Talk:List of converts to Islam/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


old discussion about delete

This article has "Altough Islam does not Proselytism, it does encourage educating people about the faith." while Muslim converts#Conversion to Christianity has

Christianity and Islam are two religions that encourage preaching their faith in order to convert non-believers. In both cases, this missionary property has been used as a justification for religious wars (cf. Crusades, jihad) on other countries. This property encourages evangelists to convert people of other faiths, and history has shown that the motives were not always pure. Because of this, evangelism is sometimes viewed scornfully by modern society.

Unless consensus is reached, would it be better not to state whether or not Islam does Proselytism (especially as the current copy has bad grammar)? Andjam 08:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the title of this page be changed to something like Names you recognize from the media of contemporary people who have become Muslims, or "Prominent Muslims", although the later would be defamatory since some of the listed acquired their fame by joining the criminal element in society. Frankly, I don't see the purpose of having the list except to help a researcher look for people to interview. I like to distance my thoughts from the movie Schindler's List but can't help it. The term convert in itself is unusual to muslim language and has no equivalent say in common Arabic for example. The list can not possibly be representative considering the 1400 years since Islam, and the millions of people in history that have become muslims. What is needed here is acuracy. Cheers 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the introduction to this article is good. I don't think we should get into the debate over whether or not Islam prosellytizes on this page, but this should not be mentioned in the introduction. I wrote a new introduction but it was reverted. I am reverting back to my version, which is not perfect, but please discuss it. Academic Challenger 21:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I actually took it from another article and thought you one of the many Anti-islamic crusading editors out there. You're not, and I apologise, and will leave it at your version. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


What's with all the reverts to the Yousef al-Khattab sites? Is there a real difference between the two sites?Benami 23:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

what is with this page?

excuse the bluntness, but I find this page absolutely ridiculous. why does an encyclopdia need a list of people that excepted islam? This article should either be deleted or changed to something according to subject (Muslims in the media) or regional (Muslims in the united states/UK) otherwise you might as well include the name of everyone of Muhammad's companions here because, Hey! they accepted Islam! please tell me how I ccan vote for this to be removedWilis.azm 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a List of converts to Judaism and a List of converts to Christianity. I don't think there is any malicious intent here Mrbluesky 08:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my bluntness Wilis.azm but your argument is ridiculous seeing as there are Wikipedia pages listing Converts to Christianity and Converts to Judaism.

Wilis.azm is either ignorant of Wikipedia, ignorant in general as gathered from his comment/argument or even possibly both.

However, to be fair, there is a vastly disproportionate effort here to introduce negative informtion about Islam, given the extensive coverage of "crimes."

--Taz Manchester 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Taz Manchester about the intent here for casting the whole thing in a negative light. It is a shame. Once a page like this gets taken over by people with an agenda, it seems very hard to get it back on track. -Todd 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

For this page to be balanced...

I've looked at the Converts to Christianity and they're isn't a list of criminals and terrorists who have converted to Christianity. I think that a section like this needs to be added to the various other 'Converts' pages or deleted from here (prefereably added to the other pages as it is factual information). However, at the moment it seems this page dwells on the negative stereotypes prevailent in the media about associating violence with Islam, when most other religons are equally prone to this association yet never addressed in the detail that Islam suffers from.

WHAT IS WITH THIS PAGE.... How did you find this page in the first place? Dumbo —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I found it quite nice. Mrbluesky 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

new order

This list should get any order, maybe alphabetical. Compare it with the german (and soon coming french) list, for example. By the way, in german wikipedia now is a new discussion about delete it or not. Greetings from Good Old Germany 11:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This kind of list constitue an offense against de law of privacy in Belgium and in France...see the discussion in the french version page...

-- 13:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice new order... well-done! Greetings from Good Old Germany 10:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "not yet classified"

It seems a user misunderstood and erroneously readded this section. I removed this list because I cleaned it up and readded the entries to the different applicable categories, hence it is redundant. Several entries were deleted because they did not show up on Google, hence were not notable. As always, users are welcome to readd non-redundant and notable entries --Xorox 07:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay I don't think that all of them were added into it and some are notable. I think you can say all the one's that are not notable here. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid, readding this category will not stimulate other users to look for a suitable category. This implies a lot of extra work. As it is comparatively easy to create a new category, don't you think that this is the preferred solution? --Xorox 09:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Companions of Mohammed

I think they should not be mentioned here, excepted maybe the first real non-arabs who adopted Islam: the ethiopian Bilal and the iranian Salman. Greetings from Good Old Germany 10:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

But they were converts anyhow. Quite important ones, I would like to state. --Xorox 11:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumoured converts

I added a new category "Rumored converts" in which those which are rumoured to have been converted can be placed. It does not seem to beharmful, though. --Xorox 11:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Would Napoleon Bonaparte fit into this category? He reportedly converted to Islam during the 1798 campaign in Egypt in order to gain favor from the local population, according to some biographies. However, he did not practice it afterwards and returned to Catholicism. i deleted kanoute and sissoko from sports as they are originally muslims but they were non practicing at certain age but they are now practicing muslims and that is what is written on kanoute wikipedia he became apracticing muslim at the age of 20 but he is not a convert to islam and van persie is married to a muslim but he never disclosed his faith so he didnot announce his conversion officially like ribery who announced it everywhere ricardo kaka is a rumoured convert so stop adding him that his denial in italian to the rumour of his conversion and that is in arabic the denial of the arabic channel that broadcasted the news first after they discovered that it was untrue

and also jibril cisse is a convert to chrsitianity from islam not the opposite and henry didnot announce his conversion too so probably a rumour too

Not-notable converts

I renamed this section because it is a characteristic all those converts share. Being the subject of an journalistic article alone is not notable enough for Wikipedia. I would like to suggest to delete this section and am welcomign your views on thematter. --Xorox 08:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I recatted those entries, I hope this recat can find mercy in the eyes of other editors. --Xorox 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


It would be helpful if this article included the year of conversion for each person listed. —Psychonaut 18:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Khodov

"Vladimir Khodov, suspected by Russian authorities to be a terrorist, allegedly participated in Beslan raid. Converted from Russian Orthodoxy [29]"

"suspected"? "allegedly"? It is pathetic. Because the "t" word is being used, it must necessarily be qualified by adjectives such as this? The only question about this guy is whether he was a double agent, as claimed by Basaev, or not. By the way, there is a lot of doubt whether he ever was a member of the Russian Orthodox church. Read the article on him. --pgp 12:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

David Myatt

Have changed designation from "right-wing activist" to "Neo-Nazi Activist" for David Myatt, as the man is a self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi. I think he might/should be moved to the "Terrorist" category. Y'all can let me know what you think on my talk page. I've not taken that second action as yet, but I might later. --V. Joe 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

David Myatt has not been convicted of any Terrorist offences and has not committed any Crimes.It states in the article itself when mentioning all links in whatever form they may be to terrorism or crime that they are ALLEGED. So what is your actual reasoning and motive behind the move you have taken?

I expect the article on David Myatt will now be put back to its original place in the Politics related section of the article.

--Taz Manchester 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed add for sunnipath

Enough said. V. Joe 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sentence Phrasing

Aisha - from Arabian paganism; according to hadith, married Muhammad at the age of nine, see Aisha.

Hi Netscott,

I think that the phrase "allegedly married Muhammad" doesn't sound bad either. Besides, the young marriage age controversy link provides all the details of the topic anyway ...

Silver crescent 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Crime related

There should not be a section for crime related. There isn't one for christainty or judaism, why should there be here Bazel 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the individuals on this article are there for their WP:Notability. The "Crime related" section exists because those listed there are notable due to crimes. This list isn't for "positive" converts to Islam but just "converts to Islam". The logic you're mentioning here just means that for neutrality reasons notable Chrisitian and Jewish converts who are primarily notable for their crimes could/should be added to those lists. Netscott 14:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason there isn't is because List of converts to Christianity and List of converts to Judaism are alphabetical and not by occupation. Religious lists that cite occupation sometimes do include a criminal section. See List of Baptists#Criminals, List of Latter-day Saints#Controversial figures and alleged Criminals, and List of Lutherans#Murderers. If you wish to switch to an alphabetical or maybe chronological arrangement I guess that could be discussed, but there is other examples of a criminals section in religious lists.--T. Anthony 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it should exist. As I mentioned above there is List of Baptists#Criminals, List of Latter-day Saints#Controversial figures and alleged Criminals, and List of Lutherans#Murderers. That said those subsections aren't as full of red-names and in some cases have none at all. Filling it so full of red-names, even though they were generally sourced, does concern me a bit. Not every person who converts to Islam and then graffitis a church or even joins Al-Qaeda is notable enough to be listed here. I kept some red names when they were widely enough sourced they seemed to be newsworthy. I also added a section for converts to Ahmadiyya as I know some Muslims consider it heretical, but converts to it are in the Category. Also I brought back the NOI section, but I'm less wedded to that staying on.--T. Anthony 10:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is James Yee, who was only accused of a crime, and who has been exhonerated ("charges were dropped") been listed in the section on criminals? There should be another section on those unjustly persecuted like James Lee.

Companions of The Prophet

ther are a lot of campanions of the prophet, how about we put them in a different page and link to them from here. there are over 55 companions Bazel 16:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article is a list. Why not just add them? Netscott 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in the list vs. proof of conversion (re: Michel Aflaq)

The beginning of the article states that the list should include those "who have converted to Islam." To me, these words mean that a person's inclusion on this list should be based upon clear proof that the person in fact converted.

I attempted to make this point regarding Michel Aflaq, since the only primary source for this alleged conversion was Saddam Hussein's Information Ministry. Given the lack of corroboration from other sources, I don't believe that this Wiki article should assert the Baathist Party's claims as fact, unless someone believes that they were a neutral source of information in this instance.

With Michel Aflaq's inclusion on the list, I have to question the POV neutrality in the article. I think that he should either be removed from the list, or he should be in a sub-category that would be upfront about the dubiousness of claim.

I'd like to hear what others think about this.Mfadoul 07:27 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually in such situations it's best to cite the source for the claim or "fact" in the article so that readers can establish in their own minds the validity of a given bit of information. Bear in mind though that reliable source guidelines and Wikipedia:Verifiability take precendence particularly concerning information of a biographical nature of living persons and in correspondance to those guidelines and policies information is to flat out be removed from Wikipedia as needed. (Netscott) 17:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on the Wikipedia guideline for reliable sources, I removed the Michel Aflaq reference. This claim is exclusively made by the Baathist party. Quoting the Wiki guidelines (the section called Partisan websites), "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious, anti-religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is, in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." Matthew Fadoul 04:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Militant Or Terrorist?

Most of the militants are either terrorists, suspected as terrorists or have committed acts of terrorism. How can they be militants??

Participating in legitimate military operations in itself is not terrorism according to any definition.
WHAT? Are you telling me that blowing up innocent civilians in the name of Allah is NOT terrorism? How is that supposed to be a legitimate military operations? So I guess the Taliban and al-Qaeda people are now freedom fighters. Go figure. So how would you respond if I said that Christians should blow themselves up and launch a crusade against 3 million Muslims for the deaths of 3 million Christians in the 20th century? (1.5 during WWI committed by Islamic Assyrians and 1.5 by Islamic Sudanese rebels) Isn't that a "legitimate military operation?"--Canadia 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, screaming at other editors and calling them names in your edit summaries doesn't help your case :/. Not saying it's wrong, just that you're pushing your information forth in the wrong ways. Homestarmy 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Going back to the first suggestion, I would say that anybody who thinks that "terrorists" should be regarded as "militants" is just nuts. The word militant evokes a kind of valour, even if one dies. Terrorists are an entity that is totally different; they kill people in the name of religion and God. There is absolutely no valour or heroism in that. -- 19:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well ignoring the first 3 extremist and subjective comments above, I would look to the definitions Wikipedia uses itself:

  • The word militant can refer to any individual engaged in warfare, a fight, combat, or generally serving as a soldier. Journalists often use militant as a purportedly neutral term for violent actors who do not belong to an established military. Typically, a militant engages in violence as part of a claimed struggle for achievement of a political goal.

  • Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...

As Wikipedia points out Militant is a neutral term and Terrorist is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions.


The Nation of Islam does not fit under the blanket of Islam. NOI draws from both Christian and Islamic theology, but it's primary belief system is nationalist/racialist. This section needs to be deleted. --Kitrus 04:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice that some NOIs (like Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X) are listed, but others are being rv'd out. Has a consensus been reached? At this point, the article is inconsistent. --Macduff 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm X rather famously distanced himself from NOI at one point, publicly condemning NOI's 'prophet' Elijah Mohammed for his personal life and his teachings, and the racial philosophies of NOI. He converted to Sunni Islam after returning from Hajj. According to his article, Mohammed Ali also converted to mainstream Sunni Islam. Falcon2020 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And how about Michael Jackson, currently listed here as a convert? All that it says in his article is that there were media reports that he had converted to NOI; and later reports that he was building a mosque. Macduff 06:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Just did some searching about Michael Jackson's conversion, using the references provided by the IP editor. It seems like the only sites supporting this are The Sun (UK) and Yetnews, a rumour site. Question: Is The Sun considered a good reference source> I was under the (possibly mistaken) impresion it was a tabloid, such as The Enquirer in the USA. Enquiring minds want to know. 8^) --Manway (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


The article looks a little messy, mainly because the size of each information table is unproportional, when compared to one another. Perhaps it would be better to either erase the tables altogether or make them all the same size. Silver crescent 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Sources report that Robin Van Persie, the Dutch footballer is also a convert to Islam. Being that he has neither admitted or denied this claim, I think it would be best if a new list be compiled with the heading 'Alleged Muslim Converts' as there are also a number of other personalities who have been rumored to have converted to Islam (see above posts) Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Companions of Muhammad

This is a silly section, of course all of first Muslims convert to Islam. If we include all of them shouldnt muhammad be number one convert?Opiner


I knew listing him in a subsection would be controversial, but should Yusef Lateef also be removed from Category:Converts to Islam?--T. Anthony 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

John Allen was never a mainstream Muslim. He did joined the racist organization Nation of Islam for the "million man march" in 1995 but was kicked out in 1999. Despite this brief period with NOI, this criminal is classified as Muslim here as it suits the agenda of some editors. What more? his junior partner was not even a member of NOI, ever!
If Ahmadis are not Muslims then NOI people are not Muslims either, and the ex members of NOI are most certainly not Muslims. Not questioning John Allen the criminal and questioning Yusef Lateef the musician would be hypocracy. Hassanfarooqi 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
NOI people are often removed, but continue to be re-added. NOI is one of the more well-known Muslim/Muslim-derived faiths in North America, the English Wikipedia is likely North American dominant, so that might be the reason. Ahmadis are not particularly well-known in North America so when removed, and I believe Lateef was removed by a Muslim, they stay removed. To be honest I don't know how I feel about it as I'm not any form of Muslim. (I do like Lateef's music and got interested in it partly due to Wikipedia) From what I gather there's one kind of Ahmadi that's seen as more like Islam than the other, but both are seen as not counting or something? Anyway I thought it was more debated than NOI as I knew NOI was not counted as Muslim by most schools of Islamic thought. Ending question. Do the Ismailis have converts? Would they count or not count?--T. Anthony 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Including former muslims?

Is it really acceptable to include the names of former muslims on this list?--Sefringle 00:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Smith Islam conversion is a hoax ?.

