Talk:Islam/Archive 13

message: It is my intention to add a small portion to this article. After seeing the firestorm of craziness in response to my addition of a simple link I thought that perhaps I should post my proposed addition to the article on the talk page and get your majesties permission so as not to incite Another revert war. My proposed addition is below. Seanr451 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section

message: I suppose that category Islam is probably not on many editors' watchlists, so I'll try here instead: I think there should be a reorganisation of the Islam category pages. My major gripe is that there are too many subcategories 'of order 1' (by which I mean subcategories in the Islam category). There is also some overlap, for example, Muslims and Islamic scholars are categories of order 1 and the latter should clearly be a subcategory of the former. There are also many other subcat's of order 1 that can be placed into the category Muslims (for example, Muslim scientists, Imams, Muslim philosophers and Islamic prophets). Also, it's a bit strange having Muslim as well. Given the sheer number of Islam articles, it's also very easy to not spot 'mistakes' such as Elijah Muhammad being a muslim (correct me if I'm wrong on this point). There is so much that needs to be reorganised in the Islam category pages. There should be a category on Islamic culture which can have Islamic art, Muslim music, Islamic festivals and Islamic architecture as some subcategories. Maybe even a category on Five pillars of Islam which can have Islamic Pilgrimage as a subcategory (which can then have articles on Hajj, Umra,  Al-Safa and Al-Marwah, Hira, Kaaba etc...). I think you get the idea. MP   (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those ideas sound workable. As long as you're open to feedback, I at least am willing to give you your head for a while. Just remember Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities without necessity :) Zora 08:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start at reorganising the categories. I might even start creating some of the categories just now. The task is quite overwhelming. I appreciate any feedback. MP   (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe you should have a look at the talk page of the Muslim culture article, which I created a while ago exactly to provide a place to link art, architecture, etc. Especially since objections have been raised that the term "Muslim culture" is not used in academia often enough to represent a category. --Zeeshanhasan 13:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not clear why people should be in :Category:Islam at all, given the people categories.  When I reverted an (unexplained) addition of this category to Abu Bakr I was told "Please the Islam talk page for why Abu Bakr should also be in the Islam category", but I can't see any explanation here.  He's in :Category:Muslims and :Category:Sahaba already. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we have people in the Islam category is that those people are extremely important figures in Islam. It is not necessary that each article about a person should be in exactly one category. Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Abu Jahl, Umar ibn al-Khattab and more are all  important (notable) figures in Islam. Some Sahaba are also notable, which is why they are in the Islam category too. At the moment, this is the criteria we are using to place people in the Islam category. We (or at least I) are (am) attempting to recategorise all the Islam pages, as I noticed there were too many superfluous articles in the Islam category (i.e., they could be better placed in a subcategory). It may be better (once we decide that we have enough notable figures in Islam) that we create a new category, namely, 'Notable people in Islam'. MP   (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recategorisation 

message: Dallan - I came across this article and am not sure if it is nonsense or not. MP   (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ever heard of this ? 

message: Oh dear, we seem to have 2 articles on the same topic: Treaty of Hudaybiyya and Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The latter was created before the former, but the former is more comprehensive. Hmmm. Merger seems like the obvious solution. MP   (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Hudaybiyya(h) 

message: The Five Pillars of Islam could have subcategories on Salat, Hajj etc. The reason I want this to happen is that I've discovered more and more articles which would fit nicely into a salat category (and similarly for things like hajj). Thoughts on this ? MP   (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. What articles do you think will fit nicely. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes we can always add more later. Yes I think Qur'an can be in both categories. Also your suggestion is good and we can also move some Muslims into a category for the Sahaba and some for Islamic scholars, but keep the notable ones like Abu Bakr and Ali in the category of Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Pillars category 

message: I have changed it to seven . In arabic each of then is separated from the next by a wa (and) , so its not sometimes but always seven . The numbering has also been changed to how its read . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles of Belief

message: The articles Moulid and Mawlid could be merged. Thoughts ?  MP   (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's. Just make sure that all the variant spellings are listed at the top. Zora 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moulid and Mawlid merger ? 

