Talk:Islam and other religions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Begin[edit]

Have tried to make this page more balanced and added a lot of historical information. --Zeeshanhasan 09:17, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism[edit]

According to the Zoroastrianism article, and according to other sources I am aware of, Zoroastrians are regarded as people of the book by most Muslims. Deserves a mention here, I don't feel confident enough of the material to do so myself ---- Charles Stewart 21:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Cut and paste from recent Islam and Muslims topic in Orkut (email me for invite if you want to follow the ref):
Posted by: Afshin 8/23/2004 1:37 PM

Evidence for Magians being People of Book from Had 8/23/2004 1:36 PM
Sahih Bukhari

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 384:
Narrated 'Umar bin Dinar:

… 'Umar did not take the Jizya from the Magian infidels till 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf testified that Allah's Apostle had taken the Jizya from the Magians of Hajar.

(Jizya is only taken from People of the Book, not infidels.)

Malik’s Muwatta
Book 17, Number 17.24.42:

Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, "I have heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took jizya from the magians of Bahrain, that Umar ibn al-Khattab took it from the magians of Persia and that Uthman ibn Affan took it from the Berbers."

Malik’s Muwatta
Book 17, Number 17.24.43:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab mentioned the magians and said, "I do not know what to do about them." Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf said, "I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Follow the same sunna with them that you follow with the people of the Book.’ "

The above Hadith is also narrated from the Prophet via Imam Ali Zeynol Aabedin.

Ash’as ibn e Qeys asked Imam Ali why Magians pay Jizya although they never had a Book or a prophet. Imam Ali responded: Infact, God did send them a Book and a prophet.

---- Charles Stewart 22:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Political correctness[edit]

Often in the history of a religion, there are thing that are glorious, and some that are not. Those that are not, are in most cases, due to how followers of the religion interpret/misinterpret things.

Islam is no different. Though there are Qur'anic injunction that there was to be 'no compulsion in religion', there have been forcible conversions, especially during its early days. Iran (ancient Persia) is a case in point where the Zorastrian population was forcibly converted. Modern day Afganistan and Pakistan are also examples, where the Buddhist and Hindu population was converted.

I have tried to add more balance to the 'Conversion and warfare' section, trying to be as respectful and balanced as possible, and still sticking to the facts. The facts are important, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.

I don't know the religious history of Afghanistan, but I know that Iran was not forcibly converted. Zoroastrians were classified as a people of the book (as discussed above), and their remaining villages in Iran still are classified as such. - Mustafaa 11:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So could you explain why there was an exodus of Zoroastrians from Iran? Or how Iran suddenly went from being 100% Zoroastrian to being almost completely Islamic in a extremely short period with just pockets of Zoroastrianism in a few isolated remote area? Surely you can differentiate between theory (what Imam Ali said) and reality? The same thing happened in western India (modern day Afganistan and Pakistan). (ANON)
I think there was some persecution of Zoroastrians in Iran, but the above argument that Islam became a dominant religion in Iran and that proves there must have been persecution is invalid. Islam is a dominant religion in Southeast Asia, such as Malaysia and especially Indonesia (88% Muslim population in Indonesia, 210 million total, making it the largest Islamic country - almost 4 times more Muslims in Indonesia than in Iran). How did that happen? Which Muslim army conquered Indonesia? Same applies to parts of South Asia such as Bangladesh. The argument that there must have been persecution if a religion becomes majority in a region is not valid OneGuy 20:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not saying that forced conversion was the only way Islam spread. In the case of Malaysia and Indonesia, the spread of Islam took a substantial period of time, which shows it was a gradual and peaceful acceptance of the new religion. This did not happen in Persia (Iran) or in Western India. Islam came to these regions accompanied by military invasions. As far as persecution of Zoroastrians go, there was a little more than 'some' persecution, as evidenced by their exodus to India. See [| History Channel] as an example. ANON
The site only says "the [ancestors of] Parsis (numbering about 75,000) ... migrated from Iran in the 8th cent. to avoid Muslim persecution." Doesn't say how many of them left or how wide spread was the persecuation. And why are there only 75,00 in India if so many left?OneGuy 05:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The reason why there are only so few Parsis left in India is irrelavent to this discussion. Well, if you want to know, it because of very low birth rates (Parsis are one of the most educated communities in India, and like other such communities, have low birth rates), and also because you need to have both parents to be Parsi to be a Parsi. And Parsis dont do conversions. So there! (ANON)
Ok, so that could be the reasons why their population declined in Iran as it did in India where as you claim there was no persecution of Parsis. Doesn't prove anything OneGuy 22:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Many countries have been entirely converted from one religion to another without force. To flesh out your argument, you would need to provide more detail; a named notable historian claiming that "forced conversions" happened in Umayyad times would do nicely, for instance. But I doubt you'll be able to find one; many non-Muslim historians don't even think the early Umayyads attempted to convert people, peacefully or violently. - Mustafaa 02:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is another neutral source on this issue, the Library of Congress Countries study

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ir0017)
In 637 the Arab forces occupied the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon (which they renamed Madain), and in 641-42 they defeated the Sassanid army at Nahavand. After that, Iran lay open to the invaders. The Islamic conquest was aided by the material and social bankruptcy of the Sassanids; the native populations had little to lose by cooperating with the conquering power. Moreover, the Muslims offered relative religious tolerance and fair treatment to populations that accepted Islamic rule without resistance. It was not until around 650, however, that resistance in Iran was quelled. Conversion to Islam, which offered certain advantages, was fairly rapid among the urban population but slower among the peasantry and the dihqans. The majority of Iranians did not become Muslim until the ninth century. OneGuy 04:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Minor edits[edit]

Aurangazeb was not "less so" tolerant. He was simply intolerant!

Abhijna

_sarcasm_start_ How dare you say that? This is wikipedia, the bastion of PC-ness. Due to no editorial constraints, no truth, except the 'well accepted truth' is allowed here. Hence, Islam is a religion of peace. It never invaded country after country - both in the West (Spain etc), nor in the east (Iran, Afganistan, India..), and never forcibly converted people. And the millions who 'embraced' Islam with a sword at their throats, did so willingly. _sarcasm_end_

Completely new version[edit]

I took the long disquisition on inclusive and exclusive Islam out of the Islam article and melded it with the material already in this article. Then I completely reorganized everything as a historical survey, which I think does better justice to the enormous scope of the material.