Noticed this was part of a revert war so lets discuss. The [1] entry attributes to the The American Muslim Association of North America ( but nothing has been quoted that he has said. The other USAToday [2] says

"He's friends with vocal Scientologist Tom Cruise and attended Cruise's wedding in Italy. Although Smith has learned about the controversial religion, he has not converted to it. He says he's a connoisseur of all faiths.

"I want to go on the hajj to Mecca," Smith says. "I don't believe in religious separatism. I love people, and I don't believe that the twin towers getting knocked down means all Muslims are bad."

and from that we can deduce he is certainly NOT a scientologist but we cannot say he is a Muslim. Our own editors say that as he wants to visit Mecca and use this as proof. This is clearly WP:OR and not admitted. If I wanted to visit the North Pole that doesn't make me a Innuit (I've only got as far as the Polar Circle and it was cold). So nothing real from Smith that can be added as WP:LIVING applies. I'm removing Smith. Ttiotsw 06:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will Smith's conversion is neither a hoax not a truth. The rumors about his conversion had spread after 9/11 when Muslims were in trouble, he stood by his role model, former world heavyweight boxing champion Muhammed Ali, and paid tribute to him and his faith. Soon after the rumors, he respectfully denied his conversion. Hassanfarooqi 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
So it is a hoax as it was propagated by others for effect (and obviously not the truth). At least that is clear now. Someone needs to advise User:Truthspreader as he got another user blocked when the other user removed that hoax material. Ttiotsw 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It is somewhat ambiguous, though I would think that this is, indeed, a hoax. Unfortunately, there are two sources (the "Ali"-era press release and the USA Today profile) that suggest an affiliation with Islam, and no clear denial from Mr. Smith. It is a tricky situation. Unrelated to this, Cousteau is not a convert at all (Letter from the Cousteau Fondation in French). That is a clear canard. Mrbluesky 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Case closed: I saw the following excerpt in an article about Smith in "Entertainment Weekly", dated December 15, 2006, p.48 :
And even though Smith hasn't converted to Scientology - "I'm riding with Jesus", he says - he does cite Cruise as a role model.
So he is obviously still Christian. Mrbluesky 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Crimes section

I belive that this section should be removed.I am very offended by the fact that there is a crimes section in the article. Islam teaches peace and NON-violence and this section is simply giving the message that Islam is a violent religion. IT IS NOT. In fact, the word ISLAM means peace and submission. Why isn't there a section talking about Christian or Jewish criminals? If there isn't any such section, then there shouldn't be an Islamic one...

                                                               Mhmoud Essalah--Mhmoud Essalah 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Unreal. D'oh! this is the "List of Muslim converts". I'm at a loss as to where we'd stick the Christian or Jewish criminals in such a list. Islam as a word primarily means submission. The peace comes after everyone has submitted. That people don't want to be submitted on means that peace isn't always a done deal. Same with Wikipedia edits. Ttiotsw 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Crimes section

As a couple of other people have already mentioned, the crime section of this page is completely unnecessary and it is very offending to us Muslims. This is ignorant stereo typing and should not be tolerated in an educational article. I demand this section be removed, as my attempts to do it have failed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keranu (talkcontribs) 10:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

You've not cited any reason that corresponds to Wikipedia policy about why that section should be removed. The section is very well sourced and cited and pertinent to this list. This list isn't entitled, "List of positive Muslim converts" but just "List of Muslim converts". The individuals listed in the crimes section are rather notable as converts. (Netscott) 10:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well if you think it should be kept because those criminals are "notable" converts, then why don't you just make a seperate page for them or leave them included in a Muslim terrorist page. It's extremely rude to leave this section up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keranu (talkcontribs) 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
Why, I don't see how it could be make it less offensive to list them on a separate page. I guess it could only make things worse (Imagine :"List of criminal Muslim converts"?) I think the section should stay. Mrbluesky 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think having a seperate page for it would make it steer away from a positive thing (people finding Islam because it's peaceful, not to become terrorists). However I think the best option would be to include those converts in a page that deals with Islamic terrorism. That way people know what to expect when they see a page called "Islamic Terrorism". If this isn't good enough for you guys, then how about adding a list of criminals for other articles like list of converts to Christianity and Judaism.
To be fair, how about reorganizing the article by listing the converts by previous religious persuasion (like in the Jewish and Christian list of converts)? However, honesty should lead us to indicate "criminal" or "terrorist" as an occupation when appropriate. What does everybody think? Mrbluesky 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so lets just go out and add a List of Blacks that love to eat fried chicken on the African American article

while we are it, right? We could research any famous African Americans that admitted their love to fried chicken and just throw it on up in the article because it's not violating any rules.

This issue of using fried chicken as a catagory is nonsense. The issue is "list of notable people who have converted to Islam sometime during their lives." . If a person's diet made them notable then we would have that as a catagory. If their notability is due to crimes then that is where they are listed. Until major criminals become non-notable and are not reported by reliable sources (an unlikely scenario) the crimes section must stay. Ttiotsw 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't quite get the thing about fried chicken (I hope it's not because of that racist cliche, is it?). Anyway, my point was the Judaism and Christianity lists were organized by previous religious affiliation, not by activity. It is true that it would be a travesty to erase the names, but we could sort the list differently for parallelism purposes. Mrbluesky 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither did I - some IP address started going on about bbq chicken and made me hungry (not being American I have no idea WTF thats about). That aside, the other articles probably need changing then to adopt the same format as this one. It seems illogical to have a notable list and then order that list on the the least important thing in that persons life i.e. their former religion !. They will always be a sports person irrespective of what religion they feel they have chosen today. Ttiotsw 01:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree. When you are talking about religious conversion the former religion is often quite relevant and important. In many cases their family remains of the former religion and therefore they still have to deal with that religious community at times. In addition it's common for converts to be intentionally seeking in the new religion something they felt was lacking in their old one. Previous ideas just said "delete any mention of criminals" and I still disagree with that. However a different organizing scheme that can still mention criminals shouldn't reduce any information.--T. Anthony 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Try another approach - if a person becomes a vegan or vegetarian then would it be illogical to list them under a list of "Former meat eaters" ? No, that is definitely not what they would want. If a sports person becomes a vegan then this is an important decision for them but they still are a sports person - that is how they became notable not because of what they were on their diet (or religion) previously. I wouldn't try and argue that the decision to be a vegetarian is taken lightly nor has significant impact to the persons life or those around them: the decision to be a vegetarian is as complex and life changing as picking a new religion. The catagory the people are in is why they are notable and as such I will propose that the other articles are reorganised on this line. Ttiotsw 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I see your point. However, I have two objections. One, few if any people identify as "meat-eaters" whereas people tend to think of their religious affiliation as a decisive part of themselves. Moreover, if you chose to become a vegetarian, it means necessarily that you used to eat meat, whereas you can convert to Islam from any religion, so it is maybe notesworthy to track the religious background of Muslim converts.
Then again, I don't think that a listing organized by previous religions is per se better, but it would be more logical when compared to the "Converts to Christianity" and "Converts to Judaism" lists. Mrbluesky 13:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
I agree with the above, you're analogy doesn't quite make sense. It's implied that when someone becomes a vegetarian they were previously a person who ate meat. However let's say an advocate of the Atkin's diet became a vegetarian, would their past be relevant? I think it could in many cases. Let's further say someone became a Marxist. Is their having previously been a Fascist relevant? I'd say definitely as it might effect how they view both Fascism and Marxism.--T. Anthony 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As a new person coming in to this discussion, I find the existence of a Crimes (and Terrorists) section to be odd. The List of Converts to Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism pages all list people by the religion they were converting from, not by their profession or police record. It seems like this List of Muslim converts is unique in its attempt to quantify Muslims as to whether or not they are terrorists. John Lennon's murderer, the Unabomber, and other noted criminals who were converts to Christianity are not listed on the Converts to Christianity page; nor do I think they should be. I think it's more constructive all around not to focus on such things. Doing so only adds to the conflict. -- Macduff 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this should be written by former religion/sect. However as long as it is written by career/clame to fame, the crime section must stay for the purpose of NPOV. Otherwise we are just being factually inaccurate, and are pushing the POV that all converts are good after conversion, which is a lie.--Sefringle 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Forced conversion

There are a number of individuals who has been forced to "convert". I suggest putting them under their own header, since most sane people would agree that if you have been forced to convert, then it's not a real conversion at all. Rune X2 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

An different analogy here is historically (and maybe today) the use of baptism as a mechanism to convert 'x' to Christianity. Most sane people would agree that if you have been cohersed or unwittingly or unknowingly been baptised, then it's not a real conversion to a faith at all. The Catholic church disagrees with you. I cite an example in Richard Dawkins The God Delusion page 311 onwards with the case of Edgardo Mortara. Ttiotsw 01:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Catholic and you're incorrect. (Although I'll forgive that as you're going by Dawkins who is not a historian or a psychologist of religion) Catholics even in Edgardo Mortara's day were forbidden from forced baptism. Going back to the twelfth century Pope Callixtus II stated that Jews were only to be baptized of their own free-will. Centuries earlier, in the early fourth century AD, Lactantius stated religion can not be forced on anyone. This predates Islam. The events that led to Mortara being baptized were basically illegal, but unfortunately the thinking at that time was that once it happened the child had to be raised Catholic. In any event it was a different era. To suggest Catholics of today believe in forced conversion is deeply insulting and is, in any event, irrelevant to this list.--T. Anthony 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
...and yet babies today, right as we speak (added for effect), are being baptised without their consent. I find it deeply insulting that in many countries children are effectively not given the chance to decide for themselves but are forced into the religion of their parents' choosing. Islam is equally obnoxious in this regards with no comparative religion being offered to children in schools in so-called Islamic countries. There are grounds to compare forced conversions to Islam with Catholic baptismal practices as there is an analogy in that if someone has no choice through being incarcerated but in a future time when they are not incarcerated may decide not to be converted then this is the same as a baby or child who in time may not decide to be converted to Christianity. Ttiotsw 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not the same at all. Unless you think all life is a form of forced conversion as you are born to parents you don't choose and they influence your development. Or unless you believe the Baptism has some powerful supernatural effect. Otherwise the kid is just getting sprinkled with water and being raised by their Catholic parents. (I'm speaking of normal cases, not Mortara's) Just as the kid might be born of English-speaking parents who are US citizen. (Or Portuguese and Brazilian citizens, whatever) Maybe the kid would've been happier speaking Icelandic in Iceland? Maybe the kid should have a choice what nation or language it adheres to. Iceland is higher up in human development than the US or Brazil, maybe that'd be the right choice. However the kid has no choice in the matter. They also have no choice over what music their parents listen to as a baby or what not. Still Catholics have the option not to get confirmed and to leave. If a kid decides at fourteen or even eighteen that the US just isn't his or her thing, tough for them. That's life though and many things in your childhood you don't choose, to compare that to forced conversion is bordering on ludicrous.--T. Anthony 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Mrbluesky 01:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this because it steers away from the teachings of the Quran: "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) . Leave it be for another article.

The Quran is a primary source. To use that as justification for anything on Wikipedia would clearly fail no-original-research WP:NOR. The issue is would they be considered apostate if they presented the case in front of a Sharia based court/judge and declared that their conversion was a sham and that they are now really 'x' ? Would they make it out of the country alive ? Ttiotsw 01:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think forced conversions should be on this list, especially if the people who were forced to convert decide not to be Muslims after their supposed "conversion". Also forced conversions are not allowed in Islamic law, as you mentioned above "There is no compulsion in religion"Wraith12 18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

...this is not true as apostacy is not allowed in Islamic law. Thus there is compulstion in this religion in that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to break free of this, now typified, delusion. Ttiotsw 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Clear bias: American converts

The opening paragraph says that 20,000 Americans convert to Islam. Is there not something inherently wrong with starting off with a fact that targeting a traditionally Christian country? Does it then not reveal that their is a hidden anti-Christian bias that some of these Muslims editors are trying to dissimulate? --Canadia 03:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article is about conversion to Islam, I think conversion rate statistics is relevent. But sources should be referenced and in this case, they aren't. Macduff 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The topic at hand is "List of Muslim Converts" so the implication is that this page should broadcast a list of Muslim converts in all areas of the world, not just the United States or Europe which are traditionally Christian territories and, given the current geopolitical milieu today, are perceived by Arab countries to be the primal enemies of Islam. That is explicit anti-West/Christian bias. --Canadia 05:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadia, aren't you being a bit hypocritical, in the lists of converts to Christianity page, it has statistics of 20,000 Muslims in America converting to Christianity, and 6 million Muslims in Africa converting to Christianity (which I find it a bit exaggerated). Does that reveal a hidden anti-Muslim bias of some Christian editors of that page? Because they go after Muslims specifically, whereas this page just says Americans and Europeans, which doesn't mean just Christians, because there are a lot of other different religions in America and Europe, such as Jews, Atheists, and Hindus, who may also be some of the people in the statistics who converted to Islam. Wraith12 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Not exactly. In the Converts to Christianity page, the page itself is compartmentalized into people who have converted to Christianity according to their previous faiths. The way this page is organized is such that it is sorted into people who have converted to Islam in accordance to their occupation. I also find it highly questionable that the statistic targets America and Western Europe which, traditionally, are Christian countries (America is currently the LARGEST exporter of Christian missionaries around the world, and Western Europe was the launchpad of Christian crusades). By the way, why mention only America and Europe? Why not mention South America? Or Oceana? Why only American and Europe? Is it because of the current geopolitical situation around the world today and the clear anti-Western/anti-Christian bias that most Muslims harbour? --Canadia 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So far I haven't found statistics of Muslim converts from other countries, if I do I would certainly put it in the opening paragraph, this list also contains converts from non-Western countries and converts from other religions besides Christianity, so I do not see any anti-West/Christian bias in this article.Wraith12 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Look, although you may deny this, almost 90% of the list is comprised of either Western/Christian converts to Islam. It is a subtle, but known fact that although Islamic conversion websites such as like to present the idea that people from ALL faiths convert to Islam, most of the people that convert to Islam ARE CHRISTIANS. Little wonder why 90% of thie list is comprised of Christians converting to Islam. Why? Because mullahs and Islamic religious leaders are mainly targeting Christians to convert to Islam! And why is that? Because Christianity is by FAR the largest religion in the WORLD, something that most Islamic scholars and Muslims would definitely like to see changed. On almost the same breath, Muslim converts to Christianity are killed, rape and persecuted. How hypocritical that is, eh Wraith? --Canadia 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a "recentist" perspective. Historically speaking many to most of the societies that became Muslim were not Christian beforehand. The "core area" of Islam had been largely Christian, but even then Paganism and forms of Zoroastrianism were relatively common. Further Iran was Zoroastrian and Manichean. Outside the core area Indonesia was Hindu or indigenous religions, West Africa was polytheistic, and much of Central Asia had been Buddhist. Converts to Islam from those places/eras have few to no articles either because none of them are notable or more likely because early West African or Indonesian history is poorly covered at Wikipedia. Even in modern times much of Islamic conversion is still occurring among non-Christian peoples in Africa or Southeast Asia. Logically speaking I'd think Christians would actually be slightly less likely to convert than them as Christians are usually in a better financial position and have a more developped theology to debate with Islam. Now if you're meaning "people notable to Wikipedia" than 90% of them were raised Christian so any conversion list will largely be Christians. See List of converts to Hinduism.--T. Anthony 10:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
your points are a mixture of original research and soapboxing. if the article neglects to mention conversion rates in other countries, feel free to include them. mentioning the growth of Islam in the West is significant simply because it's obvious that this is where the greatest rate of conversion is occuring, and this is where most of the people on the list are from. the addition of an inappropriate and irrelevant tag (clearly the strongest one you could find) remains unjustified. ITAQALLAH 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Presenting a view for consensus on the talk page is not what soapboxing is about. The soapbox policy is talking about articles. A better way of stating it is that if such points were added they would be original research unless they were cited or make the article non-neutral in a blatant way. Muslim converts to "atheism" are probably killed (no cites- just a hunch) and "atheist" converts to Islam are rare (or non-existant in notable people). To me watching Christians slug it over with Muslims is like watching a train-crash (Jews probably also watch the battle with trepidation but with a puzzling look of "but we were first anyway") but hey - I digress. Ttiotsw 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
i would tend to view inappropriate, unrelated comments (which are indeed present in the above statements) as using the talk page as a platform for advocation; a forum; a soapbox. yes the policy refers to articles, yet talk pages are designed to accomodate discussion on how to improve the article, not irrelevant and unhelpful tirades against group A. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like you to PROVE to me how, IN ANY WAY, the presentation of those statistics are not biased against Christians or the West. The paragraph mentions only American and Europe which are traditionally Christian and Western countries. Unless you can prove to me that that article is not biased against Christians, I remain unconvinced that this article is neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canadia (talkcontribs) 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
that is requesting me to provide negative proof. the default assumption is that the intro is not biased, you are the one who must prove that it is. currently, you have not responded to the point i made. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I, too, disagree with Canadia. The available conversion statistics are quoted in a clear unbiased manner and citations/references are provided. They do not mention "Christians," but are instead grouped by geographical location. The fact that certain locations may be missing does not make the article biased, but is a reflection that such statistics, if they exist, seem to be difficult to come by. I dispute Canadia's claim that the article is biased and suggest that if the stats and alleged western focus bother him, he track down some stats and converts from other countries, and/or some lower US/EU stats that could also be cited. -- Macduff 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found some articles from neutral sources such as BBC and the CS monitor, about Muslim converts from non-Western countries such as Rwanda, South Africa, Mexico, Israel, and the Philippines, but some do not provide exact numbers of how many people from those countries convert to Islam each year so I do not know if I should put them in the introduction. Here are some of the sources [3], [4], [5], [6] Also this page does not have Anti-West/Christian propaganda like Canadia suggests, there are also other pages of Christians converting to Hinduism, and Judaism in this website. These statistics are relevant for this article, just like the statistics of Muslims converting to Christianity in the Convert to Christianity page is relevant for that article. The statistics on this page came from a neutral source and has been cited. This page is a list of notable people converting to Islam. Just because most of these people on this list used to be Christian does not mean there is an Anti-Christian propaganda on this page, it just means there there are more famous Converts from Christianity to Islam who have articles about them in Wikipedia, then there are famous people who used to follow other religions besides Christianity. Also the topic that apostates of Islam getting persecuted is not a relevant topic for this article, there are other articles in Wikipedia that cover this topic, and the statistics that are in the opening paragraph are not from biased sources such as, they are from Christian Science Monitor, which is a neutral, and reliable source. Also most sites that attempt to convert people to their religion are inherently biased, there are many Christian sites that attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity such as, Canadia also mentioned that America is the largest exporter of Christian missionaries, many of them go to Muslim countries attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity, perhaps because Islam is the second largest religion in the world and growing fast and they would like to halt the growth of Islam, and because many of the people who run those sites as well as these Missionary programs have an Anti-Muslim bias, so why would you criticize Muslims for trying to convert Christians, when Christians are also actively trying to convert Muslims? Wraith12 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Clear bias: Israeli converts