message: I'm surprised and impressed that such a potentially contentious page as this has avoided a lock down. George Bush and Freemasonry have been so vandalised that the general community can't be trusted to edit. Islam has avoided this. Good work on consensus building. Epeeist smudge 05:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Work 

message: I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding an Islam heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Islam's view on forgiveness?  Any help would be appreciated.  --speet 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help on Forgiveness article 

message: Aiden, could you explain the qualifier "considered" an Abrahamic religion?  You said in your edit summary the Christianity article has this qualifier also.  Why is it necessary in either case?  The Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.  I'm not sure I understand the need for a qualifier. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: qualifier "considered"

message: Is the newly created article Qu'ran and Bible redundant ? MP   (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly created article on 'Qu'ran and Bible'  superfluous ? 

message: The article Western religion desperately needs a section on Islam.  Can someone here head over there and write something? KSchutte 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I think I found a better alternative: Merge. KSchutte 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western religion 

message: The "how old was Aisha when she was married?" controversy currently lives at Aisha. It's about twice as long as the rest of the article. I'm wondering if it would make sense to move the controversy out into its own article? Someone recently tried this, but with unkind intent (IMHO) -- he put it in "Muhammad's (PBUH) sexual orientation", which was promptly squashed. Before I do anything, I would like to get some feedback from other editors as to the advisibility of the move and the proper name for the breakout article. Would Aisha marriage age controversy do? 
If it's in a new article, we might be able to reorganize a bit and freshen it up. There is a lot of material that isn't referenced, the cites from Bukhari should be linked to the MSA online hadith database, etc. Zora 00:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that wouldn't serve to help legitimate the prurient (and highly POV) interest by non-Muslims in this aspect of Islamic history. I'd suggest instead that what's already in Aisha should be tidied up; indeed, moving it off to a deeper sub-article might even appear POV to some.  JEREMY 06:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Nods head and agrees with JEREMY* Angrynight 05:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving controversy out of Aisha 

message: A recent edit removed the word Holy as POV. I would like to point out this is a propper name, such as the Holy Bible, the word Holy not being mutually inclusive to POV. --OrbitOne 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No where on Wikipedia will you find the Bible called the Holy Bible. It is POV. —Aiden 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm concurring with Timothy and Aiden; the word "Holy" is not part of the name of the Qur'an. joturner 20:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not taking sides here, but Wikipedia does refer to Prince Charles as "HRH Prince Charles," among others. Not exactly "His Supreme Excellency," but it seems to be along those lines. Or, it could just be like saying "Sir Paul McCartney," just a title. I don't know. Anyway, why is Paul McCartney a knight? The Beatles are awesome, but still... Twilight Realm 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had I a special interest in the Prince Charles page, I might object to the overall air of pageantry.  However, the use is different: the only mention in the text (excepting the box of royals on the right) says that he is styled as HRH; from that point forward he is called Prince Charles, Charles, the Prince, etc.  Were this page about the Qur'an, it would be appropriate to mention that Muslims often preface its mention with “Holy”, and indeed I believe this is stated in that article.Timothy Usher 02:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word 'Holy' 

