Template talk:Islam/Archive 2

message: Hi!
The "Five pillars of Islam" being on top, without hinting that its a Sunni version and without the shia verion even in the template is POV.
--Striver 22:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you rather it be the "main principles" as before?Heraclius 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: How about creating a new section on this talk page and bringing up this issue? So do not add a link yet. Wait until people have seen the discussion. :)--a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pov 

message: Shouldent Khadija, Fatimah and Aisha be among "Major figures"?
--Striver 22:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should only be Allah , Muhammad , Companians . B/c companians includes everyone , Omar , Abu Bakar , Ali , Fatima , Hussain .If we pointout people by name , it'll be a long list . Farhansher 12:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, Muhammad is the only existent figure so I think it's fine not to have women (although we might add wives too). Names will just add POV because if we add Bakr we need to add Ali and if we add Uthman we'd need Hussain or something... so... maybe add the wives for women or people of the house? (I think that's reasonable since they had a fairly large effect on Muhammad) gren グレン 17:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad had so many "wives" that there is a seperate template for them. They clearly cannot fit into this template. --Zeno of Elea 20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yah, which is why you link to the wives page. Not to each wife. not individually... like, we didn't list Bakr, we listed Sahaba so we don't list Khadija, we list Wives or use a better term if there is one People of the House? I forget. gren グレン 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women 

message: Why is Islamism in it? Political movements do not go in religious templates. Are we going to start putting the Judaism template on Zionism?Heraclius 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, the Judanism template does in fact link to Zionism.. It has a whole section called "Jewish political movements". Anyway, this being said, I actually think that the link should be to Islam as a political movement article instead. -- Karl Meier 15:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, the first reason is that politics and religion are historically more closely linked in Islam than in any other major world religion. Second, the political manifestation of Islam has increasingly come under the spotlight in the last four years. I think it would do a disservice to this encyclopedia's readers to omit a topic which is widely discussed currently. Third, Islamism is an Islamic religious belief (from the Islamism page: ...religious views of Muslim fundamentalism which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state). It is held by conservative fundamentalists, but it is an Islamic belief nonetheless. As Islamism is an issue of current salience and significance, especially to people who might be researching Islam on this encyclopedia, I think it merits inclusion squirreled away down there at the bottom next to Jihad. (Also, Template:Jew does feature a link to Zionism under the heading of Jewish political movements). —thames 15:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I guess what I meant was that when I went to the Zionism page there was no Jewish Template, just an Israeli template.Heraclius 15:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl's idea is a good compromise. Should we add Political Islam to the template? —thames 16:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Islamism would be a better link.Heraclius 16:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I think Judaism having a Kingdom is pretty political... However, you do often hear the Muslim catch phrase from Dawa books of "Islam is more than a religion, it's a way of life" and while... I think it's self-aggrandizing to say that (Catholicism is a way of life if you practice it like they want you to ~_~) it is something commonly said. Off the top of my head I'd say that Islamism is better because I'd think it would deal more with theology of Islamic political theory (Qutb style of whatnot)... but, I haven't read either in a while... (see below) gren グレン 17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: And why is that? the Islam as a political movement seems to be the better article of those two, and it clearly offer the reader much more historical information and background of this side of the Islamic religion. Not just information about contemporary political islamist movements. -- Karl Meier 16:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The political Islam article is very convoluted and has sections that are both very anti-Muslim and very pro-Muslim. Islamism is a much better article.Heraclius 16:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Then start working the PoV problems, that you claim is there. In my opinion we should link to the article that offer the broadest range of information regarding this issue, not one that only offer limited information about contemporary Islamist movements. -- Karl Meier 16:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Political Islam may need work, but it is a broader article. —thames 16:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamism

message: The Mosque image as it stands takes up far too much vertical space, making the template less useful. How can we resolve this problem? —thames 14:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made it the horizontal mosque again but not as wide. See if you like this better. Don't revert cause I made other changes, just edit the page if you want to change. Cunado19 16:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosque Image 

message: I was looking at Mecca and saw the this template there... which, I know Mecca is strongly linked to Islam... but, we show nothing about Meccan life or pre-Islamic history. I think that this template should go into a section there but it is rather unwieldly to fit into a section since it is very long... so... does anything think it's a good idea to make a rudimentary little box Islam template for holy cities that are heavily related to Islam (and this could/should be done for other religions I think) but shouldn't really have the full length Islam template.... What do you think? gren グレン 12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini-Islam 

