Talk:Allah/Archive 1

message: I added one sentence. I hope doing so will produce no flames and no reversion. I also have a question about one sentence. I do not understand it clearly because of its use of the word "universal" (the link to the article on "Universal" is fruitless):  'Unlike the word "God", the name "Allah" is universal, used by Muslims world-wide, regardless of their language, as well as Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews, and others.'  Which of the following sentences fit the meaning  of the quoted sentence?
* If one is a human being, one uses only "Allah" as a name for the One.
* If one is a human being, one uses "Allah" as a name for the One.
* If one is a Muslim, one uses only "Allah" as a name for the One.
* If one is a Muslim, one uses "Allah" as a name for the One.
* If one is an Arabic-speaking Christian, one uses only "Allah" as a name for the One.
* If one is an Arabic-speaking Christian, one uses "Allah" as a name for the One.
* If one is an Arabic-speaking Jew, one uses only "Allah" as a name for the One.
* If one is an Arabic-speaking Jew, one uses "Allah" as a name for the One.
* (Anything that I missed? What was the author actually trying to say?)
According to my understanding, a better formulation would be: 'The name "Allah" alone is used by Muslims world-wide, regardless of their language, as a proper noun that names "the one God". Several terms for  the one God, including "Allah,"  may be used interchangably by people not of the Islamic faith such as Arabic-speaking Christians and Arabic-speaking Jews,'  Please, anonymous contributor, explain what is wrong with this way of saying it. 金 (Kim) 22:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The name Allah is universal because it cannot be translated accross different languages/regions. People say Allah everywhere, and they surely refer to the same. There is a major misconception about using "the arabic word for God." I havn't got the time now to check who changed Name into word, but I am editing the article and hope it won't be reverted to "word" again. Who has a problem with "Allah is the arabic name of God"? Muhammad 10:52, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allah is universally used because of the importance of Qur'anic recitation (and consequently Arabic terminology) in Muslim cultures. This does not mean that it cannot be translated, only that it usually isn't, since everyone shares a common Arabic vocabulary. From a Muslim POV I do have a problem with Allah remaining unquestioned as the Arabic 'name of God' because languages are by definition worldly and created. Concepts like 'the divine' are obviously transcendant of language; in this sense, the divine cannot have a name. This is very much what classical Muslim theologians meant when they said that God could only be known by his 99 names or attributes. This problem is avoided by simply admitting that 'allah' is the Arabic translation of title 'the god/God' and not a name at all (which also explains why Arab Jews and Christians use it - since it's not a name, it obviously cannot conflict with the use of Yahweh or Jesus, which Judaism and Christianity do consider to be proper names).  The fact is that unless mention is made of the al+ilah etymology, it will seem that all the translations of the Qur'an done from a non-Muslim POV are incorrect (since they almost all translate 'Allah' as 'God'). Plus, it is not at all clear from linguistic evidence that the goddess Allat and Allah are completely unrelated. The only way to maintain neutrality is to mention all POVs and make it clear that traditional Muslims hold one view, dissenting Muslims and non-Muslims another. So I am restoring the al+ilah = Allah (the deity) etymology in a way which I hope restores NPOV and will keep everyone somewhat happy, or at least equally unhappy.--Zeeshanhasan 23:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I like your edit, Zeeshan - but why do you say that only non-Muslim linguists give the al-ilah etymology?  I've never heard that this etymology contradicts Islam in any way, and it doesn't contradict the fact that right now (synchronically) the word has no feminine, even if at some point in the pre-Islamic past it did. - Mustafaa 10:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just trying to avoid getting into an editing tug of war. =) You're right of course, but I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing the alternative POVs than through the inaccurate but easily distinguishable dichotomy of Muslim/non-Muslim. But I've just changed it to 'many linguists believe'. --Zeeshanhasan 10:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision n 

message: Someone, claiming to have "cleaned up grammar" has actually made some substantive changes, primarily adding the assertion that "Allah" is a moon god. 金 (Kim) 06:13, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision N+1 