message: *sighs* Saying that the prophets of Islam before Muhammad (PBUH) were "non-Muslim" or "non-Islamic" is an obvious piece of POV. Muslims (if I remember correctly) believe that such prophets were in fact Muslims; this is obviously religious retconning, and should be explored in the article Prophets of Islam, but saying that they were "non-Islamic" in the narrative voice of this article is like changing "Christians believe that Isaiah 7:14 foretells the birth of Jesus" to "Christian wrongly believe. . .".  —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; the statement isn't even POV; it's just wrong. Muslims believe that those previous prophets were Muslims too. joturner 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Joturner, while I accept your revert of CltFn edits, to hold Muslim belief as the final arbitrer here is POV.  His qualifiers were neither right nor wrong, but *skew* - do we call Isiah a "non-Christian" prophet?  Maybe also an un-American one?  The axis of POV is as with the Muhammad(PBUH)/founder-of-Islam dispute: Muslims say these prophets were Muslims, many non-Muslims (those who care) say they were not.  We cannot really know what they would have thought of Muhammad or the Qur'an.  It is also POV to call them "previous prophets of Islam" or the like.  NPOV is to not take a position (e.g. no qualifier) where it's not necessary to do so, and to discuss both sides where this is needed and appropriate.Timothy Usher 09:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you still seem to misunderstand the issue. As I have explained above, if you say a prophet is muslim in Arabic, that would translate to something like English "pious", not English "Muslim". In the Arabic meaning of the word, every pious person is muslim regardless of whether they lived before or after Muhammad, hence the objection to the statement that "Muhammad (PBUH) founded piety". This has nothing to do with whether you are a Muslim (a Mohammadean) or not: Isaiah was neither a Mohammadean nor a Christian (obviously), but the statement in question asserts that he was "pious" ("righteous" etc., in the Arabic language, muslim). We can continue to discuss these semantics ad nauseam, or we can just try to point them out as clearly as possible in the article. It is a problem of using Arabic terms in English, unavaidably with a shift in meaning. dab (ᛏ) 09:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is in English, in which “Islam/Muslim” does not mean submission/one who submits to God.  Were it an Arabic article, perhaps you'd have a point.  However, in contemporary Anglophone usage, Islam/Muslim is not anything like a synonym for pious.  And I’ve no objection to noting the difference in meaning between languages.  Note that I created the original version of the “Was Muhammad the Founder of Islam” section and defended a community-edited version from deletion.  Readers should know the Islamic POV, but it must not be stated as fact.  I agree with your earlier comment about Muhammadanism on many levels.  p.s. The assertion that they were pious is also POV.Timothy Usher 10:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you clarify what you are saying?Timothy Usher 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  prophets 

message: Jihad seems to be so very prominent in Islam today, and many people want to know what role Jihad plays in Islam and how it affects muslim views of non-muslims. It would be nice if this article could include a section explaining Jihad.--141.213.196.250 02:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for an explanation of Jihad in this article 

message: I'm confused.  What is Wikipedia's policy on such things as religious stylistic conventions?  For instance, in an article on Christianity, I'm sure Christians would want to capitalize "he" or "him" where referring to their deity.  Likewise, some Muslim editors seem to want to put the traditional blessing after the name of Muhammad, and have done so in several articles on Wikipedia.  
Is this appropriate, though?  It seems like an example of playing favorites to me.  Certainly we should be respectful to all world religions, but in the interests of neutrality, Wikipedia should not take a worshipful tone.
Are there any objections to my removing the religious blessing after the name of Muhammad, wherever it appears?  -Kasreyn 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None. All the editors here (Muslims and non-Muslim) have been removing PBUHs, SAWs, HAs, and the like whenever seen. It's just that we're contending with thousands of anonymous editors who cannot see the word Muhammad without wanting to put a PBUH after it. Zora 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to note that the subject's been discussed many times and i am sorry to say that the result has always been this is a neutral encyclopaedia... Not using PBUH and the likes doesn't mean there's a lack of respect to any one. It simply means that we respect our guidelines in terms of neutrality. Cheers -- Szvest 14:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you've misunderstood me, friend.  I actually meant that I believe Christians should not (and are not) allowed to capitalize "him", and so in fairness Muslims should not insert the PBUH.  -Kasreyn 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBUH? 

