestion is good and we can also move some Muslims into a category for the Sahaba and some for Islamic scholars, but keep the notable ones like Abu Bakr and Ali in the category of Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad (PBUH) was not sinless??

Any source for this . In Sunni view there is a difference between sin & mistake . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 10:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Some arguments:
It depends how we define sin. The Quranic word for sin is dhanb. Quran clearly wants Muhammad to seek forgiveness for his sins. There are many verses in this regard. I know Shia Muslims define sin in a way that Muhammad becomes sinless.
Some notable verses from Quran and Hadith:
1. According to Quran, Muhammad (PBUH) was sinless in the sense of transferring the message that was revealed to him: Quran (69:44-47): And if the apostle were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).
2. (12:53) (Prophet Joseph said) "Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy: but surely my Lord is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful."
3. The Quran teaches that God does not treat men according to what they deserve, but according to what befits him; If God were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would not leave, on the earth a single living creature. (Quran 35:45, 16:61).
4. Muhammad (PBUH) advised:
"Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and rejoice, for no one's good deeds will put him in Paradise." The Companions asked, "Not even you O Messenger of Allah?" He replied, "Not even me unless Allah bestows His pardon and mercy on me." (Reported by Aboo Hurayrah & 'Aa'ishah & collected by al-Bukhaaree (eng. trans. vol.8 p.315 no.474)

--Aminz 09:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an excellent hadith sahih which refers to a group of people who on the last day search for a sinless man and ask Musa, Ibrahim, and Muhammed (PBUH)- each reply that they have sinned. Musa killed a man, Ibrahim lied, and Muhamed (PBUH) sdmits to comitting sin but does not specify. However all were forgiven their sins past,present, and future. This contributes to the idea no human is sinless. I will find the hadith if you ask. However, I'mvery busy so it may take me a while. Angrynight 05:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles of Belief

I have changed it to seven . In arabic each of then is separated from the next by a wa (and) , so its not sometimes but always seven . The numbering has also been changed to how its read . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Moulid and Mawlid merger ?

The articles Moulid and Mawlid could be merged. Thoughts ? MP (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's. Just make sure that all the variant spellings are listed at the top. Zora 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Work

I'm surprised and impressed that such a potentially contentious page as this has avoided a lock down. George Bush and Freemasonry have been so vandalised that the general community can't be trusted to edit. Islam has avoided this. Good work on consensus building. Epeeist smudge 05:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Request for help on Forgiveness article

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding an Islam heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Islam's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Muhammad as "Father of Islam"?

List of people known as father or mother of something lists Muhammad as "Father of Islam". This sounds really odd to me. Thoughts? -- 201.51.208.156 16:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

To five sixths of the world's population Muhammad is the Father/Founder of Islam. —Aiden 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The List of people known as father or mother of something articles says Note however that this does not always mean they invented, discovered or originated the thing with which they are associated. Despite how incorrect or awkward it may be to say that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the Father of Islam, I think associating him with Islam in that article works just fine. joturner 04:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well firstly by no means 5/6 calls him the founder of Islam . Secondly nobody even calls him the father of Islam , not even the people who believe thins to be correct . Anybody ever herad of this term . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 13:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering Islam comprises about 1/5 of the world's population, and that only within Islam is Abraham considered the founder, and outside of Islam Muhammad is considered the founder, I'd have to disagree. Secondly, if you refer to a dictionary, father and founder are synonymous.
fa·ther ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fäthr)
n.
4. A man who creates, originates, or founds something: Chaucer is considered the father of English poetry.
Aiden 19:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody considers him the father of anything. They can call him founder, but not father. Just like no one would be the father of Judaism. Putting it in this language is just odd. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Jews do call Abraham "Avraham avinu" (Abraham our father) : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
And Muslims believe that for Islam too :) but Muhammad is not ever known as the father of Islam, but founder. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, in English (this is English Wikipedia), father and founder are synonymous, i.e. they mean the same thing. —Aiden 21:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aiden the name of the article is List of people known as father or mother of something. He is not known as father. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference b/w having the same meaning & being called by a particular name/phrase . Regarding muslim population , it ranges b/w 1/4 to 1/6 , according to different estimates . Even then it isnt necessray that all 4.5-5 billion people know about Muhammad or Islam . There must be billions of people who dont care ( trying asking any chinese ) , & so they dont know . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Totally irrelevant trivia, but just as an aside Adherents, at least, pegs China as a nation with one of the largest Muslim populations. --72.25.0.67 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I think it is wrong to consider the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the "founder of Islam". He was a great man , and led by example, but followers of Islam known also as hanifs existed long before the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)was alive. Islamically Abraham was neither a christain or jew and was a hanif , 'follower of the right path'. Just some info. Aadamh 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aadamh, in Islam the belief is every prophet from Adam to Muhammad were muslim even if the name for such did not exist. However Muhammad is associated with the current name for such followers, taking into consideration the disclaimer I see as acceptable, albeit borderline. Angrynight 05:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

qualifier "considered"

