Talk:Islam/Archive 15

message: WHY????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure inuyasha (talk • contribs) 19:39, July 15, 2006
Because Fayysal archived it all. BhaiSaab talk 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there nothing on the talk page? 

message: With the recent additions of "Political and religious extremism" as well as "Criticism of Islam", I don't think this article is very neutral anymore, because there is no coverage of positive aspects or recent positive developments. I plan to add such items soon. BhaiSaab talk 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, criticism of Islam is being used to neutralize what is otherwise seen as pro-Islam.  But... criticism of Islam is supposed to be a discourse about criticism.... not "this is bad about Islam" which... is what it has turned into.  Criticism of Islam should be the opposite of Islamic apologetics--an article that should talk about Ahmed Deedat... just like we have an article about pre-suppositional apologetics for Christianity.  We have failed at making many of our articles value neutral.  Cutting off hands should not be written about as less acceptable than any other activity.  The article's not too great... but, it's just as good as Britannica's article.  Also, the criticism of Islam section is horrible.  It tells us nothing about the criticism of Islam as a discourse.  Instead it says "Criticism of Islam has existed since the beginning of Islam"... you don't say... gren グレン 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: We need to be careful lf linkspam.  DMOZ has most of the links and we don't need to link to 20 various and relatively insignificant sites.  Some of the most important sites will be on the Sunni Islam and Shia Islam pages.  gren グレン 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spam 

message: I would like to add a link of a Christian perspective under external links, but I am apprehensive about calling it "Christian Perspectives of Islam" as I feel it may be invitation of anti-Islam criticism. The link I would like to include is not an anti-Islam article so much as an article geared towards reconciliation. Could we perhaps create an external links section titled "Miscellaneous articles on Islam" or something to that affect? Loosestring 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it lacks relevancy. If that website were to be put up then other "so and so religion's perspective on Islam" would also be justified. It might already be in the directory that's linked. See here. BhaiSaab talk 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be more appropriate at Christianity_and_world_religions or Christo-Islamic. BhaiSaab talk 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Perspectives of Islam section 

message: Its gone now, but why was it there in the first place. Iam putting my guess on simple mere vandals. But then why was it allowed to stay well iam putting my guess in your hands please enlighten me people. 
PS. God I hope theres no need for me to explain why I removed it no I need you to tell me why was pages of discussion wasted debating somehting that was supposed to be NUKED from the start.Kara Umi 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the Criticism of Islam section? Why should it have been nuked from the start? BhaiSaab talk 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't put there by mere vandals. This is an encyclopedia article about Islam which means that all views about Islam are to be presented. If you are a Muslim, then you know the value of respecting other people's views about any given topic. I am a Muslim and I have no objection to keeping that section in the article. Don't be so quick to remove things that you don't like. That is not what WP is about. To gain satisfaction, bear in mind the last words of sura 109. Thanks. MP   (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, I agree that it is very poorly written. In fact, it gives no references to the claims. So in that sense, I support your deletion of the section. Now that you've said you're working on a new verison, I look forward to seeing it. Thanks. MP   (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the section allowed to linger for so long? 

message: Wish me luck--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article changes too often to have a long-lasting audio version. Personally, I think audio files should only be created for featured articles. BhaiSaab talk 07:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only part that is currently being changed a lot is the "Criticism of Islam" section. I'm thinking about omitting it entirely from the recording. I've currently recorded up to the sentence "The legislative meaning is to submit to God by singling Him out in all acts of worship {Monotheism}, to yield obediently to Him and to free and disassociate oneself from Polytheism and its people." --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm thinking creating an audio version of this article per FaustX's request 

message: Shouldn't editing this page be limited to registered users, at least? There have been 3 instances of blatant vandalism in the last half hour from non-registered users. What is the process for making that request?
Richardjames444 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the protection policy. Simply adding  does not protect the page, as it is merely a tag stating that the page is protected. Isopropyl 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: got it. So editors can request the protection but only admins can place one that works. It's funny though, having the tag there, even if ineffective, did stop the vandalism. Richardjames444 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection?

