Talk:Islam/Archive 11

message: Since when has there been six? It's the five pillars, something I see no reference to in the article. Raven 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Five_Pillars_of_Islam is Sunni specific.  It's mentioned under the Tenets of Islam section in this article. Wynler 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Six beliefs?

message: * Frankly, I found [this latest bit of vandalism] oddly  refreshing. At least the troll in question wasn't lying about trying to, you know, actually present facts. "Just want this religion and all references to it gone, please." 
* Option One, of course, would be to avoid vandalizing the article in the first place.
* If you ignore us on that point, though, trolls -- and I suspect you will -- could I ask the next vandal to consider a similarly forthright approach? Rather than pretending to edit the piece, I mean? BrandonYusufToropov 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to trolls -- at least this vandal didn't mix venality with hypocrisy 

message: Dear Zora
You're right, only the hadith mentioned the 40-day event and not the Quran. Must have slipped my mind, I was reading about it only the other day. How fallible am I compared to God. I am sorry. I have also changed my viewpoint. Muslims AND non-Muslims (everyone really!) may insert articles about Islam as long as they are correct. Keep up the good work and further extending your depth in Islam! May God guide you! Bye... (P.S. if you need to contact me for any reason whatsoever, my e-mail is : ezanih@hotmail.com) - 210.187.7.122
: Thank you. That's beautiful. That's a lovely example of Islam -- says this Buddhist. Zora 05:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "may insert articles about Islam as long as they are correct" seems to be a lie. I have inserted several verses from Quran (I actually own one, do you?) and they have all been deleted. Wikipedia is the most biased source on the net, no doubt. Truth gets suppressed in here.
You don't owe this dude no apology.  You putting verses out of context is the hate in your heart for ISLAM manifesting itself on the internet.  Don't you know that Islam is the most hated way of life on the World Wide Web?
May Allah guide you my friend. You look very determined and happy with the ill-conceived illusion about Islam being the most hated way of life ont the www. I think you owe an apology to Islam itself.
خرم Khurram 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies to Zora From 210.187.7.122 

message: I went over the first part of the article. Someone is putting two spaces instead of one between words. This is distracting. Also, various editors who must speak English as a second language had introduced some ungrammatical or unnecessarily verbose edits. The one major change I made was to remove all the detail from Zakat. That is just TOO MUCH for an introductory article and should be left in Zakat. If you hit readers over the head with too much detail, they'll just tune out. Zora 07:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More copyediting 

message: I posted this on the Qu'ran page as well.  People have singled out three different translations of the Qu'ran: A.J. Arberry; Abdallah Yusuf Ali; and Ahmed Ali. I have not yet read the Qu'ran and would like a reliable and well-regarded translation. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for advice 

message: No one is disputing that Allah == God. This is only a matter of what is the best way to translate the shahada (there are many ways a sentence can be translated). For a comprehensive discussion of this issue, please Talk:Islam#To_the_new_editors. Please stop reverting "there is no god but Allah" to "there is no god but God" without further discussing this issue. In my humble opinion, anyone who continues doing this revert without addressing the issues raised in the talk page should be permanently banned from editing this article. -- Zeno of Elea 09:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There is no god but God" 

message: Currently the editing of the Baha'i Faith entry (and related entries) is dominated by Baha'is, who take the opportunity to downplay criticisms and in general slant their information in predictable directions. Please consider this a call for non-Baha'i editors to come have a look at the site, and help ensure balance. Thank you. Dawud 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a job for the Muslim Guild. -- Zeno of Elea 15:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that? Dawud 04:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for editing help with "Baha'i Faith"

message: Excuse me, I don't appreciate whoever keeps going right behind me and deleting the changes I make. Do you own the page?  I was correcting and/or expanding some definitional clarifications and someone keeps deleting them.  There was nothing controversial in the changes I was making, they were simply explanatory.  I do not appreciate this whatsoever. Please stop and allow others to make some changes.  I certainly was not being a troll, nor was I pushing any kind of agenda.  
130.39.138.205 03:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits about rusul and nabi

