Talk:Islam/Archive 22

message: This is regarding this addition . It was previously removed by another editor, then again recently by me. It has been reinserted now, and I do not wish to get into an edit war. 
----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Health message foru (talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote a suggestion to the Editor who inserted the statement to source it and possibly place it in the section on Demographics or Modern times. Which reminds, the Section listing the major population centers in various regions does not do so for Europe.--Tigeroo 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the BBC source says that these factors make Islam the "fastest growing religion" in Europe (and not that it's the second largest religion in Europe because of these factors). Recurring dreams is quite right, it's overly simplistic. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Unless we are ready to have a serious discussion about the factors contributing to the growth in Muslims, we should avoid making blanket statements.Bless sins 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too marginal for this article. There are thousands of basic social science textbooks that will tell you that Muslims came to European countries as a result of immigration mainly from formerly colonised countries, and that subsequently their numbers have increased through a combination of continued immigration and demographic factors. Demographic factors include not only a higher birth rate (which tends however to reduce over time and converge with the rate in the indigenous population) but also a lower death rate, resulting from the young average age of the original immigrant population.Itsmejudith 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orginial research216.99.62.32 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Last sentence of lead section: Only about 20 percent of Muslims come from Arab countries. Doesn't it mean come from or live? I don't have the source so I don't know but come from seems to include Arab migrants to other countries which are Muslim. That may not be what the source is suggesting. Just a clarification. Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This section is the very opposite of balanced if it ignores the preaching of some clerics today who equate jihad with a holy war against Israel. I added some referenced information on this subject (from a non-biased source) which was promptly removed, with a comment to take it to the talk page. I know the intention is to present Islamic in the best possible light, but there is no excuse for ignoring a phenomenon that is so significant today -whether or not it is pleasant to hear. This is supposed to be an encyclopdia and to help people understand the world. By making believe jihad does not exist in the sense of armed struggle against "infidels" (which includes Israel) you are making a joke of Wikipedia as an information source. I wrote that "some Muslim clerics" think this way. To ignore that is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to deceive the reading public. --Gilabrand 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please give full details of the source so that everyone can evaluate it? If you're not already familiar with Wikipedia policy on verification you might save time by having a quick look at it. Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was clearly stated when I entered the information. The source is Memri (The Middle East Media Research Institute "(MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization". --Gilabrand 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MEMRI is fine for a current-events article, but not for this article, which should be restricted to sources by scholars only. - Merzbow 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for stating it again, though, so that we didn't have to trawl back through the page history. And I think Merzbow is right about the source for this particular article. Itsmejudith 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bigger question is why single out mention the current Israeli-Arab confrontation as Jihad. There are quite a few other Jihad's being waged around the world right now and a lot more through history. The purpose of this article is an view of the Islamic concept. While resistance to Israel is a jihad Opposition to Israel is not what Jihad is about, I hope you can see the difference, this article is about the latter while the former belongs as an entry in a list of Jihads, or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam/Archive_21&action=editcurrent Jihads etc. I think it may have been removed because it just invites trolling and deviation from the discussions on the article--Tigeroo 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reposting this comment 

message: Many religous articles of wikipedia have a lead image. This article probably should have one too.--SefringleTalk 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the article achieved FA status without a lead image, and to be honest there's not really an image which would encapsulate the topic or represent the subject in a way expected of a lead image. i think it's best to just leave the template where it is. ITAQALLAH 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro is kind of long, and to fill the blandness, an image in the lead would probably improve the article. I picked the one you put in the front page description, because it makes the article look better as a whole, but if you have a better idea...--SefringleTalk 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the template is just fine, and the image was more pertinent in its previous location. don't make contentious changes on a featured article without obtaining consensus. thanks. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, an something seems to be missing from the lead, and an image would make the article look better. I think the article looks better with that image in the lead. I figured there was consensus because you didn't respond to my comment in two days.--SefringleTalk 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the point i'm making is that there's no need for a lead image just for the sake of having one there. if there was an image encompassing the topic then it'd be worth discussing. the image about one of the five pillars, belongs in the relevant section. i suppose we should see what other think, but could you please remove the other statement for which there was no consensus to include as per its being covered later. ITAQALLAH 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, we'll do a straw poll to see what others think.--SefringleTalk 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But would you be OK with a better image?--SefringleTalk 06:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what kind of image would be appropriate there, certainly not this one we have. But in general, I have no objection to having an image. --Aminz 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what could be more representative of Islam. Maybe this photo? -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think image of Kaba and Hajj is a better choice. I suggest using one of these images::Image:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg or :Image:Mecca skyline.jpg--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is consensus about using an image. Which one do you prefer?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It might not be one associated with Islam for the Western World. In the Arab World, the sub-continent, Northern Africa etc. the classic "dua" pose is as easily identifiable as the "sajdah" which seems to fascinate the Western world a lot more, possible because it is more striking from their cultural perspective??--Tigeroo 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article on Islam with about one-billion membership. A picture focusing on one man (who is probably recognizable for those who knwo him) is thus inappropriate. The third image, which shows a group of people, none of whom is identifiable, is perfect. Beit Or 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, no preference emerges from the vote. Ask a statistician. Itsmejudith 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fair to use both #2 and #3 in the lead or find another images with expresses both of the contents(Salah and Haj) . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two images in the lead in one too many... honestly I'm find with any of the three, but we should stick to one. - Merzbow 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Merzbow.--SefringleTalk 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lead image

