Talk:Islam/Archive 8

message: ----
Why so much tensions people? If you feel the need to rave, rant, criticize eachother, etc. get a room! or a least a blog, then you can say whatever you want. Chillax, you'll feel much better. When people get heated about their strong opinions, its dangerous for them to get near a keyboard. People are soooo reactionary these days, so unopen to intelligent debate. Cool it off, and save it for the playground. That's my two cents.
----
I hope the posts catagorizing muslims as terrorists are joke posts... If not, well then the posters should realize that in South East Asia, the Christians are the ones murdering muslims in cold blood. There is video footage on the net of Christian rebels in either Indonesia or the Phillipines killing young muslim children with machetes; this atrocity happened only about 5-8 years ago. 
Also, if you look back at history, Christians were the ones who slaughtered every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem when they conquered it in the 2nd crusade. Whem muslims took the city back, they not only did not start a massacre, but they permitted Christian and Jewish worship in the city. 
----
The thing that makes me sad and angry is the fact that our beloved Great Bitain was so horribly and violently attacked. Over the many years our great nation has accepted many beliefs and welcomed people from all over the world. But for islam and their followers to take up arms and attack a city that has always been open to all types of people I really cant accept. We have looked after you,given you many things. You have the freedom and sucurity in Britain that,lets be honets you would not get in most islamic states. Islam followers need to really think hard about their loyalties and dyties in Britain and work togther. As one can see that islam extremists gain nothing from killing people and only fuels more hatred towards islam. I really cant see want they are trying to gain. One just cant force your ideas on people,it just doesnt work. Everyone blames everyone. The article below shows how easily we can look at history to blame others. Yes I agree, imperial nations was not good or evil. But we gained alot of knowledge and must simply remember not makes mistakes twice. So I call on all islam extremists to stop your hatred and attacks on beautiful Britain. As i fear you time is running out. We are a nation who has surived many difficulies and trust me terrorist,you will not win. And Gloriful Mighty Britain shall stand in victory once again.
----
I haven written any thing outside these two horizontal lines<\n>
Please don't listen to this website<\n>
I only deleted this article to abstrain this person  show his views to our muslim brothers and sisters .how dare they call muslim terrorists and barbarians It is they who are terrorists .History tells us And this person dont know about history go and read it.from greek & roman empire till today they destryed the world through there terrorism they are what we can truly call barbarins.They cheat people.They call themselve superior and others inferior.They run on the streets and beaches naked and do sex openly in so desgusting way that no civillized person(which they call barbarians) can not imagien.I am not talking about all but majority of them.there women have many hasband and many of them are even not married And Many of them don't even know who there fathers are And in america on every day thousends of women are raped is this they call civillization they are worst people on the planet.There socities are truly barbaric socities And they are proud geedy and barbaric people who attacks on inocent and weak nations and destroy there culture,there econemy,kills thousends and thousends of them take control of there all resources and say that they are there to free them while few people dies in there cities by the desprate attempt of supresed nations and they say that they are barbaric nations.only i think approx 100 inocent people died by the blast in london but british army killed 24000 inocent muslims in iraq And this is just not it during 1919 they killed thousends of inocent muslims,hindus and sikhs who were just campaining for there freedom in amritser<---This is the history .Ans there are thousends of these kinds of crime against humanities by the coloniel powers which they call them selves civillized including British,French,Russian,Americans,Hindus upper cast,Germens,Spainish,Dutch,purtuges,belgariens,etc.Spainish army killed thousends of native americans during there regin on americas.compare it with ottoman empire which was also coloniel power before 1914.they ruled entire balkans and most of south east europe for more then 600 years till 1911 but they robbed there resources.most of christion nations were autonumus and had total freedom.The people which converted to islam in these nations were by there own will not by force.if so today grecce,bulgaria,romania,hungry,silvakia,serbia,coratia,moldiva,montenegro,mecidonia would have been totly muslim today on ther other hand spain use to be multi relegious socity before 1492 but few years after it they are totaly catholic.the most of south america carabien and maxico was also turned catholic by force.this totaly explain that muslim powers were not greedy and they were extremly tolerent people And they did'nt attack weak nations like what westeren powers did to became strong.They only attacked those nations which were proud and greedy and dose'nt respect freedom of others.they attacked with there small and weak armies from 7th century till today and they were atlast victorious in every battle.They attacked great persian empire and reduced it to nothing.they attacked great byzentine empire and reduced it to nothing.but they never attacked ethopia which was also christion from very early time.They did'nt never attack china.they never attacked any black country.They did'nt enter subcontinent for expansion .They only enterned when they were attacked by the hindus.And even today majority of people of subcontinet are hindu.I am a pakistani and fofathers only converted when they were impressed by the muslims.similarly there are many examples.And the land which today USA stands which they are proud of was snatched by the inocent native americans.so it proves that it was them who are thives,fasist,greedy,hypocrates not muslims.
And you also say that islam has took freedom of women.but do you know that islam was the first religion who told that women are as equal as men but are different in many things.It was islam who allowed women to educate as much as they like and to inharite and to vote.And Allowed to marry by her own will to any men.compare it will western socities.women were never given a right to vote till the first world war.she was never given a right of education till the industrial age.And she is merly a toy of man.she is only free by name.it is a fact that most of the women is west are doing jobs to entertain man like music,dance,prosicution,sex and they all die in end in hell.While in islam women is given full rights but even men are not allowed to do these things.Even men are not allowed to show to much of there fleash,There is a thing called satter which is how much fleash is allowed to show in public by both man and women.but a husband can do any thing for her wife and a wife can do any thing for her husband in private but not publicly.but the hijab which you saw during taliban rule in afghanistan and in many parts of my country pakistan is totaly ignorance and how they interprate islam to not educate woman and to put her completly in house.But these are expections in all islam is a very tollerant religion and is freedom for every humanbeing..........................So the conclusion is totaly that these people who spread hate abuot other religions are hypocrate even al-qaida.There is a ayat in quran which says of quran that killing inocent human being is like this to kill the entire humankind.You can find this ayat easily in quran and it also says that woman has complete right to choose a man by her own will.And islam even says not to heard even animals.And do you know that we respect all the formar prophets of christionaty and judism as equal as Muhammad(PBUH) includeing Jesus Christ(AS),Moses(AS),Abrahim(AS),David and Soloman(AS),etc .Prophet muhammad(PBUH) says that dont make me superior then any other.You can also find this hadith very easily.And in islam we beleve that all prophets are muslims and even jews and christions are muslims they are only following wrong paths and there holy books are now curropt.
----
I added a link to the directories critical of Islam given under external links directories.  The link was to www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm .  It was deleted within a day.  That is a shame.  I did not edit any content of the page, nor added or subtracted any statement on Islam.  The links provided by faithfreedom are more extensive than anything given under the directories listed under the external links.  Faithfreedom is clearly anti-Islam and its links are to various critics of Islam.  I find it absolutely unacceptable that the editors will censor to this level.  Why cannot wikipedia tolerate links to faithfreedom's link page that is clearly more comprehensive than the other directories linked under external link?  Perhaps the editors of the Islam page should not be biased muslims who have an agenda to beat the drum of their particular sect.  Reading this disscussion page clearly shows that the malady of sectarianism within Islam has reached Wikipedia as well.
:The links provided by faithfreedom are more extensive than anything given under the directories listed under the external links.—You are mistaken. The dmoz directories are much more extensive, better-categorized, more multilingual, and they link to faithfreedom.org already. There's no need for this link, nor for speculation about the religious motives of other editors, which is in fact erroneous. Long ago, this article had a massively bloated list of external links, and the list you see there would have been much longer if not for periodic trimming. Zora (a Buddhist) removed most of the links, and I (a Catholic) added the ODP links, and all agreed that this was the sensible thing to do. If we are going to link to faithfreedom's external links page, why not http://bismikaallahuma.org/Archive/links.htm ? Or http://islamfortoday.com/special.htm ? And so on, and so forth. This way lies madness. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
I just checked the link to the directory at dmoz and they list a total of 27 enteries that are critical of Islam.  The rest are essentially links to islamic sites.  Here is the numbers in the list at dmoz:
dmoz gives under opposing views of islam:
Ahamadiyya(32), Deendar Anjuman(2),Islamism(22), Nation of Islam(19),Quranites (1),Shia (3),Submitters (3),Sufism (13),Sunni(3) which are all sects of Islam and quite pro-Islam.  I have gone to the various sites and found no contra views on Islam at those links.  
The contra Views on Islam are listed by dmoz as:
Christian Views(20),Ex-Muslim(3),Hindu Views(3),Jewish Views(1).
Faithfreedom links to 74 sites on the page.  There is perhaps an overlap of about four or five enteries between dmoz and faithfreedom.  I am not interested in your or zora's or anyone's religion.  The idea, I thought was to provide the readers the best information available. The issue is that the bickering on this page clearly tells us that there are plenty of sectarian issues within Islam and the contra-views of Islam are clearly a need to understand the passion being demonstrated.  I provided a link that clearly has more contra views to Islam than the link given at dmoz, and that was deleted.  I urge the editors to take another look dispassionately and restore that link.
And look at the external links under Hinduism for a comparison.  A few more links under Islam  will not be madness, but far from it.
::This is an encyclopedia ...remember !! Faith freedom is not a site , its hatred spread by a phobic psycho who is illeterate , unauthentic & unverifiable . ITs not coming here . What U think or say is not important  . we are giving links to authentic & verifiable people , not pink monkeys & flying mules . And yes , see the hinduism page , tell me if you find any link to a "critical site" there . Try inserting links to some dungpools like FFI there . Learn how to use an encyclopedia , learn how to read & what to read . If U dont like encyclopedias , go back to your dung pool U call FFI . Sign your name if you think your existance is of any importance on WP . Farhansher 4 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)(ᛏ)</small> 4 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