message: "I bear witness that there is no God worthy of worship but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."
This translation is just plain wrong.  Where are the words "I bear witness that"?  Where are the words "worthy of worship"?  And how is "Allah" not "God"?  The literal translation, I believe, is "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God".  Comments?Timothy Usher 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your translation Timothy. While it is debatable whether it should be '...but God' or '..but Allah', the first 'god' should not be capitalised as it isn't being used as a proper noun, according to English-language capitialisation rules. Ashmoo 04:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's sourced, so just find a new source if you want to change it. The words "I bear witness that" are "ašhadu 'an." BhaiSaab talk 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I changed it to "I bear witness that there is no god but God; I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of God." per the new source I provided. BhaiSaab talk 04:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: I don't think he's notable enough to warrant mention in this article, nor are the Submitters sizable enough. We could just say that there are various groups of Muslims who proclaim to follow the Qur'an only and reject hadith. Comments? BhaiSaab talk 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rashad Khalifa 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:This article has a great deal of promise, but simply is not stable. It would help if editors would discuss changes here and achieve consensus before changing the article itself. Please bring it back when things are quieter here.--CTSWyneken(talk) 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: (I'm sorry I don't know how to add a post, but here is my comment.) Is Islam a religion or is it a system of governance? (governance of both temporal and spiritual aspects of adherents, without a dichotomy of the two as there is in Western European traditions)
Just as the fact that Moses did not reach the Holy land has had an enormous influence on Judaism, and as Jesus was crucified rather than become the king of the Jews has greatly influenced the Christian experience, the fact that Mohammed died both a prophet and a leader of a state should likewise influence Islam, no? There is no distinction between religion and governance in Islam, in fact Islam provides a guide for governing as well as spirituality. So does Islam provide guidance in all aspects of the lives of adherents, being both a religion and system of governance without any dichotomy of the two? Perhaps the West's view of Islam as a religion (with all the baggage of the term) does not fit with Islam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.103.252 (talk • contribs) .
:there you go. to answer your question, you really have to be ignorant of the religion to think it's just a system of governance. just read the article. IMHO thinking it's only system of governance is totally insane. Zazaban 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very impressive, 24.18.  I'd never quite thought of it that way.  Thanks for the food for thought.  :)  Kasreyn 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Islam a religion or is it a system of governance? 

message: All i can say is, it is best for all of us to preferably keep any criticism of islam in a seperate page but not the main page. I'm not a muslim, but with the current misconceptions about islam it is best we keep such things out of the main page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leaflord (talk • contribs) .
:It would seem to me that if there were "misonceptions", it would be simple enough for anyone to reference-bomb any "incorrect" feelings about Islam with proper sourcing against whatever criticism comes along. Homestarmy 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About criticism... 

message: A priest that was influenced by Arianism dictated what Mohammed should write in the Qur'an. He was kicked out of the Christian church for heritical views on religion.شيطان
::Extreme minority views do not belong in this article, Shaitan. BhaiSaab talk 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A renegade Christian wrote the Qur'an. 

message: discussion moved to Talk:Demographics_of_Islam#Voluntary_Muslims --Frescard 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Muslims who have a choice? 

message: Is there a concept of the Covenant in Islam?
:Your question is a bit vague, but these two sources might help you get a bit further:
:* http://www.islam21.net/pages/charter/may-1.htm  
:* http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/abdulwahab/KT1-chap-60.html 
: Frescard 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covenant 

message: Currently the transliteration of the Shahadah in the Islam article is listed as: "ašhadu 'an lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa ašhadu 'an muhammadun-r-rasūlu-llāh". If I am not mistaken, that is not the shahadah. The shahadah as I know it is written: "lā ilāhā illā-llāhu; muḥammadun rasūlu-llāhi" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahadah). If I am correct, I find this mistake appalling.Starwarp2k2 02:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more sites I check, the more variations of the Shahadah I find. What's the deal here? Can someone more knowledgable than me clarify these differences?Starwarp2k2 03:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification!Starwarp2k2 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shahadah Mistake

message: The intro says: "Islam is the second-largest religion in the world and claims to be the world's fastest growing religion." So, uh, how exactly does a world religion "claim" to be anything? I've tagged it with  and suggest rewriting it in the style of "... according to ...". Sandstein 19:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember the last time this fastest-growing thing wasn't a problem with this article. We keep taking it out and ideologues keep putting it back in. As Islam is ludicrously decentralized, it's hard to imagine its "claiming" anything. I believe there was once a citation of some kind that backed up the second-largest-in-the-world designation; the fastest-growing business is unverifiable, as far as I have been able to tell, and should, IMHO, be removed every time it appears. Which is about every fifteen minutes. BYT 20:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: According to GWR 2006: Islam is the fastest growing religion. How about this for a source? (216.99.56.27 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I will try saying that again: Islam is the fastest growing religion according to Guinness World Records 2006 Edition. There should be no objection in that, the source can not get any more reliable. Any feedback? (216.99.60.250 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest growing religion? 