Aiden, could you explain the qualifier "considered" an Abrahamic religion? You said in your edit summary the Christianity article has this qualifier also. Why is it necessary in either case? The Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I'm not sure I understand the need for a qualifier. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Glaring Ommission

One glaring ommission is this article is the complete lack of discussion of Islam beyond the separation of spirituality and wordly affairs. As an American, I can understand why this article would lack any reference to the numerous directives in the Qur'an to items such as governance, economics, and laws. The only reference I do see is Islām is described as a dīn, meaning "way of life" and/or "guidance".. My desire is that someone expand on this sentence so that Westerners who regularly deal with the separation of church and state realize what that truly means.

Newly created article on 'Qu'ran and Bible' superfluous ?

Is the newly created article Qu'ran and Bible redundant ? MP (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Western religion

The article Western religion desperately needs a section on Islam. Can someone here head over there and write something? KSchutte 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I found a better alternative: Merge. KSchutte 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing Link

This page is missing a link to the article on Islamic Studies.

Moving controversy out of Aisha

The "how old was Aisha when she was married?" controversy currently lives at Aisha. It's about twice as long as the rest of the article. I'm wondering if it would make sense to move the controversy out into its own article? Someone recently tried this, but with unkind intent (IMHO) -- he put it in "Muhammad's (PBUH) sexual orientation", which was promptly squashed. Before I do anything, I would like to get some feedback from other editors as to the advisibility of the move and the proper name for the breakout article. Would Aisha marriage age controversy do?

If it's in a new article, we might be able to reorganize a bit and freshen it up. There is a lot of material that isn't referenced, the cites from Bukhari should be linked to the MSA online hadith database, etc. Zora 00:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that wouldn't serve to help legitimate the prurient (and highly POV) interest by non-Muslims in this aspect of Islamic history. I'd suggest instead that what's already in Aisha should be tidied up; indeed, moving it off to a deeper sub-article might even appear POV to some. — JEREMY 06:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nods head and agrees with JEREMY* Angrynight 05:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The word 'Holy'

A recent edit removed the word Holy as POV. I would like to point out this is a propper name, such as the Holy Bible, the word Holy not being mutually inclusive to POV. --OrbitOne 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


I did this. I think the same would be appropriate with the Bible. With the Bible, there's a history in the sense that bible just means book, but today if someone says, "The Bible", there is no ambiguity. Similary with the Qur'an...Holy Qur'an, what, as opposed to all those everyday Qur'ans? In both cases, prefacing it with "Holy" does not disambiguate, but only indicates that the speaker thinks the book holy. As if we were to refer to a king as as "His Supreme Excellency so-and-so"; it may be regular usage for some, but is still POV. Can we find one instance where a critic includes the preface "holy" (excepting sarcastic contexts?) For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to the notion that one or both books might be, in whole or in part, holy...I just think the usage here ritualistic, unnecessary and POV. Timothy Usher 10:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No where on Wikipedia will you find the Bible called the Holy Bible. It is POV. —Aiden 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm concurring with Timothy and Aiden; the word "Holy" is not part of the name of the Qur'an. joturner 20:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides here, but Wikipedia does refer to Prince Charles as "HRH Prince Charles," among others. Not exactly "His Supreme Excellency," but it seems to be along those lines. Or, it could just be like saying "Sir Paul McCartney," just a title. I don't know. Anyway, why is Paul McCartney a knight? The Beatles are awesome, but still... Twilight Realm 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Had I a special interest in the Prince Charles page, I might object to the overall air of pageantry. However, the use is different: the only mention in the text (excepting the box of royals on the right) says that he is styled as HRH; from that point forward he is called Prince Charles, Charles, the Prince, etc. Were this page about the Qur'an, it would be appropriate to mention that Muslims often preface its mention with “Holy”, and indeed I believe this is stated in that article.Timothy Usher 02:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