message: Just to make certain, did pre-islamic Arabic-language Jewish and Christian texts use "Allah"?
There are vanishingly few pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions.  However, the Zabad (Zebed) inscription is Christian, trilingual including Arabic, and pre-Islamic; it might answer the question. - Mustafaa 21:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-islamic Arabic use 

message: From the Allahabad article:
: Allahabad was founded, as al-Ilhahabad, by the Mogul Emperor Akbar in 1583.
So is it related to "Allah" or not? I know no Urdu.
Yeah, it means "city of God" in Persian., I believe. - Mustafaa 21:20, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allahabad 

message: I've closed the GAR with no action taken. The GA fail has neither been endorsed nor overturned. I suggest that once editors are confident that the article meets the good article criteria, it can be renominated.
I also sorted out the talk archives. Please don't archive open discussions (as the GAR was). Geometry guy 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR closed 

message: Shouldn't there be a section for the viewpoints against the alledged existance of Allah or a similar God? In the interests of fairness and cohesion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.221.36 (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Practice 

message: I found two apparently reliable websites ,  that say the following about typography of Allah. If someone please figure out what they say and add them to the article:
 says:
The Allah ligature</br>Under Classic, the fonts al-Bayan (Arabic) and Kamran  		(Persian) had special ligatures for [A]llah (without the alif), 		salla Allah 'alayhi wa-sallam and floral 		parentheses. These were not standardized, so only those two fonts had them. </br>- To print a document with these characters in Classic, e.g. in NisusWriter 6, 		you must have the postscript laser file ("AlbayanPla") in the Classic Fonts folder  		for the characters to print correctly.</br>- If you convert a Classic file to OS X, these ligatures will disappear, because         they were not standardized - instead of the "llah" you will probably get $.         However, the font still has the ligature, only in a different place in the font.          You can get the ligature back by finding $ and replacing them with the OS X          "llah" character.  It is a bit tricky to find that, though, as there is no key for it         on the standard Arabic keyboard. You can install a special          keyboard layout, like my "Arabic(2)" which         lets you type the Allah ligature as Option-g. Or you can use Character Palette to          point and click (you find them in "Show: Code Tables: Unicode: Arabic Presentation Forms          A" down the long list). Or you can activate the Unicode Hex Input keyboard layout,          where you must type Option-fdf2. </br>- In OS X, TextEdit and a few other applications will actually insert these         ligatures automatically when you type lam-lam-ha (llah). But only in          al-Bayan, this does not work in the other fonts that contain the same Allah         ligature, and not for the other "signets"; there you must use one of the methods above. </br>In versions up to 4.0 of Bayan, you can turn the automated ligature        feature off in the "Typography" cogwheel of the Font Panel, in versions 4.1 and          higher (OS 10.3 and up) the option of turning it off is not available. In these versions,         (Bayan 4.1 and higher) you must also type alif-lam-lam-ha to get the ligature          - but the ligature still says only llah, without the          alif!  On the other hand, these newer versions of Bayan, 4.1 and up,         correct another old error, where the hamza under alif carried a          superfluous kasra vowel - at least in the isolate form.</br> While we are on the subject of vowels, notice what is probably a bug, but is found         in all fonts except the SIL ones (under 10.4): If you type a shadda followed by         a fathatan (a nunated "a" for accusative, thus e.g. for hayyan, "alive"),          the consonant breaks free to display incorrectly in the isolate shape. But if you type         the harakat in the opposite order, the double a first and shadda         afterwards, this does not occur, so do that! This occurs only with fathatan          (double a), not kasratan or dammatan (i or u)."
The other website  says:
A small feature of this works, among my fonts, only            in al-Bayan: Type "Allah" straight without harakat (alif-lam-lam-ha)            and the system will replace it with the "llah" ligature,            with shadda and dagger alif. Works in all tested programs except the            OpenType ones: TextEdit, Nisus, Swift, NeoOffice and Papyrus. But only            in Bayan, not in the other fonts that have the samme "[A]llah"            ligature such as Kamran. Notice you must type the alif, "Allah", although only            "llah" appears.
One issue puts the two major DTP programs at opposite extremes: the            sequence lam-fatha-alif, which should become a lam-alif            ligature with the vowel over the lam. Nashir cannot handle            this sequence, and does not create the lam-alif ligature at            all. InDesign does, and it alone places the fatha correctly            over the lam. All others place it over the alif.
Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may take me some time to figure this out. It may not be necessary for this article to provide more than a brief mention on typographical issues. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Good point. BTW, I think this article is saying things which might be helpful here http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahu --Be happy!! (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that the important point is that Arabic type fonts often have special ligatures for [A]llah and ommit the initial alif. It can be summed up in one to three sentences. Majoreditor (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that we need to make it short. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typography 

