Talk:Islam/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Islam's true meaning

In the article it says Islam means "submission" it actually means "Faith" as in "Faith to Allah." Or "Faith to the betterment of mankind"

Not true.... --GNU4Eva 17:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The meaning of Islam is NOT faith. Some people say it means submission, some people say it means "peace." Many claim, and im pretty confident it's true, that "Islam" is derived from the word "Salam" which means "peace." The word "aslam" which to me sounds like the verb form of Islam is usually translated as "submit." Perhaps it comes from "Salam" and literally means "pacify", which may have over time, been taken to mean "submit"? That seems to make sense. Since Islam is probably the noun form of "aslam", it seems to make sense either way.



Many claim that "Islam" is derived from the word "salam", but it is only a claim. The word "islam" means "istislaam" and comes from the root word "aslama", spelt from left to right, the transliteration of the arabic letters are as follows: alif, seen, lam, meem; vs. "salama" which is: seen, lam, meem (notice 4 letters vs. 3). These are two completely different words (verbs). Shaykh Ibn Katheer (d.774H) – rahimahullaah – a great Islamic scholar, one of the best exegesists of the Qur'an, said: “And ‘ibaadah (worship) is: obedience to Allaah by acting upon what He commands and abandoning what He forbids; and this is the reality and essence of Islaam. And the meaning of Islaam is: istislaam (submission and surrender) to Allaah – the Most High – along with the utmost compliance, humility and submissiveness to Him." It does not mean "peace". Peace is obtained as a consequence of submitting oneself to the will (legislated laws) of Allah, by willfully desiring to obey Him in His obligations and doing so and staying away from His prohibitions, further supplemented by optional but recommended acts of worship to earn His pleasure. Through this one attains, peace of the heart (i.e. contentment), peace of mind, peace within the society practicing Islam openly and completely, etc. I hope this helps clarify some things.

"spelt from left to right, the transliteration of the arabic letters are as follows: alif, seen, lam, meem; vs. "salama" which is: seen, lam, meem (notice 4 letters vs. 3). These are two completely different words (verbs)." That argument does not seem to hold up. The arabic word "kariha" is spelled ka, ra, ha; vs. ikraha, spelled alif, ka, ra, ha. But they are both different forms of the same verb: to hate. This seems to be true for almost all verbs.

AdamCaliph's edits

A new editor has arrived, and has split the Tenets of Islam into two sections, Sunni and Shi'a, and vastly elaborated the Shi'a section. It is now longer than the Sunni section. It seems to me that this disturbs the flow of the article (introducing sectarian divisions in advance of the sectarian section) and unduly amplifies the distinction between Sunni and Shi'a. There is so much that these sects have in common. I'm not sure I want to revert -- the earlier version, with its presentation of the Sunni list and a footnote for the Shi'a seems, to slight the Shi'a, which may have upset the new editor -- but I don't have time to rewrite today.

Could someone else tackle it? I'm thinking that we need to avoid the clash of lists and just identify, informally, the beliefs that all Muslims (Sunni, Shi'a, Ibadi) hold in common. The Qur'an, Muhammad, the Hajj ... what else? Zora 01:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about that either... I am rather deficient in Shia knowledge.... but that section was meant to be very basic... which, is what the five pillars are... the basics. I also think in the Islam and other religion section we have some problems... it says fight... but I think it should be clarified whether it is QITAL, JIHAD, or HARB because they have different meanings but can all be translated as fight... so, I'm not really sure how to fix it though. gren 16:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've given it a try... - Mustafaa 17:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! That looks good to me. Zora 21:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New or old sections have been reinserted

These topics are covered in NPOV and are part of the article. The usual suspects are probably going to start their usual attempt at squashing the information.Nevertheless the info belongs here.--Aldowi 13:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those POV sections are not fit for this article. Try other articles like Islamist terrorism if you want to start ranting about 9-11 and the "clash of civilizations".Yuber(talk) 14:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually they belong right on this page. You are so ethno-centric in your POV that you do nothing but censor any info which does not fit your agenda, very much like Islam itself . If you want to challenge any statement then you can , if you cannot challenge them then do not blanket them out--Aldowi 16:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually they don't. Please stop adding your blatant POV unsourced paragraphs to this page where they don't even belong.Yuber(talk) 17:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is the source for the conversion.: Al-Jazeera --Aldowi 17:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is English wikipedia.Yuber(talk) 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, read it for yourself , its in arabic, you can read can't you.
  • A source on slavery for the historically illiterate :[1]--Aldowi 17:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the clash of civilization section I refer you to any contemporay newsmedia you want to check for yourself .--Aldowi 17:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aldowi, should we also cite the end of Islam from the same site? Maybe a nice source like would add to this article ~_~ Slavery in Islam would have to mention that Muslim slaves were taken to the Americas by Christians too... That is a bad source. . . bad. --gren 01:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is a vague citation. Besides, there is already a Clash of civilizations article, and it seems to be very controversial theory not worthy of inclusion in this article.Yuber(talk) 17:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the slavery section (again -- we have some very determined POV warriors here) and added a link to Slavery in the "see also" section. Surely this should be a sufficient pointer to the info there. Zora 18:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora put the slavery section back , it is a historical fact just like the other sections which need to be put back as well. Obviously there are folks in here determined to obfuscate the parts of history that they deem undesirable and would rather see erased. Are you one of them ?--Aldowi 18:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please look at other articles about religions before starting lists of bad things followers of the religion have done.Yuber(talk) 20:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OO that was very logical , quoting CHRISTIAN ACTION for an article on Islam . U know christians were the ones who captured & marketed those slaves to America , so U should first add this to Christianity page . How pathetic..some guys come here only to publicitise what they read on their hate filled evanglist sites . And U know whats even funnier , all the facts about verses in bible about slavery havebeen removed from the slavery page . And some phobic psychos R insistent to add slavery in main Islam page , just b/c their teachers told them that slavery is a core belief in Islam . Feel free to PM me if U want to Slavery in Christianity page . I have loads of verses from OT & NT for that matter . Peace Farhansher 20:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article references was provided for as a reference. It provides its own historical sources . The fact that it is on a Christian web site is irrelevant , the article is the work of a published historian on the matter.--Aldowi 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In any case, this article is about Islam, not Islamic history. Generalizations about slavery in Islam do not work well, you can go to the history page and write about slavery in the Ottoman empire... or slavery under the Mamluks... but this is the Islam page... and Islamic slavery throughout history is not something to be dealt with here. gren 01:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes it is relevant. Slavery is part of the scriptures of the Qu'ran and we are mentioning that fact and also its historical implications to the Islamic world. It is sourced and presented in a NPOV manner, it is a legitimate insertion. If you want to challenge any assertion go ahead , but you certainly have no right to block it just because you do not like the fact of it being mentioned. You have no basis to say that it should go on another page.--Aldowi 05:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you are maintaining that a slavery section deserves to exist you must realize what you are pushing now is utter crap. Firstly you talk about Saudi Arabia and the Moors which are eras from history not what Islam says about slavery... You could possibly legitimately put (if we somehow agreed it belongs on the main page) that "The Qur'an has verses referebcing the good of freeing slaves and Islamic theology of now opposes slavery but some non-Muslims argue that the text really allows slavery" That might be a decent section... find Islamic sources talking about the advocating of slavery. Notable ones. We are not here to do an exegesis of the Qur'an to our own liking... and the things you have stated are historical. gren 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

U and your published historian & your Christian action site know nothing about what Islam says about Slavery . Besides U know nothing what relevent is . What the Christian action people want .. well .. one can easily figure out by watching their logo bible..cross .. & a sword . Nice

BTW this is english page .. right ?? Farhansher 05:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

U guys have nerves talking about what Quran says , when all U read is one-forth of a verse . For your benifit I've started a new article , Islam and Slavery . Farhansher 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery

Hi, I have a request for an admin change under protection to the page. The link "Slavery Under Islam" should probably link to the protected page Islam_and_slavery since linking to the unprotected Slavery page just seems to be unnecessarily spreading the fight there. It's also just the most logical place for it to link to. --Camipco 7 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in the Qu'ran and the hadiths mentioning slavery. You can start with a search on the word slave. Muhammad had slaves, and historical Islamic culture has always been characterized by the ownership and trading of slaves. The atrocities and evil commited in Islamic culture through slavery is so horific that most people would not have the stomach for it.