:: The real problem with this page is that it has essentially been hijacked by a gang of Islamist who do not care for history of facts and who will stop at nothing to block any presentation of Islam that does not fit their POV.  The links on FaithFreedom belong on this page. I have had my share of battling with the Islamists on this page, I will not name names , but just look at my edit trail. There are even admin islamists who are part of the blockade. Of course they will tell will you tell you that they are impartial and only interested in the encyclopedic integrity but it is just a tactic they use. Do a search for aL-taqya on the internet to learn more about their tactics.--Urchid 4 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
:::There is an article on taqiyya; you should read it before making any more ill-informed personal attacks. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
The issue is not whether you agree with Faithfreedom or not.  The point is that the link page at FFI has more relevent and varied links than at dmoz.  Your argument that dmoz is more comprehensive and that there are too many links have been shown to be spurious.  The external links under hinduism are atleast 4 to 5 times more than what they are under Islam, and the number of links at FFI clearly are more and varied than at dmoz. The bias of the editors is obvious and evident, and it is damaging to Wikipedia.  You will not even tolerate a link to a page under External Links because you disagree with the sites point of view?  That is not the function of an editor!!  That is censorship plain and simple.  There are many many people who agree with the pov expressed at those links as is evident by the number of sites and their readership, and you do not want to provide any link to them?  Is that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be?  Who is asking for any special treatment for FFI?  Do the editors appreciate what is meant by contra-views on Islam?  Do the editors appreciate what is meant by freedom of speech?  If this attitude of censorship of Wikipedia gets general media attention, do the editors understand what the consequences will be for the credibility of this supposed encyclopedia?  Too many people have put in too many hours to create this resource to be allowed to be "hijacked" by a few editors who obviously are having a hard time understanding the proper role of an editor.-Nickbee
The comments by FarhanSher are an example of an unbiased editor at Wickipedia?  Is that representative of the quality of editorial comments here?  Just curious? -Nickbee
:The issue is not whether you agree with Faithfreedom or not.—I agree. As Zora explains above, it was long ago decided not to link to any sectarian sites from this page, but rather to use the non-sectarian directories. There are thousands of Islamic websites and thousands of anti-Islamic websites. Rather than make the selection of which are linked here subject to the whims and biases of editors, which would lead to endless fighting (witness this section of the talk page) over which links to include and exclude, we pass the job off to dmoz and other directories. These generally include the sites that people might want to link here, so anyone who's interested can still find them. If you want to include FFI because there are many people who agree with it, why not islamonline.com? or bismikaallahuma.org? or answering-christianity.com? or. . .but you get the idea. Millions of people agree with the views of those sites, but we don't link them either. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
:I suppose I'm an islamist admin, for helping keep the fundamentalist hate sites from the article? Farhansher doesn't realize he's really working for his opponents. I estimate he is 15 years old. That doesn't automatically make you a quality editor, Urchid. For that you would have to show some productivity rather than throwing around polemics on talk pages. We won't accept any cheesy islamist proselytization links either, ok? Just because it's anti-Islamic doesn't make faithfreedom a quality site, people. "These women think they are 96% vagina" — how low can you stoop? dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
::1) http://www.faithfreedom.org provides a legitimate counter POV to the Islam page and deserves to be presented. Have you seen how difficult it is to try to present any other POV on this page?  Dab, are so insecure with your faith in Islam that you cannot allow to have a critical link added to the page?
::2)There seems to be is a fundamental flaw with Wikipedia, in that by its design it is vulnerable to hijacking, for example, since you have a limit on 3 revert per day, all it takes is a few editors colluding with each other to gang up on single editors and out revert them. Then you have the admin layer of editors, which I have not yet seen being policed by anyone, though I could be wrong on that, so you have admins going around and taking ideologically motivated measures, locking pages that they are partisan in, deleting pages that does not suit their own POV and generally bullying their ideological opponents. It kind of makes it difficult to contribute to articles under those conditions. --Urchid 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
Charles P.  The policy is obviously not uniformly applied.  I showed you the Hinduism page where the external links are directly to sites that are clearly proselytizing in nature.  I am not linking to Faithfreedom directly but to a page that contains 74 links to contra-views on Islam.  These links are not available to Wikipedia readers and you as an editor are not willing to consider whether they should be?  You mention the other sites: Are there link directories at those sites?  Are those sites already listed at dmoz?  If not then they should be included.  Who is asking for withholding of information?  Why deny the Wikipedia readers access to information because you do not like the point of view being expressed there?  Why the need for such petty censorship?  Again I am not changing one line of information on the topic, merely linking to a page that contains links to sites that express contra-views to the topic and those links are not available at any other listing provided by wikipedia under the topic?  If you know of sites that have directories that present links to pro-views on the topic and those links are not currently available, I would imagine that as an editor you should, perhaps must, include those links as well.  Should a good encyclopedia not offer access to information that is available out there?  Why the reluctance to include merely a link to a page that contains links to sites that are obviously well visited and that contain "contra-views" on the topic of the page? -Nickbee
Dab's comments make it perfectly clear that he is very familiar with Faithfreedom.  So he visits it and knows about it, but he also feels entitled to deny the information about it to the readers of Wikipedia!!  Is that not THE Definition of censorship?  Who is asking posting the faithfreedom pov under Islam?  But why deny an external link to a page that is obviously potent enough to rile a distinguished editor of wikipedia, and that obviously has significant readership? -Nickbee
:it is teh definition of informed editing. I have visited lots of kooky website, and didn't feel compelled to add them all to WP. Of course, I don't own WP. If I am voted down, the link will be added. At the moment, however, it rather looks like you  flew in the face of established consensus, mister anonymous. Also, I had never seen ff before you linked to it. "potent"? You mean "patent fundamentalism". Not on Wikipedia, thank you. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
:re "uniform application": understand that it is a consensus arrived at on this article, because we have quite a history of pov-pushers trying to add their precious websites. So people figured out that the way to go is to be restrictive about biased links. this doesn't necessarily hold for other articles, although as a rule, the farther out your site, the smaller the chance of inclusion. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
:: Well said.  Some people seem to forget that this is supposed to be an enyclopedia.  Do you really expect to find Encyclopedia Britannica, say, linking to "faithfreedom.org"?  This sort of silly games merely reduces Wikipedia's credibility. as for the Hinduism article, pruning its link section sounds like a great idea. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
::oh, and urchid, I am not a bloody Muslim (nor an unbloody one), got it? I'm just a random "Westerner" who cares about encyclopedicity and factuality. Not necessarily about Islam, although a fortiori about Islam as if falls into the larger realm of human knowledge and spirituality. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)
(via edit conflict)
:The policy is obviously not uniformly applied.—It is not a policy, but a consensus among the regular editors of this page, which has lasted since last October. 
:I showed you the Hinduism page where the external links are directly to sites that are clearly proselytizing in nature.—then perhaps Hinduism needs serious link trimming, but I am not the one to do it, as I know little about the topic, do not edit the page regularly, and could not judge what should stay and what should go. 
:I am not linking to Faithfreedom directly but to a page that contains 74 links to contra-views on Islam.—you're not linking to their front page, but you are linking directly to a page with www.faithfreedom.org in the URL, which is closely linked into the rest of the pages on the site. Word games. Meanwhile the directories link to many sites with contra-views (including faithfreedom), which themselves link to similar sites, and so on.
:These links are not available to Wikipedia readers and you as an editor are not willing to consider whether they should be?—They may not be available directly but they are available through dmoz; all that's required is a bit more clicking. I have considered the value of the link and given my considered opinion that it does not belong here. 
:You mention the other sites: Are there link directories at those sites?  Are those sites already listed at dmoz?  If not then they should be included.—Yes, there are link directories on the sites I named, and yes, the sites (if not the link pages) are in dmoz. I still do not believe that they, or any others with a pro- or anti-Islamic agenda, should be included, for reasons which I have already explained.
:Who is asking for withholding of information?  Why deny the Wikipedia readers access to information because you do not like the point of view being expressed there?  Why the need for such petty censorship?—Spare us the empty rhetoric. I've argued against the inclusion of links to any sites with a religious and/or political agenda, for the sake of sanity and usefulness. To recapitulate:
*There are thousands of sites about Islam which have an agenda, whether proselytizing, apologetic, polemical, or political.
*This page cannot link to all of them; Wikipedia is not a link repository.
*Therefore, the choice of which to include will be a matter of editorial selectivity—and thus a point of contention and an endless battleground. 
*dmoz is a reasonably neutral selector of links; it has no overt agenda apart from creating a useful directory of sites about a topic. In this it is reasonably successful.
*By leaving the selection of links to agenda-driven sites up to a reasonably neutral third party, we avoid disputes over which should and should not be included here. The reader is still offered a selection of agenda-driven sites which is much wider than anything this article could reasonably include.
*Therefore, rather than link to any of the agenda-driven sites, this article should link to the dmoz listings, or another directory of similar scope and neutrality.
:Try to address the points of this argument, if you please, instead of squawking about censorship and withholding of information. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