message: Can we come up with something neutral and informative for the lead-in without offending anyone? I think that's one of the things the article needs to be featured, but I'm afraid to touch the page due to the high reversion, vandalism, etc rates. Jibbajabba 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead-in 

message: Ok, why is the mention of the destruction of the World Trade Center and other islamic-based terrorism not listed here?  It is like the Nazi Germany page not mentioning the holocaust at all.  Jihad has consequences.  You can bet those guys in those planes yelled 'allahu ackbar' as they went into the buildings.  monty2
:Nazi Germany didn't have a complex many-thousand year history based on their beliefs. When I checked Christianity, they *do* have a section which links out to some of the vulgar atrocities commited in the name of that faith Historical_persecution_by_Christians, but the article on Islam doesn't link to Historical_persecution_by_Muslims, (though there are links to Islamism and Jihad), so maybe we could use the christianity article as a template. As far as linking to relatively minor (when considering 1200 years of history) incidents like the WTC attacks, I think linking to all of the atrocities created by religions, in each religion's article, would probably not be optimal. Ronabop 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we link to the other atrocities done by Islam then, if you consider 9/11 a minor hiccup in the "peaceful" Islam?
Agreed.  If Christianity can mention Ireland, then we can certainly mention suicide bombings and planes flying into buildings here.GodHead 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious incidents

message: Assalamo Alaykom,
This statement was presented in the page of islam
:"Sunnis believe that ijtihad, or interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith is closed since 800 years."
This is wrong!
All Sunnis believe that ijtihad, or interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith is still not closed til now & untill the Day of Judgement (qiyama).
Please take kare when you write about religion & specially Islam.
thanks,
Salamo Alaykom. -- unsigned by 196.218.12.203
:There is a strong notion among many that the "gate of ijtihad" has been closed.  Schact said "whatever the theory might say on ijtihad and taklid, the activity of later scholars, after the closing of the door of ijtihad, was no less creative of later scholars than that of their predecessors" in his famous Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence.  There is definitely a concept of closing of the door or gate of ijtihad, although, as the quote says its reality can be questioned.  To state it as a universal reality would be off, but its discussion has merit.  So, let's go by the scholarly sources and get a good mix of opinions and present them neutrally. gren グレン 08:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement concerning interpretation

message: With all due respect, Schact is a terrible source, largely discredited by later scholarship (see cites below).  The original correction is absolutely right -- the 'gate of ijtihad' has never been closed.  In the classical Islamic world (and until the present) a contraversy arose as to who was and is qualified to contribute to ijtihad, but the 'closing of the gates of ijtihad' is an essentially Orientalist notion inserted into Islamic scholarship by colonial and imperial scholars such as Schacht, Coulson, and Goldziher.  What the colonial/imperial scholars were trying to portray was an Islamic system that was irretrievably broken.  Hence a need was created: the replacement of the 'broken' system with a spiffy Western system, courtesy of the colonizers.  It should be noted that eventually every system of law that was not Western was found lacking in turn, from Islamic to Hindu and so on.  For more on the 'Gate of Ijtihad' issue, see Wael Hallaq, "Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?" (International Journal of Middle East Studies, 16, 1 (1984), pp. 3-41)  For more on systematic Western decimation of Islamic and Hindu law, see Bernard Cohn, "Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge" (Princeton University Press, 1996). Ebzmiller 08:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I have seen and read parts of the article by Wael.  I also agree that Schacht should be taken in context; although his book is still a respected source despite it being somewhat outdated.  I am not making an argument whether there was a gate, whether the gate was opened, closed, or what.  There is definitely a view of (mostly Sunni) Islamic intellectual stagnation from mid the second millenium.  The view of "the gate of ijtihad" (and I'm not sure of where the term came from) is a real concept that should be addressed.  I know scholarship has been moving more towards discrediting oversimplistic views, or at least adding to them... but.  Well, Rudi Matthee when talking about this talked about the closing of the gate and said well yes, there was a degree of stagnation compared to the earlier developments but the stereotypical notion of all development just stopping was oversimplistic.  He even used the Arabic term which I have since forgotten.  My main point in all of this is to address the term.  It is a term used by scholars to this day; although increasingly with reservation and to dismiss it would not properly represent the academic landscape.  I am by no means against discussing the sources you bring up, but I am against ignoring that such a concept as "the gate of ijtihad" exists. gren グレン 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh, the interpretation on Qu'Ran has been done generations ago. It is generally considered a taboo subject. Stop lying.
-Re 'interpretation on Qu'Ran' -- This is not at issue, although your statement is incorrect in addition to being unsigned.  Ijtihad as a method of legal interpretation (which is what is being discussed here) has virtually nothing to do with Qur'anic exegesis.  Ebzmiller 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Interpretation