prophets

*sighs* Saying that the prophets of Islam before Muhammad (PBUH) were "non-Muslim" or "non-Islamic" is an obvious piece of POV. Muslims (if I remember correctly) believe that such prophets were in fact Muslims; this is obviously religious retconning, and should be explored in the article Prophets of Islam, but saying that they were "non-Islamic" in the narrative voice of this article is like changing "Christians believe that Isaiah 7:14 foretells the birth of Jesus" to "Christian wrongly believe. . .". —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes; the statement isn't even POV; it's just wrong. Muslims believe that those previous prophets were Muslims too. joturner 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, while I accept your revert of CltFn edits, to hold Muslim belief as the final arbitrer here is POV. His qualifiers were neither right nor wrong, but *skew* - do we call Isiah a "non-Christian" prophet? Maybe also an un-American one? The axis of POV is as with the Muhammad(PBUH)/founder-of-Islam dispute: Muslims say these prophets were Muslims, many non-Muslims (those who care) say they were not. We cannot really know what they would have thought of Muhammad or the Qur'an. It is also POV to call them "previous prophets of Islam" or the like. NPOV is to not take a position (e.g. no qualifier) where it's not necessary to do so, and to discuss both sides where this is needed and appropriate.Timothy Usher 09:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
you still seem to misunderstand the issue. As I have explained above, if you say a prophet is muslim in Arabic, that would translate to something like English "pious", not English "Muslim". In the Arabic meaning of the word, every pious person is muslim regardless of whether they lived before or after Muhammad, hence the objection to the statement that "Muhammad (PBUH) founded piety". This has nothing to do with whether you are a Muslim (a Mohammadean) or not: Isaiah was neither a Mohammadean nor a Christian (obviously), but the statement in question asserts that he was "pious" ("righteous" etc., in the Arabic language, muslim). We can continue to discuss these semantics ad nauseam, or we can just try to point them out as clearly as possible in the article. It is a problem of using Arabic terms in English, unavaidably with a shift in meaning. dab () 09:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is in English, in which “Islam/Muslim” does not mean submission/one who submits to God. Were it an Arabic article, perhaps you'd have a point. However, in contemporary Anglophone usage, Islam/Muslim is not anything like a synonym for pious. And I’ve no objection to noting the difference in meaning between languages. Note that I created the original version of the “Was Muhammad the Founder of Islam” section and defended a community-edited version from deletion. Readers should know the Islamic POV, but it must not be stated as fact. I agree with your earlier comment about Muhammadanism on many levels. p.s. The assertion that they were pious is also POV.Timothy Usher 10:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, first of all, the general meaning of muslim is one who submits to the will of God. On the same note, I say this after I have taken to a scholar of Islam who has im sure concrete evidence and better interpretation of the word muslim, Could I ask as to how you make such claims? And if the one who studies Islam and moreover is a practcing muslim, states a fact of his own and this cannot be taken as a fact, then who else can make such facts?! -- Aadamh 17:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are saying?Timothy Usher 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Post-Intelligencer article

This hardly counts as a source as there is no byline. You should not rely on this paper for treatment of global issues anyhow. Timothy Usher 07:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have included a link that cites the US Library of Congress (Federal Research Division) as its source --Jibran1 07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jibran!
Timothy Usher 07:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for an explanation of Jihad in this article

Jihad seems to be so very prominent in Islam today, and many people want to know what role Jihad plays in Islam and how it affects muslim views of non-muslims. It would be nice if this article could include a section explaining Jihad.--141.213.196.250 02:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked Jihad (which is linked to in this article)? Kirbytime 19:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


PBUH?

I'm confused. What is Wikipedia's policy on such things as religious stylistic conventions? For instance, in an article on Christianity, I'm sure Christians would want to capitalize "he" or "him" where referring to their deity. Likewise, some Muslim editors seem to want to put the traditional blessing after the name of Muhammad, and have done so in several articles on Wikipedia.

Is this appropriate, though? It seems like an example of playing favorites to me. Certainly we should be respectful to all world religions, but in the interests of neutrality, Wikipedia should not take a worshipful tone.