This article is mostly wikified, but there may be things I overlooked. Ditto typos. Also, some subjects are treated rather cursorily. I've worked on this for hours and I'm tired! There are also no references and no external links, etc. I hope I can trust my fellow Wikipedians to supply the fully panoply. Yours in total exhaustion, Zora 06:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate all your hard work, Zora, but I don't see a lot of the material in the original section there as having made it here. I really believe that stuff gave a person that cared to learn a lot of information about specifics. I am copying it into a Islam/temp article here, for future reference.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Some things I dropped as being just too specific. It was mainly a question of style: if some sections were treated in great detail, and others were mere sketches, the article looked lumpy. But perhaps this was the wrong choice. Perhaps sketchy areas would have invited contribution. You're probably thinking of the material on the Bauls? That was one thing I hated dropping, as it was good. If you'd like to interrupt your wikivacation to further refine the article, add sections to be filled out later, and then add some of the information you feel should be restored, please do. I've usually approved of edits that you do. Zora 08:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I hope that you approve of the re-organization into a historical framework. It seemed to me to put a lot of things in perspective. Zora 08:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Good edits, IFaqeer. I just tweaked the wording a little. Mostly breaking long sentences into shorter ones. Hope this is OK. Zora 10:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Calendar system name[edit]

VampWillow made this editorial comment "markup; maybe this will also stop the rv problems ..." in adding a link to CE.

However, Zora has misrepresented what Jguk did in his reversion, claiming in another talk page that "a few hours later Jguk had changed the CE dates to AD!".

BTW, I just looked at the debate again. I didn't claim that he changed CE to AD; I just said that he changed the article within hours of my posting it. Which he did. Please don't misquote me and THEN accuse me of lying. Jguk is now changing many Islam-related articles, removing any use of CE. Zora 12:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not true. He changed no CE dates to AD. He merely removed one instance where it was probably unnecessary and not worth starting an edit war over by including one or the other, changing "Sometime in the ninth and tenth centuries CE" to "Sometime in the ninth and tenth centuries".

I suggest that CE and the link to it be removed, preferably by VampWillow or Zora, unless there is some other era in which there is a real, significant possibility with which it could be confused, in which case, that era should probably be included as well. It is unlikely to be confused with the "tenth to ninth centuries BC/BCE", which should be expressed in that order with the word "to", is it? It really isn't all that necessary to the article, is it?

I also suggest that that usage, and this discussion on the talk page, should be considered sufficient to establish the original usage in this article of the Christian Era (CE), so that any future attempts to change that established usage would have to be discussed first or be subject to reversion. Gene Nygaard 11:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

CE is not Christian Era, it's Common Era. I may have been inaccurate in my objections (I was angry!!) but I'm darn sure I don't want Christian POV warriors looking over my shoulder when I make edits in Islam-related articles. Zora 11:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Just because a person prefers BC/AD to BCE/CE doesn't make them a "Christian POV warrior" – if you were to call me that I'd view it as a personal attack. violet/riga (t) 12:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
The current rules allow for either BC/AD or BCE/CE. It's up to the editors who are actually working on the substance of the article to come to some agreement on what's appropriate (just as for UK/US spelling, and other such practices). It's needlessly provocative for editors to comb Wikipedia for articles using BCE/CE in order to remove or change the dates -- just as it's needlessly provocative for editors to try to change all Wikipedia articles to UK or US spelling. I have been involved in LOTS of arguments re the Islamic articles -- they're some of the most controversial and most vandalized in Wikipedia -- but no one has ever objected to the use of CE, or BCE when it was necessary. No one even seemed to notice. Now the Jesus dispute seems to have sparked a rash of BC/AD vigilantism in completely disparate topics. It's pointless -- conflict for its own sake, IMHO. Zora 12:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I understand that, but I hope you can realise that some people don't like BCE/CE and prefer BC/AD even though they are not Christian. The US/UK spelling issue is usually resolved not by discussion between collaborators but by original author choice. I think the policies need to be updated to stop these arguments. violet/riga (t) 14:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
The primary thing original author choice should do is to require discussion and collaboration to take place before any change is made, and to justify reverting in cases where that is not done. It should not be determinative, but this does give great weight to that original choice. Furthermore, you haven't even considered what happens when the original author wants to change it, after the original choice has been in place for a considerable time with intervening edits by many others. Gene Nygaard 16:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand why this dispute is coming over to articles on Islam. Muhammad was born around the year 570 and Islam arrived fairly shortly thereafter. Therefore there is never any chance of confusing a year AD with BC (or CE with BCE, if you prefer). We do not need either AD or CE to appear - they are superfluous. As Gene notes above, when reading "Sometime in the ninth and tenth centuries", do you really think there is any ambiguity such that a reader may think you are talking about issues eighteen to twenty centuries earlier? Incidentally, I have in the past removed both "AD"s and "CE"s from articles where there is no chance of any confusion about which year is being referred to. It just clutters things up and adds another possible layer of confusion if people do not understand the terms. Kind regards, jguk 12:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

I can't help but think that the title "Islam and other religions" doesn't really give a clear enough picture of the content of this article. A better name, I think, would be "Islam views of other religions" or something similar. violet/riga (t) 12:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

So shall I just go ahead and move it then? violet/riga (t) 08:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
No. I don't think that anyone but you has spoken in favor of the change. For one thing, the article concerns not only Islamic views, but Islamic actions. Zora 10:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I waited three days without objection. This title, frankly, is really not very good. Perhaps you can suggest another title? Islam relations with other religions perhaps? violet/riga (t) 13:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
How about Relations between Islam and other religions? Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
It's broken. Fix it. Gene Nygaard 08:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't sound good to me. Please slow down on this. I'd like to see what Grenavitar, Brandon, IFaqeer, and Mustafaa have to say to this. They are frequent and reasonable contributors to Islamic articles. Zora 19:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think what we have here is teaming. All the folks who want to change the name have worked together on other articles. NOT on this one particularly. The folks I want to consult have worked on a bunch of Islamic articles with me. I trust them to represent a Muslim point of view in a sensible, balanced fashion. They have worked on this article. Please don't turn this into a "one team versus another" situation. Slow down. If you guys push through a name change while the usual suspects are busy, there's going to be ill will.
I haven't heard any reasons other than that you don't LIKE the name. But why? Is it POV? Do you think it's too vague? If a casual Wikipedia user wanted to find out about this subject, what do you think he/she would type into the search box? The article has had this name for a fairly long time, I believe. I don't see why the sudden rush to change it, especially without any reasons given. Zora 10:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Um, are you referring to Violetriga and Gene Nygaard and me when you talk about "teaming" and "working together on other articles"? Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I think there's quite a touch of paranoia here. Note: "doesn't really give a clear enough picture of the content of this article". That's the main reason. And has the article been moved yet? No. violet/riga (t) 10:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't like being accused of a mental disorder if I note the influx of a number of editors who have not previously been involved with this article -- or any Islamic article. Zora 12:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
You're acting as if this is an arranged attack on this article or you personally. I came across this as part of the BCE/BC CE/AD dispute and noted that the title wasn't very good. I suggest an alternative and you firstly didn't respond and then rubbishing the question because I haven't edited the article. Please assume good faith. violet/riga (t) 14:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The biggest problem is that it sounds like the title is equivalent to "Religions", but written by someone who felt the need to give Islam as one example of a religion. It gives no clue as to the real content of the article.
I doubt that you will come up with any title that "a casual Wikipedia user ... would type into the search box" to find this article. What you need is some title that, when someone comes across a link to the article somewhere else, in another article or a list or a category, will give them an idea what the article is about.
Any suggestions you have are welcome. But you haven't proposed anything better so far. Gene Nygaard 12:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The second problem is that the other only interpretation that seems likely is that it deals with a comparison between Islam and other religions. It isn't that either. Under that interpretation, it wouldn't be limited to how people of one religion view people of another religion, and it wouldn't be a one-way street on the part that deals with those views—it should include how people of other religions view Islam, as well as the other way around. That may, in fact, be the way it shoud be, but somehow we need to get the idea that it deals with relations between adherents to different religions. Gene Nygaard 12:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can see that someone could read "Islam and other religions" as "Religions". I didn't parse it that way myself, but without any context, it's more ambiguous than I thought. I'd suggest Islamic belief and practice regarding other religions. But let's see what the Muslims think ... PLEASE. Since I'm not a Muslim, I can't speak for our Muslim editors, and I don't want to promote a new title that would be offensive or misleading.