--Aldowi 12:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, this article is about a religion and we are to report what that religion says... You are glossing over so many issues... Wikipedia is read by a great many Americans where the word slavery is incredibly loaded. You will know if you have read anything like Ibn Hazm that slavery in Andalusia was completely different from what it was in America... but this is all beside the point. The religion (which is not your interpretation of the Qur'an) is against slavery now. You will not find any books in the mainstream or anything close to it advocating slavery. Therefore, it is not our place to start rants against the religion because you choose to interpret it as pro-slavery... Historically we can take those issues in Ottoman Empire, Safavids, and even History of Islam. I don't care if you like Islam or not... I do not like brussel sprouts but I am not going to go to that article and say it is a well known poison.... .... nice analogy huh?? If I thought for some reason you were well versed in Hanafiyyah or something similar I would trust your opinion more... but I'm not thinking you are... The Christianity article isn't going to have a rant about slavery, the Moses article is not going to talk about the killing of 3,000 levites and the Islam article is not going to rant about slavery... so, please, you are free to use your userpage to write your argument against Islam, but trying to push your point of view onto this article, and that is definitely not a view Muslims share, is tantamount to vandalism. gren 18:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We are simply reporting the answer to the questions below.
  • Is the practice of slavery sanctioned in the Qu'ran ?
  • did Muhammad have slaves?
  • Is the practice of slavery part of historical Islamic culture?
  • what is the modern day status of slavery in Islamic world.
We are not pushing a POV , we are stating facts about the faith that anyone including yourself can easily verify. Perhaps this is not how you would want to SEE your faith, but that is its reality . Your statement that Islam is against slavery now , implies some kind of reformation , well I am all for that, however that does not change the statements above. --Aldowi 19:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
re Converts from islam section, the source has been provided , what else do you need? The source is here Al-Jazeera so read it for yourself. --Aldowi 19:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is slavery a central issue of Islam fit to be on the main page? There is a page for legitimate talk of the issue, the main page is not that. What type of slavery was performed by which Muslims? More importantly than the modern status of slavery in the "Islamic world" what is the modern teaching on slavery by Muslims? We are the Christian world like they are the Islamic world... we cannot pin everything any Muslim country does to Islam. Most Islamic sources will tell you that the phasing out of slavery is prescribed because it was impossible to do it at that time... you do not know very much about Islamic teaching and that is a problem when you edit this article... No, I would not want to see my faith portrayed incorrectly therefore I am trying to defend the Islam articles because I don't think they would want to be portrayed unfairly either... we're not all Muslim here ~_~ ... so put historical fact in the history of Islam article... and put the view of Islam and slavery in that article... I don't trust you will do that in a proper manner but at least we might move the argument away from here. gren 20:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect this type of blatant revisionist / apologist approach towards Islam cannot erase history and facts and is utterly unconvincing. Apparantly nothing seriously incriminating can ever be said about the nature and conduct of Islam, without a bunch of zealots jumping up at once to erase or rewrite the text into watered down nonsense. Are you so insecure about the legitimacy of Islam that you have to resort to continual historical revisionism, which seems to be the favored activity on this page. We will have to see how this plays out but I place my bets on the belief that cold unvarnished truth will prevail. --Aldowi 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aldowi, not all the editors here are Muslim. I'm a Buddhist, frex, and a stickler for not avoiding inconvenient facts. A number of the Muslim editors here will tell you that I've raised hackles by insisting on including material that some Muslims find offensive. Indeed, I arrived here declaring that some of the material read like mosque hand-out material! I've worked on the Satanic verses article, and put a long section on Western academic treatment of the Qur'an in the Qur'an article. However, I've found that many of the Muslim editors here are willing to have other, opposing POVs represented as long as it's clear that the editor in question just wants to be fair. People with a strong anti-Islamic bias, however, who want the Islam article to be an indictment of Islam, are going to face resistance.
Most of the Islamic articles seem to be delicate balancing acts. On the one hand we have the anti-Islamic crusaders. On the other hand we have the devout Muslims who want to put PBUH (praise be upon him) after every mention of Muhammad, insert Muslim piety, and censor anything inconvenient. And then there are the Sunni-Shi'a wars, now raging at Umar ibn al-Khattab <g>. Right now, I think the Islam article is fairly neutral, pushed into the middle by fanatics on both sides. You seem to want to push it over to one side. Those of us who have worked hard to reach this balance point are going to resist.
IF you want to work on Islamic topics, there are lots of them that need attention. Instead of going straight for the highest profile article, how about working on the Zanj slave rebellion? Islamic slaves rising up against their masters ... interesting, yes? Or adding a critical perspective to Deobandi. Or adding an article on modern-day immigrant domestic workers? They're women, they're exploited, they're often egregiously mistreated. There was a New York Times article on Sri Lankan guest workers, many of whom had worked in Muslim-majority countries. Or discuss debt slavery and cocoa plantations. Lots of work ... Zora 21:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not know what to make of your claim that you are a Buddhist, that Zora, does not make a lot of sense to me to spend so much of your effort defending a belief system that is so antipathetic to the beliefs and growth of buddhism. I do buy into the idea that you demonstrate some impartiality at times, but at other times though I would characterize your efforts as clever methods of re-directing what you perceive as anti-islamic inserts to less prominent pages which is apparantly what you are suggesting for me to do. But just to reassure you , I do contribute heavily to other articles so I do pull my share in Wikipedia.
I sort of disagree with your premise of a balancing act in Wikipedia, someone says the wall is red , someone else says it is white , so we compromise and say it is pink. That approach does not get to the actuality of the color of the wall. I am a proponent of evidence and facts. In the case I have made on slavery , we can assertain by direct observation whether my assertions are true or not. You can do a search in the Qu'ran and the hadith to see whether or not you will find the word slave mentioned. It is a yes or no deal. If it is a yes , then it is a legitimate statement for Wikipedia. It should never be , "well yes it is mentioned in the Qu'ran but lets insert qualifiers to lessen the undesirability of those facts or lets just erase that all together."
It seems that we are dealing with editors here who put far more emphasis on perception than on evidence and facts. I think this is a fair conclusion since after the endless arguments over that past days on the slavery issue , i have yet to hear of anyone actually acknowledge the facts which they can easily check for themselves in the Qu'ran.--Aldowi 03:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I place my bets on the belief that cold unvarnished truth will prevail....well I completely agree with this part . Try to talk some sense . Did U ever read any Islamic stuff , other than that provided on their phobic Christian Missionary/Supposedly apostate sites ? Did U read Quran ? Did U read Hadeeth ? Did U read Sunnah ? Did U read Sira ? Did U read how many slaves Muhammad had . Did U read if they were serving Muhammad on their freewill ? Did U see how Muhammad treated them ? Based on treatment , were they actually slaves according to modern definition . What the Sahaba did with Slaves ? How many of these slaves made by Jews/Christians were freed by Muslims ? How many of those Ex-slaves were made very respected citizens ? Comeon man ..did U ever read a single Islamic book in your whole life ? & U blame Islam for your dumness ?? This is sick . Do U see Muslims trying to introduce these kind of hate/lie filled Sections in Christianity/Judaism page ?
U know I have seen many people like U , who claim to be so much , & R actually nothing more than childern crying for attention . They always copy claims from their hate filled sites as a justification for their illeteracy . And the people running these sites R always unknown people , who again R illeterates . I can see the pattern here , one of U starts by introducing a hate filles section , then 4-5 more users attack Islam page with all their stuff . Then U blame others for vandalisn , white washing , blanketing Islam , & leave your seeds around .

Try improving your reading/surfing habits . Hope that helps ,

Farhansher 21:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have studied Islam for quite some time, I have studied the Qu'ran in detail many times and have written a thesis on its spiritual message. The problem is what I found out was not a spiritual message but a primitive superstition destructive to individual self determination which never really enters the realm of spirituality. At best its a set of ambiguous metaphors which are highly prone to mis-interpretation. I think that anyone who reads the Qu'ran with an open mind would notice that this book is a call for enslavement , not for freedom.
Yes there are good concepts in Islam , its not all bad, but nevertheless there are also bad ones. You have to be willing to take a broad view if you want to see what is there. It does not help when people can only look at the good side of a subject, which is obviously your case. It is not until you look at the good and the bad that you begin to see the picture.
I have tried to state what I observe in an NPOV way, which at once gets shot down by people like yourself who take personnaly any challenge to their religion and who only will allow the good side to be presented about their faith. That is not what I call balanced.
There is a hell of of lot of atrocious things that have occured in the world , and which are still occuring where Islam is very much implicated. But in your eyes, it has nothing to do with Islam. Just like today, you would probably say that there is no genocide going on in the Sudan, and you would also say that it certainly has nothing to do with Islam.
I do not know what can be said of that except denial, if not cover-up. As far as I am concerned, I believe that it is up to free people to speak up and denounce evil when they see it, and I wonder why you do not do this, why do you turn a blind eye to the evil commited in the name of your faith, and label anyone who speaks up as an Islamophobe.
I never read the Christian Missionary/ site that I refered to in the slavery article , I just googled it to give a quick reference for Yuber who wanted a quick source on Slavery and Islam and this page seemed like a good compilation of the subject. I should have been smarter about that, I should have realized that the Islam zealots would pull out the "oh its a Christian site , no wonder they are saying all those bad things about islam. and therefore we can throw that out". But then again I doubt if certain editors are even willing to look at any topic like this.--Aldowi 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, this is the Islam section of Wikipedia. This has no need for your pointless vandalism and anti-Islamic POV. In any case, all of the so-called information you have linked to is completely irrelevant to your point. You can not expect viewers to believe your lies simply because you have linked to christian missionary sites. SLAVERY, if any, was in NO way was as severe in Islam as it was in christianity and that is proven to the mid 19th century; don't even try to dispute that.

One common christian misconception about Islam is the notion that it gives sanction to slavery. In fact, the very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could. The Prophet (pbuh)also directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. So, don't try to shove any of your propaganda in to this article as the Qur'an and the Hadith are both against slavery.