message: I wanted to add this picture  to the article. But it didn't work: I added the following: 
Is "May His glory shine" a good translation for jalla jalalahu?
Also, I can not understand the info provided for the image: . What language is it? --Be happy!! (talk)
:That is a much nicer image, excellent find. Peter Deer (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not translate the caption though. Do you know what language it is? Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  'sq' should mean Albanian. rudra (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll try to find someone who know Albanian. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another picture 

message: I wanted to discuss why my addition of another image was reverted here . Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this page is improved by adding more examples of Allah written in Arabic calligraphy. And IMHO the current image is much better. The image you added doesn't even represent hand drawn calligraphy, but rather a piece of computer art based on calligraphy. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 08:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the computer art on is based on a hand drawn calligraphy; I suspect the same one. The only difference is that it has something more to it which should be a good point rather than a bad one. And IMHO it looks much nicer. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The computer art is exactly that: computer art, while the image currently in the article is an accurate depiction of arabic calligraphy. And that something more to it is only colors and shading, either of which isn't present in regular examples of Arabic calligraphy that I have seen. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 12:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the new image has taken a hand made calligraphy and has added colors and shades to it. What's wrong with it? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it comes down to a debate about it then the simplest image will probably win. That being said, I think that the previous point being made that 1 is a very nice image and perhaps should be taken into consideration. Peter Deer (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The other image can be taken as well. But why the simplest image will probably win? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to that in particular, because almost all calligraphic versions are variations on the simpler form of the word, with additional signatures, bits of scripture, or diacritical marks for aesthetic value, and an image of simply the common calligraphic form of the word 'Allah' would have the highest encyclopedic value in that regard. That being said, I'm not particularly concerned, and frankly I think the latvian one is lovely. If it came down to it I could even provide an image (I'm an amateur calligrapher myself) but I don't think that is at all necessary. Peter Deer (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Now the new image is up. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyways, if we can use 1, then there will be no need to use any of those two calligraphies. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  The computer graphic is a very nice image, but it is not exactly calligraphy, rather a computer art based on calligraphy. I agree that the image in Latvian wiki would be better than either of the graphics under debate, but first it should be moved to commons, and for that copyright disclaimers would be required. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 08:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new image seems to be acceptable to everybody :) --Be happy!! (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Horray for everyone winning! Peter Deer (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The Wikipedia text seems to be the best definition of the name of God Allah. Again, Here is the same mistake, Allah is not a name, it is a common noun: "the" and "God", with all what the article "the" entails as definitions and adjectives: The Powerful, The All-Mighty, The Omnipotent, The Merciful, etc... 
To return to the initial subject: Allah is God in Arabia since ever. Today's Lebanon represents the sampling of the major families of Arabia, as the tribes moved from Arabia long before Islam towards the North looking for greener grass. The story of migrations is well known but the issue is that Lebanese family names ending with Allah (like Farajallah, Khairallah, Nasrallah, Abdallah, etc...) are primarily Christian. Allah is not an Islamic feature; it is the God of the Christians of Arabia long before Islam. 
: that shouldnt be too much of a suprise to Muslims as Islam states that the same message was sent to the people of the world and since Islam says there is only 1 god 'Allah' it shouldn't be a surprise if previous religions sent by god has god naming himself as the same thing (i.e. Allah) - this may be an interesting thing to mention User:Cs1kh (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I think that one must remember in regards to names and especially names of God is that they are more than just pretty sounding words. Allah means essentially 'The God.' Ar-Rahman means 'The Benevolent.' Most of the 'names' of God are descriptions and praise of His attributes. If one will notice, almost all religion follows this pattern, from Judaism to Islam to Hinduism and so on. Peter Deer (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (to Language Lover's comment) your statement "muslims around the world no matter how strong they are mastering the English language cannot use the term God when they speak English" is flawed. English is my second language (though I hope I am reasonably good at it), and when I speak about god I may use "God" (mainly when speaking to non-muslims or when speaking to English people that do not know much Islam) or I may use Allah (when speaking to Arabic speaking Muslims or when refering to Islam's belief of God to general people)User:Cs1kh (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree strongly with this. In fact, Yusuf Ali in his original translation of the Quran translated Allah to God, but publishers have by-in-large replaced his original usage of God with the untranslated Allah. It is not entirely uncommon for Muslims when speaking English to say God, especially if they were familiar with the concept of God before they became Muslims. Largely I think that it has become about Muslim identity and also about persons who wish to differentiate between their conception of God and Allah, who they don't think to be the same Being. Peter Deer (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a name? 