message: If you can help it, try to make changes instead of reverting. I just redid all the more minor things I did yesterday. It's a little hard to get "consensus" on this without actually changing the template. If you have an idea just try it, and improve on other people's ideas.
The background should stay the default grey in my opinion, cause the transparency doesn't work on some browsers like Internet Explorer, not to mention it just looks better. If it's grey then the white transparency is almost not noticeable.
The shade of green has to be light enough to still read both the black and the blue letters, and dark enough so that it doesn't look wimpy and like a Hong Kong banner. I thought my color was a good compromise (#00d50f), maybe a little too much on the Hong Kong side. Try this (#00aa0c). Cunado19 07:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pastel = Pukey

message: A new user named Abu Dajjal put up a new mosque icon with a HUGE star and crescent on top, and inserted his mosque03 in place of Cunardo's mosque02. I've put the unvandalized icon back.
Since Abu Dajjal is a brand new user AND since Zeno of Elea has just been blocked for 24 hours AND since Zeno has a history of inserting stars and crescents just to upset people and since there has long been a suspicion that Zeno is in fact Penname, who has been blocked from editing for a long time ... well, I rather suspect that Abu Dajjal is Zeno, but I couldn't prove it without a look at the logs and IP numbers.
Myself, I don't think it's funny. Zora 07:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I must say that I thought that the huge star and crescent version was a bit amusing.. However, Mr. Dajjal should be aware that this is a encyclopedia, and we are not here to make any such jokes. These things only distract us from our purpose, and for good reasons most people don't appreciate it. -- Karl Meier 12:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeno is Penname? I looked for such a userpage/contrib history and couldn't find any..Heraclius 16:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: For the record, the only times that I actually DID insert the moon symbol, it was for completely good faith encylopediac purposes, not to "just upset people" as Zora claims. I am still convinced that the moon symbol is the proper symbol for an encylopedia to use when a symbol for Islam is required, but long ago I gave up on the whole moon symbol issue. The giant moon on the mosque was funny despite what Zora says, and has nothing to do with me despite what Zora says. --Zeno of Elea 09:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one believes you, Zeno.Heraclius 14:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heraclius, please review WP:Civility --Zeno of Elea 00:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeno, do you honestly think you're fooling anyone? You should've just been honorable and admitted to it.Heraclius 00:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on template 

message: I reversed the order of Allah and Muhammad (it made no sense to have Allah after Muhammad), as well as Abu Bakr and Ali (again, there is no reason why Ali should be placed before Abu Bakr, whether you base it on alphabetical order or chronologically) and I added Saladin, quite possibly the most famous Muslim figure after the first century of Islamic history. --GNU<B>4</B>Eva 13:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: alright, why were my modifications reverted? --18:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should alphebetize the list of figures. Seems like the NPOV thing to do. Hey, maybe someone really does want Muhammad to go before Allah. By alphebetizing the list, we remove room for such POV insertion. --Zeno of Elea 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 13 Modifications (figures) 

message: Striver has translated "Usool-e-Deen" as "Roots of religion." This is an incorrect translation, unfortunately Striver is not the best translator. "Usool-e-Deen" means "principals of islamic religion," or "fundamentals of islaimc religion." "Roots of religion" just sounds silly and is a poor translation. --Zeno of Elea 10:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not my translation, i just took what i found in the shia article. --Striver 12:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe roots has just about the same connotations as fundamentals.... and I would hope it's not principals... at least not mean British ones with canes anyways. gren グレン 12:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Usool-e-Deen

message: Im telling, the title "Five Pillars of Islam" is missleading, it is NOT the pillars of Islam (Shia+Sunni), its the pillars of the sunni view of Islam! That title is inacurate and missleading, adding to the false notion that shia also belive in the "Five Pillars of Islam". Change it.
And Also, if "Sahaba" are going to be included, so needs "Ahl al-Bayt".
--Striver 12:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again 

message: Part of the series on
Islam            	
Part of the series on
Islam
Beliefs and practices                   	Beliefs and practices
Pastel Colors Suck  I like this template	Pastel Colors Suck  I like this template
Earlier I meant to do this. This is the image I was thinking about for the crescent, I had to make it myself. I make no guarantee to the perfect roundness of the crescent. Yes I realize there are issues with using the crescent. Cunado19 15:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue was a plain crescent being used... and that has the same problems. gren グレン 15:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New crescent picture 