As for expanding the article to cover how members of other religions view Islam -- that's completely unworkable. Look at the List of religions -- now consider how long the article would be if we had to present a historical treatment of how each of those religions has regarded Islam, over the centuries. I tell you what, Gene -- you write the article on Christian belief and practice regarding other religions, and then get back to us. <g> Zora 12:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral on this... I was looking for other articles of this sort for other religions and found Christianity and World Religions is that any better? Whatever we do we should make it consistent for all articles. Also, I think you should also try to change the name of articles like Homosexuality and Christianity then, if you are going to change this... gren 15:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sufis[edit]

The description of Sufis here seems a bit slanted to me. Sufism is not just about wandering mystics; it's also about strongly hierarchical organizations which took on a significant political and economic role, and still maintain that in countries such as Senegal. Several Sufi orders fought valiant campaigns - notable Sufi fighters include Emir Abdelkader and Imam Shamyl in defense, as well as the Sanusi order, and Uthman dan Fodio in attack. And, as I understand it, Islam's peaceful spread in West Africa had less to do with Sufism than with the Dyula, devoutly Muslim traders with a tradition of living in infidel lands and attempting to convert by example and word. - Mustafaa 20:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I trust you. Fix it please. You clearly know more about it than I do. Zora 03:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try and research this more. I'm especially curious about how Islam first arrived in Indonesia and among the Cham; that would seem to be one of the higher-profile cases of Islam spreading by trade, but I know little about it. - Mustafaa 18:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Muslims in the West[edit]

"Some distance themselves completely from their “idolatrous” surroundings and look forward to the day when their new countries will become Muslim. Some of these zealots are willing to engage in violence to advance the day. Most diasporic Muslims, however, appreciate their religious freedoms and are willing to tolerate other faiths." This entire paragraph seems kind of silly. Looking forward to the day when their new countries will become Muslim has nothing to do with dissociation, or any type of extremism, and certainly doesn't imply some sort of absence of tolerance. - Mustafaa 20:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it made me laugh... really POV, some members of any religion gain in violence... Catholics tried to turn cities into mob run Little Italies ~_~ Now, the question is, "is it Catholics" or, a small minority of Sicilians... uhh, bad analogy... but, that really does need to be worked on. gren 21:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Idea Here is just a sentence with ideas that I think could be expanded.

While most Muslims integrate into Western societies or create their own sub-society in the west, some do not. As with the murder of Leo van Gogh there can be strong reaction to what is seen as the idolatrous nature of society in modern liberal democracies

I think it's less POV because it's less generalizing... for the most part everyone faults their own societ... I fault mine and I am very WASPish and have always lived in the US... so, I don't think we should make theses statements this way on the Muslim page. One concept I think should be expanded (not sure how) is the sub-society level of Muslims. I know in England (Edgeware Road) there were heavily Muslim areas that, while there was definitely influence from the outside, it was really a close-knit area where a great number of people wear niqab. It is not completely aloof since I remember at speakers corner a mullah was talking about the "decadence of selling alcohol all along Edgeware Road" but it isn't full integration... This is my understanding but I think the women were a lot less integrated... now, we'd need facts to add this but I know I addressed a few who couldn't speak English at all so their husbands had to talk instead. But, just like some hispanic communities in the US where not everyone speaks English, some groups of Muslims when they live in heavily Muslim (it's really more racial than religiouns, as in Bengali areas (Tower Hamlets), or Arab areas (Edgeware Road), etc... but, I think this is a big part of the diaspora... and the big communitiy where you have a full sized mosque and you keep your customs more or less intact and the Muslims who move to Outer Mongolia and have no one else around them... how to include this? I don't not know... gren 22:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am very willing to have my late, exhausted, and perfunctory para superseded by better info. In fact, an article on Muslims in diaspora or some such title might be a good idea, and then it could be summarized for the Islam and other religions article. Please go ahead. Zora 03:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Fayssal's edits[edit]

I changed some of Fayssal's edits, which seem to me to be POV in places. Frex, the description of intolerant Muslims as extremist groups. I would probably agree with Fayssal, but I don't think that the Deobandis or Wahhabis would like being described as extremists. As far as they're concerned, everyone else is out of step. I made a bunch of other small changes.

I repeat my appeal to Fayssal to work on this article, especially the pathetic sentence re Islamic Spain. This probably deserves a whole subsection. Zora 10:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Good edits. Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Cheers folks. I promise to be more involved as much as I can. I am just being busy a bit with a few issues lately. I just want to comment that I don't consider my edits to be POV. I consider them to be sourced and referenced facts and I would not reject any other facts as long as they would be representing facts. Indeed, if you can notice, my references were extremely taken from Christian and Jewish notable sources and none were referenced from any Muslim source, thus avoiding any misleading. One important thing I have to mention is that I am of a Moorish culture and thus of modest knowledge about Spanish-Jews-Moorish relations, so I'd be needing someone who is more familiar with other aspects of Islam interactions with other cultures. I believe you both and Mustaphaa are quite fit for the task. On the other hand, we'd need some other sources who may be presenting the other face of the coin, like negative sides of Muslim interactions with other believers to have a balanced article. Cheers and respect -- Svest 20:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

"Islam says"[edit]

An anon editor has been working on this article and making generally good edits (won't you take a username, anon?). But he/she added one thing I excised ruthlessly -- a note that "Islam says" forced conversion is not allowable. One, given that there are so many sects, theologians, preachers, opinions, etc., one can't say "Islam says", as if Islam were a monolithic organization. We should be specific. (Question to self: have I trangressed this rule? probably! <g>) Also, in the very early history of Islam the "pagan" Arabian tribes were converted by force, so far as I know. There is a line to that effect in the article, so it's self-contradictory to later say that this is not allowed. Now this could be open to argument -- anyone want to say that the Ridda Wars weren't about forcing errant tribes back into the Islamic fold? Zora 03:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I know the generalization of "Islam says" bothers me a lot and since we are really dealing with the most basic facts in most of our articles it is sometimes hard to avoid since we will not be describing different minute points about issues... I think it varies from leader to leader how forced conversions were... and like with most things people who took the title caliph often had political interests moreso than religious ones in mind. gren 04:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Quran on non-Abrahamic faiths ?[edit]

This article mainly mentions quotes from the quran about the relationship between Islam and other Abrahamic religions i.e. Judaism and Christiannity.