message: ====Yes====
# SefringleTalk 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But would you be OK with a better image?--SefringleTalk 06:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what kind of image would be appropriate there, certainly not this one we have. But in general, I have no objection to having an image. --Aminz 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what could be more representative of Islam. Maybe this photo? -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think image of Kaba and Hajj is a better choice. I suggest using one of these images::Image:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg or :Image:Mecca skyline.jpg--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is consensus about using an image. Which one do you prefer?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll: Should there be an image in the header?

message: # SefringleTalk 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: # The image of Muslim prayer is by no means a representative of Islam. --Aminz 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But would you be OK with a better image?--SefringleTalk 06:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what kind of image would be appropriate there, certainly not this one we have. But in general, I have no objection to having an image. --Aminz 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what could be more representative of Islam. Maybe this photo? -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: I think the picture should have people kneeling. The whole point is submission, and that is a gesture of submission. Also Muslims are supposed to do that five times a day. Arrow740 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think image of Kaba and Hajj is a better choice. I suggest using one of these images::Image:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg or :Image:Mecca skyline.jpg--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is consensus about using an image. Which one do you prefer?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Image:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg | #1(Featured image)
Image:Mecca skyline.jpg| #2
Image:Mosque.Qibla.01.jpg| #3
* My vote is for #3 --SefringleTalk 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not be one associated with Islam for the Western World. In the Arab World, the sub-continent, Northern Africa etc. the classic "dua" pose is as easily identifiable as the "sajdah" which seems to fascinate the Western world a lot more, possible because it is more striking from their cultural perspective??--Tigeroo 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article on Islam with about one-billion membership. A picture focusing on one man (who is probably recognizable for those who knwo him) is thus inappropriate. The third image, which shows a group of people, none of whom is identifiable, is perfect. Beit Or 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, no preference emerges from the vote. Ask a statistician. Itsmejudith 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fair to use both #2 and #3 in the lead or find another images with expresses both of the contents(Salah and Haj) . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two images in the lead in one too many... honestly I'm find with any of the three, but we should stick to one. - Merzbow 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Merzbow.--SefringleTalk 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: which image

message: There is written analogical reasoning ((qiyas)) is one the four fundamental roots of Fiqh while in Ja'fari jurisprudence 'Aql is used instead of it. 
Mortaza Mutahhari has quoted:
:The early Shi'ite logic concerning the first of the two trends is extremely sensitive and interesting. As for the first trend, that is, regarding the problem of justifiability or unjustifiability of qiyas, Shi'ah rejected qiyas on the basis of the express texts (nusus) of their Imams... in spite of strongly disapproving qiyas, they formally affirmed the share of reason in ijtihad. The Shi'ite fuqaha' and the usuliyyun officially recognized reason as one of the four sources of fiqh--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: analogical reasoning