Before you try to present your anti-Islamic views and completely useless links, go look at other religions such as christianity which have actively performed slavery because ISLAM WAS COMPLETELY AGAINST IT. And in any case, this is the ISLAM section of wikipedia and this, like all other religion sections, is not the place to put this material. Why the heck do you anti-Islamic idiots have problems with realizing the basic facts? Or quite clearly it is just a sad attempt to try and make your own troublesome religion look "good". --Anonymous editor 20:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't were Muslim or Christians better with slaves... the Afrikaans were different from the Quakers and the Nigerian Muslims different from the Indonesian... Islam doesn't have a ruling that every in every time has agreed on with slavery... Yes, Muslims allowed slavery... and so did Christians... and then some Muslims didn't and so didn't some Christians... Muslims today (just like Christians today) are pretty unanimously anti-slavery... so... it's not revisionist Aldowi and it's not that Islamic societies have been perfect in this issue Anoymous... it's that this article is not a place to ramble about countless cultures and their different views on slavery... and to generalize by saying "Islam supports slavery" or "Christianity supports slavery" is ludicrous... different societies and schools have all viewed this differently throughout time... so in Islam and slavery feel free to address the different fiqhs, societies, etc. about this issue. gren 02:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did Islam sanction slavery and is it mentioned in its scripture? yes. So lets say so. Different Islamic school of beliefs may have differing opinions, but the fact remains , it is integral to the the "perfect and immutable" Qu'ran. Do a search in the Qu'ran and the Hadiths for the word slave and what you see. Do you need me to list every verse where it is mentioned or will you be able to run the search yourself?--Aldowi 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aldowi, mentioning and sanctioning are two different things. Slavery was a reality of pre-Islamic culture and the Qur'an deals with that reality. That is how it is seen by most people, there are some who claim like you but they are typically dismissed as bigots and there opinions will not be found in most publications of repute. I think maybe you should read another encyclopedia's article about Islam and find out... You are not going to teach me anything about slavery in Islam, I know what it says and the theories on it. It is not going to go on [[Islam]] because it does not belong here and I pray you can mention it in a NPOV manner on one of the historical pages or Slavery + Islam page . gren 08:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, how ignorant are you? NOT once in the Qur'an is slavery mentioned in the negative way that you described it and neither is it sanctioned. Here are a few examples:

  • It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. (Quran 002.177)
  • Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom. (Quran 053.010) NOTE: In this case, slaves refers to people not in a "slavery" sense of the word.

So, I think frankly that you have trouble reading or maybe you are just too biased towards Islam in the first place. In any case, you have NO PROOF to support your statement that Islam sanctions slavery. Secondly, you said you have an "open mind". How can you have an open mind when clearly you are nothing but an anti-Islamic POV extremist who tries to use the fact that the word "slave" occurs in the Quran as proof that Islam allows "atrocities" against slaves! And it does't matter what you have written on the topic of Islam and what studies you have done if you were biased against the religion in the first place. You are nothing but close-minded and you think that by coining phrases like "primitive superstition" and calling everyone who proves you wrong an "Islamic zealot" you can get a point across.

This is an another low for anti-Islamic bigots and I wouldn't be surprised that you are just another right-wing christian trying to give a bad name to Islam simply because you need a scapegoat for the problems with your own religion. I know all about this because I was taught to try and degrade Islam (in particular) by my church before I converted to Islam. Why do you and other bigots insist on bringing your pointless vandalism to all Islam-related articles?

Lastly, as both muslim and non-muslim editors have stated, this section is about the religion of Islam, not slavery. Religions do NOT need a dedicated "slavery" section. So stop your vandalism and do research on Islam that isn't simply gathered propaganda from anti-Islamic sites. --Anonymous editor 20:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues, Hello. I have been watching this article for some time, and I am sad that there is prevailing a thorny problem at the moment about slavery in Islam. Aldowi, since I am a sheltered Christian from Arizona, I don't know anything about the teachings of the Koran, and I would appreciate seeing the specific verses that most quintessentially represent the positive attitude of the Koran toward slavery. I would be interested in passages equivalent to the Mosaic law sections dealing with slaves that give tacit permission in the Old Testament. Please give the passages along with their references. I will let the Muslims here verifiy for me that your selections are correct. Thanks. Also, may I know exactly what you would like to be sure the article says? Tom Haws 20:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Slavery in the Qur'an. - Mustafaa 22:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful response, Mustafaa. Tom Haws 23:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Let me weigh in here on an NPOV issue (I have no intention of editing this article, however). Our modern idea of slavery is just that, relatively modern in the last 2 centuries. All cultures did it for a whole variety of reasons. Slavery has no more connection to the Koran whether mentioned in the book or not than slavery does in the bible. If an individual had slaves, one can express it on that page, like Thomas Jefferson. But I see no unique connection between slavery and this page. Put it on the right page, not on this page.

--Noitall 05:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wow , now that is liberal education gone wild. Are you kidding? Have you even studied Islamic History or the Qu'ran?? Islam is a system of slavery , one for its followers and two for those it dominates. The whole black slave issue that has scarred the history of African Americans in the US began with the capture of slaves by the Islamic slave traders , acting out of the tenets of the Qu'ran. But we won't mention that fact , now will we, lets just perpetuate ignorance of history . Now did other societies also have slavery , yes indeed , many cultures had slaves and this should be mentioned in their respective pages, just like it should be mentioned on this page. My objection is the REFUSAL to mention it on this page along with the REFUSAL to mention any other unsavory historical events. By the way did other alleged religious prophets also have slaves? My knowledge of other religion's history is limited

--Urchid 11:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I you're going to mention it prominently here, you might as well mention it in every article about every other culture and religion (including Christianity). Pointing Islam out specifically for its slavery is biased against Muslims. Xunflash 18:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Moon Cult Roots

Something about Islam descending from a pagan moon cult should be included here.

MSTCrow 04:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should be mentioned, since it is an accurate historical fact but there are a bunch of anti-freedom of speech Islamic supporters continuously monitoring this page who do nothing but tear down any changes they do not want presented to the world.-- 12:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should. It's a shoddy theory, one that has been disproven over and over again by Muslims and non-Muslim historians. Go see Talk:Allah on that, its not worth mentioning.

mr100percent 01:42, Jun 6, 2005 (EST)

I have heard a lot about Christianity descending from worshipers of Sun godess Eshtre ( from where Easter originated ), & some others that I cant remember . Should that be included in Christianity too . And what about Jews worshiping the Cow , when Moses went to Mount Sinai . Farhansher 08:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A religion that regards Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as prophets cannot be descended from a moon cult. Unless those people were part of a moon cult.Yuber(talk) 20:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, Christianity evolved from a number of cults in the region, including an Egyptian Sun cult (Son of God and all that) and a fish cult (fishhead, prominince of fishes in the New Testament, etc). So yes, the cult origins of Christianity should be included. I don't know much about the origins of Judaism, ie how much was taken from cults and how much was original, but I do know they incorporate a good deal of what was around them into it as well. If it is not true that Islam evolved in part from a Moon cult, then it should be at least mentioned in the article that it is a topic of controversy, and that some believe it did, while others it did not. We can't let the fear of PC stomp out the search for truth.
MSTCrow 22:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Those "some" who believe Islam is (or descended from) a moon cult are largely Christian polemicists and have a venerable tradition; in the earliest such literature one finds not only the moon cult accusation, but allegations of worshipping the head of Aphrodite in the form of a stone and summoning up demons by night. (Not to mention the standard accusation, beginning (IIRC) with St. John Damascene and presented more recently in Hilaire Belloc's writings, that Islam is a Christian heresy, no better than warmed-over Arianism.) So much for that.

A historian of religion without any axe to grind would readily acknowledge that Islam incorporated elements from Jahiliyyah paganism (which was not, note, exclusively or even primarily a moon cult), along with the greater influences of Judaism and Christianity. Even the 8th-century Muslim scholar Ibn al-Kalbi readily acknowledges that the hajj and certain associated practices, notably the circumambulation of the Kaaba, were adopted from the pagan Arabs—though he avers that they, in turn, got it from Abraham. I'm vaguely aware of later Islamic literature that addresses the topic, but can't recall specifics.

The same historian would not fail to acknowledge how much of Islamic belief, notably its strict monotheism, was formed in direct opposition to that same paganism. He would also leave off writing something about it here until he had written the in-depth explanation in the article on the history of Islam. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Islam has no relationship with the ancient Semite moon cults. The Qur'an itself describes the moon as a thing created by God. There is room for comments on the Moon cult business, this is after all an encyclopedia but those references are foot-note material not main entry. Kiwimac

Persistent POV problems and unsourced edits from

Plus I get the feeling he's a fan of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which is problematic in and of itself. BrandonYusufToropov 12:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you seem to be very keen on stoking the fires of religious hatred by pushing the gitmo flush the koran in the toilet scandal. Its not POV , the info is sourced and you can check it for yourself, only you cant stand the truth .-- 13:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, though, what's your favorite MMST3K episode? We're big fans at my house.BrandonYusufToropov 13:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to blow your bubble but I have never seen any of those shows, can't help you there.-- 13:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conversion rates in Africa