What is the position of Islam on people of non-Abrahamic faiths ?


Overall, Islam has been generally tolerant of other faiths and still remains so. But ofcourse you do get that minority of individuals who excercise radicalism. Generally, Islam respects the non-Abrahamic faiths but that overall, the followers of non-Abrahamic faiths are considered the disbelievers. You will undoubtedly find a similar position in most other religions too including the other Abrahamic ones.

Obviously some reasearch is needed on this issue so that people may ascertain the facts. Generally, many have avoided saying things about the inter-faith positions becuase of the large amounts of controversy that it leads to, especially from those who know absolutely nothing about Islam but add large amounts of material to criticise it. Hope that helps a little. --Anonymous editor 05:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For anonymous to speak of tolerance is a joke - he abuses his position as a moderator to block on a permanent basis those who disagree with him, in clear violation of wikipedia policy. Anonymous is a vandal who should be stripped on his administraive position - not to do makes a mockery of wikipedia. Incorrect 05:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Islam is traditionally more tolerant than the other Abrahamic faiths, but not so much as a lot of non-Abrahamic faiths, when we are looking at it as a whole, as Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Jains etc. believe that all people will reach nirvana/moksha (or be re-united with their Fravashi, in the case of Zoroastrianism), but of course most Muslims accept Zoroastrianism, a non-Abrahamic, Indo-European faith related to Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Norse mythology etc) as People of The Books, and some count Hindus (especially Muslim Indian scholars during some years of the Mogul Empire), and Sufis share a similar believe to Hindus often. Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.245.63 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Forced conversion[edit]

Another anon editor restored the para re "Islam prohibits forced conversion". Rather than just wipe it out, I moved it to its own section and rewrote it as one POV. I would imagine that there are other POVs, but I don't know enough to outline them. This is an issue that non-Muslims constantly bring up against Islam, and I can see why the anons are trying to play down the issue. But I would like it explained to ME why 1) compulsion is bad 2) the Ridda Wars were good (or were they?) 3) Whether or not I as a Buddhist am considered a pagan and therefore fair game <g>.

I keep meaning to buy Fazlur Rahman's book -- he probably has some great answers to these questions. But what would a Salafi say? A Sufi? Other trends of Islamic thought? Zora 04:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Zora, your edits are generally also good. Generally, what I meant is that Islamic belief states clearly that forced conversions are prohibited. Thus, the actions of a small minority of muslims should not jeapardize this belief. The arab pagan tribes were NOT converted by force. There were religious battles, tribal warfare and eventually these 'Arabian tribes' embraced Islam at their own will. The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never forced his religion on anyone and neither does Islam.
Therefore, I have added this point to the "peaceful expansion" section because despite conquest made by a minority of individuals earlier in history, in the modern era, Islam is spread by learning about the religion and not forced conversion. Thus, Islam has a very distinct course in comparison with christianity for example. Personally, it is Islam's tolerance towards other religions that lead me to eventually convert to it. --anonymous editor 05:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Your edits have the problem of making broad sweeping claims about Islam... Islam to wikipedia is merely the concepts of various groups of people... if you believe Islam doesn't allow forced conversion then that is fine... but we are reporting on how different sects (and most importantly the majority) view this issue and then how it was viewed throughout history... So, it would be appreciated if you could have some references on how Muslims view this and then state it so that it does not make sweeping claims like it now does. Also modern era conversion is another issue... what is peaceful? If Muslim countries give Muslims some rights and powers then that is not necessarily peaceful... and is at least coercive... If you live in risk (Afghanistan perhaps) if you are not Muslim then that is not necessarily peaceful... support these claims more... that is why I am editting it some. gren 06:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

A minority of individuals? More like Abu Bakr, the leader of the faithful, who is supposed to be one of the people to emulate. And ... I hardly dare say it ... Muhammad himself.

I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, a pacific interpretation of Islam cuts the ground out from under the jihadis and makes me, as a USian, safer. On the other hand, I'm enough of a scholar not to like seeing history distorted, even if it's for a good end. I can't see the Ridda wars as anything but conversion by force ... and I've found editors here at Wikipedia who see them as a GOOD and NECESSARY thing.

Myself, I question the evidently universal human impulse to look for a time, and a place, and a person, where everything is absolutely perfect and trustworthy. It's extremely disorienting to look at everything through a lens of history and judgement, and pick and choose, saying "this we can use now, this we can't". But perhaps that's what we have to do ... Zora 07:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

1 . Well compulsion is bad b/c it takes away your freewill to chose . I dont think God would want somebody to be forcely converted to accept his divinity . He is needless & self sufficient .
2 . The rida wars happened b/c it was right in the middle of Arabian peninsula . Its very dangerous to have organised & armed people who dont accept your leadership , inside your land . Some of them asked for help from outside , some of them attacked muslims on regular basis , some just wanted to be exempted from Zakat ( It is important to know that Islam only imposes Zakat on muslims as a tax , that is very necessary for the poor ), Some of them claimed to be prophets , & were amassing arms, money & man power to attack Makkah/medina .
Its worth while to mention that the medinans/makkans accepted Islam by their own choice . After the defeat of Quraish , there were so much delegations from all over the region to accept Islam ( by their own freewill ) that the year is called san-al wofood ( the year of delegations ).
3 . Well ....this is a difficult one . Mainly b/c this problem was encountered only in India , & even in India there arnt much buddhists . You might find the books by some scholars in India , one very well known scholar hasbeen Abul Kalam Azad .Hs studied the hindu/buddh scriptures & practices for a long time . He said that the non-abrahamic faith R alo divine . There isnt any thing said by Ram , Krishna or Buddha that is against core Islamic beliefs . Secondly there R many prophecies in these scriptures about Muhamad , so they cant be human made . And so people following these religions should be considered as people of the book , not pagans .
There R many scholars who say that the word Dhul Kifl used in Quran is not Ezkeel but Buddha . Because the word Dhul means having/belonging , & Kifl is actually arabianised form ( there is no P sound in arabic ) of Kipl , or kipl vastav. So the word Dhul-Kifl means belonging to Kipl Vastav . Also in another verse God has sworn by four very honourable things . Makkah ( associated with Muhammad), Mount of Sina ( Associated with Moses ), olive ( associated with Jesus ), & fig ( supposed to be associated with Buddha ).
This is not accepted by all scholars though , but well , accepted by many . Main reason behind non-acceptance is that these things arnt explained clearly in Quran , the political conflicts b/w hindus & muslims , & b/c when muslims came to India ... U can say that the soul of Islam wasent that much strong . Otherwise there was a possibility that like zorasterans , buddhists/hindus would also havebeen declared people of the book .