Are there any objections to my removing the religious blessing after the name of Muhammad, wherever it appears? -Kasreyn 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

None. All the editors here (Muslims and non-Muslim) have been removing PBUHs, SAWs, HAs, and the like whenever seen. It's just that we're contending with thousands of anonymous editors who cannot see the word Muhammad without wanting to put a PBUH after it. Zora 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the PBUH or any other letters that shows respect for the prophets. And all world religions should be allowed to do this. If Christians want to capitalize the 'he' , its fine. Zarif 13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Zarif

I have to note that the subject's been discussed many times and i am sorry to say that the result has always been this is a neutral encyclopaedia... Not using PBUH and the likes doesn't mean there's a lack of respect to any one. It simply means that we respect our guidelines in terms of neutrality. Cheers -- Szvest 14:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
I think you've misunderstood me, friend. I actually meant that I believe Christians should not (and are not) allowed to capitalize "him", and so in fairness Muslims should not insert the PBUH. -Kasreyn 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just keep the PBUH,HA,etc there. It doesnt make a difference to nonmuslims and keeps muslims happy. But if you keep the PBUHs you cant say that He and Him is not allowed in the Christianity and Jesus articles because then it wont be fair.--LF2 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How about you just explain that Muslims need to say a blessing like PBUH or SAW after saying the name of Muhammad, peace be upon him? -Osman

Sinlessness of Prophets

I have removed the baseless statement that the Prophets were not protected from sin. This is in fact a sunni belief.

"Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa' said that the Jumhur of the Jurists from the schools of Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Abu Hanifa, agree that the Prophets are protected from all minor sins because one is required to follow them in the minutest matters. It is even reported from Malik that this is obligatory to believe." From: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4659&CATE=108

Maududi has never been considered an authority on Sunni Islam.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ZwfwXJ27h9cJ:www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php%3Fq%3D2129+askimam+maududi&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 http://www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/mawdudi.htm http://www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/mawdudi2.htm http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/maududi.htm


PBUH

I think we should use PBUH or any other words that show respect to prophets. If people from any other religion want to use words like this for their saints, prophets,etc. its fine with me. Zarif 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Zarif, this discussion has to be concluded and i believe it is discussed above and there's no need to add sections everytime we have an opinion. It has been discussed hundreds of times as well. Please participate in the discussion above or try to read the archives. THis way would be better. Cheers -- Szvest 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Korea?

Why is North Korea indicated as having a Shia majority? To my knowledge, Korea is not a Muslim country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.136.88 (talkcontribs) 08:30, 22 April 2006

Please see the image description page. North Korea is not blue (Shia majority), it's black (no data available). Mushroom (Talk) 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmis and military service

Jibran and Aminz, I don't think you see how argumentative your addition re military service is. The bit you're adding seems to be saying that of course it's OK to be a second-class citizen, since you don't have to serve in the military. That's subtly shifting the argument from religion to military service. But was the military in fact open to non-Muslims? Were they encouraged to participate, so as to gain citizenship rights? I don't think so. If you look at the early history of Islam, Muslims with records of service to the Islamic state, whether as fighters, bureaucrats, or just links to Muhammad (such as his widows), were given pensions from the diwan. Non-Muslims were just not included. If they wanted to be part of the state, they had to be sponsored by an Arab before they could even convert, and then their status was based on their status in the tribe, which was low.

I do recall reading that there were some military units that served in some Muslim armies and were exempt from the jizya, but it would be hard to find the cite, and as I recall, this was remarked as being exceptional.

Would the two of you be happy living in a state where only those who were eligible to enroll in the military could hold leadership positions in the state, and only Christians could enroll in the military? Wouldn't you protest mightily at the discrimination? Well, put yourself in the position of the dhimmi and think how it would feel to permanently shut out on the basis of your religion. Zora 01:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Put another way: Suppose that all Muslim states were charged a tax to support the American, British and Israeli militaries. In return, they'd be promised "protection" (from whom?) and their citizens, disarmed by treaty, would be exempt from military service.Timothy Usher 01:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of dhimmi's. I just wanted to include both opinions of Jibran and Zora there. You can revert my edits if you want. Regarding the military service, I don't know how it has been in past, but if this is still the case in Iran which I don't think it is, then it will be a great gift to Non-Muslims. You know, people have to waste two years in military service. People say it is tough. Many who want to come to foreign countries have this big problem. I, together with a very few other people, were exempted from military service as a prize for succeeding in a competition. It is very precious to be exempted from military service in Iran.