message: The symbol on the Iranian flag is an aberration not echoed anywhere in the history of Islam. It's origins are cryptic at best and are the invention of Khomeini. I would welcome evidence from anyone to find this symbol used anywhere else in the history of the Muslim world. Strangely enough it coincides with the symbol of Sikhism the reasons for which remain a complete mystery.
Thus, this image in not representative of any historical renditions of the typography for Allah and should, therefore, be removed. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.218.179 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The design of the coat of arms of Iran is explained here.  It's a stylized calligraphic ambigram of overlaid phrases. You are correct that it has not been used anywhere else in this form, but calligraphic renderings of "Allah" and "La ilaha ill Allah" are not new. Peter Deer (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove Iran's strange flag symbol 

message: This article has grown after some years, and it a pleasure to see so much contribution to it and its preservation.
We will establish a FAQ list of words that are undisputed as to their meaning and implications in the Arabic language:
ilah or ilaah is derived from the Arabic verb root "alh" or "alaha" which means "to deify"
ilah can mean God or god, it is applied to "anything" that is worshipped.  When it is pronounced with nunation called tanween such as ilaahun or ilaahan its english equivalent is "a god".
The plural of "ilah" is "aalihat"
The feminine of "ilah" is "ilahat"
The plural of the feminine (exclusive) "ilahat" is "ilahaat' or "aalihaat"
You can add the article "al" to any of the above words as:
al-ilah = The God or the god
al-aalihat = the gods
al-ilahat = The Goddess or the goddess
al-ilahaat or al-aalihaat = the goddesses
The above are FAQ.
Now lets put somethings into perspective with these FAQs that contradict theories that many have adopted as FAQs.
The word Allah is alleged to be a contraction of the Arabic words al-ilah
contradiction:
The word Allah has no plural. How can it have no plural if it is a contraction of al-ilaah that has a plural al-aalihat
The word Allah is alleged to have a feminine Allat
contradiction:
How could Allat be the feminine of Allah if Allah is a contraction of al-ilah whereas its feminine is al-ilahat. Thus, Allat would need to be a contraction of al-ilahat to be Allahat not Allat. However this is not a reality.
If the name Allah has no plural which is widely agreed upon then logically it can have no feminine therefore it cannot have no relation to the linguistical contraction theory of the two word al-ilah. Oxy2Hydro (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would have to be condensed significantly and sourced if it were to be placed anywhere in the article, but I have no objections personally it would provide relevant and notable information pertinent to the subject and common questions and concerns about the Arabic word. Peter Deer (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Good lord, doesn't the presence of parallel Greek inscriptions from before and after the revelation where indiscriminate use of the two names Allāt, al-Ilāt or al-Ilahah and al-Lāh or al-Ilahu are translated as "The Great Goddess", "The Goddess", "The Great God", "The God" not fix this issue? The word Allah is not the only one in which the initial vowel was elided, and both have clear antecedents in Arabic languages of the entire peninsula. Check resources on Jāhilī Arabic writing, Nabataean, Sahidic, Lihyanite etc. as well as the shahadah - it's right in the shahada! (Yes, I am a Muslimah.) em zilch (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Arabic Words Allah and ilah FAQ 