message: Twelvers distinguish between offensive jihad and defensive jihad. 
* Abdulaziz Sachedina points out that in Shi’i Islam, waging an offensive
jihad requires the permission of the Imam. Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina, ‘‘The Just
Ruler (al-sultan al-adil),’’ in Shi’ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite
Jurisprudence (New York: 1988), 105. Quoted in Roger M. Savory (note 30), 18, 37.
He has explained this issue in another works:
* The Just Ruler in ShiʿiteIslam. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1988
* The Just Ruler in Shi'ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite Jurisprudence Oxford University Press Inc (USA), 1998 (page:105, 106 and 115)
--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a reliable source. - Merzbow 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks fine to me, too.Proabivouac 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: waging any kind of offensive jihad requires the permission of the Imam/leader/ruler. if we are talking about the sanctioning required from a shi'i Imam, i believe this has already been mentioned? ITAQALLAH 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that in the twelver the Imam who can do it is in occultation so Jihad is suspended because no one is around who can ensure that it is carried out justly. I believe in later Sunni jurisprudence with the demise of the central caliphate, the clergy also picked a larger role in the sanctioning of a jihad.--Tigeroo 07:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important fact is that offensive jihad requires the permission of the Shia Imam(divine ruler )so offensive Jihad is suspended during occultation because no one is around who can ensure that it is carried out justly. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Twelvers viewpoint of Jihad

message: I origionally put this template right under the image. Now it has been moved lower. Can someone explain why?--SefringleTalk 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: location of Islam template

message: In "Other religions" section, the following sentences is written: "Dhimmis are subject to legal and social restrictions as well as humiliating regulations meant to highlight the inferiority of non-Muslim subjects". This phrase is totally untrue and reflects a purely biased opinion, since no examples or explanations were given to the term "humiliating regulations". non-muslims were treated as fairly as muslims were. A verse in the Quran says:" wa itha hakamtom bayn alnas fahkomo bil'adl", meaning if you are to judge the people then do it fairly. Non-muslims even had less obligations than muslims, since they didn't have to pay alzaka (charity money).
:Err... I think you have a lot of learning to do on this subject. Please see Dhimmi and read the references. - Merzbow 02:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The humiliating regulations varied, but the Qur'anic injuction did not. Arrow740 21:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the Qur'anic injunction is for them to be subdued, as is done through legal and social restrictions. ITAQALLAH 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The section on dhimmis is written in the present tense, but these regulations are not now practised anywhere in the world. And I don't know what the sentence about apostasy is doing at the end of the section. Does it have anything to do with people of other religions? Itsmejudith 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, did the bit about atheists and agnostics get lost again? I'll go re-add it, I don't understand why it keeps disappearing without discussion. - Merzbow 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merzbow, could you check out the context of Lewis's comment about agnostics and atheists, whether it is meant to apply to a historical period (however long) or in general. My impression is that of course until the end of the Ottoman Empire agnostics and atheists were not tolerated, as they hardly were in Western Europe until the 19th century, but that now the situation will differ according to countries and how much they enshrine shari'a in their constitutions. thanks. Itsmejudith 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is about law, not history. History of Islam has its own huge section. Beit Or 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to see law as a completely ahistorical phenomenon. That's not a mainstream view in Western scholarship or, as far as I understand it, compatible with the Islamic concept of law, based on fiqh and itjihad. Itsmejudith 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friedmann himself makes it clear in his work that Islamic legislation was a historic phenomenon that depended on the political situation as well as through time. In his work he shows a hardening of the supremacist view and restrictions imposed as one that grew over time, from the welcome under the Umayyads to growing strictures by the 10 and 14th centuries. He also specifically limits his discussion to the classical or the 9-12th centuries while absolutely refraining from discussing the modern 18th century onwards discussions saying it lies beyond the scope of his work. Read his introduction or any academics view on Islamic jurisprudence. It is a historically evolving interpretation. The closing of the gates of ijtihad did not fossilize Islam for all time.--Tigeroo 19:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-muslims in Muslim states 

message: Hi, I'm not familiar with this actual article, but I was looking up the phrase "death cult" and Wiki auto-redirected me to to the Islam main article, which seems just a tad generalised. Furthermore, my browser's Find function didn't even pick up the string "death cult" in the actual text of the article. Is this someone taking a rather culturally insensitive web-mickey? Just thought I should say something.
:that appears to have been vandalism. it has been fixed now: Death cult should redirect to destructive cult. ITAQALLAH 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight editorial slant on keywords! 