It is truly mindboggling.  The professionalism of the editors as expressed by their language:  "instead of squawking about censorship and withholding of information.". "Spare us the empty rhetoric."!!  And all of this because of trying to get the editors to reconsider their decision on providing a link.  No one is asking you to link to all the sites. You answered your question yourself about the other sites: "Yes, there are link directories on the sites I named, and yes, the sites (if not the link pages) are in dmoz.".  There is no need for replication, is there?  Now where in dmoz are the links given at faithfreedom?  Those links are not available.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?  There are not infinite links to Islam out there.  The contra views are not many, and that is why the collection of contra views of Islam at the link page at FFI is valuable. Your comment: "you're not linking to their front page, but you are linking directly to a page with www.faithfreedom.org in the URL, which is closely linked into the rest of the pages on the site. Word games." is indicative of your mentality.  The entire Internet is only a few clicks away. Why have Wikipedia at all?  Do you understand fully the logic of your statement?   It really appears that the idea of providing information to Wikipedia readers so that they can get ALL sides of the information on a topic is not something the present set of editors grasp.  Wikipedia is not British Encyclopedia, is it?  It is an online Enclycopedia where people can edit and enter information.  It is supposed to be better than the british encyclopedia.  And you cannot grasp a simple and straightforward concept that providing a link to a page that has useful information is required for Wikipedia to be successful.  But the agenda of the current spate of editors will not allow that!!  Where does it say that Wikipedia "policy" is that links can only be provided by dmoz?  Atleast they have the decency to link to FFI which you and your cohorts are unable to fathom that it is okay if NEW AND RELEVANT information is to be had there. I assure you that this will get more and more publicity and this issue will not go away. You guys are behaving as if you own Wikipedia and want to run it as a private domain.  No one is allowed even to ask for a reconsideration!  Amazing!  -Nickbee.
:Wikipedia's success is not the issue.  It's safe to say that Faithfreedom offers little relevance in religious debate.  The main editors seem to not want that. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  It might be worthwhile to point you in the direction of a typical encyclopedia and reading the article on Islam.  How does it read?  What kind of information does it give you?  I hope that maybe you doing that will solve some of this problem. gren 5 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's success is not the issue."  If that is not the issue then why such insistence in not allowing a good contra-view to the topic link in external links?  What motivates the editors to such steely resolve?  -Nickbee
:very simple indeed: we do not consider it good. Personally, I consider it godawful. If ff.org is your site, you are so far away from grasping the actual issues that it is almost pitiful. I've looked at it some more, and it is so full of absurd hate that it goes only to show that both Islam and Christianity have their shares of fanatical hate-mongers. Try to get listed on any of the directories we link to, so people can reach your site from here in two clicks. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
::If I may add -- the reason WP is gaining in popularity is that it is perceived as (generally) trustworthy. Why? Because there are guidelines, traditions, and structural safeguards here that stand in contrast to the bias that is so rampant elsewhere, and all too evident on partisan sites like ff. What Nickbee is asking is akin to asking, "How come the editors at (to use a conservative example) The Wall Street Journal don't run front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge?" Because front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge are the opposite of what the Wall Street Journal is. If it started running op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge, it wouldn't be the Wall Street Journal anymore. Clear? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
:::except the WSJ is not the best of examples here; most WSJ articles would be torn to pieces on Wikipedia in a matter of minutes for being ridiculously biased and rife with strawmen. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
::::You are correct, sir. :) BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
Ah, the royal we comes out!  "We do not consider it good"?  Who is this we?  Certainly not the dissenting editors?  Or are you and your "cohorts" the Wikipedia?  If you represent Wikipedia then I am sure it deserves little respect and possiblly cannot be gaining in popularity.  So far it has demonstrated high handedness and arbitrary censorship. -Nickbee
:you are quite right, I see it now, Wikipedia is doomed to unpopularity :o(unless we, the hivemind, allow everybody to link their sites  dab (ᛏ)
No you cannot see much because you will not allow free expression.  Second bombing in Europe and of course it has nothing to do with Islam according to the esteemed editors of Wikipedia who cannot bear to give open links to sites that question the ideology of Islam that is driving people every day to commit suicide and kill innocents.  Muslims are doing a good job of showing Islam to the world all on their own. Keep protecting your tiny kindoms on the web.  -Nickbee
and of course your site is the only one on the internet providing the insight that London was bombed by Islamist madmen, and not, for example the Wikipedia article, 7/7. Look, if you want to know about the religion, read Islam. If you want to see a discussion of crimes committed in the name of Islam, read Islamist terrorism, ok? These are different topics, that may be linked, but should not be confused. For the same reason, we don't have the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse article under the USA title, the Auto da Fe article under Christianity, the Armenian genocide article under Turkey, or the holocaust article under  Germany (yeah, Godwin, I know). dab (ᛏ) 07:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  An interesting sidelight. The suicide bomber technology was pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, who have fielded more bombers than all the Muslim groups put together. What is it in the Tamil language that allows so many suicide bombers? What do Islam and the Tamil language have in common? NOTHING? Ah! Zora 05:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Tamil tigers did not "pioneer" the technology.  One counterexample will suffice to debunk this ignorant claim.  Beirut, October 23, 1983. rudra 00:19, 06 Aug 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, you're right, though your language is not exactly collegial. Actually, I found the Wikipedia article on Suicide bombing quite interesting. The tactic is older than I thought. I'll still hold to the contention that the Tamil Tigers are responsible for most of the suicide bombings, to date -- though if the TT cease-fire holds, and the Islamists keep bombing, the Islamists may overtake them. Zora 01:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tamil tigers are responsible for 240 to 280 suicide bombings in total over the decade and a half (1987 to 2004).  The suicide bombers just in Iraq have exceeded that number some while back. Information at Wiki is not very reliable and is definately biased. Nickbee 02:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  I apologize for the lack of sufficient collegiality while exposing a transparent attempt to exculpate by deflecting attention to plausible non-facts. rudra 04:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, Mr. Socrates. How about you read some non-hatesites with these exact questions in mind? Maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it; it is easier to hate than to differentiate, this is exacly in line with the fundamentalist mindset, congratulations. Anyway, we are not censoring information about Islamism and Islamist terrorism: they have their own articles. If you are so much into those subjects, I humbly suggest you go over there, this is simply the wrong article for you. dab (ᛏ) 05:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The source is a BBC article I just read, an interview with a professional security analyst asked about the London bombings: . Zora 11:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: that wasn't hypocrisy, that was sarcasm. you have good questions, but the answers are hardly on faithfreedom.org. If anything justifies muslims in treating "the West" as the devil, it is "the West" treating them like the devil. Wikipedia is biased towards sanity. If you don't like that, well, there are plenty of insane fora on the internet, do go join those. Anybody is welcome to an informed discussion of the problems Islam has with fundamentalism, and this discussion is taking place on Wikipedia. It is just difficult to conduct, because it is shouted down by people with brilliant answers like "Islam is evil". dab (ᛏ) 06:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not everything2 where we all have our own POV entries about an issue and people vote on it.  This is community collaboration where we try to make a reference equal to the scholarly references in books, journals, etc.  Unfettered freedom or speech in the way you seem to envision it is chaos and does not make for a good encyclopedia. An ex-Muslim does not necessarily make a better scholar on Islam than a secularist or Muslim.  Anyone who has researched the sources knows about Islam and interestingly enough that is completely independent of what religion the person is.  A typical Muslims might know more about ritual, but that does not mean they know more about theology.  gren 11:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I realize that "faithfreedom.org" is linked from Ali Sina, where it belongs, in all its splendour. So why don't you just stop whining about censorship, Wikipedia is linking your precious site. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, you don't like that reference, try this one, from a Frontline interview: . Dr. Rojan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al-Qaeda, soon out, says that 2/3 of all known suicide bombings were committed by Tamil Tigers. Zora 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: O_O!  Hi, the views are being "censored" because they are in no way scholarly, they are in fact quite disreputable.  Hmm, I'm running out of ways to answer editors like you.  But, my first bit of advice that seems sound to me is "read a real paper encyclopedia".  See how that treats Islam, and what it says about it.  Hopefully that will tell you something about the use of FFI links.  If that fails then... hmmm, well, let's try this.  Try adding a KKK external link over at African Americans.  I mean, hell, that's a far more notable critique of black Americaness than Ali Sina's stuff is of Islam.  Ali Sina says apostasy is the way to solve the Muslim problem... and, deportation or... death? well, they solve the African American problem. O_O!!!  Analogies are fun, but this is tedious.  Goodbye gren 06:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: yes, I think all has been said now. Nickbee, freedom of speech means you are free to shout "Islam sucks" out of your window all day. You are here, however, courtesy of wikimedia, using their resources. This means you are bound to Wikipedia:policy. Not letting you edit here does not impinge on your freedom of speech any more than if you don't let me use your cellphone. Does the New York Times violate your freedom of speech because they won't print your columns on their front page?  I thought so. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of this discussion, and I support unprotecting the article. dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You are familiar with paper encyclopedias.  Do you want wikipedia to have the same credibility as a paper encyclopedia? It's not a matter of political correct ness.  Ali Sina has debated men like Edip Yuksel or Yamin Zakaria... their sites should not be linked either.  They both represent the Islamic side but are not notable enough for the main article.  gren 17:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: a customer! oh my, we'd better write what you like to read, otherwise you might take your money elsewhere! we are not censoring anything, we are editing, removing the junk. Hell, let's unprotect this, and you'll see how many people will revert your hate site, you'll hit 3RR before you know it. dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.faithfreedom.org/ faithfreedom.org]