The source being in Arabic is not the problem. The quote's accuracy, reliability, and relevance is. In reality, the 6 million a year figure is given by a guest on an al-Jazeera talk show, one Ahmad Al-Qataani of Libya. He gives no sources for this figure, as far as I can see, and, from his alarmist tone ("667 Muslims a minute!") I suspect him of simply trying to drum up funding for his own missionary efforts. The quote thus has no credibility. Find an almanac or some other reasonably trustworthy source. - Mustafaa 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For non-Arabic speakers' benefit, a translation has apparently been provided, at a rather odd place: User:TheConversionArticle. The source's credibility may be judged by statements such as "Concerning Zanzibar, there was a priest by the name Julius Niriry, president of Tanzania, who annihilated 20,000 Muslims (male and female) with a military force lead by a chicken thief. This thief was imprisoned for being accused of stealing chickens; he was released and asked to command the military brigade that annihilated 20,000 Muslims." - Mustafaa 00:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Read the part about the conversions , do you not believe the speaker's numbers ? We are providing the source , let the reader assess the weight of the data. Look you seem to accept the dubious statistics about the growth of Islam , which in my view are blatantly exagerated or unreliable extrapolations then the Al-jazeera article statistics can provide an alternate POV.--Urchid 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed I don't believe the speaker's numbers. Why should I? He's not a demographer; he's just some Libyan sheikh. He provides no source for his numbers. Do you believe him saying "A Belgian missionary by the name of Sabeh came to Somalia and purchased 30,000 Muslim youth"? As for the stats about Islam's growth, they are from considerably more trustworthy sources - mainly, in fact, from the US State Department. (See Islam by country.) - Mustafaa 00:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well I do not believe the stats about Islam's growth considering there is no head count available and all the numbers are extrapolated. And considering that most muslims in the world do not have a choice in being a muslim ,if they were born a muslim in a muslim country, since they would suffer painful consequences if they freely stated that NO they do not want to be a Muslim . Also the quote about there being 5 million or more muslims in the USA does not match what I have observed in travelling the US. That would mean that 1 out of every 60 people we see in the Us is a muslim and I know that this is not the case. --Urchid 00:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the latter issue, you may or may not have a point: Islam in the United States indicates that estimates actually range from 1.2 million to 7 million, which indicates some uncertainty to say the least. The stuff about most Muslims not "having a choice in being a muslim", though, is irrelevant as well as highly speculative. Only God knows people's hearts; all that a demographer can or should deal with is what people claim to be. - Mustafaa 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your "800,000" is unsourced, as are your claims about the definitions used. 1.2 million is the minimum estimate listed in Islam in the United States, to which Islam in Canada's 580,000 has to be added. The source linked on "African Muslims converting to Christianity" comes from an interview full of statements so ridiculous that even you aren't prepared to defend them, while speculation about the motives of those claiming that "Islam is in growth" or "Islam is ebbing" is uncalled for and not relevant here.- Mustafaa 02:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let the reader be the judge about the source. Just like we can let the reader be the judge about the growth of Islam around the world. I like Zora's approach, it presents a diversity of views and they are sourced. We should not take it upon ourselves to only selectively present information that we personally prefer but present both sides. Its the wiki way.--Urchid 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was inclined to agree with you before I read the source... this man is not someone even remotely linked to a profession that would give him credibility in assessing populations. At least the growth of Islam sources are. We must not select inane sources and there are so many sources on various issues that it is up to the editors to select certain ones. gren 04:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whatever you personal view is Gren, we should provide diverse views as per wiki policy. I do not for instance share your opinion on the growth of Islam sources however I do not try to nullify them on that account.Wiki NPOV policy is clear is to provide both views.--Urchid 12:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Step back and consider this a second. The goal here is to write an encyclopedia that meets the highest academic standards, not to provide a soapbox for every rant. Do you really think that citing some random sheikh on a talk show meets any kind of academic standards at all? There are plenty of professional demographers out there; if you want statistics on converts from Islam to other religions, then that would be the place to look, and if they turn out to be significant in number, it would be appropriate to add them here. - Mustafaa 17:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Writing from a NPOV, does not mean representing every view, that would be impossible. Nor does it mean giving every view represented equal weight. We have to make editorial judgments, not every source is equally credible. Paul August 06:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Guys there is no point in this dialogue . These people ( with multiple IDs ) r all brain slaves of Sina & Spencer , both liers hypocrites . Their sites R a new version of Missionary sites, with the added charm of " I was a muslim once ". I dont know if U have figured out uptli now , but for me its as clear as 0 & 1 . There sentences , logics , choice of vocab , phrases , R a perfect match of the brain slaves of these 2 as**oles . If U dont believe me , checkout their site . They arnt here to improve WP . They R here to give links to their site to increase their hitrate , & to defame Islam . Hope that helps . Farhansher 05:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something tells me Farhansher is not a moderate Muslim but a radical islamist, future recruit for al-qaeda? .--Urchid 12:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
LOL ...Something tells me U R gona be the recruits of the new Adolf Hitler , Very soon U guys will come up with something like Protocols of Elders of ...... !!! . Be creative , I have seen your gurus trying the same reverse psychology tactic on muslims . Try something new . Farhansher 13:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Farhansher, this sort of exchange has no place on Wikipedia. Cut it. dab () 13:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Similarly "Urchid", you can not call everyone you disagree with a "radical islamist". This is a common tactic used by anti-Islamic editors like you. If you were to say this, then you are likely a member of the Ku Klux Klan. --Anonymous editor 02:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Demographic Trends be added?

Just a question: shouldn't continuing demographic trends be added to this? Such as the below info:

"The world population is growing at about 1.10% per year, but the percentage of Muslim population is increasing by 1.4% per year due to both converts and growth rates. It has been stated by many that statistics show that within the next century Islam will outgrow Christianity and become the largest religion in the world."

The reason is simply because it indicates the growth of the religion and I believe should be added to a "Future of Islam" section. I have seen this material on several NPOV sites and various statistics and am willing to cite my sources if needed.

So what do you think? --Anonymous editor 06:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

the point is that the numbers are disputed, and it is almost impossible to get reliable statistics from the relevant states. Also, even naive interpretation gives Islam overtaking xtianity only in the 2070s, and only very naive statisticians will extrapolate current growth rates into the 22nd century (we'd litterally be stacked, by then). So while current growth rate estimates should be included, the "overtaking" thing is simply idle speculation about future events ("WP is not a crystal ball"). dab () 13:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd be fine with readding the first sentence ("The world population is growing at about 1.10% per year, but the percentage of Muslim population is increasing by 1.4% per year due to both converts and growth rates.") if a good source is provided. The second, however, seems to me to violate the principle that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." - Mustafaa 17:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. I will append the first portion of the statement. Got info from --Anonymous editor 19:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


There appears to be an extreme intolerance of alternate views on this page being perpetuated by a small clique of editors who have been attempting to monopolize all edits on this page. Wikipedia is a colloberative endeavor not a tug of war between zealots. IF you have any questions on Wikipedia's NPOV policy go here. WIKIPEDIA NEUTRALITY POLICY . Thank you for your cooperation.--Urchid 00:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there is no monopolization. You can not simply understand that the material that you want to add is illegitimate and is no more then POV. Regardless, this is the ISLAM article, not the conversion article. I don't see other religions with info like this on their section. Perhaps you should get factual statements rather than put anti-Islamic views onto the religion section. By the way, if we were to mention something along those lines, we would have to mention the many millions more who convert/have converted TO Islam (like me). I know the truth hurts you.

You are zealous about your opinion perhaps you should be more tolerant and stop your persistent vandalism. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 02:14, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The truth about Islam

Anyone with a remote knowledge of the atrocities being constantly carried out by Muslims in the world today must speak out. These horrible attacks on truth by Muslims who would hide it are not acceptable. Muslims murdered 2,000 on September 11, 2001. Islam is responsible for the heartless murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. The term "Islamic extremist" should not be used because all Muslims are a threat. Even Islamic clergy are now encouraging and promoting murder of "infidels". Islam is an evil religion that enslaves women, turns men into bloodthirsty monsters, and calls for the murder of those not stuck in its stinking, rotting quagmire. Muslims are even now trying to infiltrate the U.S. bringing their foul, scum of a religion here. There is no love in Islam, only hate, a vicious murderous hatred. The crusades were entirely necassary. If the Christians had not driven out the Moors, Europe might today be the living hell that the Middle East is now. There is not a shred of honor, not one iota, in Islam. It would have been better if Mohammed had never been born. Osama Bin Laden is one of his monsters, blood-thirsty and murderous who masterminded the NYC mass murders on 9/11 nearly 4 years ago. Islam is no religion of "peace", whatever people like Cassius Clay may call it. Muslims are a lost people, floundering in the darkness, following a distant, unloving god, and trying to get to Heaven by murdering Christians and Jews. Jesus came into the world to redeem mankind; to save us from our sins. Muslims' only hope for happiness, a changed heart, and eternal life is to give their lives over to the one who truly loves them, Jesus Christ and to make him their savior and Lord. Therein lies true freedom. 01:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should probably get a blog. This sort of "truth" is better expressed in that medium than in an encyclopaedia. Grace Note 01:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, like... do we put that all in our article?????? gren 01:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel tempted to get rid of above user's editorial comments, but it is too humorous to bear. Perhaps a section on the distortion, or myths of Islam is prudent (for one, in response to the op ed--there is no such thing as a peaceful Abrahamic religion. Each has nuances of peace, harmony and love, and each has its nuaces of hatred, dispair and violence.) One could figure out where the misinformation is coming from and that would be a truly powerful addition to this article. Well, my opinion at least.

User, a possible sockpuppet of Urchid, is nothing more than a bigot. It is not uncommon to hear people like him commit racism against muslims, because frankly they fear so much that christianity is losing against Islam in terms of conversions and growth. It is not uncommon to hear stuff like this being taught in christian extremist churches, I know because I was once evangelical. Truly shows how misinformed they are when they say that 'muslims follow an unloving god', when it is the same God that christians worship. LOL.Perhaps this user should also look through history and see that if it was not for Islam, Europe would have never made it out of the dark ages and into the renaissance that is the foundation of modern western civilization.