Anyway, Let's see what Jibran thinks. --Aminz 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you don't lose your right to vote when you're exempted from military service. A science fiction writer, Robert A. Heinlein, has imagined a future in which only veterans of public service (which need not be military) are allowed to vote; you might like to read Starship Troopers. However, in his imagined world, nobody who wants to serve is turned away. But this is not what we're discussing. Zora 11:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Zora, the section talks about what the laws are pertaining to jizya in the Qur'an and Hadith; not the practices of various Muslims tribes and communities afterwards, which might not necessarily be implementing the Shari'ah down to the T. If you can find a Quranic or Hadith reference, or a ruling from an Islamic scholar that says that if they (Dhimmis) want to be part of the state, they have to be sponsored by an Arab before they can convert, and then their status should be based on their low status in the tribe....then please include that in the article.
Jibran, you seem have your ideas of what the ideal Muslim world would be, in which the Qur'an was perfectly implemented, and clearly you think that this would be fair to dhimmis. Some of us future dhimmis aren't too keen on the idea and in any case -- different Muslims can have very different ideas about Muslim utopia. WP can't take sides on which utopia represents the ideal Islam, since that would be taking sides in a religious dispute. We can say that "Group X believes A and Group Y believes B", and you're free to do that in the main article on Islam and other religions. That's the place to argue, not here. WP can also look at the ways that the dhimmi idea has been implemented in different times and place -- but we can't go into detail here, only in the main article. In either case, your phrase that seems to justify jizya and dhimmitude is clearly argumentative. Not only that, if your argument is represented and others (I would fight to the death before letting Muslims make me a dhimmi) aren't, then we've favored one POV over others. Leave it to the main article, where there's room for discussion.
As for the implication that no one has yet implemented the perfect Islamic state, so any criticisms of actual applications of the idea don't affect the general claim to being the perfect blueprint ... that's a familiar claim. Communists in non-Communist countries used to make that claim. Someone would say, "Communism sucks, look at the USSR and China, look at Albania, Cambodia, Romania, etc." and the Communists would say, "Yes, those are grim examples. However, actually-existing Communism is not the same thing as the ideal communism that we would implement if you just put us into power." How many failures does it take before you say, "This is not going to work, no matter what you do"? Zora 11:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
As for the pension from the diwan which was given to Muslim war veterans and other figures, I am not sure whether this is an Islamic practice (it very likely might be) or something invented by various Muslim tribes and communities. According to Islam, compensation should be given to Dhimmis from the Muslim Exchequer whenever they have any financial need. Also, (since you mentioned the widows of the Prophet), women are not allowed to be taxed but are included in the compensation given (and are not taxed the alms tax, Zakah, that only Muslims are required to pay).
Also, Zora, I feel you are mistaken about the part on leadership positions. According to Islam, Dhimmis ARE allowed to hold leadership positions in the Muslim state.
They could be advisors and even viziers, but they couldn't be the sultans or emirs and they couldn't lead armies, or even be armed. If they were armed, they might revolt. Zora 11:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
As for your question, Timothy, regarding 'whom' the protection is from, the reference link that is provided in the article, addresses this:
In his book "Al-Kharaj," Abu Yusuf gives the following reports: "After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the Jizya and the Kharaj, news reached Abu 'Ubeida that the Byzantines had amassed their troops to attack him. The effect of this was great on Abu 'Ubeida and the Moslesm. He sent messages to the rulers of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizya and Kharaj, with an instruction to tell these: 'We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the enemy troops amassed to attack us, but, if God grants us victory against the enemy, we will keep up to the promise and covenant between us.' When this was delivered to the Zimmis and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: May God bring you back to us and grant you victory over them!"
I apologize if I have caused any kind of POV problems to the article or problems of factual accuracy. If there is any, I would be more than happy to work it out. Thank you both of you for contributions and input to this article
PS- On a personal note, if I was given the option of either going to war and changing my religion, or pay a 'minimal tax' and stay back home while getting my ass protected, then.... I'd stay back home and pay a 'minimal tax' and get my ass protected!! (but thats just me.... and I found too many holes in that while typing that in :P)--Jibran1 02:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, me too ;) I would like to add that there are some Qur'anic verses that asks people "why don't they come to jihad when it is so and so". It is hard for me to believe that any civilian have ever liked to attend the military service.

I have actually no idea of how much the tax has been. Can we call it "minimal" tax? I think no tax was imposed on women, childs and old men. --Aminz 02:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


While I'm not sure that I understand the social situation in that place and time well enough to say - I'll poke around a bit to see what I can learn - in Europe, the distinction is that between peasants and the aristocracy - the former were taxed to pay for the latter, and the latter were expected to fight, not as a conscripted citizen-army, but as the ruling elite.
As for who they are being protected from, [Quran 009:029] makes it clear that the first threat from which they shall be relieved is that of the Muslims themselves. Not to say that some didn’t welcome Muslim rule, particularly vis-a-vis the Byzantines, but there would be no reason for these statements were this generally the case.Timothy Usher 02:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, yes the tax is minimal, because it is much less than the alms tax, Zakah, that Muslims are required to pay.