message: Is Allah=God of Israel?--71.108.26.142 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Albert Mohler explains the answer to my rhetorical question quite nicely:  "Allah is not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ," "Allah is certainly not the God of the Bible" have scriptural backing."What Does God Care What We Call Him?" --71.108.26.142 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another Christian preacher. Please note that none of these are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Seriously, it's like having an Imam tell us about Christianity. ITAQALLAH 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then at least, we should mention that "Muslims are offended if you would insist that their God is a different god than the God of the world’s Christians."--71.108.26.142 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More links to Christian preachers. There are links on this page to guidelines and policies showing what makes a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Chick is a cartoonist who hold that Allah is a moon god.--71.108.6.164 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. He also thinks Islam is a conspiracy of the Catholic church. Enough of the fringe polemicists already. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to mention a non-preacher.  What about Peter Tsouras who writes "Allah, the Arabian moon god, one among many in the pagan Arab pantheon" in Montezuma: Warlord of the Aztecs ()?--71.108.6.164 (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A military historian specialising in weapons, armour and tactics of the Conquista period Aztec Empire is hardly a reputable source for Middle Eastern religion around the 6th century CE. Try examining the scholars who are schooled in and experts of the materials, area and culture in question. em zilch (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but no. It's a bad, bad sign when your "expert" is criticised by the ADL for racist opinions and commentary about Arabs and Muslims. Cf. David Bukay em zilch (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because he made some hasty remarks, it isn't justifiable to dismiss all his writings as baloney.--71.108.6.164 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I was thinking that given his opinions and statements, we should do just that. em zilch (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The number of sources doesn't matter if not a single one of them are reliable. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allah as God of Israel 

message: *Christian
*Jon Courson
*John F. MacArthur
*Chuck Baldwin (2008 U.S. Presidential candidate)
*Robert Morey
*Jack Chick
*Albert Mohler
*Pat Robertson Bring It On: The Occult and False Religions
*James Hastings "'Allah' is a pre-Islamic name ... corresponding to the Baylonian Bel"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.9.54 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already noted that Daniel Pipes' own words are that Allah means "God", the same one as that of the Jews and Christians. The rest of your list are (also) partisan activist hacks. Peter Tsouras has been attacked by the ADL, a political Jewish organisation, for his appalling anti-Arab bias. Jack Chick is infamous world-wide: he also notes that the Moon God is the God of the Catholics, who incidentally drink the blood of children and worship "Semiramis". Pat Robertson? The list continues with non-scholarly, highly and notably biased persons. Please review the standards cited in this talk article regarding sources. em zilch (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pipes says Allah is commonly used by many who equate the God of Israel with Allah.  He is talking about usage not literal translation.--71.108.9.54 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: As goofy as Jack Chick is, let's lay out as many notable people we can who question the identity of Allah.  Then we can weed out those who are not credible.  Frotz (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are even Muslims who acknowledge "The two words, "God" and "Allah," do not mean the same thing in English. They should.  Also, each of the above people make valid points and shouldn't be dismissed for being Christian.  One of Albert Mohler's argument is "If Allah has no Son by definition, Allah is not the God who revealed himself in the Son. How then can the use of Allah by Christians lead to anything but confusion …and worse?”--71.108.9.54 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above-listed persons in column 1 are members of a specific religious persuasion with  considerable political motivation to license Islam as "the other, the devil's work". I don't care if a Topekan bible-thumper says "Allah is the Devil!", and neither should Wikipedia care outside of pages about said bible-thumper. If there are credible works, whip them out - I have yet to encounter any written by scholars. What makes Jack Chick any more of an expert than Axl Rose or John Madden? And Muslims who are not experts are no different than Christians who are. Their 3ilm may be lacking - and scholarship is central to Islam. The Qur'an itself identifies God as the God of the Jews and the Christians... em zilch (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, you're wasting your time by collating every polemical author you can find - because it doesn't really add any weight to the rationale for inclusion. Please read carefully through WP:V and WP:RS - and please understand that sources must be reliable. Reliability is determined by the criteria here. ITAQALLAH 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissension by notable people 