Gren , Afghanistan has not been a country for like 30 years .Different parts of it havebeen ruled by Pushtoons , Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkmens, Persian influenced , Soviets , & now America . If some forceful conversion is happening ( & I dont think it is ) , it will be some groups of people , who , well R illeterate in Islam . The country has been in war from 1978 , how can there be any education there ?? Farhansher 07:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Zora, I don't think we can fully tell this far from the events what was war for religious conversion and what was war for self-defense or land or whatever ohter reasons war is fought for. We can only present the views expressed by others... Farhansher, My statement about Afghanistan was about Taliban rule where being on their side was very beneficial and being against them could prove deadly... also, what is against or isn't against Islamic belief is very subjective... I'm sure some might accept a lot of what Ram, Krishna or Buddha said, while others would reject most of it... Our interpretting the past as non-violent doesn't cut ground out from the "Jihadis" because they will not see it our way and our saying it is violent does not make Islam any more violent... We should report the views that people have and reserve our judgment... I'm not exactly sure... but, are there anywhere near primary sources on these issues? and if so have any of us looked at them? gren 09:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Gren and Zora, with all due respect, you have both been misinformed. When The Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) it means forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam is an idea that is foreign to Islam. So if there were forced conversions, they were made by a minority of individuals. As Farahanser previously mentioned, the early Islamic conversions were not by force. Thus, this is a situation similar to the Bible saying that "thou shalt not kill" and a minority of people doing just that. Thus, because this article is clearly that of an Islamic perspective, I think the main view of the muslim majority should be indicated and not the ones who have disobeyed this.

Secondly, I have no idea what a "Jihadi" is; it is probably another word concocted by the American media. I think I should clarify to you that Jihad exists at many levels and the very extreme is the offensive form. Thus, who you are probably calling "Jihadi" are probably those who excercise a very radical form of religion and you must realize that we have no idea whether they authorize forced conversions or not. I mean have you ever talked to any of them? Any radical form of religion is wrong and thus the so-called "Jihadis" can probably be related to that of extreme christians who feel it is necessary to "convert the world" so that people may "save themselves". Nevertheless, this article is not about the Jihadis" or extremists, it is about the Islamic view. Since, Islam is based on the Qur'an, forced conversion is foreign to the beliefs and if a minority of muslims exercise that type of coversion they are wrong to do so.--Anonymous editor 11:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I see this is getting interesting. I just have a few comments to clarify where we are going. As far as I understood from the discussions above, you are talking about forced conversion that may have or surely happened in history. The problem is; who forced people to do that? Islam itself or people called muslims? If that happened, and myself I believe it did happen for sure though I am not sure about neither the frequency nor the places, than it is totally wrong.
Islam has always been against forced conversion. No muslim got the right to do that. Surah 109. (The Disbelievers, Atheists or Kafeers) says:
Say: O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.
If the Surah means something than for me it means that everyone got her/his own way. There's nothing about forced conversion there.
There is no single verse in the Koran properly interpreted in its context and historical circumstances that ever allowed the Muslim to fight non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims. The opposite is true; in Chapter 60, verse 8 and 9 in the Qur'an, it clearly says that non-Muslims who are not fighting against Muslims or oppressing them are entitled to kind and just treatment. Also, in the Koran, Chapter 2, verse 256, it says: let there be no compulsion in religion. It is in the light of these two verses and many others in the Koran that the Hadith referred to should be understood.
Regarding Ridda (leaving Islam), Islam considers it as the ugliest and the worst form of disbelief (kufr). It is technically called ridda (apostasy), and someone who leaves Islam is called a murtadd (apostate). Lo! Those who disbelieve and turn from the way of Allah and then die disbelievers, Allah surely will not pardon them. (Muhammad: 34). Again, here the Surah states clearly that Allah will not pardon them. It doesn't say, kill them. The judgement is made by Allah and not by humans or muslims. The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet Muhammad never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet Muhammad never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. For example, one version of a hadith narrated by Aisha concerning apostasy (…and one who left his religion and fought against Muslims).
The point in all this, is that if somebody did the opposite, than she/he was totally wrong. And it is up to us in this article to clarify what edits we are making for. This is an article about Islam and other religions and not Muslims and others. Cheers and respect -- Svest 13:07, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Fayssal/Svest, Wikipedia can't take a position on what is true Islam and what isn't. That's contrary to the ethic of NPOV. NPOV allows us to work together on an article even if we have different views of the truth of the matter, because we are just reporting what people believe, not taking sides. Any time there's a dispute, we step back and take a larger view.

I take the point re using "jihadi" -- but word can I use? I thought of using "Islamist", but I believe that there might be tolerant and non-violent Islamists. What non-pejorative word is there for the folks who believe that Islam is to be imposed and spread NOW by violent means? Zora 17:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora, we can call them extremists. There's no better word except that. Because Jihadi might include people who never preached to attack anybody. Same applies to Islamists as you explained.
We can't use "extremist", because just the term is POV. We have to respect the views even of people with whom we disagree utterly. We must use a word that even they would accept. Zora 19:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the NPOV, I am not sure if what you say about different views of the truth is right. These views can be false and created to offend Muslims (i.e. Oriana Fallaci being a reference while stating that Muslims are Son of the bitches of God). We have to be very carefull. If we talk about Islam, it's better to source the Koran and Hadiths as sources. Cheers -- Svest 18:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
Fayssal/Svest, if you're going to edit on Wikipedia, you're going to have to accept the NPOV groundrules. I don't care if the view is, from your POV, false, or if it offends Muslims -- if a fair number of people hold it, it deserves dispassionate description. You have to trust the readers to look at the descriptions and make up their own minds. You can't presume to make decisions for them. Zora 19:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Are there any such people? I'm not aware of them. Even groups like Al-Qaeda seek to spread Muslim rule or revenge perceived wrongs, not, as far as I know, to force non-Muslims to convert to Islam; but maybe you can find a quote that suggests otherwise. As for the Ridda Wars, they were against alleged apostates - including those who refused to pay zakat - not non-Muslims in general. - Mustafaa 17:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I never heard of any Muslim, be it extremist or not, preaching to convert the world by force into Islam. Extremists's goals are clear; chase out kafeers out of muslim lands and turn muslim countries into a caliphate. They never preached to turn the whole world into a caliphate. Cheers -- Svest 18:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
I'm fairly sure I've seen Islamist triumphalist writings in which the whole world accepts Islam -- I'd have to do some research to refresh my mind on HOW this is to be achieved. Well, at least the article doesn't say anything about forced conversion in the present. We're only discussing it on the talk pages. Zora 19:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Of course having the whole world accept Islam is the ideal! But that has nothing to do with forced conversion. - Mustafaa 19:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-Muslims in Arabia[edit]

Mustafaa removed a phrase saying that non-Muslims were barred from Arabia, saying that the existence of Jewish communities in Arabia disproved that. I think this deserves discussion.