message: Modern times (1918–present) has some problems especially what is written about revivalism. The 20th century saw the creation of many new Islamic "revivalist" movements. Groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan advocate a totalistic and theocratic alternative to secular political ideologies. Sometimes called Islamist, they see Western cultural values as a threat, and promote Islam as a comprehensive solution to every public and private question of importance. In countries like Iran and Afghanistan (under the Taliban), revolutionary movements replaced existing regimes with Islamist states, while transnational groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda engage in terrorism to further their goals. For Al-Qaeda it has also been held, however, among others by the US' National Security Council, that they use a distorted version of Islam . 
I think we can improve it by using Islamic revival.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?--SefringleTalk 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Kk loach. It isn't readers' permission that you need, but a good written source. Can you find something in writing, either by a Western scholar or by a scholar of Islam, that says that Muslims should not be divided into groups? Itsmejudith 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: revivalism

message: Asalaam-u-Alikum
Kk loach 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kk loach. It isn't readers' permission that you need, but a good written source. Can you find something in writing, either by a Western scholar or by a scholar of Islam, that says that Muslims should not be divided into groups? Itsmejudith 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sunni and Shi'a 

message: I removed the criticism section, since another articles focuses solely on that. It should not be included in this article. The christianity article doesn't contain a criticism section. The inclusion of one here is provocative and irreverent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.60.241 (talk • contribs) 
:We need to discuss this here. I am not sure that a single section can cover all that is meant by "criticism" of a major religion but I don't accept that the article cannot carry critical material. Itsmejudith 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should have a small criticism section that has a link to the main article on it? And I guess if you want Christianity to have one of those, you should bring it up on talk page in Christianity. ko268 9:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section of the Christianity article is actually quite substantial.--SefringleTalk 06:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny... I can't seem to find any criticism in any other religion articles... But here? Someone should remove it or else the neutrality of this website will be doubted. Lunares777 19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: i think this article needs a renew by a good muslim friend it can direct people in wrong ways thinking about islam—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereal100 (talk • contribs) 
:yawn. wikipedia isn't supposed to be some Islamist propaganda site, nor is it supposed to be used for the purpose of proselytization.--SefringleTalk 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yawn again. a protoypical response, the comment did not desire to make this article into an Islamist propaganda site, as you tritely put it, but rather significantly more balanced as evidenced from its strongly negative take on Jihad and other aspects.
Please refer to WP:OWN, Wikipedia:Etiquette & Wikipedia:Civility. Avenger786 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article needs a renew 

message: ; Relevant diff 
The Oxford Dictionary of Islam says:
"The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code."
This is being removed from the article. 
Also, the article uses (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf) but doesn't represent it faithfully. Either this source is acceptable or not. If yes, it should be presented faithfully. --Aminz 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a source might be reliable for a fact, but not for another POV. Note that secular governments can't change Islamic family law which was set in stone quite some time ago. Arrow740 11:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family section + http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf 

message: The material about Islam being an "ideological engine of war" is poorly sourced, strongly biased toward the present day, and too detailed for the main page on Islam. If good sources are found, it might go on one of the subsidiary pages, maybe Jihad, or Criticism of Islam. Tom Harrison Talk 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cited 2 sources, one news source and other a well known magazine. It is included in the correct section "Criticism of Islam". Pentagon is a significant organization and its views about islam should be included in the criticism section. Also I have already included it in Criticism of Islam. Now since the statements are sourced, if you need to refute them, please bring sources opposing these statements. Then we can discuss further. Thanks. NapoleansSword 00:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think neither WorldNetDaily nor FrontPageMag are considered reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 00:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: World Net daily is a news source. Front Page Magazine is a non-profit publisher and not a blog. They are responsible for the materials they publish and ensure verifiability. With 2 different sources saying the same thing, there is enough evidence that the statements are valid. Again, like I said, if someone brings sources proving the contrary we can discuss. Otherwise this should stay. Thanks NapoleansSword 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I doubt they would willfully fabricate information, WND would definitely not be considered a mainstream news source, and this news item approaches an op-ed. FPM can be a good read, but is overtly and relentlessly partisan, and is hardly worthy of inclusion alongside the high-caliber academic sources we are using for this article.Proabivouac 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "ideological engine of war"