message: [personal attacks from 4.159.5.143, and responses thereto, deleted by —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Anonymous editor 

message: There are contemporary and Historicals pictures of Mohammed, whether or not Muslims find this offensive is negligible. Wikipedia is supposed to be Secular.--GreekWarrior 19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to call a Vote on a picture of Mohammed 

message: OPEN LETTER TO THE INCREDIBLY LAZY EDITORS OF THIS PAGE::
HOW IN ALL THAT IS HOLEY CAN YOU JUSTIFY ALL THE BIGOTRY THAT IS SPEWED ON YOUR WEBSITE UNDER THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH.  THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION TO FURTHER THE KNOWLEDGE OF EACH SUBJECT.  A PLACE WHERE HONEST IGNORANCE CAN BE CURED BY DEBATE AND SINCERE DISCUSSION.  WHERE OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT CAN BE ARGUED BACK AND FORTH.  I LIVE IN THE USA WHERE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS CHERICHED LIKE A NEWBORN INFANT.  I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN DISCUSSING RELIGION AND THEOLOGY SOME PEOPLE WILL GET OFFENDED.   TRUST ME AS AN AMERICAM MUSLIM I KNOW THIS.  BUT HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALL A STATEMENT LIKE "Islam is poo" AN APT ARGUMENT.  ANYONE WITH SUCH HATEFILLED STATEMENTS (AND THERE ARE PLENTY HERE) IS NOT INTRESTED IN DISCUSSION YOU ARE ONLY PROVIDING THEM WITH A PLATFORM TO SPEW THEIR FILTH.
are there any Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, bahis or any one else out there who think that such hateful comments are inappropriate. or does everyone hate us.  I'm loosing my hope in humanity --unsigned comment by:  
: Those of us who've been here for a while get fairly cynical too. If you're upset because the article was vandalized -- well, it's frequently vandalized. There are lots of editors watching it, so it usually gets reverted quickly. We may want to request semi-protection, so that anons can't edit it. That might cut down some of the vandalism. If you're upset by opinions on the talk page -- well, we have to let everyone speak. Usually only obscene personal attacks are deleted. A lot of people love to hate, don't they? Sad. Zora 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: OPEN LETTER. I agree that Wikipedia is a place for civil discussion with rational theses and well thought out arguments. Perhaps you can be the first to start! 1) By stop using ALL CAPS, 2) trying to build a rational argument yourself, 3) spell check, 4) proofread, and 5) no personal attacks. Thanks! And my kindest regards.--Muchosucko 15:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: it is true that this talkpage could do with some encyclopedicity. I would fully support some rule that would allow bigoted comments like those about an "academic battle against this vicious and wicked faith"  below to be rolled back. We impose standards on the article. How about imposing some minimal standards on talkpages too? dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  INCREDIBLY LAZY EDITORS 

message: I just removed these external links:
*Islam in Western  Europe, the United  Kingdom, Germany  and South Asia
First of all, the red and black text on bright green used on those links is so harsh and difficult to read, that I don't expect readers of this article to going there and get anything useful out of that site.  Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a link directory. --Aude 14:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it's not generally, but after a lot of skirmishing editors here decided that instead of links to INDIVIDUAL Islamic sites, which were very hard to police, we'd just have links to directories. The directories you deleted are non-commercial and however hard to read they are, some people have found them useful. They only take one line and they cut off a LOT of criticism about "why can't I list my site". I put the links back. I hope that you'll consider leaving them up after hearing our reasons. Zora 20:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the well reasoned explanation.  Makes good sense. --Aude 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed external link 