message: I took off the addition of Jizya and Dhimmi. They are both just references to the non-muslim tax and the status of non-muslims. This is a pretty minute detail, and the articles even say that they're not really used any more or important. The only place I've heard them brought up was when someone is trying to attack Islam, and they make it off as if they used the tax as a way of converting people (the tax excluded people from the military). So it didn't take long to realize that Klonimus put it on there not because it's an important aspect of Islam, but because all his edits to the Islamic pages are negative. And well, he says so on his user page.
And if you read his user page he proudly says that he has contributed to these:
:The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism
:Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad
:Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle
:Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington
:The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad
I'm sure he's hating Islam out of his love for Jesus or something, but I don't want his love on this template. Cuñado  - Talk 10:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cunado, comments like "I'm sure he's hating Islam out of his love for Jesus or something" are inappropriate, ad hominem, and offensive. Please refrain from such comments, even when frustrated by the POV of other users. Thank you. —thames 13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. The reasoning behind the deletion still stands without my unnecessary stab at his intentions. Cuñado  - Talk 17:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree with the reasoning behind your deletion--jizya and dhimmi are rather minor concepts, when compared to the other topics included on the template.—thames 18:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Muslim tax 

message: I removed "Imamate" and "Caliphate" from the template. Both were piped links, to Imam and Caliph respectively. Those two articles are already covered under Islamic religious leaders, which is already in the template.
Furthermore, I think it's ludicrous the History of Islam remains so low on the template, squirreled away in the See Also section at the very bottom. The History article ought to be much more prominent, since it is a high-level overview article, more directly related to the Template:Islam topic than nearly any other article presently included. —thames 20:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: mmmm, I love it when you say ludicrous. I moved the history link. Cuñado  - Talk 02:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imamate, Caliphate, History 

message: Stevertigo arrived, declared the template too skinny, and widened it to 190px. I took it back down to 150px, he bumped it wider again.
I put it at 160 px. He says, in his edit summary, that the template has to be wider to be consistent with other templates. Wha? I'm not aware that there's any Wikipedia law that says that all templates have to be the same size. In this case, all the links were fitted to a 150px template, and widening it to 190px just means that there's huge white space margins on either side of the links. That seems pointless.
Myself, I like skinny templates because they make it easier to lay out the article and read any sections next to the template. Zora 21:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width 

message: I think aqidah, or Islamic Creed, should be in the template within the beliefs section.--JuanMuslim 03:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit with to the template is a good idea. The CSS for the template needs to be tweeked a little to set the a:link, a:visited, a:active properties to the color white. I guess my only concern with the new way is that it seems that it would be better if the look of all the headers were consistent. --JuanMuslim 04:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Mr. Muslim is right. I deleted the link. Personally, I don't think it needs to be on the template, but if you insist, just find a better place for it so the colors look good. Cuñado  - Talk 06:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's certainly a problem with the article. That's another problem with the article as it currently stands. --JuanMuslim 18:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the edits needed for the aqida article include basic definitions about the articles of faith, etc. --JuanMuslim 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Nice work on the Aqidah article. I support it being added on the template.--a.n.o.n.y.m  t 06:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to state Islamic Creed rather than aqidah because the other terms listed within the beliefs and practices section have been translated to English. Also, let me know if you think the words Islamic Creed would be better at the top or bottom of the beliefs and practices section. --JuanMuslim 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aqidah 

message: 140px|left
How does it look guys . F.a.y.تبادله خيال   /c 12:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, it's not showing up in my browser (Firefox) at all. Myself, I don't think there's any need to fiddle with the mosque. Cunardo did a good job. Zora 18:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK its small now . And I have no idea why wouldnt it be visible on firefox . F.a.y.تبادله خيال   /c 20:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Mosque