message: What do people think about integrating this section into the body of the article, like in Wikipedia:Criticism? Tom Harrison Talk 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection, but this has to happen before or at the same time as the section is removed, just blanking the section is unacceptable. - Merzbow 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think most of the first paragraph can be easily intergrated into the history section if we can note some of the early polemical responses to John of Damascus (as an example of the kind of literature prevelant in those times, i think it may be discussed in the EoI). the second paragraph would be a bit harder, not only because it's a bit recentist in focus (and, IMO, extraneous in the absense of an actual criticism section), much of it is not really discussed in academic scholarship - which typically does not pay much attention to value judgements in endeavouring to ascertain facts. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support such a motion- it just looks weird having a criticism section about a religion.-Wafulz 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Itaqallah. The historical stuff is very interesting, and quite relevant to the confrontation with Christendom briefly covered in the Golden Age section. The recentist stuff might be relevant as the propagandistic component of real-world contemporary tensions related to Islam and the west, which we don't say much about at all - perhaps Modern Times could be expanded somewhat. It's pretty silly to say, "Others like Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer focus more on criticizing the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, a danger they feel has been ignored," without ever mentioning the real-world events which inspire this criticism: if anything it should be vice-versa. For example, if 9/11 and other terroristic acts were covered - not that they should be, I don't know, but that's what Pipes and Kramer are criticizing, mostly - it would be unnecessary and anticlimactic to observe that some people are alarmed by these developments. As it is, these statements are sort of hanging there with no relation to anything in the rest of the article, sort of an arbitrary hat tip to editors who feel the same way.Proabivouac 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please check the link for the first instance of the word usury, I have noticed it links to Riba rather than the correct page describing what usury means.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.239.36.43 (talk) 08:25, August 20, 2007 (UTC) 
I believe that deleting it is the best solution, and instead of it make Miracles of Qur'an this web site might give you good information http://www.55a.net/firas/english/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.234.191 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: As discussed in the archives on this topic, It makes clear in the lead of this article that 'Islam' means 'Submission'. This is correct. However, as the word Islam is 'often' misrepresented as meaning 'Peace' it needs to be made clear that the 'root' word of 'Islam' is 'Peace' (Salaam, Silm, Slm = if you go to an Islamic scholar they can explain this in more depth but the basics need to be in the lead, or at least in the article itself) - thus, in Islam true 'Peace' can be found through 'Submission' to Allah, or though 'Submission' to Allah true 'Peace' can be found. Please can it be made clear in the lead or article body that the root word is and why the confusion. Robert C Prenic 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. It needs to be made clear within the article that Islam means "submission" and not "peace." Besides, your addition was unsourced.--SefringleTalk 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So an encyclopedic article without basic information? I think it should also be made clear that Islam means Submission. However, I think somewhere it the article it should show that the root word is Peace, encyclopedically. Robert C Prenic 12:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed this point before. "Islam" means "submission" and it is related to the word for "peace". The root does not mean "peace", any more than it means submission; it delineates a semantic field that includes both those words. In any case, we can only include information that is reliably sourced. Itsmejudith 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what you are talking about! Islam mean 'peace' not 'submission' which equal "isteslam" in arabic. I'm arabian if u need any help with arabic please contact me. <<Smart_Viral 12:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If - if - there is a consensus for this to go in, then it would have to read "same as" not "same of", which is ungrammatical in English. And "it is" rather than "its". No capital letter for "salaam". Itsmejudith 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Smart Viral, if the word Islam is not directly related to the word peace (which is just another variant of SLM, why single out peace over other variants?) then i don't think it merits mention in the lead. Islam means submission, in reference to submitting to God and His will. ITAQALLAH 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of the word 'Islam'