message: I think this user may be a bot. Zazaban 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohmd 

message: This is your prophet.Crazy Christ 00:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A deleted article? Homestarmy 01:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For those who cannot read Arabic, "Ibnil Kharra" literaly means "Son of shit". This is a clear case of hatred towards this article by a Wikipedia User. (216.99.56.27 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ibnil Kharra]], look where it redirects 

message: It's a good site for non-muslims to learn about Islam.
Why does that site contain spelling irregularties, for example, it uses: Muhammed, Mohammad, Muhammad under the same heading. :??  (206.126.82.31 23:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASKMUSLIMS.COM 

message: I propose adding some links to Qur'an in each part. For example in the case of Beliefs we can refered to 2-5 Ayats of Baqarah. So we can make this article more reliable.--Sa.vakilian 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refering to Qur'an

message: 'Islam rapidly spread by religious conversion and military conquest'
I feel this statement (paragraph 3) is misleading and is actually contradictory to the reference given. It should read something like 'Islam rapidly spread by religious conversion, contrary to the general misconception of spreading by the sword'.Muhammaduddeen 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well what does the reference say? Homestarmy 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what the reference says: "One must remember that we are talking about the Muslim expansion, not Arab conquests. The expansion of Islam was as much, or perhaps much more, a matter of religious conversion than it was of military conquest." This quote clearly indicates that the spread of Islam was a matter of religious conversion rather than forced conversions by the so-called "sword". As a result, someone should change that line to 'Islam rapidly spread by religious conversion, contrary to the general misconception of spreading by the sword'. (216.99.56.27 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a gross exaggeration to me, most of the executions were of particular groups the church didn't like which were in a geographic area rather than of a particular ideology. Homestarmy 01:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.. We know that you are a Christian and will always try to go on the defensive with whatever BS or twists to achieve it. There is no sense arguing with the likes of you. (216.99.57.194 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So then I win? Wow, I wish it was that easy to win real arguments.... :D Homestarmy 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wish :p (216.99.57.194 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I can dream, can't I.... Homestarmy 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are too many books which discussed this issue for example "Islam in Iran" Which is written by Petroshefsky. The territory of Caliph expanded by sword but it takes 2 or 3 centuries for most of the people to accept Islam. So we can describe these two events separately.--Sa.vakilian 03:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam spread by military conquest? 

message: Some one needs to check some facts hear their is a difference between a religion being started in an islamic country and a religion being a sect or related or part of another religion. just putting it out there for you guys to fix- User: Farzon Lotfi
Please don't just put your comment right on the top of the page. Please learn more about the Baha'i faith, it recognizes muhammad, and says Islam was the last of god's revalations before The Babi faith. Definatly related. Zazaban 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Faiths

message: Would somebody please explain to me why the criticism and controversies section was deleted.--Sefringle 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it, but it remains to be seen if the user won't just delete it again. Homestarmy 06:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was the criticism and controversies section deleted?

message: A figure of 1.4 billion currently underestimates the Worldwide Muslim population. 1.5-1.6 billion is more reasonable. What do you people think? (216.99.58.69 01:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it's actually less because Muslim countries don't follow rules or count minorities for their own gain. That is a fact. I would say less than a billion.شيطان 02:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that even mean?  How does not counting minorities inflate figures?PelleSmith 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With a name like Shaitan Al Mahdi, do you honestly expect your comments to be taken seriously by Muslims? I chose a source that stated 1.4 billion for the intro because its in the middle of other sources that claim 1.2-1.3 billion and 1.5 to 1.6 billion. BhaiSaab talk 04:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then we should mention that the actual muslim population is disputed--Sefringle 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Population 