message: Any particular reason for adding Ali & Abubakar , when there names are present in Companians list . They are very important people , I know , but there are lots of Sahaba that are equally important . F.a.y.تبادله خيال   /c 19:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they are being put in because they are the first caliphs, of the shia and sunni branches respectively. I'm not sure if it's an apt comparison, as the role of the church differs between Christianity and Islam, but on Template:Christianity St. Peter is not included, despite having founded the Church. —thames 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that. I guess two reasons. By whatever standard they are the best known people besides Muhammad. And the pages for family/companions of Muhammad are actually really short articles with not much information. They were both on the template for a long time along with Fatimah Zahra. I didn't notice anyone took them off until today. Cuñado  - Talk 03:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case Omar and Uthman should be mentioned, although the four are listed under Sahaba. --Islamic 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ali AbuBakar

message: Why did someone remove the link for Divisions of Islam?? about 20 links were removed from the template and replaced with that link. Cuñado  - Talk 03:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Divisions of Islam is linked in the template. It's just not very visible because of the dark green color of the headers. Click on the "branches of islam" header and it will take you to the divisions of islam article. This is one of the reasons why I don't like the current template color scheme.—thames 17:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should change back into a smaller font also. But please feel make any suggestions to how to improve this. --a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I get it. I prefer just having the regular link, but maybe other people are smarter than me. We spent many agonizing debates over the color scheme, so if you change it, it better be amazing. Cuñado  - Talk 09:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Divisions

message: The Khawarij are the third-important division of islam and are importand both historically and theologically. Added.
Sufism is not a division. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Khwarij is not a major division, only a small historical sect. Definitely not very important either as the current small Ibadi community is the only that is related to them. Please stop trying to add it in bad faith. --a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Khawarij division of islam

message: Sociopolitical Aspects includes both Political Islam and Jihad. Both phrases portray a conservative and quite controversial view of Islam. I think adding a link to Liberal Islam will improve NPOV.
I made this comment a week ago in the POV section. Hope more people will notice this time. =) --Zeeshanhasan 03:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Balancing conservative POV (Jihad and Political Islam)

message: The template is displaying with a /span comment afterwards. This seems to have appeared recently. I tried reverted to what I thought was a non-broken template, but the /span is still there. I'm stumped. Any HTML whizzes here? Zora 00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the span comment? 

message: After I reverted an attempt to remove this template from Liberal movements within Islam, I couldn't find the link in the template. Is it, or should it be there? The title says "within". Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, "so" :) ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's just wait for discussion on this. I requested that so everyone could see it rather than it being added in an old talk section. --a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: After considering this addition to the template, I find that it's redundant with the more general overview article on Political Islam. There are non-liberal political movements within Islam that do not have a place on the template--having only Liberal movements is unbalancing. I think it should be removed, because the link to Political Islam suffices. —thames 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Liberal movements within Islam]] 

message: I think having only Sunni, Shia and Sufism as branches is like there is no other division. Atleast putting a link to Divisions_of_Islam as "Others" is required.--Soft coderTalk 07:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that Divisions_of_Islam is linked from Braches header. But I think that link is not noticeable. There is enough space to add "Others" in the same line.--Soft coderTalk 07:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Branches

message: I included a link into muslim holidays, because I was looking for Eid-ul-Adha and did not know how to find it because I did not know how it is spelled; I think many people are interested in the holidays that Muslims around them are celebrating and I hope this can help users to find information about these holidays more quickly.--Robin.rueth 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim holidays

message: Does anyone object to me adding an Islam by country link to this template and adding the template to those pages (aka Islam in Afghanistan, Islam in Armenia, etc etc). Pepsidrinka 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any objection. I would suggest putting it under the 'sociopolitical aspects' and giving it the title of Distribution. Cuñado  - Talk 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I do... I think that it's not one of the most important things about Islam and the template is for the most important things. I also think that the template should only go on pages with room for it. If you put it on Islam in Iran it's going to mess up a bunch of nice pictures... which I believe are more important. gren グレン ? 06:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam by country 

message: I would like to replace the link to Islamic studies in sociopolitical aspects to Muslim culture. The content of the two articles is similar, and culture seems to me to be much more central to sociopolitical stuff than any academic study. Also, Islamic studies is difficult to clean up due to a POV-centred debate as to whether or not it's referring to secular POV or Muslim POV. --Zeeshanhasan 17:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be argued that there is no such thing as Muslim culture. People claiming to be Muslims may have completely different "cultures". And of course the anthropological concept of culture is itself problematic. This is your hobbyhorse, Zeeshanhasan -- please don't try to write it into Wikipedia. Zora 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think neither of the articles are done very well, but I would choose Islamic studies first. Actually I would vote for deleting Islamic studies altogether, not replacing it. Cuñado  - Talk 18:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the Islamic studies link is that the article about Islamic studies links to all the Islamic arts and studies and is better than having a link for Islamic musics, calligraphy etc. separately. --a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic studies