message: Tigeroo, in this edit, you changed this:
Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam.
Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities. It ceases only when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), and when polytheists convert to Islam."
to this:
The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam. Firestone (1999) p.17 . Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of ethical injunctions for the regulation of Jihad of the sword.See:
*Firestone (1999) p.17
*Merriam (1999) p.571 
"Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule Jihad has usually been taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants with the ultimate purpose of establishing the universal domination of Islam by the defense or expansion of the Islamic state against those who refuse to convert or submit to Islamic rule by paying the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax). Through history Muslims have regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as even more critical targets and most Jihads have been directed at other Muslims with wars with even significant political overtones being classified as such.See:"
*Humphreys (1999) p.174-176
*Merriam (1999) p.17 
The effect of this edit is to bury the most conventional use of "jihad" within a number of very confusing passages (e.g." …Jihads have been directed at other Muslims with wars with even significant political overtones being classified as such") referring to less central usages.
Additionally, it's not particularly useful to observe that, "Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of ethical injunctions for the regulation of Jihad of the sword," without specifying what any of these actually are; see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.Proabivouac 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Do edit for clarity and grammar. Comments on the theme:
#Start with the easy one, the peacock terms, fair enough can be trimmed out. Basically jihad governs the ethics of war, and while we can easily add specifics, I reckon it will be simpler and more concise to leave them for the main article. Hope that works. 
#Next part of conventional use, I assume this is a reference to Jihad as war. Fair enough it is important enough facet to be clearly stand out. Just a note numerous comments have shown that what is conventional understanding for some on this scare is not the same for others, sources included. I added an intro showing Jihad as struggle for Islamic ideals along with the modes/classificatoins jurisprudence regards as valid means under which it can be done and is perceived.
#You note the "Jihads have been directed.." sentence as referring to less central usages. I beg to differ with that opinion. Jihad is doctrinally a struggle, according to ones ability to change society, world and one ownself towards an Islamic ideal. That is the central purpose, the military means even if historically quite common and doctrinally important one is just one means of achieving this, which is why we have the sources saying that most Jihads were infact directed at Muslims themselves. I think it is a more central important theme that Jihad is a fight against the primacy of irreligosity. From the very beginning calls for Jihad were made against other Muslims for this very reason.
Hope that helps to show where I am coming from, the specifics can be hashed out through discussion.--Tigeroo 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: as a sidecomment, there are dubious and poorly-explained mass-reverts being made by Arrow740 to other settled sections, which is just disrupting this article. ITAQALLAH 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have restored much of the previous version of the jihad section as it was generally better written and less confusing; i have retained the information about the four types as discussed in Firestone, but the other material i think should first be proposed and scrutinised on talk before being inserted into the article, just so that we're all on the same page when any edits occur. thanks. ITAQALLAH 22:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Most of the items have already been up for discussion for a good while. Editing for clarity and brevity is not an issue, just need to be sure to cover the major bases.--Tigeroo 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: SInce this section is extremely brief, its space is too valuable to waste it on extraneous and not especially relevant details. Beit Or 08:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ergo it needs to cover as much as possible as quickly as possible and not be locked down overlong one on one aspect to either achieve balance or be representative of the concept.--Tigeroo 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Islam#Jihad|Jihad section]] again

message: Can someone please explain this edit? Come on, you can't pretend that's acceptable content: it's completely unreferenced and utterly non-neutral. This is supposed to be a FA. Moreschi  Talk 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the references included in the page isn't for nothing, but must get indexed. Thanks. <<Smart_Viral 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Sorry? Look, "In Modern times Terrorist organizations like Al-Quaida (which claims to be a muslim group) has been rejected by muslims worldwide as being a muslim organization. Many muslims believe that these organizations have their strings in the hands of those people to want to blame muslims" is not acceptable material. You reverted to include that. Moreschi  Talk 11:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops is this ok. <<Smart_Viral 11:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed the stuff about dowries. This is the main article on Islam: it's supposed to be a summary, and not go into massive detail. Moreschi  Talk 11:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm? 

message: I was reading through the article and came upon this portion, and it feels like it is repeated, word from word, from another text.  Take, for example, the Life Insurance portion--it talks on all these points concerning life insurance in islam (obviously), but it feels forced and lacks any citation.  (In fact, all portions of this section lack citations, and I feel that without them it seems, again, lifted improperly.)
76.18.186.58 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderation in Islam issues 

message: Should the article not explain briefly what "Twelver" means in relation to Shi'a Islam, and say if there are other kinds of Shi'a? Perhaps a one-sentence addition could be helpful. Thanks. Itsmejudith 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twelvers 

message: The article claims there are between 0.9 to 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, and it gives the source as adherents. Funny, cause in Adherents site, the figure is placed at 1.5 billion. . I have changed the figure and placed 1 to 1.5 billion. --Itsalif 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the same web page says that the pie chart is only a summary.  The database has direct sources of populations as high as 1.78 Billion .  So if no one has a problem I will add the 1.78 along with the source. MPA 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source states of the 1.78 billion figure, "[NOTE: These calculations are obviously flawed and the estimates are wrong.]" (as they obviously are.) Games with population figures are one of the lamest and most transparent forms of POV-pushing on Wikipedia generally, and on this article in particular.Proabivouac 05:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.2 - 1.4 is the figure present in most sources i think, but i'll check up on that. ITAQALLAH 12:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proa, you're forgetting to AGF. These are estimates and we are giving top and bottom figures that the real situation probably lies between. Itsmejudith 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Someone has again changed the figure to 0.9 billion? heck? I have changed it to 1 to 1.5 billion. Thanks. --Itsalif 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that someone is getting annoyed after seeing the figures rise...216.99.62.32 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure of Muslims