message: Even by taking data from General Sources, like CIA Fact Sheet, we can easily establish that fact that total Muslim Population in 2003 is 1.48 billion which is far greater than currently estimated 1.2 or 1.3 billion. Under general source section, we have taken all the datas from popular sources such as CIA Fact Sheet, HOLT,RINEHART & WINSTON etc. 
We think that in some countries the total number of Muslims are more in percentage than shown in general sources, like in China and India. For all those few above cases Islamic Sources, news items and thought provoking articles came in great help. Our reasearch shows that the total Muslim Population is 1.70 billion in year 2003.
(http://www.islamicpopulation.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.187.63.91 (talk • contribs) sometime.
: Interesting. Seems to be quite a mixture of sources, though. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)
How does that compare to adherents.com? Tom Haws July 7, 2005 23:01 (UTC)
:: Their methodology is laughable, this is how they calculated the Chinese Muslim population as they explain on their web site:
:::"At present, according to official statistics there are 28 million Muslim in China but in 1936 it was estimated that the Muslim population was 48 million. By this time total population has increased 3-4 fold. So we can conclude that the total Muslim population has increased minimum by that same proportion. Therefore, now the total Muslim population is at least 150 million."
::--Urchid 9 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
:I would look with skepticism at any source that is seemingly set up just to elucidate the public about Muslim population.  I do agree that it is an intersting look but I think we need to know more about their methodology and if anyone of note actually believes that methodology is sound.  217.187.63.91, want to comment more about why you posted this? gren 9 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
: The English version is 'locked' and a lot of squabbling (and some well reasoned yet endless arguing). Please take a look at 'ISLAM' entries in other languages: Short and succinct, no 'lock' no squabbling. {peter}
::especially note :de:Bild:Islamische Länder.png, a much nicer map than our CIA one! And yes, the quibbling here is quite embarassing, I agree. dab (ᛏ) 18:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Muslim Population  