Yet entire communities tried to convert to Islam, in order to be relieved from the jizya, and they were not recognized as converts. Would they have done so if the zakat was heavier than the jizya? I don't think so. Zora 11:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

To give you an idea of how much the alms tax, Zakah (which in itself is small) is, it is due when one is in possession of full ownership of a productive Nisab (minimum) of property; and its raye is 2 1/2% of the value of possessions other than land. Also, Zakah is even binding on property, and jewellery. Jizya is not binding on property. Dhimmis are also not required to pay Tithe, which is levied on the agricultural produce of the land. And in case, you're wondering about the rate of the Tithe tax, Mishkaat had to say this about it: "In what has been irrigated with rainwater, one tenth and in what has been watered with buckets or water wheels, one half of the one tenth". And yes, you are right, as I have mentioned above, the jizya is not to be paid by the women, and also not by children.
Timothy, as for the relief from Muslims that the Dhimmis are given, could you please provide a more specific mention in Surah 9? (I'm not sure I completely understand your 'who they are protected from' point completely, though). As for your mention of European law in which the aristocrats are required to pay for the peasants, this is exactly the concept of Zakah (Growth tax\alms tax), except that the 'aristocrats' are not exempt from military service if they are Muslims. The Zakah tax is to be used EXCLUSIVELY to pay for the needs of the poor. This tax has throughout the centuries, in Muslim states, contributed immensely to ameliorating the condition of the poor and has raised their standard of living by bringing them nearer to rich--economically and socially.
Oh, oh, oh.... I forgot to mention one last thing in my original up comment above. From all the Islam sources that I have read/heard, it is not compulsory for the non-Muslims to join the military, in a Muslim state, but nowhere have I read that they are NOT ALLOWED to join the military if they want to. So, if there is a non-Muslim living a Muslim state and is patrotic, and reeeeally wants to join military service (...err.... lets just go with it "P), he possibly can! (If someone can confirm this for me, it would be much appreciated)--Jibran1 03:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops... apparently, you did add the reference later. My bad. Anyways, the jizya tax is not meant to discriminate the non-Muslims. It also applies to the Muslims who do not pay their Zakah. Abu Bakr fought against the Muslims who didn't pay Zakah.
(FYI: In China, you can get killed for tax evasion :P : http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/ndp/ref/?action=view&doc=chn41156e
In America, tax is as evadable as death. I've heard of well-established, wealthy and well-reputed people going to jail for almost half their life for not paying taxes) --Jibran1 03:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, taxes suck. However, we have voted them upon ourselves. This was of course the proximate cause of the American Revolution. Muhammad and his successors imposed them upon others, and made examples out of those who resisted, as in the so-called Wars of Apostasy. Not that this is remotely unusual - that's what empires do.Timothy Usher 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Imposed them upon 'others'? Err.. 'Muhammad and his successors imposed taxes' upon THEMSELVES too :) They (Muhammad and his succesors) were also required to pay Zakah and Tithe, (which is MUCH larger than the tax, Jizya, due by non-Muslims). Now why would he do that to himself?!?! (unless it was an order from God) --Jibran1 03:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you see no difference between a nation taxing itself and a nation taxing another? For one, who decides how these moneys are to be spent? The peoples of the book, once spoken of warmly, are now to be subdued, and the Jizya is part of that.
"Now why would he do that to himself?" Did he? It would seem he was rather a collector of funds - for example, 20% of proceeds from caravan raids (for which truce months were abrogated without fair warning to the affected caravans), went to Muhammad, again by direct order from God. Did he not take estates from conquered peoples for himself, which were then seized by Abu Bakr after his death?Timothy Usher 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize Timothy, but I still do not see how the People of the Book are being subdued when they are being asked to pay a much smaller tax than the Muslims are required to pay and are also exempt from military service, while still enjoying the same rights as Muslim citizens (including leadership positions and help in times of financial need).
As for the truce months being abrogated, can you please provide proof as to the abrogation of these months, and if they were abrogated, please include details as to what factors led to the abrogation. As for the 'collector of funds', well... that IS what an Exchequer does :)! The main sources of income to the Muslim Exchequer are Zakah, Ghanimhh, Jizya, Tithe and Kharaj. I am unsure if Muhammad held this role of Muslim Exchequer, but if he did, then he must distribute this income and wealth accordingly to the people of the land. (Regardless of who the Exchequer is, records are to be created for the purposes of fairness, in a Muslim state, of how that money is distributed).
Thanks for your input. Also, this might be a good time to tell you that I have been noticing your recent efforts at Criticism of Islam (and also Apostasy in Islam) and appreciate it. I truly feeel that you and Aminz have greatly hrlped with the integrity and quality of those articles. Keep it up :)--Jibran1 04:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouragement, Jibran1, and consider it returned.
As for subdual, it's the Qur'an that appears to be saying the Jizya is a componant of subdual, unless these are mistranslations? I'll have cites for you on the truce months in a bit...got some other stuff to do...Timothy Usher 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Thanks Jibran for information above on the amount of jizya and thank you for the encouragement.
Timothy,
1. Let's see the Qur'nic verse about purpose of the 20% of Muhammad's share(khums):
*"And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things" (8:41)
So, the 20% was entrusted to Muhammad for public use and for himself. It was not as his share in booty.
2. Please note that all the descriptions of Muhammad's family life emphasize his total disregard for luxurious food, clothing, and surroundings. In Ibn Sa'd, there's a tradition that Muhammad said that the only worldly things in which he took pleasure were women and perfume. You may have heard the story of wives of Muhammad (some of them complained of the economical situation).
3. I may not feel good of the story of Banu Qurayza etc, but in the case of taxing of some of the people of the book, as you mentioned above, at least please note that they were in war with Muhammad and they were defeated in war. The tax they had to pay may have been different from other Jews or Christians. The case is different here. It should be studied separately.
Thanks, --Aminz 04:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have not looked into the issue of whether dhimmis are allowed to join the military too deeply (I never realised it could be considered an issue), but I am aware of an opinion that they are allowed to fight with Muslims, but not under their own banner. I don't have the evidence for this at hand. Zeroone 10:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Zora, thanks for your input. First of all, I just wanted to make a personal request to kindly not interject my comments, with your responses and your comments. You can respond to my comments at the end of my comments, or at the end of all the comments in the section. I promise you that your comments will be valued and respected just as much, if you follow that suggestion. If you wish to respond to specific points in my reply, then you may quote me if you wish. But by interjecting my comments and breaking them apart, I consider that just a little rude (and also confusing for other readers to follow). But anyways, I'm sure that probably was not your intention.
I have read through your points, and would love to respond to them right now, but I have my finals week coming up and I reeeeeally need to get down with my books! (Who knew that I would become a Wikiholic one day :P) In the next two weeks, I will be very busy as my semester is getting over and will be getting my ass kicked around with tests, therefore I will be spending very less time on Wikipedia. Sooo... in the meanwhile, you keep up the good work and make sure to punish those vandals! :) --Jibran1 17:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Qur'ans are burned?!