How about you mention the numerious atrocities that christianity committed with other religions and still does to this day? How about the hundreds of thousands of civilian Muslims and JEWS slaughtered ruthlessly during the crusades? Or how about how the United States bombing muslims in Lebanon on false grounds? This is bound to get retaliation, my friend, and although I do not agree with extremism, 9/11 was bound to happen.

Maybe you should also mention how christian evangelization led to the death of thousands of africans or how evangelicals were smuggling orphan children out of Indonesia after the tsunami in order to convert them?

Frankly I don't find it necessary to debate about this anymore right now because clearly you are nothing more than a bigot and and it is your own POV and attempt at recruiting more zealous christians for your pathetic cause. It goes against everything that WIKIPEDIA stands for. And yes, you can believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is "lord and savior", but you and I both know that is nothing more than a dying fad and people with half a brain are leaving christianity as we speak.

Praise be to Allah that I converted to Islam. It is only through him that we wake up and see the reality. --Anonymous editor 03:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

No I am not that user 4.158 however I do agree with the general premise about Islam posed above minus the references to Jesus.--Urchid 03:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your agreement with that 'general premise' truly shows your credibility and true nature. Maybe since now that you seem so NPOV, we should listen to everything you say. (sarcasm ofcourse) --Anonymous editor 03:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor , you do seem so full of hatred, deceit and intolerance of other POVs that you certainly make a poor example of a Muslim , if I was a muslim I would be embarrased by your behavior.--Urchid 03:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Racism, as you call it, can go both ways. Please do not forget that. I did not and do not agree with many of Urchid's posts and edits but your response to him is just as bad. Neither of them constitute NPOV in my book. If you were to call Christianity a fad in that article I think there'd be more problems (and rightfully so) than Urchid has created. gren 03:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gren, generally I agree with you and I was definitely counter-POVing not NPOVing in this case. I am saddened that it has come down to something like this. Truly wikipedia is no place for stuff like this.In response to urchid: Man, I am not what faith you are and I am still embrassed by YOUR behaviour. I suppose you are very tolerant? --Anonymous editor 03:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am tolerant,uh? oh I am intolerant because my opinion does not match yours? I inserted edits that obviously reflect my POV. I have sourced and discussed these. Embarrased by MY behavior? Lets make something very clear, I am not that Christian editor you seem to confuse me with. The trouble here is that whenever someone expresses a different opinion than yours you blow your top and act like those zealots ranting in the streets of Pakistan about their little book. What 19 people killed for what? on hearsay ?--Urchid 03:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

_ _ _

Okay first things first. THIS article is NOT a POV debate. It is not my POV that should go there and it is not yours. It is a factual article, one can NOT say their POV. Frankly, who cares what others think about Islam??? That doesn't change what Islam is, does it? Why can't you understand that?

Secondly, you are the one who called me intolerant simply because of my POV. see your message above. The fact that I responded to you by saying that "I suppose you are very tolerant?" is simply in response to your assertion.

You are not making anything better by claiming that those people on the streets of Pakistan were "zealots ranting about their little book". Is it wrong to respect one's religion? Would other religions not protest if their holy book was destroyed in such a manner?

Lastly, you are misinformed about Islam in accordance with the facts of Islam. In reality, do you really think that you can come close to factual information about Islam better a muslim who clearly knows the tenets of the religion? The fact of the matter is that one who clearly practices the faith is more likely to know the facts about it better than someone who doesn't. It is just like a communist is more likely to know communism better than a non-communist.

So remember that this is not a POV debate. It is a factual article. There is no reason for any POV in this article. It should be all factual statements. People's opinions about Islam do NOT change what Islam is. --Anonymous editor 04:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

To urchid: Well man , if U have any authentic , neutral , non Islamphobe , non-pro-islam source saying anything about conversion rates , it deserves to be on Islam page . What 100-500 people in the world think , isnt important . There R thousands of people who will consider themselves as God , we cant give their names in God page . Christian/non-christian stuff isnt relevent . If a christian brings some authentic info , it deserves to be added . The rest , well .... doesnt matter . Your use of words like " their little book " , " hatred, deceit and intolerance " & by 4.158 "foul, scum of a religion " , "trying to get to Heaven by murdering Christians and Jews" , clearly shows your mindset . But then...i've seen worse . Sorry if I was rude b4 , my exams R goinon , & I am very much irritable . Hope this gets my point across . Thanx for your cooperation . Farhansher 07:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

guys, an anonymous account cannot be a sockpuppet. sockpuppet are accounts used by people who have another, primary account. dab () 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

also, you should all try a chatroom. If you cannot discuss the article's wording in a civil, academic, neutral atmosphere, you shouldn't even be here. dab () 14:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To AE: Why on Earth can't you be more civil! I have gone through a lot of this talk page and all throughout I see your stupid ranting! If somebody doesn't agree with you: "Yell, Yell, Yell, Shout, Shout, Shout, So And So is a bigot, So And So is intolerant, everybody should be tolerant of my ideas but I don't have to be tolerant of anybody else's!" I'm not user 4.158 but I do agree with him for the most part! I see no reason to be neutral about this topic when you can't be. Ratso 19:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


needless to say, the information in "Islam and slavery" was in the wrong article. After all, we don't have "Christianity and Islam" in the Christianity article, discussing all the good Christians who shipped slaves to America after outbidding their Islamic Arabic counterparts. The names of Muhammad's slaves should go to the Muhammad article. Islamic laws on slavery should go to the Sharia article. dab () 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, read it carefully , it is written in NPOV and it presents an accurate representation of those topics , now if you want to add it to those other pages you are welcome to. --Urchid 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As Dab correctly notes, this is in entirely the wrong article, as well as being neither NPOV nor even accurate ("Islamic slave traders over the centuries in Africa were responsible for capturing and selling nearly twelve million indigenous black africans to European traders"?) This section belongs in the article about as much as "Islam and cousins" or "Islam and honeybees" would - both topics are, after all, alluded to in the Qur'an... - Mustafaa 23:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The numbers are accurate , I can tell that you do not like those numbers and want this out of sight , however , this is an encyclopedia and history is history.--Urchid 23:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Care to support that assertion? (Not that it would make the section any more relevant - as practically everyone except you has so far noted...) - Mustafaa 23:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well I have provided all the references to support those statements , only you and other fellow travellers keep shooting those down cause you cannot disprove them. This page could use a little more intellectual honesty and less religious Jihadism.--Urchid 00:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, no, you haven't "provided all the references", or indeed any references. - Mustafaa 00:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, "jihadism", did you just make up that word off the top of your head? Totally shows how misinformed you are when you make up words faster than Foxnews. Clearly, when you write a section in an article where it does not belong and fill it with lies, you are going to get opposition. What exactly are your sources; do you know anything about Islam that is not gathered from right-wing american bigot sites?--Anonymous editor 00:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

So, 12 million blacks were sold as slaves by islamic slave traders to christian slave traders? What does that tell you except that slave trading is apparently independent of religion, and that this factoid (if it is one) is at home neither in the Islam nor in the Christianity (or in both, with the same justification), but in the slavery article. I mean, really, how about "Islam and stupidity" (some muslims are stupid!) "Islam and roadkill" (muslims run over animals on the highway!) or "Islam and ugliness" (some muslims are ugly!). Factuality is one thing, notability is another (slave trade is notable), relevance is quite another thing (slave trade is not relevant to the ship article, in spite of slaves having been transported in ships). This is too obvious to even argue. We do not want either Islam-hyping editors here, nor Islam-bashing one. Unfortunately, we have both kinds now, only neutralizing each other by emission of a lot of unsavoury diatribes. dab () 08:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good point dab, especially where you say we can't attribute all Muslim action to Islam. gren 20:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are Anonymous editor and Farhansher sockpuppets?

Looks like Anonymous editor is editing Farhansher 's text. A slip up? sock puppets?--Urchid 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol, funny. I was only editing text because I assumed the message by Farhanser was intended for you. Obviously he doesn't mean me and I wanted to avoid confusion by others, thus I wrote 'to urchid:' by his message. Anyways sockpuppetry is your expertise, although you prefer to use non-users. --Anonymous editor 23:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes very funny , cause I believe you were included in Farhansher comment, in any case , I believe farhansher is quite capable of making his own clarifications and you should not go around revising other peoples discussion inserts.--Urchid 11:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His comment was clearly towards you because you are the only one misinformed enough to have made such false statements in the first place. It's sad to see that you take offence to the truth. Perhaps you should follow your own advice before judging others. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Some more references that back up my assertion about growth of Christianity in Africa and the world

This throw into question all the assumptions demographics of Islam Today --Urchid 00:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, actually. The first talks of conversions to Christianity in Africa (by pagans? Jews? Muslims? It does not say, although in fact most are by pagans.) The latter says nothing helpful at all; just speculates on future conflict. - Mustafaa 00:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh you are right , all these articles I presented are not real, keep believing what you wish . --Urchid 01:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay so according to your "sources" christianity is growing in Africa. Why exactly does this belong in the ISLAM article??? The concern was never christianity growth in Africa, it was about a unreliable claim that muslims were converting to it. I can quote many sites that say Islam is growing in Africa and that would still be related to the ISLAM demographics section.

Why can't you understand how wikipedia works? If you want to enter this info of yours put it in a christianity-related article. The sources don't even mention Islam! Why should the Islam article incorporate info/propaganda about christianity growth???