message: On 23 June 2005 I inserted this section:
Other meanings of the word
The word "Islam" is sometimes used as a man's name, for example Islam Karimov (president of Uzbekistan). 
Do not confuse with the village of Isleham in England. 
and 3 minutes later someone removed it, stating this reason: "Other meanings" section not needed. It's pretty obvious info that does not need to be inserted. There are people named christian too but that isn't mentioned in the christianity article. Thanks.
But important words sometimes do have differing secondary meanings, and Islam Karimov is notable politically.
And the page Christian DOES have a pointer to Christian (disambiguation), which lists assorted other meanings of the word "Christian". Anthony Appleyard 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  it can also mean Peace, as the Qur'an itself uses the word to invite non Muslims into Islam saying=, "Enter into Peace" where it uses the same 3 root letters s-l-m for the word peace (al slm) --GNU<B>4</B>Eva 18:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meanings of the word "Islam" 

message: can we have a discussion of why green is the colour of Islam, and maybe also a few words about Muhammad's calendar reform (if I got this right, he set prayer times to not coincide with with astronomical events (sunset, sunrise), so that the impression would not arise that heavenly bodies were adored (as was common over much of Arabia in his days)). the main article Islamic calendar isn't even in the Islam template. The prohibition of intercalary months has some political significance, since it was a matter of political influence which clan got to decide when they were inserted. The role of the new sickle moon should be mentioned, and possibly how it found its way onto Turkish flags. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks Zora; we can always link Symbols of Islam, and reduce the section to a sentence or two. dab (ᛏ) 06:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: factoids

message: Respectfully disagree. BrandonYusufToropov 16:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Civility]] 

message: An anon added a passage to the section on Islam and other religions by saying, in effect, "yes, but sura 9 was revealed after non-Muslims had been picking on the Muslims". The section is just a pointer to the main article, and not the place to go into apologetics -- and I also think that many traditionalist Muslims wouldn't agree that parts of the Qur'an should be ignored because "that was then and this is now". Just adding that one sentence is lame apologetics. Perhaps the anon could go to the main article on Islam and other religions and make sure that his/her point is expressed there. Zora 07:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon's edits on Islam and other religions 

message: []
Looks like a different anon. BrandonYusufToropov 15:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's seems to be isolated, maybe dab forgot to sign in.  Hopefully it won't happen again. gren 20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon is vandalizing user talk postings here 

message: ok, so now we know all these anons doing nothing but add the ffi link are not sockpuppets, but editors-by-proxy coordinated via the ffi forum. Guys, you are in good company. the Neo-Nazis tried a very similar stunt some time ago, to "remove pro-jewish bias". Guess what, wikipedia hasn't turned into an antisemitic hate site. Strangely, decent good faith editors are not known to have resorted to such tactics. So what we'll do now to put an end to this is a poll. See Wikipedia:Voting. The poll shall be open for ten days, and close on 6 August, 7:00 UTC.
dab (ᛏ) 06:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you suggest some irishpunktom?  The only one I could find is the list on the front page of jihadwatch.  That would require linking to jihadwatch and not to the list of directories.  I would like to know if you know of a good directory listing the known secular and ex-muslim sites. Nickbee 17:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: jihadwatch seems a fair enough site (compared to the likes of ffi, anyway) external link to add to Islamism (opposing views). dab (ᛏ) 07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: thank you kindly. dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the poll

message: do you think the Islam article in "external links" should link to http://faithfreedom.org/ 
*Note: If your username has been crossed out, please see Talk:Islam#Sockpuppets for the reasons behind it.
====yes====
#Zeno of Elea 10:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you suggest some irishpunktom?  The only one I could find is the list on the front page of jihadwatch.  That would require linking to jihadwatch and not to the list of directories.  I would like to know if you know of a good directory listing the known secular and ex-muslim sites. Nickbee 17:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: jihadwatch seems a fair enough site (compared to the likes of ffi, anyway) external link to add to Islamism (opposing views). dab (ᛏ) 07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: faithfreedom.org

message: #Zeno of Elea 10:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: yes

message: # The answer is a firm NO. FFI is classified as a "hate site" and they have been banned from listing on an online directory based on that alone. With Wikipedia's NPOV policy, listing them is tantamount to violating Wikipedia's raison d'etre itself. Menj 03:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: no

message: # --GNU<B>4</B>Eva20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you suggest some irishpunktom?  The only one I could find is the list on the front page of jihadwatch.  That would require linking to jihadwatch and not to the list of directories.  I would like to know if you know of a good directory listing the known secular and ex-muslim sites. Nickbee 17:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: jihadwatch seems a fair enough site (compared to the likes of ffi, anyway) external link to add to Islamism (opposing views). dab (ᛏ) 07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: abstain

message: do you think the Islam article in "see also" should link to Ali Sina ?
====yes====
#Urchid Yes indeed , it goes without saying that all POVs should be represented in Wikipedia 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you kindly. dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ali Sina (activist)|Ali Sina]]

message: #Urchid Yes indeed , it goes without saying that all POVs should be represented in Wikipedia 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: yes

message: # Menj 03:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: no

message: # possibly, in an organized "see also" under "critics" or "apostates". this is a Wikipedia article after all, and may achieve npov dab (ᛏ)
# Zeno of Elea 10:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: abstain

message: # Don't vote on everything -- Cyrius|✎ 01:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you kindly. dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[m:Polls are evil|Polls are evil]]