message: I'd like to make a semi-prot request to prevent junk/PoV spamming by persons without log-ins. em zilch (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect Request 

message: Does Louis Herbert Gray qualify as a scholar who has written "Allah, the old Ilah, or title of the Moon-god"?--71.108.21.186 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gray lived in nineteen century/early twentieth century; and the writings on Islam from that era has come under much criticism. I don't think this counts as a reliable source. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a URL to a source that states something along the lines of "the writings on Islam from that era [1800s and early 1900s] has come under much criticism."  I should also point out that if you were objective, then you would provide evidence to discredit Louis Herbert Gray's writings.--71.108.2.243 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The works of scholars from that period have been hotly criticised. Edward Said wrote a seminal work on the subject: it's called Orientalism. Also, your claims of non-neutrality are akin to the pot calling the kettle black... you are coming to this article with an obvious and denigratory agenda. As a person who constantly challenges long-held assumptions of Islam with fact (as evident on this page alone!), you are transparently carrying significant baggage brought directly from extremist Christian "anti-Mohammedan" screeds. em zilch (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hilarious because Edward Said himself has received a great deal criticism.--71.108.4.115 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientalist says ''Allah'' is the title of a moon god 

message: Re: John Paul II smooching the Quran with eyes closed
::What is the difference between fair and wildly inappropriate sources? I certainly see that page you cite as being the most insanely inappropriate source for wikipedia... ranting like madness... yeek. em zilch (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the photograph is doctored?--71.118.46.37 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's not doctored, but the text of the page it is on is a rampaging anti-Muslim and anti-Roman screed. The description of the photo on that page itself is inflammatory - I'd hate to use that image without understanding what happened and why he was kissing what appears to be the Qur'aan. It also says Khadijah was a Catholic and Muhammad "the antiChrist". (Same page, exact quote.) Disclaimer: I went to Catholic school and hence understand (comprehend the wording and points he writes) most of the author's rantings when they deal with Canon law and the like, although I think he's barking mad on nearly every point (i.e. where he says the basic problem facing Catholicism today is Freemasonry controling the nations of the world... wuuut?). Salaams, em zilch (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The website is run by Father David Trosch.--71.108.0.227 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah: he has been suspended and is no longer a priest because he advocates terrorism. My cousin was murdered in the Brookline clinic terrorist attack in 1994. em zilch (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Paul II smooching the Quran with eyes closed 

message: In the paragraph:
"According to Marshall Hodgson, it seems that in the pre-Islamic times, some Arab Christians made pilgrimage to the Kaaba, a pagan temple at that time, honoring Allah there as God the Creator.[25]"
It is a well documented fact that the Kaaba has been used as a focal point and as a place of worship to god "the creator of the universe" for thousands of years. According to the Muslims Prophet Abraham built it as a place of worship to God "the creator of the universe". It was used as a place of worship by people of different faiths. They understood that it was a place of worship, built by prophet Abraham and that is why they went there. The paragraph above portrays an inaccurate image of the Kaaba, and is contradictory. It says that Arab Christians also made pilgrimage to the Kaaba, but then goes on to say that it was a pagan temple. After Prophet Abraham the people in the local area started to deviate from the teachings of Prophet Abraham and did indeed start to place their idols in the precinct of the Kaaba. But that does not mean that it was a pagan temple. Many people including the Christians who visited the Kaaba, visited it to worship God. As prophet Abraham intended. Later on during the time of Prophet Mohammed the idols were removed and it was again used as a place of worship to God. The Kaaba is a focal point where people of different ethnic groups meet to worship God. Where racism has no place. The Muslims worship God and not the Kaaba. The Kaaba is an empty building, it is a place where people meet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.194.69 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That viewpoint is explicitly a particularly religious one, and it is not supported by the sources. Also, how is that a "contradiction in the article"? It's only a contradiction of your opinion with the article, not an internal one.  Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradition in the article