Clearly the part about Jewish conversions is propaganda. It is only 70 (a very small number of people). Mentioning that is propaganda.--Sefringle 09:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefingle, the part of Jewish conversions was only added because of complaints from Canadia that this article only displays information of Christian converts, it is not meant to be propaganda against Jews. The source of that information came from a Jewish Israeli internet news site, not from a Muslim propaganda site so I do not see that information as being a type of propaganda.Wraith12 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

70 is a very small number of people. It is propagnada, since it would be giving undue weight to this minor occurance. It isn't like there are thousands of Jews converting to Islam. Its only 70. That hardly counts as news, and mentioning it gives extra weight to the number of converts--Sefringle 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Are you actually suggesting that an article whose purpose is to list religious converts shouldn't mention that people are converting their religion? How is giving a factual figure, either small or large, propoganda? As far as 70 being a "small" number, I believe the number applies only to the number of converts in Israel during a specific year, not around the globe. The article that gave the figure reported it as large, not small, and said that the number was significant because it is a marked percentage increase from previous years. The fact that this Wikipedia article doesn't even mention that the number is an increase over previous years makes me doubt your propaganda claim. -- Macduff 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Readers aren't stupid. They will understand that 70 is a small number, and assign it importance in their minds accordingly. I can well imagine someone coming to this article specifically looking for information on figures for Muslim conversion by country. As long as figures are available for a certain country, they should be included. Readers will then be able to see whether a country has a high or a low rate of conversion. —Psychonaut 10:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article about Jews converting to Islam in Israel, suggests that there is a growing trend of conversions to Islam in that country, given that Israel has a relatively small population compared to most countries, 70 people is a significant number and is a relevant topic for this article and is not meant to be propaganda. If the number of people was not significant, then why would there be a news article about it in the first place? The Converts to Christianity page also have statistics of people from different religions and countries converting to Christianity, does that serve as propaganda in that site?Wraith12 08:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

It still doesn't change the fact that it is a very small percentage and we are giving it undue weight. There are 7,000,000 people in Israel. 70 people would compose 0.001% of the population. Israel's growth rate is 1.18%- .04% greater than the population growth rate of the world. Clearly recognizing this 0.001% of Israel is giving it undue weight. The news often reports about things that aren't that important or notable, and often they make things more notable than they should be. They do this, because they often don't have a better story to report on, but they have to have something to present their audience with.--Sefringle 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be 3 saying it's relevent to 1 saying it's bias. Anyone else want to pipe in? The article in question is here [7] -- Macduff 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maimonides was a "Muslim" for a while?

Inserted {{Disputeabout}} template regarding Maimonides in this list. (Seems many people get thrown into this list helter-skelter by reckless editors and then others have to come along and pull out people who never belonged here in the first place...): The following in List of Muslim converts#Religious figures is disputed: "Maimonides - Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician forced to convert to Islam under pain of death during the Cordoba massacre of 1148. Reverted to Judaism when his life was no longer under threat.<ref>Lewis (1984), p. 100</ref>" I don't see which book by "Lewis" is even cited here, and does "Lewis" even say that? (I assume this refers to the Arabist Bernard Lewis.) I had once heard that the Rambam did issue a heter (a Halakhic ruling that permits something) for this kind of procedure but I had never heard that it had also happened to himself personally. I read an article in the English Yated a couple of years ago that the Mashhadi Jews in Iran relied on such a ruling by Maimonides, and that it was controversial, yet acceptable according to Halakha. Such a serious claim regarding one of Judaism's foremost rabbis requires more research and verification. Thanks. IZAK 18:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Maimonides from the list

Removed the following because it's disputed by scholars, see talk below, IZAK 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC):

  • Maimonides - Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician forced to convert to Islam under pain of death during the Cordoba massacre of 1148. Reverted to Judaism when he was able to escape to the east.<ref>"Occasional exceptions were made to the rule that the penalty for apostasy was death. A famous case was that of Maimonides, who was forcibly converted to Islam in his birthplace of Spain and reverted to Judaism when he was able to escape to the east. One day, while at the height of his power and fame in Cairo, he was recognized by a Muslim fellow countryman who knew of his earlier conversion and denounced him as an apostate from Islam, demanding the penalty of death. Fortunately for Maimonides, the case was heard by qadi al-Fadil, his friend and patron. The qadi ruled that since Maimonides' conversion to Islam in Cordova had been obtained by force, it was not legally or religiously valid, and his reversion to Judaism did not therefore constitute apostasy." [[Bernard Lewis|Lewis, Bernard]]. ''The Jews of Islam'', Princeton University Press, 1987, p. 100. ISBN 0691008078</ref>

See: There Was None Like Him:

Some reports claim that Maimonides converted to Islam, under duress, while still in Spain; an epistle ascribed to him defends Jews who were compelled to resort to such stratagems. Dr. Nuland quotes his remark: "If a man asks me, 'Shall I be slain or utter the formula of Islam?' I answer, 'Utter the formula and live.' " And yet, as Mr. Davidson is at pains to emphasize, how bad could the persecution have been, since in one epistle Maimonides had the temerity to describe the Prophet Muhammad as "meshuggah"?
These and other Maimonidean puzzles probably won't be resolved soon, if ever. What remains, however, is the amazing and enduring work, both in law and in philosophy. I can't claim that reading or teaching "The Guide of the Perplexed," especially in the lucid translation by Shlomo Pines (1974, but still in print), has lifted any of my own perplexities. If anything, his book has intensified their entanglements. At the same time, however, I like to think that Maimonides has somehow rendered my perplexities fruitful, and what more could one hope for from a book?

See: Chapters On Jewish Literature: Chapter XIII. Moses Maimonides:

When Moses was thirteen years old, Cordova fell into the hands of the Almohades, a sect of Mohammedans, whose creed was as pure as their conduct was fanatical. Jews and Christians were forced to choose conversion to Islam, exile, or death. Maimon fled with his family, and, after an interval of troubled wanderings and painful privations, they settled in Fez, where they found the Almohades equally powerful and equally vindictive. Maimon and his son were compelled to assume the outward garb of Mohammedanism for a period of five years. From Fez the family emigrated in 1165 to Palestine, and, after a long period of anxiety, Moses Maimonides settled in Egypt, in Fostat, or Old Cairo.

See D. S. Margoliouth: The Legend of the Apostasy of Maimonides:

THAT Maimonides at an early period of his career, in order to save his life, professed Mohammedanism, is an assertion which has found favour with some erninent Jewish writers, such as Gratz, who even accuses those who doubt it of "critical imbecility." In spite of this many have done their best to disprove the charge, and the arguments that can be urged against it have probably been stated most forcibly by Dr. Friedlander in the excursus which is appended to his Introduction to the English translation of the Moreh. The latest monograph on this subject is probably that by H. Kahan. called Hat Moses Maimonides dem Krypto-Mohammedanismus gehuldigt? (M-Sziget, 1899). I cannot find that this writer adds anything but rhetoric to what has been said before many times; but he advocatates the cause represented by Friedlander warmly. That the story told by Mohammedan writers of Maimonides' temporary apostasy was untrue seemed to me to follow from the fact that Islam has no mercy for renegades. Tabari (iii. 1434, anno A.H. 242, A. D. 856) gives us a characteristic case of their treatment. "In this year the Caliph put to death a certain Utarid, a Christian who had turned Moslem, and having remained a Moslem many years, apostatized. He was summoned to repent, but refused to return to Islam, and was executed." Hence, if Maimonides had really become a Moslem, be would have had to remain one, or else change his identity..."

See: Oren Kosansky: Reading Jewish Fez: On the Cultural Identity of a Moroccan City:

The old city is rife with symbols that stand for Fez's pre-colonial Jewish heritage. Another such symbol is found in the person Maimonides (1135-1204), the medieval Jewish philosopher, physician and rabbinic author who lived for several years in Fez. He is known as Rambam and Ben Maimum in Jewish parlance, Ibn Mimum in Muslim discourse. Jews and Muslims alike recognize his residence on one of the old city's main thoroughfares. Educated Muslim Fasis identify Ibn Maimun as an important medieval scholar renowned for his religious and scientific knowledge and notable for his Jewish ancestry, his conversion to Islam and his tenure as a teacher in the neighboring Islamic university. (The idea that Maimonides converted to Islam, it should be noted, is inconceivable to most Moroccan Jews I came to know.)

There are many other sources like those above that reveal that it is Muslims who insist on claiming that Maimonides actually "became a Muslim" whereas many Jewish sources claim that is was simply not true, or that the circumstances of the time are just not clear from a historical point of view, and that in any case Maimonides was a boy of 13 at the time and that the family may have simply dressed by taking on the "cloaks" of Arabs in order to escape but that they never became Muslim in any way. Had they done so officially and tried to return to Judaism they would have been executed, as Islam does not allow converts to Islam, or any Muslim for that matter, to return to another religion. IZAK 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove this, and thank you for supplying all that background information, IZAK. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I also concur. Although even if the story were true I generally favor limiting forced conversions on these lists. The validity of them is disputed in most faiths and forced conversions only rarely "take." To some extent these lists are to be about when the attribute, converting or being of some religion, is important to the person's life or notability.--T. Anthony 06:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As do I. The only rationale Muslims have for claiming "Maimonides converted to Islam" is as one of many means used to attempt to delegitimize every religion but their own. Whether because Muslims are seriously that insecure about the legitimacy of their own religion or otherwise, I can't be certain, but it's curious how Islamist commentators persistently try to coöpt the most revered figures of other religions in an apparent effort to demonstrate that everyone should be a Muslim, and would be, if only they "really knew" what their spiritual leaders "actually believed [as viewed through the warped lens of Muslim misinterpretation and misrepresentation]". This notwithstanding, this sickening trend in muslim polemics has no place whatsoëver in Wikipedia, nor, aside from an article on Muslim subterfuge, in any encyclopedia. TIA, Tomertalk 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"lies and videotape"

The list presently includes Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. Is there any indication anywhere, that supports the assertion that their forced conversions, as a condition of their release, were regarded as "binding" by either of them, or that their these forced conversions are even considered binding by any Muslim authority anywhere in the world? Tomertalk 11:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing this in other sections but WP:LIVING should apply. The title of this section seems to presume some lie was stated by Centanni and/or Wiig. This hasn't been establish (so I have placed the section title in quotes for you - I presume you were alluding to the movie "sex, lies, and videotape" but I don't see how that movie is relevant ?).
These "Muslim authorities"; would that be Sunni, Shia, or maybe Salafi ? What is permitted by some is not allowed by others: we thus would need a representative from each of the various interpretations to state that this was not allowed or is invalid else we may leave out one interpretation in which the conversion is still valid. Thus they would still be apostate if or when they leave Islam. This is an important point as the penalties for apostacy are high (though not as high if you are born into a Muslim environment as far as I know). Ttiotsw 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Stating the shahadah serves the purpose of letting people around you know that you've accepted Islam, it in of itself isn't a contract. Actually believing is what makes a 'conversion'. I don't think any authority recognizes that a forced conversion amounts to an acceptance of Islam, and the terrorists involved are certainly not authorities in the religion. It must be underscored that not all Muslims believe apostasy is punishable with death. Falcon2020 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I was indeed alluding to the title of that was irrelevant, so I didn't include it, and the movie itself wasn't particularly germane to the topic I was raising, which is why I didn't say anything about it. I just thought it made a catchy name for this talk section, since what I wanted to discuss was whether or not these two guys should rightly be included in this section. Until they state that their conversion was sincere, I don't think they should be listed here. My own pretty irrelevant speculation is that they have no plans to ever address the issue publicly (regardless of whether or not their conversions were sincere), in order to avoid potentially jeopardizing the lives of anyone else who might find themselves kidnapped as they were, and presented with the opportunity to save their lives by quoting the shahada. Tomertalk 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I ditto not counting them. I have heard of people who stuck with their forced conversion, but they aren't examples as far as I know. Maybe they could be in an article on Forced conversion, although the current one has problems, but that's it.--T. Anthony 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sort By former religion?