message: I think we should use PBUH or any other words that show respect to prophets. If people from any other religion want to use words like this for their saints, prophets,etc. its fine with me.
Zarif 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zarif, this discussion has to be concluded and i believe it is discussed above and there's no need to add sections everytime we have an opinion. It has been discussed hundreds of times as well. Please participate in the discussion above or try to read the archives. THis way would be better. Cheers -- Szvest 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PBUH

message: Why is North Korea indicated as having a Shia majority? To my knowledge, Korea is not a Muslim country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.136.88 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 April 2006
:Please see the image description page. North Korea is not blue (Shia majority), it's black (no data available). Mushroom (Talk) 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea? 

message: "Old Qur'ans are not destroyed as wastepaper, but burned."
I think this sentence is partially wrong. Qur'an is never burned even if it's old enough or unusable. I don't how one could get rid of old torn ones, but I think 'burning' is not the right act to do. Haisook 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Millions are burning old ones. -- Szvest 00:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Burning is the proper method of disposal as Muslims believe it is inappropriate to have dirty things (from the soles of shoes to other trash found in wastebaskets) touch the Qur'anic verses and the name of Allah. I believe burying in the earth also works. joturner 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, yes. I think 'burying' is the ONLY approved method of getting rid of a Qur'an in Islam. Haisook 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Qur'ans are burned?! 

message: So here is my question: i know, on talk, people debate about the articles, but i'm curious: Before Islam, were most middle easterns or arabs/etc. some other religion? was it Zoroastranian? or was it something Darhmic? I'm just curious
----
It's my belief, that the interaction between india and the other arabic near eastern nations, like pakistan has been going on since way before modern religions as we know it, so perhaps Some early western religions of the middle east had a heavy influence on the religions in India and southeast asia, or vice versa,
what do you all tHink?
At the time of the birth of the prophet Muhammad, there were four major religions in the middle east. In the persian empire, the major religion was Zoroastrianism. In the byzantine empire, The major religion was Orthodox Christianity. In the arabian peninsula there was a mixture of the above two and a smattering of Judiasm and some of polytheistic bedouin religion, which included a primary god (called "Allah") and several godesses.
Source: Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet" 
--Loki Laufeyson 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a question... 

message: Aiden, consider:
 
Islam:
“Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.”
Christianity:
“Like Judaism and Islam, Christianity is an Abrahamic religion.”
What could be fairer?  Judaism is listed first by historical priority.  The very definition of "Abrahamic religion" is the set that includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is it not?  There's no reason to say it's "considered" as such.Timothy Usher 06:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abrahamic religion phrase

message: The introduction translates الإسلام (al-islām) as 'Peace', but then the Etymology section translates it as "submission to ' The God ' (Allah)".  I believe the second is the correct translation, so shouldn't "'Peace'" in the introduction be changed to "'submission'"?  After all, isn't سلام (salām) "peace"?  --LakeHMM 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: salam is "peace", islam is "submission". they're not the same word, they're just from the same root. Also, can we get rid of the silly "The God" once again? really. dab (ᛏ) 12:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of الإسلام 

message: Anonymous editor, it is inappropriate to remove well-sourced figures in order to replace it with one you prefer,  as you've done .  Moreover, it is deceptive to cite two sources, when one explicitly relies upon the other.Timothy Usher 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No what's deceptive is using that as an excuse to revert rather than make changes . I see no reason why you reverted the 1.3 billion adherents figure which had two sources that you could have kept instead of reverting (and had both 1.2 and 1.3 figures). And you're accepting CAIR? I am sure that if CAIR had a higher number of Muslims you would remove it. Please don't just revert.--a.n.o.n.y.m   t 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm adding both figures with both references, as it's the proper neutral way. By the way,  I meant "sill yedit wars" not "silly facts". --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I said before. Using that as an excuse to revert was a bad move by Timothy. Thanks for fixing it. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Drini.Timothy Usher 07:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source removal in intro

message: Some articles on the topic of 'Islam and punk' seem to have been created by various editors: Heavy metal in Islamic countries, Taqwacore and Vegan Reich. The first is up for deletion; I suppose the other two should be too. But then again, there may be some genuine content in these articles which would render it reasonable for them to exist. Any suggestions ? MP   (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam and punk articles