message: Islam, eh? All that praying. All that chanting. All that constant wailing about Muhammed. What a waste of a life. All for a dead God. I think it's a shame for kids unlucky enough to be born in Muslim countries. Poor mites have it drummed into them from the cradle. Hey-ho. Life goes on. -195.93.21.70 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read this. BhaiSaab talk 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this anon is trying to attack theism in general, rather than "hating" on Islam specifically. Homestarmy 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I think Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden share a very similar mindset, although they happen to have been born into opposing faiths. However, while there are huge number of genuine Christian "moderates" (Christians who don't really believe in most of the nonsense in the Bible and never go to church) it seems that even the most "moderate" Muslim usually believes, literally, every word of the Qu'ran: even if they don't all go around slaying pagans and non-believers in their everyday lives as commanded by the Prophet. Only the "fundamentalists" do that - the only real difference that they act on their beliefs. Of course, both Muslims and Christians are deluded (often because they have been brainwashed since the cradle), but the delusion of Muslims is usually more total and uncomprimising. I think, in part, this is related to the uncomprimising nature of the texts. The Bible is too regularly self-contradictory/wishy-washy/absurd (compared with the Qu'ran) to lead (Christians) quite so naturally into the fundamentalist fanaticism that grips virtually all Muslim countries. -195.93.21.70 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what, the Bible doesn't influence fundamentalist Muslims at all, and besides, it has no contradictions :). (Oh, and if you meant to say the Qu'ran, most Islamic scholars seem to have a consensus on a theory of abrogation, namely that later passages supercede others due to it's supposed nature as a progressive revelation to Muhammad that Muhammad somehow wrote down incorrectly at first or something, just something to keep in mind) Homestarmy 13:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read. I have made that last sentence clearer for you. -195.93.21.70 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. Well, here in the west, it mostly starts with Genesis thanks to people accepting Evolution, but you know in the middle east, i'm fairly certain teaching evolution is still basically outlawed, along with any other ideas which contradict the Qu'ran. Homestarmy 13:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, it's not just evolution that makes Genesis a problem. A literal reading of Genesis would lead us to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. That puts the creation of the world sometime after the agricultural revolution, according to archeologists. It is patently absurd in many other ways too that I see no point of going into. If people want to believe in it, they will, no matter how crazy it is or how much it contradicts any evidence. -195.93.21.70 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, "according to archaeologists" is the key phrase, believe it or don't, but their dates are always estimations, and are often subject to change. But it's not Christianities fault that the Qu'ran is just so easy and inviting to take literally in the places it influences, and of course when things get literal in the Qu'ran, (especially if you believe in the theory of abrogation thing, so the "nice" verses in the beginning are superceded by the horrid verses near the end) bad things happen to basically any religion in proximity to middle eastern areas, you know, they've attacked Buudhist shrines once or twice too. Homestarmy 14:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Right, "according to archaeologists" is the key phrase" - lol. However you twist and turn, you are still alleging that the world was formed sometime after the middle of the stone age. Kudos to Anon for stepping into the lion's den (or should I say the loony bin.) -Neural 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I say, you want to believe it, so you will always find justifications. It is useless me trying to get you to doubt Genesis because you have chosen to believe it. Faith rather than reason is at the very center of your worldview. The absurdities cannot impact on you because you are commited to believe in it, no matter what. My approach is to start from zero assumptions/beliefs about reality and use logic/reason to discern what is most likely to be true. I am sure that if you did the same, in a totally objective way, you would find Genesis (for example) ridiculous. You falsely assume that you already know the truth and spend all your efforts trying to justify bizarre mythologies. Btw: I happen to think that Islam is an even worse religion than Christianity, so your efforts to make me focus on the negative aspects of Islam are misguided. If every Muslim lost his faith, I would be even more overjoyed than if every Christian decided that sanity and rationality were more important than blind faith in the religion they happen to have been born into. -195.93.21.70 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What a waste of time

message: This article is a magnet for bias and POV. Perhaps it would be better if people went here instead of trying to get there Jihad watch edits in without consensus. Zazaban 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection. 

message: Why are there branches of Islam written in the main article???? Islam has got no branches. arn't there any muslims who are editing this topic? Islam has got no branches. Islam is meant to combine people not divide them. this whole section is a propaganda.
Yes, anyone who has a minor understanding of islam will know there is divisions. shia and sunni. Zazaban 14:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branches of Islam?