message: I think we should let everybody know about this:
Grand Ayatullah al-Udhma Yusof al-Sanei has just declared suicide bombing as Haram: 
I think this is a very important fatwa that must be circulated.--Zereshk 22:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sad that this statement had to be made. It goes without saying that suicide bombing is haraam. By the way, don't add the fatwa to the Islam article. joturner 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not going to add it here. It was just to let all editors know, should they need to specifically quote it somewhere.--Zereshk 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it should be added to Islamist terrorism .F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it definitely doesn't belong here. gren グレン 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important development

message: Can anybody upload a good looking picture of Kaaba or Masjid al Haram , & put it in place of Aqsa mosque . I am not very knowledgeable on copy-right issues , so I dont know what to do. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: al aqsa??

message: I just went over the article and deleted a whole buncha cruft that various determined POV warriors and linkspammers managed to insert without being noticed by regular editors. There's so much churn due to vandalism that it's easy to overlook changes. No major changes, just a lot of tiny one. Notable sneaky corrupters: the Fonsvitae spammer and Edip Yuksel's tiny Qur'an-alone group. I think this article is a strong candidate for semi-protection -- only letting registered editors with more than a certain number of edits have write privileges here. Zora 10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring clean 

message: *This person is incredibly anti-Muslim. He is ruining this article by editing in propaganda. Can't anyone put a stop to this? Pure inuyasha 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  70.50.245.101 

message: Under the "God" section of the article we find: "No Muslim visual images or depictions of God exist because such artistic depictions may lead to idolatry and are thus prohibited. A similar position in Christian theology is termed iconoclasm."  Technically, iconoclasm is the destruction of idols and religious icons, thus making it's reference an illegitimate parallel to idolatry.  It must be noted that "idolatry" itself is also a term used in Christian theology.  I recommend the deletion of: "A similar position in Christian theology is termed iconoclasm."  If a more "christianized" synonym of "idolatry" is wanted in the article, then I recommend something along the lines of:  "No Muslim visual images or depictions of God exist because such artistic depictions may lead to idolatry or iconolatry."  The distinction between Muslim and Christian terminology isn't appropriate as definitions of both "idolatry" and "iconolatry" can apply equally to both religions.  
I'm just tossing this out there.  I know religious articles usually suffer from much vandalism and debate so I won't add my suggestion to the main article.  I'll leave that to those who edit this article regularly.  Either way, the term: "iconoclasm" doesn't make sense when used as a synonym to: "idolatry".  Duffer 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iconoclasm 

message: Not sure about terminology here: does the Suhuf-i-Ibrahim ('scrolls of Abraham') refer to the Tablets of Abraham ? My hunch is that it does. Also, I can find virtually no (reliable) information about them (got the reference from ) - probably because they are lost (according to the editor who mentioned them in the article). MP   (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont exactly know about the origins of this belief , but I've heard it so many times since my childhood . 10 Suhuf to ADAM , 50 Suhuf SETH , 30 Suhuf to Enoch , & between 10 and 30 to Abraham . I think out of all these, only Suhuf-e-Ibrahim are mentioned in Quran .May be its in some hedeeth book , like Tabari . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tablets of Abraham 

message: I suggest a new symbol to be used for all wikipedia islam articles. that mosque-like structure is getting old. i suggest a stylised fivepointed star. WoodElf 12:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Old"? Is that an argument? Hmmmf. I resolutely oppose. (why is a mosque not stylish, by the way? The most prominent things 'stylish' in Arab culture are the colourfull mosques with the stylishly drawn Arabic letters and mathmatical mosaics on the roofs) -- ActiveSelective 12:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Symbol