message: :Please keep the voting area clean, to discuss something do it below gren 07:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will need to research better into this... but Ibn Warraq is an all around critic of Islam that has general amounts of respect.  What I think is typically more notable are people like Kassim Ahmad and those mentioned at Hadith#Western_academic_views_of_hadith are critics.  Christoph Luxenberg is a linguist who critical of modern interpretation.  It's hard to find critics of Islam as a whole that are notable and respected in scholarly communities.  People who do blanket criticisms tend to be entities like Ali Sina whom many call bigotted and has little more than a small online following.  I think it is important to mention Muslim scholars like Fazlur Rahman who was highly respected but in Islam and Modernity goes through a critique of many Islamic institutions throughout history.  I have been called POV for it but I think it's true that very few people have become notable as a scholarly source by blanket criticism of a religion. gren 07:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never read anything written by either Ibn Warraq or Ali Sina. But I do know that Ibn Warraq studied under the famous scholar of Islam, Montgomery Watt whose works I have read. I suspect that Ibn Warraq, like Montgommery Watt, is in a higher literary class than your usual person. So Ali Sina probably does not measure up to Ibn Warraq. But I would like to see some examples of what is so objectionable about Ali Sina's writing. --Zeno of Elea 11:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hm, what about "these women think they are 96% vagina"? Really, this guy is so little to the credit of critics of Islam that I wonder people want to add him at all. I am all for doing a decent section on criticism of Islam, but keep it sober and academic. Unfortunately, being beleagured by pov pushers from both sides, this is not too easy to do here, but we'll get there. Ibn Warraq would be a good start. dab (ᛏ) 11:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  This is the second time you have brought up the 96% vagina and so I took the time to go actually track down what is it that Ali Sina actually said about it.  Here it is[ http://faithfreedom.org/debates/Maya50520.htm] :
Muslim women are awra. They are objects of shame. 
" "Ali reported the Prophet saying: 'Women have ten ('awrat). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten."[Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol. 22, Hadith No. 858. See also Ihy'a ]
Awra is pudendum, something to be ashamed of, something to hide. Pudendum is female's external sex organ. That is what Muslim women are according to Muhammad. 
When I see a normal woman, I see a human being. When I see a Muslim woman, all I see is a big genital walking. She acts as if her entire body is a vagina that has to be hidden, protected, because it is an object of shame and embarrassment. How can you be proud of this image that you portray to the world? "
He is quoting a hadiath, a statement by the son in law of Muhammad.  Keep in mind that this is cultral where men are supposed to eternal erections in heaven and women are ten female genitalia.  I have not taken the trouble to find whether is qoute of the hadiath is accurate or not, but I would bet that it is.  So you see it is not he who is saying that women should be covered from head to toe in body bag, but he is putting it in context for a muslim that he is communicating, trying to get through the cultral assumptions with shock value.  What do you think of women under the Taliban rule where if the cultral police could see a woman's ankle under that "Burqha" or body bag when he knelt or laid down to examine if she was properly covered, she could be in for a severe beating for "exhibitionism"?  How would you explain such absurd and obsessive behavior?  What do you think when you see women covered in "body bags" hiding in the shadows?  So I do not have a problem with Ali Sina's statement of 96% vagina in the context that he is making.  What is that you are objecting to?  He is talking to his constituency, in the language that he thinks is most effective.  He seems to be on the side of liberating women and getting muslim women into the modern era, and not trying to keep them enslaved and covered in body bags.  Please tell me if I am missing something here? Nickbee 17:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I know this is the context. If he would make his point decently, maybe he would be a respectable ex-Muslim. Since he makes his point venomously, polemically, insincerely and slanderously, he does not seem to qualitfy as a respectable ex-Muslim. I am not saying Islam cannot be seriously criticized. Hell, yes, it can. I am just saying Sina cuts a pathetic figure as a critic, the equivalent of a Wikipedia teenage single-topic  point-pusher. dab (ᛏ) 19:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: All the links on the FFI links page could be submitted to DMOZ. Also, this al-Dauji user, or whatever he calls himself, is clearly not a real Muslim, but a malicious parody. All votes from this user should be disregarded as not sincere. Zora 06:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: No dab, the FFI link is much worse.  When we submit a link we should be asserting that it has relative encyclopedic value.  The FFI page links to some reasonable articles and Islamic sources but the problem is it's part of his page and links to his page.  Our adding his page to wikipedia is an assertion of his legitimacy not just of what he links to.  It comes with his commentary on the links, his advertisements, and blogs that he has chosen.  The least part of the problem is the links themselves its their context that is unnacceptable.  I agree with Zora that the stuff should be submitted to the DMOZ if it is not already. gren 07:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but the dmoz isn't much better. Anyone can have their site listed there, and get to describe it in their own words. I don't think there is much redaction at dmoz, not unless the descriptions contain profanity. Anyway, my vote stays no, for now, and I will only support adding the ffi links link if there is a majority of (non-sock) editors supporting it. dab (ᛏ) 07:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Completely agreed, Islam is not defined by objection to it, scholarly criticism is important because it keeps in check outrageuous claims of any religion but those who define and dislike Islam have no part in Islam.  There is opposition to Islam but this is not Islam.  It should be noted because it does exist but it must be put in its place.  Some editors fail to make this distinction which is quite a shame in my opinion and a hinderance to a properly encyclopedic source.  gren 08:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Completely agree with dab. Criticism from high quality sources should be assumed. On another page I just deleted a criticism link that went to a chat-forum. And a page of Opposition to Islam linked under "see also" seems completely appropriate and would solve much of this nonsense. Cunado19 17:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the poll (discussion) 

message: Hi! 
I wonder if this guild is anything that you may benefit from, and in that case, feel invited to sign in :)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild
Have a good day :)
--Striver 01:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: The article states that the Muslim creed is:
"I believe in God; and in His Angels; and in His Scriptures; and in His Messengers; and in The Final Day; and in Fate, that Good and Evil are from God, and Resurrection after death be Truth.
"I testify that there is nothing worthy of worship but God; and I testify that Muhammad is His Messenger." 
No source is given, and it is not explained what this creed is called, or where it comes froms. The Islamic creed is generally considered to be the Shahada, which is only the second part of the above "Muslim creed," and not the first part. Can anyone explain where this creed statement came from? --Zeno of Elea 16:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this source.Heraclius 16:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your source does not contain the text, "I believe in God; and in His Angels; and in His Scriptures; and in His Messengers; and in The Final Day; and in Fate, that Good and Evil are from God, and Resurrection after death be Truth." As such, it is not relevant. You have merely linked to a particular Muslim philosophical school of thought. We know that the shahada is the Islamic creed. Where did this additional text come from? It clearly didn't come from the source you have cited. --Zeno of Elea 17:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Creeds are often built round either the shahada (as al-Ghazali's) or the tradition, which elaborates a kur'anic formula, that faith is faith in God, His angels, His books, His prophets, etc. (as Birgewi's).Heraclius 17:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  From your own source: The earliest and simplest creed is the shahada or confession of faith [q.v.], and this alone appears to be used liturgically. Though the term `akida is usually not applied to the shahada, there is a sense in which most of the later creeds are expansions of it. Sectarian discussions, however, also led to the development of doctrine, and an important source of the later creeds is the succinct formula defining the position of an individual, school or sect on some disputed point.  I think the point is clear. The shahada is the liturgical creed of Islam, universal to all Muslims. Additional statements of creed are subject to sectarian disputes and vary depending on philosophical positions, such as those held by the philosopher al-Ghazali. I dont think that this "expanded" creed is entirely appropriate, especially since it is stated without reference to sectarian differences. --Zeno of Elea 17:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the Shahada is the universal creed.  Other creeds should also be mentioned, however.Heraclius 17:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a discussion belongs in Aqidah, not here. --Zeno of Elea 17:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, well (a) not all Muslims believe in Sahih Bukhari (e.g. Shiahs, who don't believe in density at all) , and (b) the wording of this hadith is not the same as the wording of the creed written in the Islam article. --Zeno of Elea 17:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's merely a different translation.Heraclius 17:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not muslim philosphy.  This creed was enunciated by the famous Salafi ibn Baz.  It was the first line in his famous book on muslim beliefs.  Here is a summary of it: . It is by no means universally accepted in the muslim world. But recently because of petro dollars most young muslims usually will espouse the ibn baz line knowingly or  unknowingly.  Nickbee 17:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  However, looking at it again, I find it misleading because it is given in qoutes and it precedes the Shahada which is also given in quotes giving the mistaken belief that the first part is also needed.  It is not.  Muslims merely need to say the Qalima to testify their faith; the first part is not required.  However shias tend to add some testament to Ali at the end as well. Nickbee 18:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should still be mentioned.  But I agree that the universal shahada should be placed before it.Heraclius 18:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Nickbee points out, there's no universal shahada since Shiahs add something about Ali to the end. --Zeno of Elea 20:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that should be mentioned as well.Heraclius 22:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Creed? 