Frankly, this Islam article isn't concerned with christianity is it. Btw, you seem rather persistent to enter anti-Islamic, pro-christian material for someone who says that they have no religion. Maybe what you really are is finally showing.--Anonymous editor 00:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Right , I do not share your POV on Islam and that is my right as an editor, Wikipedia is not an Islamic theocracy on the contrary it is the opposite. I have thus been trying to present alternate information in the demographics of Islam Today section , but you folks on your ridiculous religious Jihad have been reverting it everytime I insert anything there. You seem only concerned with your fantasy image of what you wish Islam was and are batting down any contrary facts that are presented. I call that intellectual dishonesty , and of course you and fellow travellers have decided to try to impose your POV by force of revert while no one is presenting information to disprove my insertions , I continue to provide documentation.--Urchid 00:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why can't you understand that there is no need for POV on this article in the first place? This is not a debatable recent event, it is a factual article about Islam.

Why exactly would the growth of christianity be relevant in an Islam article? Why do you want to insert christianity info/propaganda into the Islam article? You can provide all the 'sources' you want but as long as it is NOT related to the article, why does it matter?

You are the only one here who is entering the most disputed material with stuff about christianity when your sources don't even mention Islam. Wikipedia is NOT a christian propaganda site. You seem stubborn on putting in christian material into an ISLAM article; go put christian material into the christianity article. Seriously, even you must realize something as simple as this???

By the way, I AM A MUSLIM. I know what Islam is because I practice it. It is you who has the 'fantasy image' and is being nothing more than a bigot. --Anonymous editor 01:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Man you must be frothing at the mouth, do you have rabies or something? You are quick to call anyone who disagrees with you names and you seem way to confused to understand what I am going to say, so I will answer this for the benefit of other editors who may come to read this.
I am not inserting a POV. I am presenting sourced information. I present a claim and its source. That is what Wikipedia requires.
This article makes various claims about the growth of Islam for instance. Those are only claims based on using sources which are highly disputed. For example all the numbers related to the size and growth of Islam are conjecture and extrapoloation. No one has ever counted the number of Muslims in the world. The numbers are only estimates , extrapolated. There are many conflicting analysises about this . We should present high projections as well as the low projections.
The problem is that a certain group of pro-islam editors will only permit the sources that make Islam look the way they want it to look to be presented, for example they chose to use the Clash of Civilation quote of the fastest growing religion. Anything which challenges this is reverted. I have presented sources that challenge this claim , and at once the insertion gets reverted.
The reason they do this is because they are on a religious Jihad, that is they are doing whatever it takes to make Islam look good, regardless of the facts. Look at the revert history of this page. Its called censure , and it is unfortunately a characteristic of Islam, the destruction of truth. --Urchid 02:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Urchid, what you fail to understand is that the growth numbers you 'cited' from your sources have nothing to do with ISLAM whatsoever. What do christianity growth numbers have to do with Islam in the first place? If you want to put you 'source' and 'claim' in an appropriate article put it in the christianity article.

The only problem here is that you seem to have a problem understanding what this article is about. You are clearly the one who is 'frothing in the mouth' as you are over-stimulated at the idea that you can vandalize a perfectly legitimate article by inserting christian propaganda about christian growth. Truly anyone can realize that is unrelated to this article and does not belong here, why can't you?

The only problem here is your bigotry against Islam. The article tells the truth and you insist that your racist views and totally unrelated claims be added to this article. Every time the editors remove your vandalism you show them disrespect and claim that you are being censured and that the article is a destruction of truth. If you can't edit the ISLAM article fairly and without extreme anti-Islamic POV, go away because your propaganda is not needed here. --Anonymous editor 19:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to include high and low estimates of adherence and growth. And I believe that would be a good unbiased source. I quote "Contemporary figures for Islam are usually between 900 million and 1.4 billion, with 1 billion being a figure frequently given in comparative religion texts, probably because it's such a nice, round number. The largest and best known branches of Islam are Sunni and Shi'ite." [2] Tom Haws 15:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

AE, I guess I agree with you, but if you won't stop shouting, nobody will read what you say. Just let the cooler heads (like Mustafaa and Tom) quote the estimate ranges. The exact number, and the exact growth rate is unknown, live with it. Both Christianity and Islam are growing, because of population growth, and the numbers are extremely unreliable, because the countries with highest growth rate also have the worst level of organization (a.k.a. 3rd World). dab () 19:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you agree with me, Dab. Surely anyone can see that urchid's claims have nothing to do with the article and clearly supposed christianity African statistics do not belong in an Islam article. The controversy was never over growth rates, it was about adding completely unrelated material about christianity. By the way I am not shouting I am clarifying what I mean and urchin can't seem to understand for some reason and enjoys making remarks against editors in general. Thanks for your input in this matter. --Anonymous editor 20:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

AE, by "shouting" dab means entering your comments, presumably for emphasis, in bold and/or in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and the use of repeated punctuation (e.g. ??? or !!!). On the web, that is generally referred to as "shouting", and many people consider the use of more than the bare minimum of such emphasized text to be rude. Just like raising the volume of your voice beyond what is required to be heard is considered rude. Paul August 20:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, Paul. I already knew what Dab was saying though. I wasn't trying to be rude but I apologize if the bolding/capitalization of my text was offensive to anyone. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:04, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tags not needed

So please stop putting that at the top of the article, Urchid. BrandonYusufToropov 12:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there not a dispute on this page? Are you willing to have my inserts added then?--Urchid 12:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The dispute doesn't seem to be about specifics -- you aren't challenging anything that's there -- it's just that you want to include stuff that you believe reflects badly on Islam, even if it's not particularily germane to the article. I added a link to the Slavery article, in the See also section -- Islam and slavery is discussed there, as part of a discussion of slavery in general. How come you aren't insisting on adding the names of the slaves owned, if known, to every historical figure in Wikipedia? No, you're just interested in making the equation Islam = slavery. You're marking the article POV because it doesn't hew to your POV ... and that's wrong. Zora 12:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Zora. There may be a factuality dispute concerning conversion rates, but that is simply up to either side being able to present credible sources. afaik, no serious estimate has been censored. "I want to insert oblique potshots aimed at Islam in general" is not a content dispute, sorry. Nobody disputes slavery was common, both in Islamic and Christian society. If you must, insert a list of Muhammad's slaves in the Muhammad article (if the list is factual), but it is certainly not pertinent to this article. dab () 13:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General links

Anonymous editor, talk about adding edits like that which were previously decided against for doing it. An article of this size and nature should not have arbitrary decisions made by one editor like you are doing and not expect them to be reverted. Discuss it here first and get input. I am not totally against it, I am rather apathetic towards the issue but you are a single editor among many so please discuss putting a "general links" section into the article and which sites it should contain. I am guessing that BrandonYusuf's, yours and Urchids opinion might not be the same in which links to put. gren 19:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Grenavitar. You know ofcourse that I had the best intentions in mind and did not mean any offense. The links I posted were not permanent, ofcourse, and other editors who were willing to insert links that give a factual look on Islam rather than a POV based one are free to do so. The issue I was bringing up is that, although user Zora's efforts in the directory links are well taken, most users will not use the directory for general link service for reasons such as non-apparency, time consumption, etc. Therefore, I proposed that general links that offer a factual insight into the religion should be added much similar to those that can be found in the christianity or other religion articles. I did NOT add them for POV ofcourse and I think that a problem here is that we fear the risk of vandalism by extreme POV editors. We should, like other credible encyclopedias offer factual links to wikipedia users so that if one requires an understanding of the religion or is researching a topic related to the religion, they may access non-encylopedia factual sources. But yes I do understand the controversy over this and if other editors find factual Islamic links they should consider them to this article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:24, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I understand completely and I didn't change it because I thought it was POV. My problem is that when you say "links that give a factual look on Islam rather than a POV based one" that probably means different things to different people... I have no problem with the section in genereal but it did create problems (especially with link spammers) and that's why Zora pruned it (see #Pruning links). Just leave this up for a bit and see what people say and what they can agree on... rushing into changes on a well established article can create problems so if you just let proposals sit on the talk page for a while it helps that I think. Personally on this issue I'm pretty neutral. I don't think directories are too hard to navigate (and as someone mentioned directories can have their own POV) but I think we could plausibly make a balanced general links section... but just let's hear what others say. gren 19:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely fine. I will keep the links at hand until people have voiced their opinions. TO EVERYONE: Should general, factual external links about Islam be added to the article, much like the other religion articles? Please voice your opinions as this is both: to help people find material that gives a better understanding of the religion, and also to add to the professionalism of Wikipedia by adding factual external links like other credible encyclopedias have. Similarly feel free to recommend factual links so that editors may review whether they should be added. Thanks. --

BrandonYusuf, Mustafaa, Zora, Yuber, Dab and Farhanser, you have all been major contributors to this article and your input in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Anonymous editor 20:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll comment on the links issue. Someone else -- I forget who -- proposed the directories solution in response to my effort to clear out the links. Before I started pruning, there were dozens of links, to different sects, to different teachers, and more were being added each day. Anyone who wanted more publicity for his/her preferred version of Islam was adding a link. There didn't really seem to be any way to limit the links without provoking howls of protest at the discrimination. The suggestion to list only directories was received with a general sigh of relief. Having seen the alternative, I would argue vigorously that we keep to this policy for the Islam page. Links have been allowed to proliferate freely on the pages for the various sects/versions of Islam. Zora 20:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, factual, external links about Islam should be added to the article. Owing to the Mohammedan's willingness to follow the sunnah of Mohammed, we have an element of Taqiyya mixed with intolerance of anything that may expand upon the "sugar-coated" version of Islam that is being promoted here, exploiting the popularity of this site and using it as a one-eyed propaganda facility. I placed a link to this page as an INFORMATION SOURCE about Islam......... where did it go?