I've done some proofreading on old Arabian travelogues for Distributed Proofreaders -- Doughty's famous Arabia Deserta and a work by some intrepid late Victorian adventurers. In both cases, the authors say that they were received with deep hostility and repeated statements that infidels weren't allowed in Arabia. I have the impression that this wasn't something necessarily imposed by the authorities (though it might have started that way) but a long-held folk belief. I wondered if this might not be the origin of Osama Bin Laden's ferocious conviction that infidels should be driven from Arabia.

It's unclear to me how this attitude relates to the evident tolerance for Jewish minorities. Yes, Mustafaa is right, there were Jewish settlements in Yemen and Oman. Perhaps the ban just applied to Christians? Anyway, we have a puzzle here. Zora 21:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, there are some hadith that say this: this somewhat extremist site gives a reasonably sourced overview of the relevant hadith. I'll try and look into this; the contradiction seems blatant. - Mustafaa 22:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The Imam Malik quote "Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula" seems to be the only one that really says what that site wants it to say. The original is ‏"‏ لاَ يَجْتَمِعُ دِينَانِ فِي جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ ‏", "There shall not be gathered together two religions in the island/peninsula of the Arabs". So the "folk belief" does have a textual foundation; however, the Jewish communities of Yemen seem to prove that this idea was not in fact applied to the whole peninsula. - Mustafaa 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
That is one frightening site, Mustafaa. Re jihad and conversion, as discussed above:
The question should then arise, how else can the dominance of Islam be realised without the Sincere Khaleefah who unites the Muslims and disgraces Kufr. How else apart from through the establishment of the Islamic State in Medina did the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) manage to achieve the dominance of Islam. There were many who had shunned Islam when it existed in the minds and actions of a few individuals led by the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), yet these same people and tribes embraced Islam once they saw its might and power and were then won over by the beauty of Islam. How else were nations invited to Islam and then Jihad used to remove all physical barriers which stood in the way of realising the beauty of Islam whether this was to become a Muslim or accepting to live under its authority as a citizen of the state.
It seems that once the POWER is demonstrated, then conversion will follow as a matter of course. Zora 22:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a rather weird site. - Mustafaa 23:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I found this Jewish website about Yemeni Jews. [1] I dunno how trustworthy it is, but it says that it was the Zaydi Shi'a who tolerated the Jews. Apparently not so kindly, in some cases. I'd have to look at the travelogues I mentioned to find out if those who objected to the European visitors were Sunni or Shi'a. Zora 01:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


this is one of the most ludicrous, bigoted, and biased articles in wikipedia. to just list one example, to claim the many observers consider the taliban to be intolerant of of other....NO, by any objective measure the taliaban was a theocratic nazi nest of vipers - if you can't admit that then don't attempt to write and article here, save your comments for the taliban daily news where they will be appreciated.

Revisionist history[edit]

Every religion has ideals, and then it has what happened in practice. Islam is no different. Even though there are strictures against forcible conversion, it did occur, and in significant numbers in the Indian subcontinent. By editing out my changes and removing my references, one of which is- STORY OF CIVILIZATION, Will Durant (ISBN 067154800X), you cannot erase history. You can remove wikipedia's version of it, but not if I can help it. The history of Islam in India is very bloody, and I intend to have it heard.

Sorry, Wikipedia will not serve as a support ground for your opinions. The article already reflects the history accurately and besides the early invasions and battles, not all of it is bloody. I know the history quite well and that quote by Durant is already on the correct article in Wikipedia. Please avoid bias in the future. If you "intend to have it heard" from your POV then get a web page. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:32 (UTC)
I am not airing my opinions, I am trying to not get historical facts removed. Please refute the source, don't just claim that I have a POV, and hence my edits are unjustified. I know the history quite well too, and I read with dismay the attempts to airbrush it. : viv June 28, 2005 21:37 (UTC)
The quote seems relevant, though its presentation isn't particularly neutral. Will Durant is certainly a respected historian. Where is the quote already found, and why is the correct article? Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)
And please be careful with your Talk: edits, you've overwritten mine. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)
The quote is already given on the Islamic invasions of India article. No one is refuting the source itself, but the point being made is that one historian's opinion on the matter in such a small overview of the invasions is not needed. Btw, even beside the quote, as Jayjg said, your presentation of the matter is quite POV. Also please don't delete other people's comments. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
I have in front of me a 1942 edition of Will Durant's book. Page 459, 'The Moslem Conquest'. Sorry if the presentation tone wasn't neutral. I will attempt to be more neutral. I just want to get the facts heard, and not get airbrushed out. :viv June 28, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
Actually if you read that particular section of Will Durant's book, it goes on too say other things that I didn't quote in the article. It quotes muslim historians - "No Hindu, could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold and silver.. " and so on. :viv June 28, 2005 21:49 (UTC)
I am aware what Durant said about the invasions, but I repeat: "No one is refuting the source itself, but the point being made is that one historian's opinion on the matter in such a small overview of the invasions is not needed." Thanks. Also I agree Jayjg this overwrite is probably just another Wiki 1.5 bug. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:52 (UTC)
How about we link to the Islamic invasion of India article here? That should give adequate context. My intension by the edits was to give readers a sense of what happened during the spread of Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Islam came to a region that already had an established religion which was at odds with Islam beliefs (idolatory etc.), and there was a lot of bloodshed. viv June 28, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
Linking to that article is an excellent idea in any event. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 21:57 (UTC)
Fine, I'll roll back my changes and link to the article. I should do it in the next half hour. :viv June 28, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
Well, an anonymous editor beat me to that, and has made the changes. I am fine with them. :viv June 28, 2005 22:08 (UTC)
*Hooray for Harmony! I'm glad a decision was reached. -Lance

I've read Story of Civilization (well, the first few volumes, anyway) and it's a terrible source to be quoting on India. It's obsolete, written by an author whose main interest and expertise was in Europe (as illustrated by the other 10-odd volumes), and highly opinionated (as shown by this quote.) The facts he presents are of interest; the philosophical conclusions he constantly draws, while entertaining, have no place here, being neither neutral nor verifiable. Now if you were to give some details on the claimed forced conversions, that would be verifiable and relevant, unlike someone's musings on the precariousness of civilization. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)

I take it that is your POV :-) :viv June 28, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
Actually I dont have just Will Durant as the source, but many other. One is right at hand now- India, A concise history (Francis Watson). I would on the other hand, love to read a historian who claimed otherwise, i.e. the Islam conquest of northern India was 'peaceful', and that there was no forcible conversion, or persecution of Hindus:viv June 28, 2005 22:08 (UTC)