Excuse me for asking, but both the page of christian converts and the page of jewish converts are listed according to former religion. Why is this one listed according to the occupation/profession/criminal record? Also, shouldn't the people who converted during or directly after prophet Mohammed's time be listed somewhere else? I would prefer not mixing modern people with people who lived in prophet Mohammed's time. My 2 cent 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup we really need to get those other articles changed as per my other comments in previous sections. The logic being that the former religion is not why the person is listed; they are listed because they are notable in a particular field: that field of expertese is how they should be sorted. IMHO the other articles are wrong (I will suggest they are re-ordered tonight to see if I can get a consensus on this).
Sorting by religion I feel is a stupid order: as if it was a claim of superiority of this religion over the other religion (i.e. the new religion "won" a convert and the old one "lost" a convert). About the only conversion which would be anywhere near relevant would be from atheist to Islam and there are none listed (so far). I wouldn't imagine many atheists would convert to those delusions. A few do e.g. Anthony Flew is a rare case where he has expressed a affinity towards deism but it is conforting that he still does not agree with either Christianity or Islam in that his god is not the "God of any of the revealed religions"; a conforting sentiment as that kind of "revealed" god has proven to date to be a travesty both of and for humanity).
The idea to seperate by dates falls out of having a date next to the entry. There are so few entries yet anyway to warrant seperate sections for centuries or millenia. Ttiotsw 19:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe Jeffrey Lang went from atheist to Islam. You might look at List of ex-atheists and see if I screwed up on any. I tried to remove people who just went from agnosticism to religion or God-belief. Anyway that you think religion is stupid or whatever is fine, for you, but doesn't say much useful how such lists should be arranged. People interested in such lists may well be interested in religions, possibly just for historical curiosity or psychological study, so knowing what their previous religion was can be useful. When say a king converts Islam it is useful, historically speaking, to know what their previous religion was. Because if you know their previous religion you might get a sense of how their conversion impacted neighboring states.--T. Anthony 06:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Read my reply please - I feel that ordering the list by former religion is stupid not that the religion is stupid !. The reason being that the person is notable from what they are and remain. That issue aside it is probably true that someone studying religion would want to know the former religion of notable figures. In that case I know of no atheists who have converted to a religion who are on record prior to their conversion as saying that they are atheists. They are on record after the conversion e.g. in autobiographies or interviews etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Thus at best we can say "Alleged" Atheist, Agnostic as we have no secondary sources that are able to record that they were an atheist or agnostic. Ttiotsw 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well you should read my reply above this post. List of ex-atheists might give you examples of people who were on record as atheist as it's well-sourced. You may question individual names, but several of the former Communists were at least clearly atheistic and so were those raised atheist like Anna Haycraft. As for the other thing sorting them by former religion doesn't mean deleting information on their occupation. If anything you get more information because right now most names are saying something about their occupation even though they're already in a "by occupation" section. Next to Ahmad Rashād is "former NFL football player" for example. There'd be no reason to delete that if we switched to "by former religion." Still another option would be to go alphabetical as List of Catholic converts does.--T. Anthony 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
A better question is "What useful purpose do these lists actually serve at all?" Tomertalk 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I know many Wikipedians despise it, but religion and religious conversion is a perfectly valid subject. It's important to history and anthropology. When Sabbatai Zevi converted to Islam it had a very profound effect on a religious movement and the conversion of Cat Stevens had some ramifications in music history. A list like this, albeit this one is not well-done, can be useful in learning more about examples of conversions.--T. Anthony 06:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For consistency, it should be sorted by former religion.--Sefringle 07:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have re-organized this list by former religion for consistency with other conversion lists.--Sefringle 05:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please revert Thierry Henry...

Can someone revert that? I am not allowed to because of 3RR, and I am tired of the people that spell his first name "Terry". Thanks in advance. Mrbluesky 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sort of related - I notice that Thierry Henry was removed from the list; then someone else just added him again. Is there a consensus on this? Macduff 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Former Names

Some people on this list changed their names upon conversion (such as Cassius Clay to Muhammed Ali). How about including these on this page? - LukeSurl 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think that's interesting information. -- Macduff 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Editors who want to add people to this article should be aware of these WP policies; any unsourced material - like drop a footnote, folks -- will be reverted. Carlossuarez46 07:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Pretty soon, we should just delete everyone who isn't sourced.--Sefringle 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So you're the one who is responsible for deleting all the names in this article. I really don't see the point of your arguments, if u read the biography articles of these people it tells you that they are converts to Islam with verifiable sources in them. Judging from your profile I think u may have an Anti-Islam pro Zionist bias, although u claim u have a neutral point of view, considering that I don't see u deleting all the names in the Converts to Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism page. Names in this article should only be removed it they are not converts, which u can easily find out from reading their individual wikipedia articles. I think u deleting names in this article is just ridiculous and might be considered as vandalism Wikipedia:vandalism, and pretty soon someone should file a complaint against you to the admins of this site.Wraith12 10:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Wraith12
First of all, I didn't delete any of the names (and you would know that if you checked the history). However I do support the deletion of the unsourced names. If you want to add them back, do so, and provide some citation.--Sefringle 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is just a list of people who converted to Islam whose individual articles are sourced and can be easily verified as converts to Islam, this not a biography page, so I do not think the unsourced material rule applies to this page. Instead of deleting names in this article why don't you provide citations yourselves, if u really have a problem with this issue and stop vandalizing this page. Apparently its easy for u to find citations of Muslim Nazis, and terrorists converts but its difficult to find citations of normal non-extremists Muslim converts. I also don't see anyone deleting names from the Converts to Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism page, so I'm beginning to think that someone has something against Muslims, and is just targeting this page. If this keeps on continuing a moderator should be called in.Wraith12 20:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Wraith12
Well half of the pages that were listed didn't have citations on their biography page to begin with, so that arguement doesn't work. Every article should have citations. And if you are so sure there are citations, provide them, and add that person back on the list. However unsourced material does not belong here. Look at List of atheists and List of converts to Judaism for an example. Notice that everyone on that list is sourced.--Sefringle 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not true most of those pages listed did have citations and were deleted anyways, u just didn't bother reading them, so your argument does not work, also not everyone from the List of converts to Judaism page is cited, check carefully, I just find it hypocritical for someone to delete names of this page while not deleting names from the Converts to Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism page for the same reason. Either the person responsible stop with this nonsense or a moderator will be called in.Wraith12 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Wraith12
They are now. If you want to delete the unsourced converts on the other pages, go right ahead. But we won't have unsourced material on this page.--Sefringle 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Carlossuarez46's note shouldn't be understood as a license to remove those names which are obvious entries, despite their being unsourced. the correct action is to source them. ITAQALLAH 22:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Though if they are unsourced, they shouldn't be listed. If the correct action is to source them, do so. But I said I'll wait a month before removing the unsourced names again, so I won't delete the names again until then (assuming they are still unsourced).--Sefringle 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This list is quite bloated. I will start checking the articles and if I can't find a citation anywhere I will start deleting per Jimbo Wales. Arrow740 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what i have been suggesting, why is it hard just to read the individual articles, and find a citation that verifies that that these people are converts? If there is no citations in their article then they should of course be deleted. It just does not make any sense to delete people from this list who are obviously converts to IslamWraith12 03:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Deletion per WP:BLP

Per WP:BLP, we don't wait and see, we remove:

Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.
This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

People who place unsourced names here of living people will be warned and repeate violators blocked. If there are souces, find them; if there aren't the names stay off. Carlossuarez46 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all this is not a Biography of living people page WP:BLP, this is a Wikipedia:Categorization of people page, this is a big difference, for example if you go to List of people form New York, or List of Music Composers from certain countries, not all of these have citations right next to their names, however they have citations in their BLP page that confirms their right to be in their respective catorization page, so your argument is wrong, because different rules applies to these pages, and if someone continues to delete names from this list for no valid reason and place names of criminals and terrorists in the Media, Arts, and entertainment section, a complaint will be sent to a moderator because this is an obvious attempt of vandalism. Wraith12 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Wraith12
Complain all you want -- if there are sources in the individual pages, repeat them here. Have you even read WP:BLP? It is not limited to biography articles but ALL ARTICLES and even TALK PAGES! Look at the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, look at the List of converts to Judaism, why is this list any different? Carlossuarez46 16:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Tyson a muslim convert

I found this New York Times articles while I was researching some details of this boxer: SPORTS PEOPLE: BOXING; Tyson's Conversion to Islam Denied

I can't find any official or well sourced reports that confirms his conversion - just second hand reports (like the BBC article linked here) and this denial. --Eqdoktor 09:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Found an AFP report of Tyson visiting a Mosque - Tyson returns to freedom at last. The NY Times report is out of date. --Eqdoktor 09:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not a reliable source. It is a home page. Anyone can post anything on the internet, you know.--Sefringle 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That page is a reprint from a 1995 Agence France-Presse (a reliable news source) news report. It does not appear to be altered or changed. Mike Tyson's conversion is not in doubt. I have since found numerous other sources wherein it is cited or mentioned that he is a Muslim. This interview for example where he talks a bit of religion:
Saraceno, Jon., Tyson: 'My whole life has been a waste',, 2005-06-02, Retrieved on 2007-03-11.
--Eqdoktor 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
He's not a perfect Muslim of course. December 29, 2006: Tyson was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and possession of cocaine in Maricopa County, Arizona. Source:,, December 29, 2006. --Leroy65X 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The USA Today interview does not mention Islam at all... or is there a subtle reference I didn't get? Mrbluesky 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Section to be moved to another article

The Christian Science Monitor, citing a report published by the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), states that 20,000 Americans convert to Islam every year, of which 6 percent are Latinos.[1] Although there are no precise figures, observers who monitor Europe's Muslim population estimate that several thousand men and women convert to Islam each year, including an estimated 1,000 British Christians, and members of other faiths.[2][3] An estimated 200,000 Filipinos have converted to Islam since the 1970s.[4] In Israel, 70 Jews converted to Islam in 2006, more than twice the number in previous years.[5] There is a growing number of African converts to Islam in South Africa as well, with an estimated 75,000 Africans are now Muslim compared to fewer than 12,000 in 1991 during apartheid white rule, according to research by the Human Sciences Research Council, a government-funded institute.[6] Arrow740 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources

[8] is not a reliable source because it is a proselyting website.--Sefringle 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BlessSins's taking out important information

BlessSins, you have been deleting entries from List of former Muslims, suggesting that Ibn Warraq is not a reliable source. Now you're deleting important facts about some of these converts to Islam on this list. When you have facts like:

  • "American, from Christianity, retired basketball player & the NBA's all-time leading scorer"

Then facts like:

  • on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list

Are also important. Please dont delete important notable information like this in the future. Thanks, --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BlessSins, your edits are going to be reverted if you keep doing this. Being a terrorist is a NOTABLE fact about a person. Please stop taking this information out of this article. And you're not participating in Talk here. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Adam Gadahn is ONLY notable because of his position as a spokesperson for Al-Qaeda, as a cheerleader for Osama. The fact that he says Islam is the religion of truth and that we should all convert to Islam is not notable. Lots of people say that, including some Wikipedians. --ProtectWomen 00:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual, BlessSins, you have attempted again to take out important information about a convert to Islam. Thankfully C Logan reverted it. Being a member of Al Qaeda and being a terrorist and a criminal is a notable fact about a person. Sorry, it will stay in.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Ahmed Santos (militant)

We have 2 Ahmed Santos's as I found out. I've fixed everything now and created a new article: Ahmed Santos (militant). thanks, --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word terrorist

I'm reading the policies here, they're not recommending the use of the word terrorist but they do allow it under certain circumstrances: "the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". "BlessSins, you should have cited this guideline instead of just plain reverting it.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Note ...verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In other words, whenever we list a convert and state that s/he has been accused of terrorism or labeled as a terrorist, we need to say who is calling them that. --Macduff 04:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, thats right. I'll make that change then. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 11:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that is going to complciate the article further. Because if there are allegations, then there may be counter arguments. It's best to omit this and refer the reader to the article about the person. Also remember that in teh case of living persons, WP:BLP forbids us from allowing the criticism to be "overwhelming". Thus we should avoid including the criticism.Bless sins 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No. The fact that a person has been accused of terrorism is significant. Dont remove it from the list. The fact that they tried to defend themselves in court is a secondary matter which as you say can be read in the article. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali a Sufi?

What the Hell, Mohammad Ali isnt a sufi that certified site is bullshit, show me more sites that say ali is a sufi -- 14:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That Sufi part really should be edited out, Sufism isn't a sect. Technically Sufism is just a way of thinking for Sunni Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Use of "convicted" a gazillion times by POV pushers . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - Convicted is a FACT. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's right. 'Convicted' is just a matter of fact.
If, by chance, you're suggesting that the presence of information regarding criminal history is somehow being presented in a way that links it to Islamic conversion, then it would appear that it is your own defensive POV that is leading you in this assertion.
What determines that "representative from so-and-so district" should be included and not "convicted of so-and-so charges"? Both are simple factual statements. The connection between violence and Islam is made by the individual, not the list itself. Keep that in mind, Farhansher. --C.Logan 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to say, I agree with your compromise on Siraj :-)Bless sins 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. That's the main reason I've been changing it. I'm not doubting Siraj's contributions, but the language used made him seem superhuman in his actions. This phrasing reflects his positive actions while keeping a perspective on the reality of the drug problem. It's nice to be involved in quick compromises like this.--C.Logan 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Tawana Bradley.

While my watch list is filled quite a bit with the simple back-and-forth business on this page, there is one frequent removal that I don't understand. I have a feeling that there's some sort of vanillafying going on, and here's why. This is the text for Tawana Bradley:

  • Tawana Brawley (Maryam Muhammad) - African American, who converted after a grand jury determinded that her claims to have been raped by several white men were a fabrication[7][8]

Okay. Now, it is often changed along with the rest of the disputed descriptions to this:

  • Tawana Brawley (Maryam Muhammad) - African American, after an unsuccessful rape trial against several white men.[9][10]

The reason given for the bunch of edits is "misrepresentation of sources". I can understand this concern, and though I haven't looked at the sources behind many of the disputed descriptions, this is one that I have, and I most certainly believe that the first description accurately describes what the sources say. Here's what they say:

On October 6, 1988, the Abrams Grand Jury released its extensive and thorough 170 page report concluding that Tawana Brawley ("Brawley") had not been abducted, assaulted, raped and sodomized as had been claimed by Brawley and her advisors. The report further concluded that the "unsworn public allegations against Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones" were false and had no basis in fact. To issue the report, the Grand Jury heard from 180 witnesses, saw 250 exhibits and recorded over 6,000 pages of testimony.
Plaintiff further claimed that Brawley knew that the "accusations, statements and words were false and untrue" and that she subsequently ratified and reaffirmed the acts, conduct, statements and accusations made by defendants Maddox, Mason and Sharpton who were found on July 13, 1998 by the jury to have defamed plaintiff. Brawley was also alleged to have intentionally inflicted emotional harm upon plaintiff and to have been a part of a conspiracy.
Mason’s [note: her attorney] attempt to relate Brawley’s chlamydia infection in 1987 to Pagones’ common type urinary infection in 1993 was without any reliable basis in fact. Mason’s early claim that medical records at Westchester Medical Center revealed five separate types of sperm found on Brawley turned out to be totally false. There was absolutely nothing in those records to substantiate this claim.
Meaningful medical evidence that Brawley was raped and as Mason claimed, sodomized in two ways, was totally lacking. It is inconceivable, even to lay persons without medical expertise such as those serving on the jury, that Brawley, a fifteen year old, could have been repeatedly raped and sodomized in two ways by six men over a four day period without significant physical evidence to support her allegations. The extensive cross-examination of those who treated and those who observed Brawley after she was discovered produced nothing of substance to sustain these allegations.
Extensive cross-examination of Dutchess County DistrictAttorney Grady and members of his staff and John Ryan, the experienced and able assistant attorney general in charge of the Abrams Grand Jury, accomplished nothing of substance to cast doubt upon the conclusions reached by the Grand Jury in its report, which determined Brawley’s allegations to be false.
Every opportunity was afforded Mason and Maddox to prove that Brawley’s allegations were true. The jury found them false by clear and convincing evidence, a high burden of proof.
The failure of Tawana Brawley to appear before this jury cannot be condoned nor can her actions of leaving the state, changing her name and still as a mature adult avoiding the truth and perpetuating a lie.These acts alone are very serious, but it was an absolute affront to this jury for Brawley to appear at a rally in Brooklyn during the trial and not to appear in Poughkeepsie to testify under oath.