message: Users that have been crossed out are:
*Exmuslim:Account with less than 20 edits that have all been made to this article and talkpage with the re-adding of links.
*Immanuel:Same as above
*Siegerz:Same as above
*Saduj Al Dahij:New satirical role account that is probably a sockpuppet
*Ni-ju-Ichi:Confirmed sockpuppet of Enviroknot
*Existentializer: Confirmed sockpuppet of Enviroknot
23:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above message is unsigned. Anyway, Wikipedia policy is that new users can vote in surveys and VfD's. Sock puppets, on the other hand, are obviously a problem for vote counting. But the cases of Ni-ju-Ichi and Existentializer are still open, and nothing has been "confirmed." Siegerz is obviously a sock puppet. I'm not sure if Saduj Al Dahij is a satirical role. --Zeno of Elea 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not even trying to hide your bias.  Siegerz is obviously a sockpuppet because his vote is pro-Muslim, but Ni-ju-Ichi and Existentializer are not because their votes are anti-Muslim?  Looking at their userpages it doesn't seem their case is open anymore.Heraclius 23:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Siegerz is obviously a sock puppet because this user account was registered right after Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG was started. SIIEG --> siege --> Seigerz. See? Existentializer and Ni-ju-Ichi's userpages say "SUSEPCTED" sockpuppets; the matter is still being decided by administrators. Ni-ju-Ichi has also been unblocked, contrary to what his userpage says. --Zeno of Elea 23:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Please look at the blocklog .  Unfortunately, Nijulchi was just re-blocked.Heraclius 23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and user Existentializer's username starts with an E.  Enviroknot starts with an E as well.  That is the rationale that was used for blocking them as sockpuppets.Heraclius 23:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that, oh, and identical behaviour, identical edit patterns, and identical IP addresses. You don't get any more rationale than that. dab (ᛏ) 07:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I strongly object to discounting "newbie votes." It is Wikipedia policy that new users may take part in surveys. That makes it 15:17 against linking to FFI, and the poll has not ended yet. The question of the poll is not "should WIkipedia be a link farm." I am not sure what a "link farm" is, but perhaps you should start a campaign to delete all External Links sections from Wikipedia articles if that is how you feel. --Zeno of Elea 09:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, yeah, 15:17 if you like. roughly even, in any case. Note that for the board election, voting was reserved to editors with >400 edits. There is such a thing as credibility in the WP community, meaning your word will have more weight if you are well-known as a hard-working serious contributor, and less weight if you are only known as a troll or point-pusher.  dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeno, on controversial VfDs where there is constant talk about sockpuppets I have seen vote weighting... if they did that here then the odds would be incredibly off. gren グレン 12:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If polls are evil, vote weighing is satanic, I suppose, since it rewards not using the preview button and revert-warring. As far as I'm concerned, no clear majority, let alone consensus, for adding this controversial link is in sight. If people keep haggling about it, well, let's try weighing the votes by number of article space edits and see how it turns out. But I won't perform the weighing, I deign I have better things to do. dab (ᛏ) 12:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's necessary or even completely a good idea.  I just know that it is done and was trying to make a point that this is not nearly outside of the realm of fairness.  gren グレン 12:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: that's why we don't vote whenever we can avoid it. This vote is a strawpoll, i.e. we invite people to express their opinion. The upshot is that the link has considerable support as well as considerable opposition, that's it. We conclude that there is no consensus for adding the link. In such situations, compromise solutions are welcome. I attempted one with the linking from the Opposition to Islam article, where the link is more on-topic. Importance is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia organizes information, and if you are looking for anti-Muslim sites, you will find them, ffi is two clicks away from this page. dab (ᛏ) 15:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a link to Ali Sina and his website at the Apostasy in Islam article.  I think that should be enough.Heraclius 15:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: " We conclude that there is no consensus for adding the link." That's a clever way of putting it dab, but it could just as easily be said "We conclude that there is no consensus for removing the link."  --Zeno of Elea 05:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But then it would not be a priesthood.  New users banned wholesale without a warning for being sockpuppets.  Zeno you are not an admin.  Learn to kiss ass before you will be allowed into the brotherhood.Exmuslim 16:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets

message: since trolling and haggling is apparently so much easier than writing encyclopedia articles (which is supposed to be the reason we are all here for, remember?) I took it upon myself to create Opposition to Islam, which should be linked from the see also here, once the article is unprotected. So far, the article is largely informed by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Note my caveat on the talkpage there: If at all possible, attribute every statement you make. Once that article expands and stabilizes, it can be summarized in a short "Criticism" section on this article. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I also made your === into == because I think that's what you wanted.... gren グレン 12:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, I may regret I did this yet. Minutes after its creation, I am already edit-warring over the article. Refreshingly, with a pro-Islamic editor, for a change. All editors of good faith around here, please add it to your watchlist :) dab (ᛏ) 13:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been added to my watchlist (I hope I count as good faith) ...although, I no longer can tell the difference between pro- and anti-Islamic forces. gren グレン 13:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: On topic or off topic, the requirements for notability become less in sub-articles.  gren グレン 13:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Nickbee, in what ways do you want to improve this article?  Looking at the article, most of the sections are about what Muslims themselves believe.  Most of this article should not even be about POV or NPOV.  There are one or two sections, such as the Apostasy in Islam section and the one about Islamic law, that you could put criticism in if you really feel like it. Heraclius 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As I can see there is far more criticism on Wikipedia than in my paper encyclopaedia Britannica set I own.  You are going to have to explain what these major differences you are seeing between the major encyclopedias and this one.... gren グレン 17:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Why is it not surprising that dab cannot detect a difference?  Yeah, they would be welcome and distorted to present only the muslim view. Do you see honesty in Hirsi Ali's writings?  The key figure in the struggle between Muslim reformers and fundamentalists is Muhammad. Ordinary Muslims must be allowed to think clearly about the Prophet's moral example.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  The dhimmi admins here work overtime to make sure that information needed to think clearly is not available at wikipedia. Exmuslim 17:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not sure I get you, but let me say that I am glad you seem to be taking an interest in Wikipedia articles. Now if you only start citing scholarly sources for the 'some would suggest', I am sure you will make valuable contributions to Criticism of Islam. As for "Allah", since it is an Islamic concept (but we duly note that Arab Christians call the Christian God Allah as well, but the Christian concept of God happens to be treated under Trinity and related articles), well, I don't see what you mean, surely it is pointless to cite Sikhs', Inuits', musketeers', goalkeepers' and marine biologists' views about Allah? As for your comment on Wikipedia article quality: well observed. And the workforce you have tied to this talkpage would probably equal about one or two excellent articles. But there is such a mechanism, kindly see WP:FA. The problem is less with content control, but with work. Writing articles is much more work than trolling talkpages. Locating scholarly references takes time. How many such references exactly have you brought forward in the time you spent here, again? Really, you can ramble on all day. If you'd just pick up some respected theologists' book, you could pile up references, and while we could move them around for pertinence, we could not 'censor' them. Wikipedia is all about citing your [academic!] sources. If only you could have learned that from reading a few guidelines instead of giving us grief for weeks. dab (ᛏ) 20:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not sure how it is relevant to say that Christians reject that Christians may their God is the Muslims God... I mean, I wouldn't really care if it was added (and surely you cannot say Christians as a whole) but that would take a sentence or two and would be complete digression.  From the outline I don't see how that Brittanica is much different (besides more orderly) than we are... but, of course paper is going to be more organized... in fact, I think a nessted outline page like that could be useful possibly.  In fact if you would like to help create a nice outline like that I think it might be useful (I'm not sure if wiki policy allows for outlines for subjects like that).  But, to me in the article structure it seems that we have more explicit critiques of Islam with the opposition page.  Really, please state more explicitly what you mean because I don't see it.  Feel free to come to my talk page if it's not pertinent to any article's specific talk page.  gren グレン 17:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Opposition to Islam]]