I am aware of no one who claims that the Ghaznavid conquests were "peaceful" (that would be ridiculous.) However, bloody conquests do not imply forced conversion, and you still haven't provided any details on the nature of the claimed forced conversions. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Exactly...bloody wars of conquest and persecution of religious groups do not necessarialy imply forced conversion, which I believe was the issue, right? -Lance
Lance I agree that bloody wars don't imply forced conversions. The article should focus on other policies aimed at conversion, like actual forced conversion, imposition of heavy jiziya taxes on non-Muslims, making their economic activities unviable and uncompetitive, etc. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 01:23 (UTC)
Look, the fact is that it is historian's opinion . But everything is an opinion in some way. The attempt here should be that all opinions should be represented. As long as we are saying: According to Will Durant: "...." it should be fine, no matter what the historian's opinion were. And please do not question the authority of the historian just because you don't like what he said. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 01:20 (UTC)

Still no answer to my question. I am removing the claim pending provision of details. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 18:33 (UTC)


Ok, whoever is editing this behind my back - is it not true that AI calls the actons of the Northern Sudanese ethnic cleaning against the black Christians - you know it is so so don't take that out; and did not the Taliban force Hindus to wear yellow dress - again, widelly reported, if you take that out you are trying to whitewash the Taliban, it makes me suspect your ulitimate goal here. And are there not many fundamentalist Imans who claim that targeting civilians is proper if doing so is in defense of Islam - you know that is true, again, take it out if the truth embarrasses you, but it's your religions (I assume) so deal with it.


So the Taliban sympathizers continue to reedit this page. Simple dude, you will not be allowed to do so, everytime you do the forces of truth and justice will set forth the truth. This is not Saudi Arabia, this is not the Sudan, this is the free world at work. If you feel you must lie, exaggerate and tell untruths, do it on the Arabic version of the Wikipedia - the English version will tell the truth, and the truth will set you free.


Well, I was wrong, Wikipedia can be gamed, the anonymous "moderator" who controls this site was able to "disappear" me for attempting to edit these pages, claiming I was vandalizing the site, if you want to look at my editing changes you will see my corrections were not destructive but an attempt to correct the abuses of the "owner" of this site. I now know that wikipedia is perhaps informative when talking about the structure of the atom, or the geography to Tibet, but when dealing with a controversial subject the "owner" of a particular page can ban those who object to their biases. So one more cultural icon proves to have clay feet. So sad.


I'm very much in sympathy with the signed and unsigned complaints about this article. Although there are hints of intolerance -- for instance, the persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran -- the article understates Muslim religious intolerance to such an astonishing degree that it is, for all practical purposes, a propaganda piece. One can only guess what one writer means by "freedom of religion adhering to democratic principles," but the apparent intent is to give the impression that there are predominantly Muslim countries in which citizens enjoy freedom of religion equal or comparable to the freedom of religion enjoyed by citizens of Western Europe and North America. That is not true. The statement that Saudi Arabia "limits religious freedom to a high degree, prohibiting public worship by other religions" is a gross understatement of Saudi religious intolerance, and the statement that the Taliban regime "was considered intolerant by many observers" is very remarkable. One wonders which observers considered the Taliban tolerant, and how intolerant a regime would have to be before it could be plainly acknowledged as intolerant by Wikipedia. The footnote about jizya is disingenuous, and the complete omission of any mention of the concepts of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb inexplicable. The "Muslims in diaspora" section is ridiculous in its understatement of Muslim difficulties with religious freedom in the West -- and what does it mean, anyway, to speak of "Muslims in diaspora"? What is the Muslim "homeland?" As it presently stands, the article includes no mention of the French headcovering controversy, the Danish cartoons, al-Qaeda, Theo van Gogh, the Flying Imams, etc., etc. Remarkable. I haven't made any edits to the article, since doing so seems an exercise in futility. WilliamBarrett 09:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Practice of the early Muslims[edit]

I got a question regarding the sentence "However, the Arabs who followed their traditional polytheistic religion were given only the choice of conversion or execution." in part Practice of the early Muslims

Is it the following sentence true:

"However, the Arabs who followed their traditional polytheistic religion who were defeated in wars against Muslims were given only the choice of conversion, exile or execution."

Thanks.--Aminz 06:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be right -- I have vague memories of people being exiled. References would be nice, however. Zora 09:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Another question: I think only the day before the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad warned a few particular guys to leave Mecca by tomorrow in order to save their life. I would like to know that who were the Arabs that were given the choice of conversion or execution. Thanks. --Aminz 00:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

All the tribes subjugated during Muhammad's wars of conquest or the Ridda Wars. The conquered were required to give the baya'h, now known as the shahadah, watch their idols being destroyed, and pay the zakat. Many authors have speculated that their "conversion" went no deeper than that. Hence the distinction the early Muslims often made between those who were Muslims, and those were believers.
I sense an apologetic intent. I don't think there's any way out of this one, Aminz ... what Muhammad and his followers did would be condemned these days, when even "idolators" are allowed to keep their "idols" and worship as they please (in most countries). Zora 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora. I think you are right. There seems to be no way out of this one. It should be then included in the Criticism of Islam article. But first, I would like to know how Judaism and Christianity were traditionally dealing with "idolators". And what are relevant Quranic verses in justification of Muhammad's way of dealing with "idolators". --Aminz 00:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is ample Jewish and Christian precedent for the slaughter of "idolators" and the destruction of their temples. See the Torah and the history of Christianity after Constantine. In Muhammad's lifetime, the Byzantine Empire was extremely intolerant, the Persian empire less so.
If Muhammad were only another conqueror, like Alexander the Great (the greatly violent and bloody) or Julius Ceasar, we'd take the blood in stride. That's just the way they did things in those days. However, IF Muslims are going to claim that Muhammad was perfect in all things and that his example must be followed, then we have a problem. This was not so much of a problem before the Wahhabi/Salafi/Islamist revival -- Muslims weren't burning down Hindu temples, Islam was spreading peacefully in places like Africa and Indonesia, it was accepted that Hindus and Buddhists could be considered "monotheists". But the claim that Muslims must return to the pure worship of the Salaf presents problems in this day and age.
Myself, I say that the way forward was through returning to Muhammad's EXPERIENCE -- the lamp in the niche. But that's me as a Buddhist looking for commonalities. Zora 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that Muslims are exaggerating in praising Muhammad. Muhammad was not sinless. There is nowhere Quran says that Muhammad is perfect. Although, when Meccans accused Muhammad to be mad or possessed, Quran said that Nay, he is not mad or possessed but he has indeed an exalted character (68:2-4). This verse was a reply to Meccans and does not prove that he was perfect. Muhammad was also proposed as a pattern for Muslims and it makes sense because every people should look at their prophet and learn how to behave. I agree that it seems that Muhammad didn't respect the polytheist religion of Arabs. It was certainly offensive to them when Muhammad destroyed their idols. It should be included in criticism of Islam article. When some religion claims Truth, then they may be able to justify something for people within the religion but not for people outside the religion. Also, by the way, I should mention that there are also many verses in Quran asking implying tolerance. For example, Muslims are forbidden to insult gods of other religions. There is another verse require Muslims to show respect for the rituals of other people. Also, the famous verse “Let there be no compulsion in the religion” and other verses. But I agree there is something here that does not make sense. --Aminz 04:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue is already included under "Human-rights violations by adherents of Islam" in the criticism of islam article. --Aminz 08:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Islam and Modern Religions[edit]