I believe that's more than sufficient. I don't think I need to browse through the CourtTV source, which contains more of the same. Considering the above, which is from the New York Courthouse's site, it's fairly clear that the entire trial was a fabrication, a falsehood. The men whom she accused had their names tarnished by her lie, and even heavyweights like Al Sharpton jumped in to the fray against these innocent men. Therefore, I don't see why this...

  • Tawana Brawley (Maryam Muhammad) - African American, who converted after a grand jury determinded that her claims to have been raped by several white men were a fabrication[11][12]

keeps getting removed. She converted to Islam, yes. And this occurred after the trial in which she gave a false testimony, which a Grand Jury determined to have been entirely fabricated. This is not simply an "unsuccessful rape trial", according to the sources. If there is really any other reason why this continues to be changed along with the rest of the disputed descriptions, please explain why- as this is exactly what the sources say. Thanks for reading.--C.Logan 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. But we also need to mention, for the sake of NPOV, that Brawley maintains her innocence.[9]Bless sins 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Very true, but how would we go about doing that? It should be noted that it's extremely common for those accused to deny the accusations vehemently. The jury determined that she lied.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the denial of an accusation doesn't hold as much weight as the decision of a Grand Jury. Denial is an expected action of the loser in a situation. Considering this, it would seem a little odd if we were to cater to this fact in such a short description- perhaps the details of denial should be left to her article.--C.Logan 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
that is true for many offenders. Some, however, do plead guilty. What if we added the sentence "Brawley, however, maintains her innocence"?Bless sins 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only problem is... wasn't it someone else's innocence at stake? It seems that it was simply a case of backfiring accusations- she accused someone of a crime, and it was a lie (or rather the Grand Jury determined it was a lie). So maybe state that "she maintains the validity of her claims/accusation/testimony", as she was the accuser?--C.Logan 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have what maybe a different concern. The way its worded it implies she converted to Islam because her rape case was fabricated. Is this why she converted? Is this what we mean to imply? If not is there a better way to word the matter? (For the record I think it was all a fabrication, but I'm not concerned with that)--T. Anthony 06:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins and 3RR

Good point User:C.Logan. It is so POV to describe the trial as unsuccessful. From the POV of the poor falsely accused boys it was a most Successful trial.

User:Bless sins has completed his 4th revert in under 24 hours and needs to be taken to task immediately. Prester John 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded to Brawley stuff above. My four edits shouldn't be considered reverts, as you will be hard pressed to find a "Previous version" that I reverted to.Bless sins 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Tyson

I don't think we should mention Mike Tyson's rape, as that is not the notable aspect about him. Indeed, he is known as a World heavyweight boxing champion. A google search on him shows that he far more noted for boxing than for rape.[10] The word "rape" doesn't even appear on the first page.Bless sins 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, though I do believe we shouldn't whitewash things, I'm inclined to agree here. He's a felon, certainly- why do we have to be more specific than that? Two things come to mind when I think of Mike Tyson: "Boxer" and "Felon". Well, make that three: "Ear devourer". With less known individuals, specifics are a plus, even when they're rather negative; Tyson is a rather public figure, however. A lot more could be written, so we should keep it rather general. Of course, if a good argument is presented for the specificity of the description, I'm willing to hear it.--C.Logan 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins- we reached an agreement here, but input is needed from the other editors here. I'm not everybody, and I don't claim to be- I may be a bit more willing to work with you on this, but my opinion ultimately means nothing if the other editors disagree. We may be in the minority, even with this compromise. So, to prevent further edit warring, we may want to work towards a general vote concerning phraseology.--C.Logan 04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks ok now after Bless Sins added "converted after conviction". What we dont want to do (as BlessSins attempted to do again) is delete important facts or whitewash over negative facts. Negative or positive, any fact which is the significant should be mentioned in their introduction. So for example if someone is a convicted serial killer, that obviously has to be mentioned in their introduction. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with it, although I feel that if we're going to go into conversion details, it would be a bit less apologetic-sounding to simply mention that he converted while in prison (a point of fact which is mentioned in several other descriptions).--C.Logan 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the current version--SefringleTalk 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Rapist, or felon? I'm not sure which it was when you posted this, and I'm a bit too lazy to look it up.--C.Logan 04:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should either leave out the matter alltogether, as Mr Tyson is way more notable for being a boxer than for being a rapist. However, if we include it, we should clearly call a spade a spade and not hide it behind the word "felon" (also, come to think of it, I think a rapist should not be brought into a position that one might think that he has committed some other felony, say "murder"). In any case "prior to his conversion" is original among all the items listed here, so it definitely has to go. Str1977 (smile back) 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the wording "converted in prison" (assuming that these are the facts) Str1977 (smile back) 07:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on Article Parameters

I have a question on this article's parameters, that I believe would help us on the List of notable converts to Christianity article. The opening statement, "This is a list of notable people who have converted to Islam sometime during their lives", sounds like that this list includes not only current notable Muslims, but likewise those who may have converted at one time and then left for whatever reason. Am I correct in interpreting this? Thank you for your response. Drumpler 10:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

as far as i know, the list covers only those who converted and remained in the religion. ITAQALLAH 13:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Drumpler, you are corrrect, Itaqallah is wrong. The list contains anyone who converted to Islam at some point in their lives. It doesnt matter what they are now. Itaqallah, the description is clear: "This is a list of notable people who have converted to Islam sometime during their lives." --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
can you name anyone in the list who conforms to your assertion? ITAQALLAH 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
David Hicks, he converted to Islam and later left. Read the article. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a speculation at best by someone else. He is Muslim as long as he himself says it. --- A. L. M. 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Itaqallah, also see List of Muslims which says "have been Muslims some point in their lives". It doesnt mean they will remain Muslims. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
it doesn't say that at all. ITAQALLAH 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok I see now, yes. In any case, "List of notable converts to Islam" means, someone who converted to Islam at some point in their lives, which is what the description says. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
you'd have a leg to stand on if the title was "List of notable people who converted to Islam", but it's about those who can be called "converts to Islam". if you say someone (or a group) is a notable convert to Islam, then that's their current status. it doesn't connote they converted at some point but have since renounced their conversion. ITAQALLAH 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why shouldnt it? So you're saying the person will be moved from one list to the other? See, the list of former Muslims. That one says "have been Muslims at some point in their lives". Looks like that list is different then. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Why shouldnt it?" see present tense. "That one says "have been Muslims at some point in their lives"" - yes, because to be a former Muslim that is a requirement. ITAQALLAH 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What difference does that make with regards to entries in the list if the decision is made either way? Are there some people who will be disqualified from ebing in the list? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"people who converted to Islam from a different religion or no religion."

People keep adding this meaningless phrase to the top of the article:

people who converted to Islam from a different religion or no religion.

Are they trying to distinguish them from people who converted to Islam from Islam? Every person who converts to a religion does so "from a different religion or no religion". Please don't add meaningless text to articles. Jayjg (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You suggest that we have no introduction then. Right? Because that what exactly List of notable converts to Islam means anyway. I have copied it from List of notable converts to Christianity. Obviously your change is perfectly different "This is a list of notable people who have converted to Islam." --- A. L. M. 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yvonne Ridley

Also please take a look at Ridley. The article currently says "British journalist, converted from Anglicanism after being kidnapped by the Taliban."

The source, [11] however, says something different. The whole reason she converted is because she was treated "sweetly" by the Taliban, and she even calls them "nice people". She even says "I was horrible to my captors. I spat at them and was rude and refused to eat."

In another article she describes the Taliban's conduct "very nice", and the Taliban as "good guys". [12]Bless sins 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Stockholm syndrome, eh? Str1977 (smile back) 07:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Ridley, it's important to note both
a) that she was kidnapped (captors = kidnapping), and
b) that she came to sympathize with her captors. The whole story is really required. It's a rather interesting story, and not really impropable- compare Patty Hearst's situation back in the day. :So in this instance, we should make sure both events are noted- the latter is unremarkable without the former, and the former doesn't justify placement here without the latter.--C.Logan 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps we should put: British journalist, from Anglicanism. She converted after she was kidnapped, and subsequently treated respectfully, by the Taliban.Bless sins 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on her doesn't mention that she was previously an Anglican, and I cannot find it mentioned in the press articles I have checked. I suggest we delete reference and move to unknown religion unless anyone can justify it? --BozMo talk 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the affiliation is assumed due to her nationality. I did a quick search for it, and though I wasn't trying to be thorough, I only found one non-blog, non-forum site which made such a statement. It's a Muslim community site, so I'd take the information with a grain of salt, especially as the information is isolated. Additionally, it is an 'action alert' for a dinner presentation at which Ridley is to be featured, so come September when the event passes, I'm unsure if this page will still be available. Either way, here it is for assessment.[13]--C.Logan 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I have moved to undetermined, since it isn't conclusive. --BozMo talk 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The WP article on her does paint a different picture. Here we read that she was treated "nice" and hence converted. There it says she refused to convert but promised to read the Quran, that she found out that the Taliban treatment of women to be unjustified by the Quran and converted anyway. It says she treated her captors "badly", not that they treated her "nice" - in any case, the "nice" treatment seems in no causal connection to her conversion. Str1977 (smile back) 07:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yusef Lateef et alia?

We seem to be allowing NOI members again. I know Ahmadis aren't considered Muslims by mainstream Islam, but NOI isn't considered Muslims by mainstream Islam either. Should converts to Ahmadiyya be allowed back in or not?--T. Anthony 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

no. NOI members shouldn't really be here either. ITAQALLAH 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't seem sound. Why not?--C.Logan 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Bare in mind I'm not a Muslim. However NOI's view of Wallace Fard Muhammad could be deemed Shirk, it's teaching of The Mother Plane non-standard, and its ideas on race incompatible with the universalizing nature of Islam. Not including either group, NOI or Ahmadis, could be consistent and I could support that as well. Although I wonder if it's wise to get too strict with that and I think Ahmadis are a bit less heterodox than NOI from what I can tell. (Ahmadis don't deify any individual or claim that any past prophets are living in UFOs) Anyway there does seem to be occasional interest in converts to heterodox Islam so maybe we should have a "List of converts to Islamic derived movements" or something. (I think calling them "converts to heterodox Islam" could sound divisive)--T. Anthony 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Points taken. However, the line that separates the orthodox from the heterodox can be very thin. Many Protestants unfortunately live with the belief that Catholicism is not Christian, as they believe that too many of the Church's practices are 'off the deep end' and are 'un-Biblical' (though I beg to differ). For example I wouldn't call Mormons Christians myself, but I believe such a title is valid if they so choose that general classification (and similarly, many fellow monotheists, such as Muslims, may be a bit apprehensive about referring to us as 'monotheists', though that is our rightful indentification, in my opinion). Your proposal for a separate article seems good, though I believe it may work better as a section (Is there really enough information there to justify an article? Will it ever grow beyond 10 entries, or so?).--C.Logan 22:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
There used to be such a section. From about October 2005 to September 2006 there was an NOI section. Of non-mainstream forms of Islam NOI probably has the most notable converts. Part of that is because other groups are in societies that are mostly Muslim so their converts were already Muslim of some kind. The other part is NOI is mostly North American, I believe, and Wikipedians are largely or mostly North American.--T. Anthony 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that any sects, offshoots or divisions of Islam belong on this page because we are no one to say that NOI arent Muslims. According to themselves, they are part of Islam. They could be in a separate section as they were before. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Description issue

As was advised, I am posting this issue here for discussion. This is mainly in regard to the brief summary for the individual known as Abu Usamah. I recently edited the line from specifically his alleged terror ties to the more general controversy line. My reasoning was as such: under the controversy section of his article (which i've been helping to work on), there are a number of issues contained. Among them are accusations of his terror ties, mysoginistic comments, prejudice towards non-Muslims, and a few more things. All of it stuff that he denies, but the accusations have been made nonetheless. Considering the amount of information contained there, it didn't seem to make much sense that one specific accusation was highlighted. Furthermore, we all know how people may take it; i'm not literally implying a subliminal thing but if "alleged terrorist ties" is the first thing people read about him, most will assume said ties are true even though I know nobody here intends for that.
Now, that's fine if most editors think about it and don't agree; honestly, it's not a major issue. My main issue has been the attitude and reaction a few individuals have had to my suggstion. Some have plainly explained why they disagree, but others have not been so positive. It is not conducive to a strong working (editing) environment when we take every disagreement as an opportunity to argue. This is not an issue where we must "prove the other guy wrong". I just wanted some reasonable discussion, perhaps bringing it on here instead of people's talk pages will work better. MezzoMezzo 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Allahdad incident

Please note this article is about notable persons who converted to Islam. The people who allegedly "converted" to Islam in the Allahdad incident aren't notable.Bless sins 18:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

but the insident is. It is only censorship to not include it.--SefringleTalk 05:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article is "List of notable converts", not "List of notable conversion incidents". Thus, please restrict the content to "converts". The definition of "convert" is "a person who has been converted to another religious or political belief." [14]Bless sins 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In this case a community converted, and that is notable. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, back to the definition. It says "a person". Can you find a single notable person?Bless sins 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Blesssins, it says "converts", which can include groups of converts too. Sorry, this will obviously stay in. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that I've read the article on it I have a different question. Does this mean forced conversions should be here? Because wayback when I thought the answer was no. Now I'm guessing Steve Centanni's was still too temporary to fit, but what of other cases?--T. Anthony 07:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes and each convert has to be notable. If someone isn't notable they don't belong. Also, I'd agree that forced conversion would probably not be included, as the people didn't really convert to Islam but only pretended to be Muslims. But back to Matt57: can you name a single notable convert in the Allahdad incident?Bless sins 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Conversion is a conversion, forced or voluntary. If you want, we can make a new sub-section "Forced conversions". The group is notable as a whole, the individuals could be added separately if they were notable on their own. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I disagree. Especially in this case where they still practiced Judaism afterwards. I think most editors had agreed not to include temporary forced conversions when I worked on this and I don't see the reason for the change. Forced conversions are discouraged from being on other lists. The only reason to include them here, that I can see, is to highlight the brutality of Islam in certain moments of history.--T. Anthony 00:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Allahdad incident is notable as a whole tribe converted under duress. Anyone who thinks the title is limited to single persons, is not understanding the English language correctly. IMO I believe forced converts are relevant to this article and need to be included.Prester John 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These people were still practicing Jews. Why should they be included here? A convert is someone who embraces a new faith, not someone who continues to practice their former religion. Error1010 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