message: add Hungarian please: hu:Iszlám Marriex 15:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: The links section used to have pro and anti sections -- as well as links to academic/neutral sites -- and it became a mess. If the only criteria is that the site be pro or anti, there are potentially thousands of sites to be included in each list. No one could agree on which of these sites were the most useful or notable, and the lists grew like cancer. I'm sure that the anon has good intentions, but we've tried that route and it didn't work! That's why we linked to the directories, so as not to have to argue about the choices. The editors who are clamoring for a links list would do better, IMHO, to go volunteer at DMOZ (they're a volunteer group just like Wikipedia) and make sure the DMOZ lists are comprehensive and well-organized. Zora 21:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting up PRO and ANTI link lists 

message: Would it be alright if I archived everything before the section Apostasy- death penalty??  This is already bigger than most of hte archives seem to be and discussion on everything above that has ended I believe. (feel free to remove this section if archiving is done) gren グレン 00:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: There are related VFDs - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Opposition to Islam and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Klonimus/AINB ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: However, Sikhs are forbidden from practices such as eating ritually prepared meat (halal) that are central in Islam.
This is none-factual; not because of what Sikhs practise, but because Muslims have no rituals for preparing meat, save for the slaughter method. No need to mention that eating meat itself isn't a ritual. --Alif 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating meat is not a ritual 

message: Is the Kharijite belief a major branch of belief ? ---Mpatel  (talk) 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
: The current survivors of the Kharijites, the Ibadis, are concentrated in Oman, and numerically insignificant. However, I think that the existence, and the example of the Kharijites, has had a big influence on Sunni Islam, and so they are worth mentioning. That is, the Kharijites considered any Muslims who didn't meet THEIR standards as infidels, kufar, and as a result, the Kharijites splintered into many little sects and mainly died out. The Sunni have therefore stressed the need to stay united by accepting people who say that they are Muslim, even if they are lax or hold unpopular opinions. I've started to wonder if the intolerant strain in Salafi thought (the thinking that allowed the Saudis to raid other Muslims because they were considered kafirs) owes something to the Kharijite tradition in Arabia. Zora 10:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kharijite 

message: Zeno, why did you remove the picture of the Islamabad mosque? Shouldn't there have been some discussion? I can't say that I liked the picture much, or the architecture of the mosque. But the article is looking even drier and more forbidding now. Zora 10:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Pakistani mosque picture 

message: The opening is more or less undisputable fundamentals.  Political movement, while it can no doubt be true, is not fundamental.  So, why  would it ever be there? gren グレン 13:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political is not fundamental 

message: 07:10, 27 August 2005 Free them (rv - prank edit?) (→Islamic law)  
Islamic law advises against charging interest on loans for it can lead people to a life of servitude.
I believe this to be true can I have help with it? Political hack 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, firstly... I don't believe a US law such as that has any place in the Islam article.  Secondly you have to source what you put in articles, what you believe is not so important.  If you can find a source and show how it's relevant then maybe something of what you want might be added.  But, I think this fits more into Islamic economics articles... hah, I read what you wrote incorrectly the first time... however the US law is irrelevant and I don't think it really belongs on this already over-crowded page. gren グレン 17:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Gren is right. Indeed, in the 7th century, there was no such law, neither in Islamic law nor in American law. Basically, charging interest on loans is forbidden in Islamic law because it is simply considered as "opportunistic".   Cheers -- Svest 17:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™
Can I use the words "advises against" instead of "forbidden"? Because 
millions of Muslim and me are charging or paying interest on loans. In 
7th century and through out recorded time there were and  are today
"opportunistic" interest charging laws. Is it fair to say today 
under Islamic law that the 
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (had a 30% interest rate cap removed form the 
bill) is a "opportunistic" law?
The Act contains a compulsory adult education program to forcibly 
teach people to pay there interest charging loans. Can a Muslim on 
religious grounds refuse to go to a compulsory adult education class that 
forcibly teaches about paying interest charging loans that is "forbidden" 
under Islamic law? Political hack 04:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If you are planning to convert to Islam and then argue that you don't have to attend the program because it's haram (forbidden) -- that's not sincere, and in the current political climate, I don't think it would work anyway. Zora 05:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I have help with this? 

message: "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God."
in the last edit (by 219.95.134.10) this sentence was modified with Allah instead of God, wich one is more correct? --Melaen 15:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on the debate if Allah is the proper name of the Isalmic conception of God.  That has proved to be a contentious issue between some editors and using "no god but God" leaves it more vague I suppose and gets the same point across.  I've seen both used by Muslims... but, just because one uses Allah, doesn't mean they think it's a proper name either... since it is often used to leave out ambiguity and show that the Islamic conception of god is God. gren グレン 19:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a debate that will go on forever. But note that arabic speaking christians also call God, Allah. Ashmoo 06:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  God -> Allah 

message: Still don't understand why Wikipedia still contain mis-interpretation on Qur'an 5:51 and 9:29.
This paragraph is mentioned in Islam article in "Islam and other religion" section
"Earlier passages of the Qur'an are more tolerant towards Jews and Christians. Later passages of the Qur'an are more critical of them. Sura 5:51 commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends. Sura 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against Jews and Christians until they either submit to Allah or else agree to pay a special tax."
First, 5:51
It is totally ILLOGICAL that Qur'an forbid muslim take jews and christian as friends, when we see the fact of history on early Islam years!
The major source of confusion is the word 'awliyaa', which has ambiguous meaning in English, it can be friend, allies, supporter, leader and protector. Muhammad (pbuh) had shown exemplary social relationship with idol worshippers in his early years as prophets, as the results many of these pagan people deeply attracted to Islam and become the devout defender of Islam, the classical example is Umar bin Khattab.
If these pagan worshippers who has no clear concept of God become good friends of Muhammad (pbuh), then Jews and Christian as the 'people of the book' should receive even better treatment. If Muhammad never take any non-muslims as friends, then logically he will become the sole muslim, this interpretation of 5:51 is totally inconsistent with the rapid growth of Islam in the first 100 years of Islam history.
In my country, Indonesia, as non-arabic speaking country, the word 'awliyaa' is translated as leader or protector. Hence, it is forbidden for non-muslim to become a leader of a homogenous muslim community, because it may bring many problems due to the cultural and core belief differences. This is the LOGICAL interpretation!!!!!!!
Then, 9:29
I don't believe this! Why anyone who wrote this article didn't refer to the exact translation of 9:29, instead he/she use free assumption. 
The 9:29 mentions:
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
The interpretation of 'fight', is not always means a physical confrontation. Just like examples given by Muhammad (pbuh), it is the belief that should be fought, while the believer as a human being should receive good treatment.
War is the last resort and defense measure, it is the sole option when the safety of Islam and ummah is under direct attack.   
Conclusion:
Many words in arabic have no direct meaning with English words. Then, Qur'an translation to English cannot be solely on grammatical consideration but also include historical examples of Muhammad, in how to apply Qur'an verses.
: That is your interpretation of the Quran. Other Muslims interpret those passages differently. Zora 01:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What Zora said and, I'm sure some do interpret it your way... find a notable source (preferably a well known book, etc.) and then cite it in favor of your interpretation... if you have more than one book do that as well.  We are open to suggestions... but, not if they are merely your opinions.  Thanks for the input though. gren グレン 06:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable inaccurate interpretation of  Qur'an 5:51 and 9:29