"Old Qur'ans are not destroyed as wastepaper, but burned."

I think this sentence is partially wrong. Qur'an is never burned even if it's old enough or unusable. I don't how one could get rid of old torn ones, but I think 'burning' is not the right act to do. Haisook 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Millions are burning old ones. -- Szvest 00:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Burning is the proper method of disposal as Muslims believe it is inappropriate to have dirty things (from the soles of shoes to other trash found in wastebaskets) touch the Qur'anic verses and the name of Allah. I believe burying in the earth also works. joturner 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes. I think 'burying' is the ONLY approved method of getting rid of a Qur'an in Islam. Haisook 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

-Burning also works. If you have something with the name of Allah (SWT) written on it and want to get rid of it, you burn it.

that is very right, anything with the name of Allah(swt) that shall be disposed of, old workbooks from school in my case, should be burned.


Just a question...

So here is my question: i know, on talk, people debate about the articles, but i'm curious: Before Islam, were most middle easterns or arabs/etc. some other religion? was it Zoroastranian? or was it something Darhmic? I'm just curious


It's my belief, that the interaction between india and the other arabic near eastern nations, like pakistan has been going on since way before modern religions as we know it, so perhaps Some early western religions of the middle east had a heavy influence on the religions in India and southeast asia, or vice versa, what do you all tHink?


At the time of the birth of the prophet Muhammad, there were four major religions in the middle east. In the persian empire, the major religion was Zoroastrianism. In the byzantine empire, The major religion was Orthodox Christianity. In the arabian peninsula there was a mixture of the above two and a smattering of Judiasm and some of polytheistic bedouin religion, which included a primary god (called "Allah") and several godesses.

Source: Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet"

--Loki Laufeyson 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion phrase

Aiden, consider:

Islam:

“Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.”

Christianity:

“Like Judaism and Islam, Christianity is an Abrahamic religion.”