They were forced by the Muslim ruler to convert to Islam and profess their belief in Islam. Read the article:
With knives held to their throats, the Jewish patriarchs were forced to vocally proclaim their allegiance to Mohammed’s religion.
Forced conversions are also included in this article. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, but they didn't believe what they were saying, hence they were not Muslims. Error1010 00:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt matter, if one is still a forced convert to Islam, that qualifies them to be on this list. We're not talking about religious a convert is, whether he really believes the stuff or not. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well if you never really believes in Islam, then you don't qualify as a Muslim. That's simple, right? If someone was forced to convert to Islam, but they kept believing in it after any force was gone, then they actually belong to this list. But if someone was forced, yet they still retained their former beliefs, then they never actually converted. Error1010 00:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Again we're not talking about the quality of their faith. The fact is that they were forced to convert to Islam. This means they were a convert to Islam. It will stay. You're H.E., right? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about quality of faith either. I'm talking about a total lack of faith. There's a difference. If they actually converted to Islam, they would hold Islamic beliefs. Yes, I am male, if that's what you mean, but I don't see how that's relevant here. Error1010 00:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Now you look like Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) to me. Anyway, as I said, a conversion is a conversion. If I'm forced to convert to Islam and pledge allegiance to Allah and Mohammad, I have converted to Islam by force. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
One has not converted to Islam until they are a Muslim. Conversion is not lip service. Error1010 00:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, a forced conversion is a conversion. They were forced to be Muslims. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. A Muslim is not a person who practices Jewish beliefs in private. Error1010 00:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt matter if they practiced it or not. They were forced to convert to Islam. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 00:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
We are going in circles. They did not actually convert to Islam, because they never became Muslims. Error1010 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the deletion of comments. An honest mistake on my part. OTOH, your edits are way too similar to recently blocked editors. Be extra careful with your edits. 00:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Error1010, a forced conversion is a conversion even if the person is secretly not converted... i see that this concept is complex for you, but it doesn't make your words that "it's not a conversion" correct. Jaakobou 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
So this list is to work differently than any other list of converts. Is there a reason for that? Also do we need to put Maimonides and Steve Centanni back because of this? Religion and Wikipedia two things that never mix well.--T. Anthony 05:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't know about Centanni, but Maimonides didn't convert from what I know. His community was coerced into conversion, but with a choice of exile as an alternative, which his family chose. Therefore, he wouldn't be listed under this reasoning, anyway.--C.Logan 05:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamic law states that a person who recites the shahada is a convert to Islam. If they secretly practice another religion that is apostasy, a crime punishable by death, but it does not make them not Muslims under Islamic law. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC) There is actually no evidence that Maimonides' family ever converted, forcibly or otherwise. This is conjecture based on the fact that they lived under Almohad rule. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys we're missing a point here. None of the converts are notable! Infact do we even know the names of the converts?Bless sins 04:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason my point has to be the same as your point. My point, not including forced conversions, is consistent with the other lists and the history of this article. Your point can be valid too in a different way. (Although see List of notable converts to Judaism#Christian Proselyte Communities which is largely made up of mass-conversions of people who are not individually notable)--T. Anthony 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The relevant issue is whether we include forced conversions or not. In any case, these are clearly conversions from the Islamic perspective and law.
As for notability, apparently we know about these converts (and not from any personal, family connection) so they are notable. None of these might be notable as an individual person but they are notable as a group. Even if they are notable only for their conversion, they are still notable. It is not for us to judge whether they should be notable. Str1977 (smile back) 07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
How can someone be notable, if we don't even know his/her name? Besides, are such mass "forced conversions" listed in the Christian counterpart to this article?Bless sins 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your first question, the community conversion is notable. The name of the article is not "List of notable individuals who converted to Islam". In answer to your second question, it's irrelevant; we're talking about this article. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions, RV wars, and the like.

Rather than continue to revert and reapply certain description, perhaps we should reach a consensus over what the descriptions should say. I don't tolerate whitewashing, but I also don't feel the descriptions need to be as harsh as they have been. I prefer to take the middle ground by ensuring that all 'negative' information be included, but without such forceful language. I've talked over a few of these descriptions with editors such as Bless sins, and between us, a reasonable compromise has been reached. I feel that we might make an attempt to agree on things. Maybe certain contentious descriptions could be listed here and voted upon/discussed by editors involved. The only way whitewashing will cease is if we reach a universal agreement on how the facts are presented. Any thoughts?--C.Logan 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly acceptable so long as it isn't making light of what they did.--SefringleTalk 05:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Forced conversions

As everyone currently in this section was jewish before they were forced to convert to Islam, I propose making it a subsection to the "from judaism" section.--SefringleTalk 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Object. Currently there are only Jews included but there might be others. Str1977 (smile back) 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I may be able to add a reference about millions more soon, though maybe that wouldn't be appropriate here. Arrow740 09:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as it is referenced bit by referenced bit.
OTOH, we could also relocate these two back to the Judaism section. I'm not so sure whether Sabbatai's conversion was "forced" or merely "opportunistic", given that he enjoyed a pleasant life afterwards. Str1977 (smile back) 13:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is currently organized by previous religion of adherent. It is not organized by type of covnersion. Infact, splitting the article into "Conversion for the love of Islam" and "Forced conversion" seems a bit silly to me.Bless sins 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What kind of a topic is this? Nobody becomes a muslim until he believes in the articles of faith, if you even force someone he doesn't become because he does not believe it in his/her heart. This topic is silly and useless.--Vairulz

St. John Philby

Notable conversion from chrisitianity to Islam - father of Kim Philby, advisor to Ibn Saud—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

no source--SefringleTalk 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Since all content in wikipedia should be notable, putting notable in the title is redundant, makes the title too long and is plain ugly. Unless someone can provide an argument on why should there be a separate List of converts to Islam, the redirects as they stand are wrong.--Cerejota 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rules for convert lists like this one are consistent with all religions, so you might want to move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion.--SefringleTalk 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sabbatai Zevi

The source about his conversion says "In 1666 he attempted to land in Constantinople, was captured, and to escape death embraced Islam." The article doesn't say that he was given the choice between "death and conversion", nor does it say that any such thing was given by Muslims.

Infact, he may have converted to Islam, as Muslims granted amnesty to thier co-religionists. This does not mean that Muslim forced Sabbatai to convert to Islam. Please clarify.Bless sins 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is what I found about Sabbatai Zevi (from Geoffrey L Lewis; Cecil Roth. New Light on the Apostasy of Sabbatai Zevi. The Jewish Quarterly Review).
Sabbatai Zevi's claim to be the "King of Jews" was considered treasonable. However, despite his actions the Turkish authorities ignored him. As he continued, the authorities imprisoned him "without any harsheness or severity". The Sultan wanted him to "accept Islam, ostensibly of his own free will." Then he was "invited to embrace Islam." Although there was the possibility of his execution, Sheikh al-Islam advised against it. Further during his conversion, Sabbatai "consented to do what was asked of him". As a result of his conversion, he "was able in effect to turn the tables on the Turkish authorities, for he could present his conversion as a spontaneous action within a messianic setting, as part of the necessary fulfillment before the ultimate glorious consummation".Bless sins 05:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig

Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig did not actually convert to Islam. The CNN article says, "But the two later explained they had done so at gunpoint, and that the conversion was not real".

Professor Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, who teaches sociology and history at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, also denied that the "conversion" of the two was valid. (A link to his interview here).Bless sins 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

hmm.. Then the page needs a clear definition of what conversion to Islam means, since there are clearly Muslims who thinks forced conversions are perfectly valid. Perhaps you are assuming a Christianity take on conversions, where one woud normally say all "forced conversions" would automatically be invalid and false since intention would be missing. However, many interpretations of Islam seems to have another, more ritualistic approach, where the mere saying of certain phrases means you are now a Muslim. One must assume their captors were satisfied they were Muslims. Rune X2 18:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know of a single Muslim scholar who says that a conversion by the tongue only, and not affirmed by heart, is valid. Please show me otherwise.Bless sins 02:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous. First of all, forcible conversions are, by their definition, forced, and thus the majority who are so forced will be doing so ritualistically and not out of conviction. The history of forced conversions in Islam is well documented and notable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
if an individual (or individuals) had been forced to convert, and had later renounced their conversion due to its being forced (thus no longer being Muslim), don't you believe it belongs in List of former Muslims? ITAQALLAH 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
They are notable because of their conversion, not because of their renunciation (if applicable). So no. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Both Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig say their conversion was "not real". Furthermore, a scholarly secondary source (Professor Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi) said their conversion was not valid at all.Bless sins 21:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it was, they were forced to convert to Islam. Whether or not the conversion was actually real and they believed in Islam or not, is not important. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Listen to yourself! If someone didn't convert to Islam, they don't belong on this list. That should be clear by the title.Bless sins 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
exactly. The point is they did convert. A forced conversion, whether it lasts or not once free to do as one pleases, is still a conversion.--SefringleTalk 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No! The sources above (both the CNN article and the professor) clearly say that the conversion was invalid/not real. How many times should I repeat that.Bless sins 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it says their conversion was not real. But it still occured. So what if there was no faith behind it, they still were forced to convert.--SefringleTalk 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It was "not real" therefore didn't really occur. Sefringle this article is about real conversions not fake ones.Bless sins 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

John Ward

John Ward/Yusuf Reis didn't quit his piracy career until several years after conversion, and some sources claim he remained a corsair unto death.

The source listed claims that "He spent the next four to six years leading corsairs from Tunis, mainly attacking Venetian shipping, and in 1609 converted to Islam, asking the name Yussuf Rais, although he seems to have retired by the middle of the 1610s, despite reports of his returning to the corsairing life in 1622."

That does not say he retired in 1609, so that's why I removed that. There's about 6 years post-conversion in which he remained a pirate, and I wouldn't blame him for retiring, considering that he was in very advanced age at that point.

This source says that "Ward eventually became a muslim and changed his name to Yusuf Reis. As Yusuf Reis, he continued his career in piracy until 1622, up until the age of 70. By then he had both an Italian wife and also a wife in England. He lived out the rest of his life in luxury and may have died of the plague."

And this source says that "Ward converted to muslim & took on the name Yusuf Reis. It was as Yusuf Reis, that Ward took part in several raids until 1622, when he neared the age of 70. He married an Italian woman & also sent money to his English wife."

I think we can agree that the man continued his career until he was simply too old to do so.--C.Logan 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I never saw those sources. Yes, I'd agree.Bless sins 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sana al-Sayegh

So far, the only reliable source for her conversion is the JPost. But the JPost only says that the allegation of forced conversion is made by Fatah, and the covnert's family. Since when is Fatah a reliable source?

Other sources that claim this are missionary sites, quite partisan. I haven't really seen a mainstream newspaper claim forced conversion.

Therefore, this is the current state of affairs:

  • We know she is a professor and converted. This is affirmed by her colleagues as well.
  • Fatah is claiming she was forced to convert and her family says she "would" never have converted freely.

This is what we should put in the article to keep it NPOV. Remember we are dealing with a living person here.Bless sins 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You cant question Hamas being a reliable source. No one quoted the official website of Hamas as a source. You have the wrong idea. We're quoting newspapers here, not Hamas. There are other RS's for this forced conversion too. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
the notion of forced conversion is an allegation being reported by the media (and disputed, per al-Sayegh's article). also, as per WP:BLP1E, i don't believe al-Sayegh is otherwise notable; and if she is there are grave WP:UNDUE problems on her article. ITAQALLAH 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A.W. Pedersen