Skirmishing re first para

I've lost track of who did what, but the first para has been turned into an encomium of Islam as the source of art and science. I don't think that's NPOV, and it's certainly debatable that this is a distinguishing characteristic of Islam. Other religions have also contributed to the arts and sciences. I also removed a phrase re Islam being an Abrahamic faith. That categorization is Muslim -- I don't think I've ever heard an Jews or Christians use it. In fact, I still remember the first time I ran into it, in a National Geographic article on Abraham some years ago. It would certainly not be comprehensible to non-Muslims. Most Christians will refer to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and ignore Islam entirely. The first para sets the tone, and that tone should be NPOV. Zora 21:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait a second, Islam IS an Abrahamic faith, in all senses of the word.Yuber(talk) 22:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but that's an unfamiliar term which is put into the first para with no explanation whatsoever. It may be transparent to you, but most non-Muslims would not understand it. One could link to Abrahamic religions, of course, but it seems preferable to introduce new concepts in the body of the article, not in the introductory para. I don't know whether it's IN the body of the article -- probably should be if it isn't.
After some furious googling, I am left with an even stronger impression that the term has come into general use fairly recently, as a polite term to be used by politicians, academics, and religious figures. I don't object to it -- it seems more useful than Judeo-Christian -- I'm just concerned about comprehensibility. (Shades of jguk's campaign to erase BCE/CE <g>). Zora 23:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, it seems a little hostile to revert to the "Abrahamic religions" version while we're still discussing it. Zora 23:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Abrahamic religion makes sense from the Muslim perspective. The connotation of Abrahamic faith implies the sanctioning of Abraham, not just that they believe they come from Abrahamic lineage. Therefore, Zora makes a good point. gren 23:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what you're trying to argue here. If Christianity is an Abrahamic religion then so is Islam, and that description is included in the Christianity article as well in the first paragraph. The definition as I see it basically means that it is a religion that comes from the original religion Abraham followed. Islam isn't just an Abrahamic religion from the Muslim perspective, it's an Abrahamic religion from all perspectives. Judeo-Christian is a totally different concept.Yuber(talk) 23:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the concept is illegitimate -- it works from even a non-Abrahamic perpective, as simply pointing out that all three major religions share texts and history. I'm just arguing about comprehensibility. But if no one has objected in the Christianity article, then I'll stop fussing about it here. As long as we LINK it.

Which I'll do right now. Zora 00:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aha, it's done. OK. Zora 00:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora is both sympathetic and nice to Yuber, and he still reverts her. Unbelievable. FYI, Christianity is not an Abrahamatic religion. Christianity is a christian religion. --Noitall 00:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. Perhaps you would like to edit out the Abrahamic part on the Christianity page. Yuber(talk) 01:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a new-ish term, but it's not necessarily POV. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all claim Abraham as the founder of their faith and there is at least one text (the Torah) that is accepted by all faiths (though the Muslims claim the Jewish version is corrupted). Even an atheist hostile to religion could use the term. As for Yuber's behavior -- as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's easy to lose one's balance when the argument gets hot and heavy. Let's ALL try to keep our balance. That goes for me too <g>. Zora 01:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There were actually no hostile feelings towards your edit. So please disregard what Noitall said as there is no huge argument here.Yuber(talk) 02:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was me who added the word "Abrahamic religions" here . The word was present in Christianity & Judaism's first para . So I thought it should be added here too . In Judaism, this word is present with a link to Islam page. Farhansher 04:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


of course you need the second part. Any monotheist would subscribe to "there is no god but God". To be a Muslim, you need the additional belief that Muhammad's testimony is authentic, just as to be a Christian, you need to believe that Jesus was sent by God (not necessarily that he is God, viz. Arianism, Unitarianism). Just saying la ilaha illa llahu says nothing about the status of the Quran, i.e. you may testify that, and still think the Quran is a surrealist poem, which would hardly make you a Muslim. 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamic Expertise and Knowledge

I have not yet edited on this article, but am preparing to do so. Of course, as a Christian, I want to have knowledge before inserting my POV. I believe that finding one or two sources on google and reading the Koran text as I think it should read and interpreting it the way I think it should be interpreted should be a good generalization for the entire Islamic world. But it does not really matter because, as User:Mustafaa argues, Muslims can believe anything or nothing at all, so anything I find on google is good and must be accurate and correct. Anyhow, don't you agree that I will soon be an Islamic expert?

Oh, by the way, that was not my opinion, but was User:Mustafaa's argument as to why he can interpret Christian texts and is really qualified with lots of expertise as to edit the Christian interpretation of Abraham. I disagreed and made the argument that I am respectful of other religions and that I am not really qualified to understand all the nuances of the religion to edit on Wiki. Anyhow, if Mustafaa's opinion is the right one, I will really enjoy doing some research and debating you all on what the text and interpretations of Islam mean. --Noitall 02:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand what pisses you off so much about the Old Testament saying Ishmael is the ancestor of the Ishmaelites. Is there some personal reason this angers you?Yuber(talk) 02:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apparently Noitall still, after ample requests, hasn't explained his actual objection to the suggested wording on Talk:Abraham, preferring the easier course of ad hominem arguments against its author. If anyone other than Noitall thinks that only Christians should be allowed to make Christianity-related edits, raise your hand now... - Mustafaa 02:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have explained it at length, just like I have said that I do not edit THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS of other people's religions, and yet you still think I interpreted the Torah incorrectly (I could not have, since I never ever ever made any statement about it at all except what I just said). But if Mustafaa is correct, then it will be happy editing in all these articles -- I am certain that I can find some good sources out there if I google hard enough. --Noitall 02:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall,why is adding "Old Testament" beside "Torah" (Torah/Old Testament) such a problem on the Abraham article? You have gone way overboard on such a little issue to which you have really not given enough reason. --Anonymous editor 02:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Listen Noitall, the old testament specifically names Ishmael and his twelve sons. This is not an "Islamic view" as you said, it is a Christian and Jewish view. I don't have to google to find sources, it's in the Bible itself [3].Yuber(talk) 02:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK Noitall, you say you've explained it at length. Now could you explain your explanation, preferably on Talk:Abraham? I don't see how your statements connect to the actual text of the article nor what changes you're suggesting - bearing in mind the truism that statements about Genesis are simultaneously statements about the Torah and statements about the Old Testament. - Mustafaa 02:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, no time to respond AGAIN, as I spent the last two days responding and listing rationale and detailed explanations and providing the Christian view (to be substituted by Mustafaa and Anon and Yuber's expert Christian opinion). -->But I will re-write the statement and provide rationale for the 3rd time. And expecially I have no time for Yuber. I have to check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to see if the Arbitrators' opinions on the hearing against Yuber are still (4/0/0/0). --Noitall 02:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Please respond to my specific questions instead of talking about random stuff. Are you disputing the Christian Bible's view of Ishmael's twelve sons?Yuber(talk) 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what this discussion has to do with this article? This seems like a discussion concerning the Abraham article. I think this discussion should be moved there. Paul August 03:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Easy. Noitall didn't really mention his concern clearly on the Abraham talk page and said that he would proceed to edit Islam-related topics until his POV was mentioned. Please see Talk:Abraham for more detail. Hope that helps my friend, as we are both clueless about why someone would do something like this. :)--Anonymous editor 03:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me my "friends." I brought up an issue relevant to this page and Yuber, of course Yuber, immediately change the subject to insert his POV. Now Anon entirely misleads, as pages on pages of rationale over days are not enough for him (but then he probably had to do 4th grade reading class over a few times also). --Noitall 03:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall: What is your issue with this page? Paul August 03:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
What is the issue? TELL US CLEARLY ON TALK ABRAHAM PAGE. Your issue here has nothing to do whatsoever with this article and should probably be moved. The only issue you raised here is threatening to edit this article. I have been tolerant, respectful and patient with you and so have Mustafaa and Yuber. Can you please mention the REAL issue on the Abraham page, not this one. Refrain from making personal attacks too. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
That is the problem with Anon, he does not read. As far as I am concerned, you can erase everything after my first 2 paragraphs after the header and get back to the real issue. Then I will address it and not have Anon speaking for me (right, tolerant and respectful as a suicide bomber, give me a break!, it is me who has been respectful of other religions and you who are dismissive and arrogant with a religion that you expressly reject.) --Noitall 03:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall: If you are talking about the Abraham article please discuss it there. Paul August 04:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Why are we talking about suicide bombers now?Yuber(talk) 03:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the Quran Alone Muslims

Edip Yuksel has just discovered Wikipedia. He seems to be a disciple of Rashad Khalifa; he claims to represent the Quran Alone Muslims, who at this point seem to consist of him and one other gentleman. He is busily editing the Islam article to insert his name, as well as setting up a page for Quran Alone, and trying to link to it. I've removed the link, since I have no evidence that there are any other adherents of "Quran Alone" than these two new editors, and the page may have to be deleted. Zora 23:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Zora. To the "Quran-Alone Muslim": Please stop advertising beliefs in Islam-related articles. I doubt that many people have heard of you and Mr. Janjhua before. Wikipedia is not the place to make someone famous or raise one's credibility and support. Please remember this is an encyclopedia and all neutral/legitimate comments and edits are accepted whereas such extreme Point of View will be deleted. Also please make sure your pictures are smaller as they are taking way too much space (even the founder of wikipedia does not have an image that large!). Thank you and I hope you will co-operate. --Anonymous editor 23:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
There are a (very) small number of adherents of this belief (as discussed on Talk:Hadith), and we do need a page on them. I don't know if Quran Alone is an appropriate title for it, though. - Mustafaa 00:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A look at Yuksel's web page [4] indicates that there is already a schism in the Rashid Khalifa/submitter community, and that Yuksel is one of the schismatics. We don't know much about the Submitters (that seems to be their own name for themselves) and we know even less about Yuksel's group, if it is a group. It would be difficult to write a Wikipedia article about all this, because it would soon veer into original research. It's fascinating, however. Yoohoo, anyone out there need a dissertation topic? Zora 02:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Islam

Was there not a section called "Problems with Islam" in this article, which covered various issues, and has now been removed?