What could be fairer? Judaism is listed first by historical priority. The very definition of "Abrahamic religion" is the set that includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is it not? There's no reason to say it's "considered" as such.Timothy Usher 06:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you wanted to present the Islamic point of view, Islam does not consider Judaism and Christianity to be "Abrahamic" religions since Muslims believe all prophets brought the message of submission to God, i.e., the message of Islam. (However, Christians and Jews are called the "People of the Book" who have a covenant with God and His Messenger, peace be upon him, to be respected and protected until the Day of Judgment.) On the other hand, this is a subtle point. -Osman

The issue isn't what Abraham actually believed, only what this phrase means. We don't really know what Abraham believed, at least not in the normal historical sense of knowledge. It is just as easy for Jews (or Christians) to say that Abraham would have rejected Muhammad as a false prophet. Either way, we're just putting words in his mouth.Timothy Usher 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel language tag

I have inserted weasel language tags in order to enable other users to take care of this problem. --Unweasel 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In states following some version(*) of Islamic law, apostasy and blasphemy are sometimes(*) considered crimes against the state and (*) may be punished with execution or exile.
In this sentence we see three modifiers. I would amend to change it to this construction:
In states following more austere versions of Islamic law, apostacy from Islam and blasphemy are considered crimes and may be punished with execution or imprisonment. --Unweasel 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
By all means, do so.Timothy Usher 08:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of الإسلام

The introduction translates الإسلام (al-islām) as 'Peace', but then the Etymology section translates it as "submission to ' The God ' (Allah)". I believe the second is the correct translation, so shouldn't "'Peace'" in the introduction be changed to "'submission'"? After all, isn't سلام (salām) "peace"? --LakeHMM 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

salam is "peace", islam is "submission". they're not the same word, they're just from the same root. Also, can we get rid of the silly "The God" once again? really. dab () 12:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of vowel sounds

to quote:"The Qur'an was first recorded in written form (date uncertain) in the Hijazi, Mashq, Ma'il, and Kufic scripts; these scripts write consonants only and do not supply vowels. (Imagine an English text that wrote the word 'bed' as "BD," and required the reader to infer, from context, that the reference was to "bed" - and not to 'bad" or "bide."" This is untrue. As I study traditional Arabic in Cairo, it is evident that this is not the case. It is more along the lines of "He RUN to the store" and "He RUNS to the store" from grammatical context, you can deduce the word that was supposed to be read. Go to any Arab country, newspapers don't have the pronunciation keys (what westerners call 'vowels' but aren't vowels in the sense. It is up to the reaser to be educated enough to be able to understand grammer and put the right case of the word in, wheather it be past, present, future tense, singular or slural, etc. As I don't have a reliable connection would please someone review what I said and make the edit?

The fact that you have no difficulty in guessing what is meant in everyday Arabic in a certain context is no guarantee that there will be no problems in interpreting words in a language no longer spoken. Arabic changed enormously after Muhammad's time, and scholars DID have arguments about what was meant by some passages of the Qur'an. If there had been no difficulty, there would not be several schools of recitation, and scholars would not have added "points" to the Uthmanic rasm. Zora 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Just because you don't understand what is being said doesn't mean you can't read it with the same pronunciation. Many verses in the Bible or any other holy book are ambiguous maybe because of human lack of knowledge or maybe because of the change of times. But one still knows how to read a passage, even if they do not comprehend it's meaning. Ask an 8th grader to read Shakespeare, 10:1 they can sound out the words, 10:1 they won't know what they are saying.

Source removal in intro

Anonymous editor, it is inappropriate to remove well-sourced figures in order to replace it with one you prefer, as you've done [4]. Moreover, it is deceptive to cite two sources, when one[5] explicitly relies upon the other[6].Timothy Usher 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No what's deceptive is using that as an excuse to revert rather than make changes [7]. I see no reason why you reverted the 1.3 billion adherents figure which had two sources that you could have kept instead of reverting (and had both 1.2 and 1.3 figures). And you're accepting CAIR? I am sure that if CAIR had a higher number of Muslims you would remove it. Please don't just revert.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding both figures with both references, as it's the proper neutral way. By the way, I meant "sill yedit wars" not "silly facts". -- ( drini's page ) 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what I said before. Using that as an excuse to revert was a bad move by Timothy. Thanks for fixing it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Drini.Timothy Usher 07:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam and punk articles

Some articles on the topic of 'Islam and punk' seem to have been created by various editors: Heavy metal in Islamic countries, Taqwacore and Vegan Reich. The first is up for deletion; I suppose the other two should be too. But then again, there may be some genuine content in these articles which would render it reasonable for them to exist. Any suggestions ? MP (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)