Abdul Wahid Pedersen is Danish, not swedish. So stop reverting my edits. 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Many of the converts in this list have images already on wikipedia. To put images of some, but not of others, is unfair. We could put images of every convert (who is notable anyways), but that'd clutter up the article. It's best to avoid the use of images.Bless sins 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Every "list of converts to religon x" has images. Images belong, but only for the very notable people. The barely notable people (which is the majority of the people on this list) do not have images. Then, only those who we can find free images of have images. If the image is fair use, it cannot be included here. So no, we cannot have images of everyone even if we wanted to.--SefringleTalk 02:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that this has become an issue greatly troubles me. Images improve articles and facilitate understanding, as well as improve the aesthetics of an article. The use of images on Wikipedia, and the means by which they are selected for use, are truly elementary concepts. The individuals pictured now were chosen by personal additions, and maintained by standing consensus. If you have a problem with an image, please point out the specific image. I've become tired of seeing information and images removed by vandals who don't like the verifiable information presented, and would prefer to align Wikipedia to their own delusions. Islam-related articles have seen an uncommonly high amount of censorship of "unflattering" material. Since Richard Reid is often removed by vandals, I can only assume that this complaint may focus on the removal of that image, because I cannot see any other valid reason why someone would complain about the presence of pictures in an article which contains 5 pictures, all of which facilitate understanding and improve the article's aesthetic.--C.Logan 03:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of censorship as you claim. Infact, why don't we post images of every convert we can find (since all are notable anyways)? Where do we draw the line? Finally, aside from images, background information (eg. statistics on conversion, common perceptions and reasons) also "facilitate understanding". Should we begin including that as well?Bless sins 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Just like any other selection of images in an article, an individual selects one that he finds useful and of good quality and introduces it into the article, and consensus determines the place of the image. That's like arguing that since one could include hundreds of the countless images of Jesus in that article, that one shouldn't include any pictures of Christ. That doesn't make much sense. Certain images are chosen, and it's largely arbitrary, but due somewhat to the notability of the individual, the availability of usable images, and the quality of said images. Additionally, your comment on the inclusion of other information, such as conversion statistics, is largely irrelevant, as this is an article about the people who have made such conversions, and not concerning the idea of religious conversion in general. As such, pictures of these people are extremely useful, just as pictures of an individual in a biography article would be. With that being said, feel free to include any pictures you'd like, if you find them to be useful (personally, I think we should have an image of Malcolm X somewhere in there).--C.Logan 06:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps can you point me to the "consensus" that was achieved that approved the inclusion of the image of Francis Bok. I don't remember that there was even a discussion. I also don't remember any consensus on the inclusion of the images of others. My question remains: where do we draw the line when deciding whose image to include and whose not to? Sefringle said only the images of "very notable" people should be included. How do we ever decide who qualifies as that?Bless sins 06:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Bok was added recently, was he not? What's the issue you have with that particular image? We don't have to discuss things before adding them into articles; that's why we're instructed to be bold. However, if an individual disagrees with the addition, then consensus has not yet been reached on the issue. Of course, "not liking" the content is not really a good reason for any change, and we have to remember that the article doesn't only belong to us- we have to work together with others. I have no concern over the Bok image, but if you do, feel free to bring it up with whoever happened to add it.
I don't entirely agree with Sefringle, at least with the little context given to his statement. We can determine notability, but we can't gauge notability easily, and even at that, we shouldn't make the article a celebrity "favorites" gallery. Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X are two images I would include, but I see absolutely no problem with including the current display of Ellison, Estes and Reid as well.
The gist of it is this: if you want to add an image, add it. If you have a problem with an image which has been added, discuss it. Working with others is an activity which is unfortunately largely absent in this and several other articles I've been watching. The "problem" of images being discussed here is manufactured; it is a non-issue.--C.Logan 09:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"if you want to add an image, add it" this policy, though very fair threatens to create a gallery of this article. But whatever, it solves the present problem. Also, why would someone "have a problem with an image"?Bless sins 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but I think we all have some sense of when to cease adding pictures. After a certain point, pictures should be swapped for better quality images, or the pictures shown can be changed for simple aesthetic reasons, or personal preference. If someone wants to swap out an individual's image for the better image of another individual, there's no real issue, but sometimes, aesthetics can cause division, and so discussion is an option in these cases. And concerning "problems" with certain images, I note that Richard Reid's photograph is often removed, and often along with his entry. I'm sure some people have enough trouble coping with unsavory individuals being listed, and I'm certain that many people don't want Reid to be a poster boy for Muslim converts, though I think it's more NPOV to picture both good and bad individuals. That's just one example, and it's more of an issue than an aesthetic "problem", although those do occur as well.--C.Logan 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please remove the Shoe Bomber's image. Having his picture is blatantly wrong, and gives the wrong image for Wikipedia. This page gives the impression that Islam is a religion of terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comment is confusing: how is having his picture "blatantly wrong"? What is this elusive "correct image for Wikipedia"? As for your final assertion, I would have to disagree. Nothing is being insinuated, but that's how you're choosing to read it. Likewise, The religion itself doesn't "make" anything special out of the person, but the person chooses to make something of the religion. You can't judge a belief system by its believers, because the primary focus of these systems is based in the inherent imperfections of humanity.--C.Logan (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Logan, you are altogether "correct" in your argument when viewed academically. However, as a Muslim, and not even a very devout one, I find Reid's picture being displayed here as highly offensive. Reid may say he is Muslim, but Islam condenms killing others, and so Reid is not a Muslim. This page is altogether "wrong" - this "in your face" type of posterism is what leads to religious confrontations. I am simply suggesting it would be "better" if Reid's picture and name were not included. Muslims will get offended and that will lead to unpleasantness - much like what happened in f**king Denmark over those stupid cartoons. Free speech? Yes. Common sense? Hardly. Thanks - Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Todd- I understand your sentiments, but Wikipedia does not censor itself. Like it or not, whether or not anything offends Muslims (or any group or individual) is of no importance to the project. Removing Reid's picture simply because you yourself find it offensive or contradictory to your interpretation of a belief system holds no sway over the article. Additionally, in the interest of neutrality, we cannot assume that Reid is not a "Muslim" simply because his own interpretation of the faith differs from your own. From his standpoint (perhaps), it could be you who is missing the point of things. The fact of the matter is that Reid did convert to Islam, and that is why he is listed here. What one sees as an affront, another sees as a reasonable presentation.--C.Logan (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Logan, I really don't think that your altruistic interpretation of Wikipedia is the mainstream approach that Wikipedia itself would like to project. I feel there's room for common sense. Based on your approach, someone from say, the KKK or al Qaeda, could come in and use Wikipedia as a platform for their agenda. Would that be acceptable to you? I am not sure how Wikipedia currently handles such cases but I don't think such a "laissez faire" approach would be right. We have to draw the line somewhere. -Todd (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia prohibits the advancement of agenda with its WP:NPOV policy (which does so in conjunction with many peripheral policies). I can't quite see how this is the same case- this is an article concerning individuals who converted to Islam, and Reid most certainly did so (and it is a noted point). The images in the article largely display successful, prominent individuals who happened to have converted to Islam at some point in their lives. I would be very concerned that the removal of "terrorist" images because of the "offense" or "agenda" which you happen to perceive would an indefensible violation of WP:NPOV.--C.Logan (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Logan, thanks for the WP:NPOV reference, it's pretty lengthy and I have bookmarked it for reading. I took a look at your WP homepage, and observed that you identify yourself first and foremost as a Christian, with a stated interest in religion. Then you turn around and defend Reid's picture being placed in Converts to Islam list. This strongly implies to me that you yourself are not neutral, and that you have an agenda - to make Islam look bad. On the other hand, in the page Notable Converts to Christianity, I do not see the picture of any personality that would come close to resemble a scumbag like Reid. In fact, let alone pictures, there is no mention of anyone of dubious character listed there - I searched for the terms 'murderer', 'killer' and 'terrorist' and did not find anyone. I am sure that if someone dug deeper, there would be examples. But why bother with such negative pursuits, when instead, we could be trying to bridge the divide among the diverse religions. This is what the world needs right now, before things get out of hand. Having Reid's picture on this list does not help in such a quest. What further bothers me is the feeling that I get from you that tells me that whatever I, or anyone, would say or do to prove that having Reid's picture is wrong, you would steadfastly hold on to your dogmatic views. Which, incidentally, is the same mindset displayed by terrorists. One could sit down with a PLO terrorist and argue for months, and they will not agree to Isreal's right to exist. To me, that is the definition of being a terrorist: brainwashed to the point of being fixated on an idea, and not being open to seeing another point of view. If the idiot Reid was a convert to Christianity, would you accept his picture/info being displayed on the Converts to Christianity page? Even if you answer Yes, I would still support removal of his info - from any page - because people like Reid ARE NOT NOTABLE. Thanks, -Todd (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"Logan, thanks for the WP:NPOV reference, it's pretty lengthy and I have bookmarked it for reading."
No problem. It's one of the most important policies we have, but unfortunately some people tend to read it the wrong way (by assuming that it means that sources must also be "neutral", or by misinterpreting the concept of neutrality- some misread it as a "no extremes, no offense" policy, when in reality it dictates that all major aspects of a subject should be given due representation in the article). Though the application can be difficult, this policy affects images as well.
"I took a look at your WP homepage, and observed that you identify yourself first and foremost as a Christian, with a stated interest in religion. Then you turn around and defend Reid's picture being placed in Converts to Islam list. This strongly implies to me that you yourself are not neutral, and that you have an agenda - to make Islam look bad."
Yes, I am a Christian, and I do have an interest in religion (it's one aspect of my studies at school). Let me advise you to assume good faith in the matter, because at the very least, I've already made it clear (in basic terms) why I've defended Reid's inclusion. On the concept of neutrality, please remember that we should also avoid promotion or boosting a religion's image as well. If the article only presents a particular viewpoint/element while downplaying another, there could be a serious problem. This article has, for the most part, very positive images/individuals- Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, the recently elected Keith Ellison. Besides, we need to keep in mind that it is a bit too elementary to think in "good/bad" terms concerning religion and adherents. The point here is that these individuals converted- everyone follows their own flavor of religion, no matter how incorrect their neighbors believe it to be. There is indeed a disturbing trend for new converts to move toward extremism; many end up like Reid. I don't think that this makes Islam look bad so much as it makes people look bad.
"On the other hand, in the page Notable Converts to Christianity, I do not see the picture of any personality that would come close to resemble a scumbag like Reid. In fact, let alone pictures, there is no mention of anyone of dubious character listed there - I searched for the terms 'murderer', 'killer' and 'terrorist' and did not find anyone. I am sure that if someone dug deeper, there would be examples."
Concerning pictures: that article is actually rather sparse in terms of pictures (I don't recall it always being that way). I'll make it a point to add across the board, keeping in mind, of course, your concerns (that is, if I ever have enough free time to even improve that article one bit). Now, I do see several "dubious"/infamous characters on that list (e.g. Khang Khek Leu, Larry Flynt being examples), and I would suspect that a deeper dig would uncover several more. Feel free to contribute, but keep Wikipedia's policies in mind when doing so. One example to be added would be Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu, who does not seem to be listed due to an absence of sources for conversion.
" But why bother with such negative pursuits, when instead, we could be trying to bridge the divide among the diverse religions. This is what the world needs right now, before things get out of hand."
This is true. Far too many people come to Wikipedia with an intent to slander or divide, and in these lists, promotion is often a problem. However, we shouldn't use Wikipedia itself to bridge those gaps.
"Having Reid's picture on this list does not help in such a quest. What further bothers me is the feeling that I get from you that tells me that whatever I, or anyone, would say or do to prove that having Reid's picture is wrong, you would steadfastly hold on to your dogmatic views. Which, incidentally, is the same mindset displayed by terrorists. One could sit down with a PLO terrorist and argue for months, and they will not agree to Isreal's right to exist. To me, that is the definition of being a terrorist: brainwashed to the point of being fixated on an idea, and not being open to seeing another point of view."
I could care less about the picture- I've been explaining to you how the community consensus and Wikipedia policies support the inclusion of the picture. I think it's a fair inclusion, and I think that you need to shift mindsets. Regardless of how you wish to perceive things, I am only operating from a neutral standpoint (behind Wikipedia). Your own motivations, though noble, are religiously-backed, and that softens the weight of your concern (citing policy would be a better option).
"If the idiot Reid was a convert to Christianity, would you accept his picture/info being displayed on the Converts to Christianity page?"
Yes. I wouldn't love the idea, personally, but the image would certainly have a right to be there. We need to remember that the encyclopedia does not cater to any particular viewpoint or ideology.
"Even if you answer Yes, I would still support removal of his info - from any page - because people like Reid ARE NOT NOTABLE."
Removal of info? Or removal of the image? The removal of his info would amount to simple censorship, which is certainly against the rules. Additionally, the notability of Reid has undeniably been established (if you are speaking in the terminology of WP:NOTABLE).--C.Logan (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Logan, thanks for your detailed answers. I am going to end this conversation, because I cannot assume good faith as you are asking me to, simply because of the facts I have cited above - that your self-defined affiliation with a 'rival' religion, so to speak, poses a serious conflict of interest in this matter. Since that is established (per your home page), and you are refusing to admit that you are a biased party in this conflict, I don't think there is much left to say. I applaud you on one thing: any debate team of which you were a member would win any contest, where the criteria for success is who is better at demagogue; i.e. obscuring/distorting facts for the sake of winning an argument/point but at the cost of common sense. Regards, -Todd (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


There are tens (if not hundreds) of notable companions of prophet Muhammad, most of whom converted from either Paganism or Judaism. Should all of them be included? Has this been discussed before?Bless sins 05:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then perhaps these companions should probably be in their own sub-section (it used to be arranged as such, in the old form of the article which categorized converts based upon profession).--C.Logan 06:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is currently organized by religion of origin. Making the first exception (by including a "Forced conversion" section) was, I believe, a mistake. If we keep on making exceptions, that'll make the article much more difficult to read. We could arrange the page chronologically.Bless sins 06:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if forced conversions are included, they most certainly should be placed in a separate section, as it is currently arranged. I believe that forced conversions should be listed on any conversion page which has such information available, and as such I support the current format. Please note that when a certain grouping becomes extensive, it is typically moved to it's own section. In the beginning, all these "converts" articles started out as a simple and straight list, and when there were enough individuals of a particular categorization, a section was created for it. If there are truly "hundreds" of these individuals, then I believe it would be fitting to place such individuals in their own section. Sections improve readability and navigation, so I don't see an issue with doing so.--C.Logan 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The current system of organization (by religion of origin) is quite an effective one. Every time time an exception to that rule is created, the system is rendered a bit more ineffective. Currently it would appear that "forced conversions" are not from "Abrahamic religions" nor from "Dharmic religions" nor "Other". This confuses the reader, because the conversions are from Judaism and Christianity. Not to mention that some conversions aren't even forced (like Sabbatai Zevi).Bless sins 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Similarly, every companion can fit perfectly in one of the existing categories. Creating a separate category for the companions, sets the precedent of organizing this list by profession (giving rise to categories such as "terrorists"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talkcontribs) 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If they're notable and have their own article, they should be included if supported by RS. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
They also need to be in their own section, seperate from the other converts.--SefringleTalk 04:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
But that seems very much to be illogical. After all they can perfectly fit into the other sections, can't they?Bless sins 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not; they are of a completely different category for one, and like forced conversions, they are different from the normal conversions, whom are generally not part of the religous foundation. --SefringleTalk 08:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Umm, the sahaba converted quite normally. How are they different form other converts (except that they converted a long time ago).Bless sins 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I explained that already; they are a part of the religious tenants. They had an influence on Muhammad (either directly or indirectly) and his actions, so they are a part of Islam, unlike more recent converts, who are just followers.--SefringleTalk 02:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
What's that even supposed to mean? Anyway, my thoughts on the sahaba: I guess they could be included, but I would prefer a small paragraph describing them as a whole, not a large list. But either way, I don't see why they can't be included? Recurring dreams 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing they shouldn't be included; I'm arguing they need to be in their own section if included.--SefringleTalk 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Okay, you all know better than to sit and revert endlessly. Don't do it. Discuss first.

I don't really know what's gotten into the lot of you over the last couple days, but this isn't excusable. Look at the edit history of this page and tell me that it's being performed by people who know better, hm?

Discuss the bloody changes. I'm not unprotecting the page: It can either expire or you can ask on WP:RFPP. I'm asking the admins at RFPP to absolutely ensure before they undo the protection. Honestly... ~Kylu (u|t) 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh looks like this got protected while I was off warning folks. I have blocked User:Bless sins for 24 hours for revert warring, Bless sins reverted the most out everyone in this dispute, and while it did not go over 3rr, it was disruptive. That is not an excuse for any of you folks in this, please disucss the issues rather then reverting each other over it. Everyone else involved in this dispute should have gotten a message from me requesting that the revert war end. Please discuss here about how to resolve the editorial issue. Thanks. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. I had reported the edit-warring to WP:ANI. I've also urged users to discuss on the talk page. I've been trying to disambiguate a link and fix up a summary to reflect an article's lead, but if that's too controversial, then I'll stop editing this article. Recurring dreams 03:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not this article that's the problem. The protection lets a number of our contributors off the hook. Between tag-team reverts to try to obfuscate 3RR violations and the inability of regular admins to tell who's a sock of who, edit-wars like this can continue on indefinitely. I dislike blocking people (yes, really) but I may start being a bit more strict about cooperative reverting in order to violate 3RR without being caught.
Basically, it's not don't do it here. The message we want to get across is don't do it at all. No good reason to sit and edit-war. Pushing people who don't know better into 3RR is disruptive in itself. We're all mature enough to understand written English, we should all be mature enough to discuss our changes instead of simply using an article to battle our viewpoints. Being bold is just fine and certainly encouraged. Not looking at the page history or encouraging others to help someone revert-war isn't being bold: it's being blockable. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough. The reversion without any discussion had gotten out of hand. I must say I've edited few articles besides this one where two different users revert a disambiguation. I guess that's why I was so insistent, because it was common-sense? But if that's going to be the case, I won't edit this article. Recurring dreams 03:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't be afraid to edit, but don't edit until you get agreement with everyone else, otherwise the whole thing is just disruptive. Disruptive equals blockable. Edit revert, discuss. You guys edited, you guys reverted, now its time for you guys to discuss. I wish you guys luck, and I'll mention there is always mediation and other alternatives. Please do not engage in revert warring here, or on other articles, thank you. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FBI's Most wanted terrorists list?

For Adam Yahiye Gadahn this is the wording and it is Total BS. There is no such list.... someone's here to terror-monger... someone with edit access would do well to correct such nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FBI Most Wanted Terrorists. Thank you for your time.--C.Logan 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Cliff

Are we sure that he's a convert? Allmusic says he is, but his webpage (also linked) says this:

The knowledge of my culture had increasingly became important to my life as much as my professional life. So from Christianity, Western Political concept, Rastafarian, Black Muslim, Islam, Budisim, Marksisim, Judaisim, Hinduisim and the way of life of the indigenous peoples of the Planet I dived into them all, ending up knowing that all there concepts and philosophies actually originated with my ancestors. This satisfied my soul, and help me during some hard time of my life especially when my mother and father pasted away.

and this:

My mission continues focusing in the near future on movies, sondtracks and who knows what and where but I will always rebel on against injustice, raceisim and whatever skisim I encounter along the way.