This article doesn't give any mention of all about Islam and it's relationship with more recently created religions (examples include Mormonism and Scientology), does anyone have any information about this subject? The Fading Light 20:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on Islam and Sikhism and hope to have something informative up soon. I'll put something here on that too. Arrow740 07:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Preference for Non-Muslim Authorities and Disallowance of Divergent Thought[edit]

I have objected to the repeated use of non-Muslim authorities in lieu of Muslim authorities and the rejection of Muslim authorities and divergent opinions, only to be constantly threatened with blocking and banning for speaking up against the use of Friedman as the voice of Islam. I have had prominent sheikhs and jurists edited out and replaced with Friedman in preference for a rigid, biased opinion of Islamic law and traditions, refusing to take into account the traditon of diversity of thought in Islam.

I am a Muslim woman who is married to a non-Muslim man, and we were married with a nikah. I am one of many married out women, and we have existed since Islam was introduced into the Arab world. That there were Muslimas married to non-Muslim women in the Prophet's circle is well-known in history, but that fact has been buried by ultra-conservatives, and aided and abetted by those here who refuse to allow for any other viewpoint than that which places culture over Islam, for Islam, the sharia, has imposed no prohibition against Muslim women marrying out. That is a point we can discuss openly and objectively, or, some more posters can come to my page again to threaten me and/or block me, and delete this post. I'm not sure what the fear is of someone who has done what is written about in error. I don't know of any Islamic scholars here, and I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why Freidman has more say about Islam than true Islamic scholars. FOA 05:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC) FOA

Attribution[edit]

Statements about forced conversion need attribution because it is a controversial topic, and because it is only one view presented. It isn't like the same view is presented by multiple scholars; it is only one. And the quote comes from Waines book, not Lewis'. Yahel Guhan 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

it's not only one view presented. both Waines and Lewis say that forced conversions were rare in Islamic history. the topic might be controversial - i don't know - but this fact is not a matter of controversy. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The topic is controversial. Thus general statements about it are controversial. Yahel Guhan 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
you've provided no evidence to that effect. i don't believe it's a controversial topic. there is nothing controversial about what Lewis and Waines said, until you prove otherwise. ITAQALLAH 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
added another reliable source. ITAQALLAH 00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahel, it's edits like these that suggest to me that a) you don't quite understand my objection, and b) you don't observe the content you are reverting closely enough. hopefully, i am wrong on both counts. with regards to a), my objection has nothing to do with whether the incidents themselves were "minor", i said they were "minority incidences" i.e. they were rare. as per WP:UNDUE, we don't overstate the incidences of forced conversion to make them look more prevelant than the facts suggest. with regards to b), you changed the attribution of a quote from Lewis to Waines. as the editor who actually inserted that content, i can guarantee you have not looked at either of the books cited. please look at both citations, and then feel free to self-revert. you said that attribution lessens POV. you're right, but where is there any POV? these are neutral uncontested facts. one doesn't say "According to Bernard Lewis, the sky is blue", because it's not contested, and it's not an opinion- and thus, no attribution is required. ITAQALLAH 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A. How is it undue weight. What is undue about them? How are they overstated?
B. If it is a well known "fact," there should be multiple sources that say so. "The sky is blue" is not an opinion or controversial statement. "Forced conversions were rare" is both an opinion and a controversial statement. Understand the difference? Yahel Guhan 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
a. it's undue because we have reliable sources saying it's rare, but there is an implicit attempt to indicate otherwise by seemingly listing as many incidences as possible (with recentist focus). see WP:UNDUE
b. i have responded to that comment above. ITAQALLAH 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
two recent examples is undue weight? I doubt anyone who sees 4 examples will think it is common, especially since the two views mentioned say so. Censoring out well known examples is a problem; nothing in WP:UNDUE states that that is the proper solution. Yahel Guhan 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
i would accept one as a compromise if you are willing to, but two is pushing it. ITAQALLAH 00:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
How is it "pushing it?" Yahel Guhan 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
i honestly think two extra examples are pushing it really, it overstates a minority incidence and makes the list twice as big. i said i would accept one as a compromise to save needless dispute. ITAQALLAH 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. You think is overstates a minority incidence. Do any scholars share that opinion? Who says those specific events are "minority incidences?" How are they "minority incidences?" Yahel Guhan 00:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
i don't think you've correctly understood what i meant by minority incidences. forced conversions are minority incidences, meaning, rare in frequency. there are three scholars backing up that assertion. ITAQALLAH 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
but how is mentioning them against wikipedia policy? Yahel Guhan 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture - religious tolerance in Muslim countries[edit]

Firstly, I cannot find any reference to data source. Is this original work? Second, there are two countries presented as Muslim in Europe, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH). BH is neither Muslim country (Muslims are relative majority), nor belongs to group where other religious groups are somehow oppressed. Third, by Constitution, Turkey is secular in public/government issues, but religions, either Islam or others, are not oppressed by state. This picture has to be changed, or removed. Plantago (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam and the jews[edit]

"600-900 Qurayza men were beheaded (except for the few who chose to convert to Islam) and their properties confiscated, and their women were taken as sex slaves, and children were slaves." The following is dubious, as it is contended as being false, and also the claim of sex slaves presents a POV that is unrealistic and dubious in itself. Faro0485 (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unnamed section[edit]

my name is siddiq.ISLAM NEED TO BE PUT BACK ON THE SIRITA MUSTAQEEM.ISLAM IS NOT BEING REPRESENTED ON THEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.115.186 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do non-Muslims go after death? What will happen to them at the Last Judgement?[edit]

Greetings: A question I've often wondered about and never got any clear answer to. If a verifiable, documented answer can be given to it, it could go into the article. This is the question: Where do non-Muslims go after death according to Islam? What happens to them at the Last Judgement? Does a righteous non-Muslim automatically go to Hell just for not being a Muslim, even though he or she may in all other respects be a good, righteous and moral person? Or can righteous non-Muslims also go to Paradise and be saved at the Last Judgement? I'm inquiring not only about scriptural authority but also about the common interpretations and answers that may have been given to the question through the history of Islam, down to this 21st century of ours. Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 20:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been disputed. Some verses say non-Muslims can go to Heaven and others say they won't. People can't seem to agree on whether non-Muslims can be saved or not. 86.40.141.29 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

dates for the supreme court members of Pakistan[edit]

The christian supreme court justice of Pakistan was in office during the 1960's. It is misleading to say that could happen today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.110.202 (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islam and other religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)