There is no such thing as a problem with a religion. If it is believed to be God's will then that doesn't make sense and is only the editors subjective concept of "problems with Islam". Conflict between and other beliefs and viewpoints is a different matter, and I believe such things are covered in some places. gren 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um, we had a section of external links to directories of websites critical of Islam, but -- if I remember correctly -- that kept getting wiped by people who felt that any criticism of islam was too much. Figuring that the section title was a signpost to "vandalize here", we combined all the directory links, pro and con. The links are still there and still labeled as critical, just not in the section title. Zora 21:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sentence needs to be rewritten

In the section "Schools (Branches}", in the paragraph beginning "Recently, with the rise of the Internet ..." the following passage occurs which needs to be rewritten, however I'm not sure what it is trying to say:

"Upon all the other sects (mentioned above), each has things that believe are theirs, and are the right way. Also, in some form on another, the sects use interpretations and decisions from people who are not looked upon as messengers or prophets."

Paul August 08:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

This entire section has now been removed, by another editor. Paul August 13:21, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Huge changes at the last moment

Paul August, who hasn't been involved here previously, has been making a great many changes, most of which seem to be mere copyediting. In checking his edits, I found that I generally approved of them -- but felt that they didn't go far enough. I've been sucked into the skirmishing over sentences and sections, and haven't looked at the article as a whole for a while. Some of the prose seemed to me to rather substandard (which is frequently the case in often-edited articles). I ended up reorganizing the sects section and rephrasing a number of things that I felt were ... dubious.

(For an explanation of my recent dozen or so small edits, see below. Paul August 13:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC))

I found that someone had inserted a large lump of Qur'an-only proselytizing, which I removed. I also found that someone had upped the percentage of Sunnis to 95% -- clearly a Sunni triumphalist.

There is one section that I would like to delete, but don't want to do it unilaterally. There is a whole section on liberal Islam that floats unmoored from the "sects" section. Though I would certainly be a liberal Muslim if I were a Muslim, it seems to me to be POV for the liberals to get their own section when other sects don't. OK to remove? Zora 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian intolerance

An anon editor, with no other edits to his/her credit, changed a sentence re Christian nations at the time Islam arose not tolerating religions/sects other than the state religion, to "some" Christian nations. I removed the qualifier, as I can't think of a single tolerant Christian state before the Renaissance. All of them had state religions and periodically persecuted or expelled Jews, other Christian sects, etc. Even if a few tolerant states could be adduced, I'm not sure that this would require changing the qualifier to "some" -- I would say that it would be "most". Hmmm ... tolerant nations ... Poland, I think, and the Netherlands once they broke free of the Spanish. Europeans had to kill each other for centuries before they grudgingly accepted tolerance. Any other suggestions? Zora 12:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm wary of quantification of tolerance because I feel it can be rather subjective at times. Those who argue against Dhimmi taxes (not sure how this worked under Khalifate) might not find it more tolerant than some of the Christian measures. In general I would agree, but I'm not sure that any of this falls out from definition. Good thing this answer doesn't help :) gren 13:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, well, the history of Islam I've been reading suggests that the reason the Muslims were able to HOLD their empire was that the dhimmi, at least at first, thought that the Muslims were preferable to the Byzantines or the Persians, because the Muslims let them practice their faith. The Byzantines were actively trying to stamp out Christian "heretics". Zora 14:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tolerant Christian states before the Renaissance: Sicily under the Normans. Most Spanish states pre-unification. --7 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

My recent edits

I made a few edits to this article a few hours ago. On my talk page (here), Zora asked me to explain what I am doing on this page, so here I am ;-) My changes were as a result of reading the article and making copyedits and trying to improve the writing, along the way. It was not my intention to change the sense or meaning of any part of the article. if I have misunderstood some passage and inadvertently changed its intended meaning, then please accept my apologies. If anyone wants to discuss any of my edits, I'm more than happy to do so. Paul August 13:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Color of Islam

Why is color of Islam green ?

[Siyac] 14:19, Jun 28, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting question.. I once knew better but this site has a short answer. I think it's more or less tradition and something early Muslims used to differentiate themselves and it stuck. gren 28 June 2005 12:52 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery section

Re-added to article as it evidently won't stand as its own article without the Wiki-Islamo-zeolots at once whitewashing it down to nothing.--Urchid 2 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

It won't stand here either as a symbol of anti-Islamic bias. It has already been opposed before by almost all editors besides you and it even has its own article. You are also suspected of being a sockpuppet by several admin. If you keep pushing your POV on this article as you have done before you will be reported. Thanks.--Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 14:38 (UTC)
Look who is talking, you do nothing else than shoot down any thing which does not suit you pro-islam bias. You do not care for the facts or history , you only want to whitewash the info to make Islam look like something that it never was. --Urchid 2 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)
Regardless of what you consider me to be or not be, all the edits you made have months of discussion against them, and if you are going to act so arbitrary without even considering other editors then I'm glad that there are others here who will be happy to also revert your bias.... All of your edits on this section and on the relative article about the topic are clearly original research (your own stories) and really I don't even have to talk to you because you have given enough evidence to see that you are actively inserting your bias again, even despite warnings from several admins. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 14:49 (UTC)
As I said you do not care for the facts or history , you only want to whitewash the info to make Islam look like something that it never was and you use every devious trick you can think of to accomplish. Watching your edit trail is eye opening. Amazing the devious tactics you use--Urchid 2 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
Devious tactics? Urchid don't even get me started about you. You have hated Islam to the extreme and it is pretty absurd to think that you can go around making biased statements and reverting repetitively on Islam articles when everyone knows this already. This is an encyclopedia and anyone that looks at your "contributions" can figure out what type of editor you are. Anyways like I said this is irrelevant now, has already been discussed and has its own article. So info not needed here, please take it to your personal web page. Thank you.--Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Urchid, please avoid personal remarks. Focus on the content instead. Anonymous editor, the same goes for you, even if you feel provoked.

Now, the issue of the extensive slavery section has been discussed above (#New or old sections have been reinserted, #Islam and Slavery, and #slaves) and the general consensus seems to be that so much detail is out of place in this overview article, which after all has to cover 1400 years of Islamic history, doctrine, thought, and practice. The details belong in a separate article, which should be referenced and linked to from this page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

No problems Mirv. I just think it was a wrong move to reinsert the sections and delete all the links even after years of discussion. If you look at the article relative to this section or on his talk page you will see the type of bias he wants to insert. Anyways, I agree with what you said and the article was indeed linked to this the last time I checked. Thanks.--Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 15:22 (UTC)
I do not disagree on this except for this: As soon as I took the slavery section to another seperate article then the pro-islam gang immediately started cutting it down with the apparent end goal of totally erasing any mention of any thing negative about Islam regardless of history or facts. That was my original assertion and it has proven true. --Urchid 2 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
In the history of Islam and slavery, I see that the conflict starts with a rewrite by Farhansher. This is followed by some tweaks to that version by Anonymous editor, a revert by 65.etc, a rollback by SlimVirgin, some tweaks by Infrogmation, a revert by Urchid, a revert by Anonymous editor, a revert by Urchid, and a revert by Anonymous editor. On the talk page, we see this: Farhansher makes some initial comments, which Urchid follows by declaring that it's time to reinsert the information back into the main Islam article. SlimVirgin comments that both versions seem POV and suggests that something in between, using good references, is needed. Urchid replies that the article is about Islam and slavery.
From what I see, it seems a bit too early to declare that it's time to merge that article back here. I don't see any attempts at constructive engagement backed by careful research, just a lot of reverting, talking past one another, and personal invective. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)


Since there has been endless censorship by the Pro Islam people on the Islam series of articles , what would you people think of creating a new series of articles called ISLAM/UNCENSORED , MUHAMMAD/UNCENSORED, etc. This will permit those editors who believe in accurate historical information to continue to build wikipedia and not get blanked out continuously. Here is an example Islam and Slavery Uncensored--Urchid 3 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

How about trying to work out your disagreements with these editors constructively, through polite discussion and research, in order to create an article that all of you find acceptable? POV forks are generally deleted, and even if the title does contain the word "uncensored", creating them isn't going to convince anyone of your rightness—quite the opposite, in fact. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
I am open to discussion , however what seems to happen is a gang of pro islam editors simply reverts anything they do not like regardless of discussions. Look at the edit trail on the Islam history or Muhammad history page.--Urchid 3 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)
If you are open to discussion, how about heading over to Talk:Islam and slavery and addressing the substance of the arguments made at some length by Farhansher, SlimVirgin, and me? —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)