That sounds pretty non-denominational to me. I propose we take him off the list and out of the category unless we can get better backup. Alexwoods 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on what you provided, I would support the removial, but before I committ to that, what does the source that says he converted say? SefringleTalk 00:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing specific - allmusic says he converted to Islam in the mid-1970s:
1973's Unlimited, 1974's Struggling Man, and the following year's Brave Warrior were unable to sustain the success of Another Cycle, never mind improve on it. During this time, Cliff had converted to Islam and traveled to Africa in search of his roots. His new found religious devotion began to heavily influence his music.
That's it. And his webpage, as noted above, says that he has dabbled in a variety of religions but certainly doesn't say anything outright about converting to Islam. Alexwoods 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Wikipedia style directly tells not to use the word "notable" in article titles: it is the essence of wikipedia articles that only notable subjects are covered. I suggest to rename the page to the List of converts to Islam, in the line with thousands of other wikipedia lists.. Mukadderat 05:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mukadderat can you quote the wiki policy that tells us not to use the word "notable"?Bless sins 06:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it was (and should be) at WP:TITLE, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of the above here. I've read it before, however, so either I have the wrong page, or that guideline has been phased out.--C.Logan 06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose move While I am familiar that there is (was?) a guideline which discourages the use of notable in the title, I think that certain cases allow for flexibility. For example, while we are quite aware of the concept of notability (though it seems some more-so than others), the topic title, to the reader, does not outline the specificity of the topic. It's not uncommon to still find individuals adding non-notable individuals, and by this I mean their neighbors and friends. Again, it's simply a guideline, meaning that we have flexibility over the format of things. If anything, I would propose a change to follow List of notable people who converted to Christianity and List of notable people who converted to Catholicism, which of course would be List of notable people who converted to Islam (for aesthetic reasons, and for grammar... I don't believe that "converts" is a desirable term).--C.Logan 06:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave Chappelle...

...Is a convert to Islam, but from which religion, I'm not exactly sure.

-- Mik 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Barbary renegades

If someone can find references, add Jan Janszoon and other Christians who became Barbary pirate renegades. -- (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

german list of converts to Islam

Re: forced conversion

The following is a discussion between C.Logan and Bless sins that took place at User talk:C.Logan. It has been added here so others can also contribute to it.

Response to this.

I cite the talk page because it is there I have provided my evidence that the conversion was not real. Also, some users have opposed me, but no one seems to have responded to the sources I brought forth (esp. the professor who rejected the conversion is invalid). People have gotten into the habit of simply reverting my edits or simply opposing me, without giving consideration to my arguments.

I find it a bit strange that you would revert me, even though you don't disagree with me.Bless sins 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I had assumed that you were citing the talk page for any sort of "consensus" on the matter. Even so, it still doesn't seem utterly convincing in-and-of itself that the sources you provided would give sufficient cause to flout consensus. I can assure you that I've been involved with many edit wars where sources were considered sufficient, but in reality were either misinterpreted or were neglectful of corroborating evidence through other sources. That being said, I think we should have a serious discussion on the matter. I'm fairly certain that you know how to set up a simple "voting"-type procedure, and this would be a definite and focused manner in which you can settle the dispute over the listing, and the validity of the sources.
I think that the main problem is that several people are betting the inclusion of said individuals on different aspects of the incident. For instance, some say "they were forced, so it wasn't real", to which many respond "that's the point of a forced conversion section" (which I feel every 'converts' article should have, by the way). There's a few points on which people base the inclusion.
I think the general dividing point against you is that many editors, in reality, agree with you that the conversion was "not real". But again, how many forced conversions really are? Individuals like Horapollo remained in their forced religion, but possibly insincerely. So what truly separates these "hidden practitioners" from individuals who later publicly reverted?
It seems more of a qualitative judgment which may complicate the issue than anything. It's very difficult to judge "conversion" on a qualitative basis, especially in a Wikipedia scenario, so I think that's why most individuals seem to consider the act of one forcing another to convert to be sufficient enough for inclusion. It may very well be that individuals seem to be ignoring your points because you're not quite hitting on what they're arguing about.
To note, I neither agree nor disagree: I haven't formed any strong opinion on the matter. I wanted to note that as I was reverting you because of the consensus of the other users on the page. Conceding or following consensus doesn't necessarily mean that one agrees, they just understand the consensus concept. I hope you understand, now, what I'd meant in my edit summary.
As a side note, I think that many users may simply oppose you because they feel that you're pushing an agenda. I have no real opinion on you in that respect, but I have seen that you've made positive contributions in places, regardless of your motivations in doing so. Additionally, articles like the List of notable converts to Islam suffer from POV vandalism and removals more often than most articles, and so the watchmen on those articles tend to be wary of anything that pushes a pro-Islamic perspective. It's an uphill battle, I think, for positive contributions, but the caution is necessary to prevent actual POV-pushing from occurring. At least, that's how I see the ongoing atmosphere on the article.--C.Logan 03:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll respond to this later on. As there is no edit war, I don't think the response is urgent.Bless sins 01:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to a "voting" type procedure. I can assure that most users will come by and drop their vote, without a single word of justification.

Forced conversion is dangerous territory to walk in. I agree that it is indeed difficult ot judge the quality of conversions by wikipedians. But what reliable sources and the converts themselves say is another matter.

If individuals are ignoring me because I'm "not quite hitting on what they're arguing about", then they haven't made their arguments clear.

Also, I think the whole "motivations" issue should stay out of this. None of us are mind readers, and so none can claim to know what the other is thinking. As a Christian, I assume you believe that only God is All-Knowing, not us human biengs. To claim to "know" a person's intentions is, in my opinion, absurd.

Now back to their conversion. Here are my arguments:

  • The converts themselves reject their conversion. Note they don't apostatize, but say their conversion was never real.
  • A reliable source, Professor Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, also says that the two never converted.
  • Finally, if we do choose to list them as forced converts, it immediately follows that they are now Muslims. Unless, there are sources that say they reverted from Islam, and converted to another religion, we are forced to accept the above conclusion. Are you and other ready to concede that?Bless sins 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You can respond here or on my talk page.Bless sins 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright then; there are a few problems with the above. The first point and third points are largely dependent on the agreed format of the list, which seems rather unclear at times. As it is, the first point essentially goes hand-in-hand with the concept of "forced conversion", so I don't see how it is an argument in-and-of-itself. I'm unsure of what relevance the Professor's opinion has here. Can you explain? The third point is most disagreeable. As far as things go, we can't make such a claim by inference.
We don't know what their current religious preference is, so essentially, all that we can report by WP policy is the facts surrounding the event itself. Don't get me started on the last time someone decided to argue with guesswork (on another conversion page, no less); all that we seem to know is that they were forced into a conversion, and they later distanced themselves and rejected the event.
The application of a by-the-rules system to the forced conversion section is inadvisable, as it's certain that many "converts" consider their conversions invalid or simply for show and continue practicing their previous faith (additionally, any forced conversions to Christianity can also be argued as "invalid", but the inclusion of such information is strongly POV; one should also note that many individuals deny the validity of other denominations, and the conversions therein, which can be evidenced when converts to Mormonism or the like are removed from the list).
The fact of the matter is that the sources claim that these men were forced to do so. The invalidity of belief or the later rescinding of the event are not good arguments against forced conversions because these things are, by nature, a natural element of such events (it is naturally done against the will of the "convert", and rejection naturally follows, though not in all cases, of course). I know I'm not the first person to bring this up (nor is this the first time that I myself have brought this up), and with good reason.--C.Logan 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
1. No the men are not renouncing their conversion, but are saying that it never took place.
2. The professor is not making a general comment, but made a very specific comment with regards to this case, so he is definitely relevant.
3. If someone converts to a religion, then can't they be considered a part of it. I mean if Malcom X converted to Islam, then he is a Muslim right?
Really, the fact of the matter is, whether the conversion happened or not is under dispute, both by the persons themselves, and by reliable secondary sources. Sure, there are some sources that say it happened, others deny it. Considering both the men are alive, I'm not sure if its a good idea to list them. Or maybe we can list them under "disputed" conversions.Bless sins 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh my. This a discussion that I've long since forgotten about.--C.Logan (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the best compromise here would be to include sources that say the conversion never happened, and to not treat conversion as fact, but as something reported by a media outlet, later denied.Bless sins (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources necessary for list?

Since this is a list of people who all have articles of their own, I see little point in having sources for all of them. These sources should rather be put on the respective articles' pages, if they not already are. I noticed that many of the footnotes are unformatted links which screw up the column display and wanted to fix that, but it's awfully difficult on a page with nearly 300 footnotes.

What do you think about it?—Graf Bobby (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the references are a mess! But if we were to remove them,as you are suggesting, and having them instead on the subject's page, then this page will be filled with messages such as "Who said X is Muslim?" and "Since when Y is a convert?". So, let's avoid this action. Λua∫Wise (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, let's leave the sources in there - for the sake of stability.Bless sins (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Please include conversions of notable people only. A good indicator of notable people is that they have an article on them. I don't this article is meant to be a list of all (regardless of notability) historical conversions.Bless sins (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One example of this would be "the Christians of Tunis, forced to convert en masse in 1159". Why are they notable? If they are notable perhaps some basic info about them can be provided (like the number of them, the names of their leaders etc.)Bless sins (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Forced conversions

The editor who deleted this section claims that "forced conversion" is a fallacy. The reliable sources cited (at least the couple I spot-checked) do indeed use the term "forced conversion", however. So according to the sources, it is not a fallacy. - Merzbow (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keith Ellison

Since the reference for Keith Ellison is his site and the word Islam doesn't seem to appear in his site(Please refer this query), I have asked for a more reliable citation. --Jacob.jose (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A R Rahman

I have moved AR Rahman as a non-religious convert to Islam, based on this from bio:

"After my father passed away, for some years when I was a teenager I believed there was no God. But there was a feeling of restlessness within me. I realised that there can be no life without a force governing us... without one God. And I found what I was looking for in Islam." RustDragon (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Omar Sharif

Omar Sharif is no longer a muslim.

wiki article

the reference this article uses

I think this should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenbudistek (talkcontribs) 20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this:

WILLIAMS: Born a Catholic, converted to Islam at one point, I mean what are your beliefs now?

SHARIF: I have none that I can prove. I believe in everything and in nothing. I don’t disbelieve in anything. I mean everything is possible. As far as my brain tells me I don’t believe because I believe that God is justice. The first thing that I was taught at catechist, catechism was that God is justice and I don’t see justice in the world. I see terrible injustice. I saw my mother when on her deathbed, she just died four years ago, she was a great believer and I sat next to her fifteen days while she suffered terribly before she died and I saw what relief she got from believing, from calling the Virgin Mary, from calling Jesus Christ to her help. From calling Saint Anthony of Padua who was our Saint, favourite Saint. It relieved her pain and I use to think what shall I say on my deathbed or who shall I call for help? And I decided that I will call my mother for help. That’s what I’ll say, I’ll say “mother come and get me wherever you are”.

I don't think that's enough to disqualify him as a non-Muslim. When he says "I believe in everything and in nothing" it is obvious he is speaking in metaphors.Bless sins (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's also this:

Although you come from a good Catholic family of Alexandria, one day you decided to become Muslim. Is it possible to change religions like a shirt?

R. Shirts I change several times a day, but I only changed religion once. I fell in love very young with Faten Hamama, the most important actress of Egypt. She was Muslim and I could only marry her if I converted to Islam. I was not particularly a believer and it did not matter to me. However, my parents raised the roof, but they adored my wife and everything was turned out fine. Now my son is atheist like me. I have educated him so that he is tolerant of the whole world. I do not believe that to be Egyptian, white or black is a reason for confrontation. It is absurd that people kill by the flags or national anthems. Wiki article about him references this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenbudistek (talkcontribs) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First I'd like to ask whether the source is reliable. Secondly, it is possible that he is some sort of athiest-Muslim (you know the weird Muslims one finds today). However, I'd say that if the above is reliable it presents evidence to at the very least question his religion. Thus we can say "converted to Islam...current belief system unclear". This wouldn't be the first time religion is ambiguous as we have a whole section on those whose former religion is unclear.Bless sins (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Masha Alalykina

Masha Alalykina is a famous name in Russian and its neighbor contries.She is an actor and model and also a singer) 2 years ago she converted to Islam.Please add her to your list Full article in

MABIran (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Holmboe medium.jpg

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

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

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

French Muslims or Converts to Islam categories

Why Nicolas Anelka, Franck Ribery, Eric Abidal, Yaya Toure, Mahamadou Diarra and Philippe Troussier didn't on French Muslims or Converts to Islam categories on their profile in this sites??-- (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


David Hicks is listed multiple times, in different categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson converted to Islam. Richardkselby (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Abdulrahman Al-Iryani

The article incorrectly states that Abdul Rahman al-Iryani was forced to convert to Islam as a child. Abdulrahman Al-Iryani happens to be my grandmother's brother, and he was in no way "forced" to convert to Islam. The Haaretz article cited as the source of this claim states that:

Zekharia Hadad, the brother of Grandma Levana ("Kamar," in Yemenite), who was kidnapped as a young boy, forced to convert to Islam, and given the name Abdul Rahman Yahya al-Iryani before being appointed the president of the Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen), in 1967.

Abdulrahman Al-Iryani was the biological son of Yahya Al-Iryani. Zakharia Hadad was another person altogether.

There happened to be three jewish orphans in Eryan (Al-Iryani's birthplace). One of them was an adult female who was already married. Her name was Kamar (Grandma Levana in the article). Her brother, Zakriah Hadad, and his younger sister stayed in Eryan. Yahya Al-Iryani adopted Zakriah. Zakriah Hadad. It is also important to mention that in Islam it is forbidden to give one's name to an adopted child, they must keep their father's name.

Zakriah became friends with Abdulrahman Al-Iryani. Zakaria converted to Islam at the hands of Abdulrahman Al-Iryani, and once he became muslim he changed his name to Abdulraheem Almohtadi. He eventually became one of President Al-Iryani's personal guards.

When Abdulraheem Almohtadi retired, he returned to Eryan and opened a shop under the Hesn Citadel in Najd Raiman. His son, mohammad, also works there.

Abdul Rahman Al-Iryani was born a muslim, to Eryani parents. This mistake in the article might be atributed to poor research, or maybe an old woman's faulty memories. Either way, I would like to respectfully ask to keep his name out of this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimanaleryani (talkcontribs) at 12:37, 13 April 2009

Ibn Kammuna was not a Muslim

Ibn Kammuna was not, at any point in his life, a Muslim as anyone remotely familiar with his writings can tell you. Rather, he spent much of his life criticizing Islamic practice and those who convert to it. In fact, he was so outspokenly critical of Islam that his writings provoked a riot in the streets of Baghdad, nearly forcing the local potentate to execute him for his heterodoxy. It is beyond absurd that he is listed as a convert to Islam on the sole strength of a solitary reference from a source that could not be more blatant in having as its stated goal the conversion of Jews to Islam. Szfski (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mention a reference or references to correct the data--Ashashyou (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson did not convert to Islam

I've removed Michael Jackson from this list of converts because it's simply not true. The first publication, English tabloid The Sun, was the source of the story. Unfortunately, several other publications— who cited The Sun as the source—ran with the story ([15], [16], [17], [18]). Not only was this never confirmed by Jackson himself or anyone close to him, but it was denied by his lawyer ([19]). It's been discussed several times on Talk:Michael Jackson (check the archives, searching 'Islam') and consensus has shown not to add this information as it may breach WP:BLP, which is why I removed Jackson from this list. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to reply here or contact me on my talk page. — Σxplicit 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

someone has placed him back on this list. I have removed due to a sources lead back to The Sun, which had no source orginially. (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been a recurring problem on Jackson's article and I don't think it'll be any different here. We'll just have to be vigilant on this issue. — Σxplicit 17:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's reasonable to keep him off this list, but you can't really cite BLP anymore because it no longer applies to him. (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)