message: I vote for reverting this edit. I like the mosque better, and the image was decided as a result of enormous debate. Cuñado   - Talk 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did put it back. Arsath needs to get some consensus on this before making a change. I'll leave a note for him. Zora 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Majority of the muslims wouldn't agree a mosque symbolizes ISLAM, its the Shahada, that symbolizes Islam, thats why it is on the flag of Saudi Arabia, to show that it is the birth place of Islam, to me that picture of the mosque looks more like the Taj Mahal than anything else. We should consider changing it. I dont see anyone disagreeing with the image I put than the creators of the current mosque image. Need I say more Mystic 12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The color looks much better do you agree? Mystic 12:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm afraid I don't agree. We picked green because it is usually believed to be a particularly Islamic color, and we had long debates over just which green to use. I don't like the turquoise. But I'm not going to revert immediately -- I'll wait for the other editors. Zora 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'd prefer the green color. -- Karl Meier 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the Image, if we dont have anyone else opposing other than the creators of current image shall we change it to this?
I think this looks vibrant and compels the reader to take a look at the rest of the template.
Should we have a vote? please make your comment. Mystic 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The creator of the image?? There were a dozen editors who all contributed to the talk, all contributing ideas, and we agreed on the mosque. Please read through the talk pages. I'm reverting. Cuñado   - Talk 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You are reverting what? I dont quite understand. I havent made any changes to revert. Anyway is there any rule in wikipedia that says ones established you cannot change the image of a Template? Its time for a change dont you think? A mosque is not the correct representation of Islam, its the Shahada, Read my comments above. The belief in the Shahada is what makes a person a follower of Islam. As a Muslim I very well understand this and which symbol should represent Islam. There is no point we edit warring over this. We should remember that wikipedia is an evolving encylopedia, and good changes should be welcome. Mystic 15:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Mystic's image, (except the fact that it has been way too compressed and contains artifacts clearly visible to the naked eye) and I agree with his argumentation. Even though I haven't got much clue about Islam myself, I can tell that his arguments are proper. Just my $0.02. DarkPhoenix 19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: NO, don't change it. I object strongly. The mosque image was decided by a wonderful collaborative effort. People tried things, they batted ideas and images back and forth, it was collegial and fun, it was the way things SHOULD be. Let's keep that. Also, the mosque image is just right for the template; it doesn't call attention to itself, it doesn't overshadow the text. Mystic, your image is too fancy, too distracting, and you're pushing it because it's yours. Surely there are many other articles that need graphics work. The photo at Jilbab is terrible. Perhaps if we had a good drawing? Like the one at Salwar kameez? Can you do that? Zora 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora, I object to the rude language you have used here. You certainly seem to justify the allegations against you in the arbitration commitee. This is one of the several occasions that you have failed to assume good faith on me. IF YOU COULD READ CAREFULLY, I have clearly stated that There is no obligation to use my image here, if anyone has a better image of the Shahada it could be used. Its not about putting my image there, its about having the correct representation. I agree with Cunado on this. If there was a cresent with the Shahada it should be considered, if lot of people think my image is too fancy and distracting (I dont see Aishwaraya Rai or Karen in the image!!). Please kindly note I am not looking for a graphics designing job or something. If you desire you may find a better picture for the Jilbab article your self. Please understand I will not tolerate people being not nice to me and making false allegations. I appologize if I have failed to assume good faith (please point me out if I have.).  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This has nothing to do with the pride of who made whatever image. Read above on this talk page and you'll see several ideas. I would prefer the crescent moon, which is the symbol normally used for Islam, and I would gladly replace the mosque for it. I even voted for the Shahada written in the form of a crescent moon, but I put aside my personal desires because some Muslims vehemently opposed using the crescent. Cuñado   - Talk 15:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We should just go back to the crescent. It is the most recognized, international symbol of Islam, just as the hammer and sickle is for Communism although it actually symbolizes the Soviet regime. 68.166.50.142 15:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image change