Talk:Islam/Archive 14

message: Why are the five pillars listed as the main beliefs of Islam? Are they not practices? Surely the 6 beliefs of Iman are the main beliefs of Islam, and so should be the main beliefs of Islam, not "other"? Dev920 10:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Five Pillars of Islam]]

message: Amended the final sentence from "However, Sufis are often criticised for innovative beliefs and actions, by Wahhabis who consider their practices to be against the letter of Islamic law" - a) ungrammatical, b) such practices are criticized by many Sunni groups, not just Wahhabis!, c) "However" at the start doesn't relate to anything in previous sentence & seemed slightly pejorative Tom49 12:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sufism]] 

message: a breif look at this site shows that orientalists have set the agenda for its contents, with major sections being dedicated to dhimmis and apostacy. Can we please set this page so it reflects the important issues according to muslims such as tawheed, justice, etc. jazakallah
: This is a secular encyclopedia. We discuss topics that Muslims think are important and ALSO topics non-Muslims think important. Zora 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[orientalism]] 

message: Do most Muslims accept the Christian claim that Christianity is monotheistic?  Drogo Underburrow 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Monotheism]]

message: Someone went through and made all the pics 300px wide. I put them back to 200px. At 300px, they just looked TOO BIG. The pictures were crowding the text.
Now this may be a function of my monitor (only 17 inch) and my screen resolution (I've got it set to the minimum, 800 x 600), because that makes the lettering on my icons easier to read. 300px may be just right for people with 19 inch monitors running at higher resolutions. But I think that the article should be considerate of the needs of the poor and the old, like me, who may have older monitors and worse eyesight. 
I'm not up on the technicalities of inserting pictures into articles. Is there a way that they can be specified as a proportion of the window rather than absolutely, as pixels? That might resolve the older monitor problem. Zora 21:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width of pix 

message: I don't see the need for the picture of the Muslim protesting in London, how does that contribute to the article in anyway? I am proposing the picture be deleted.
M2k41 21:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It has little to do with the religion. —Aiden 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest Picture

message: This should be corrected, and I would no mind doing it since the mention of Wahhabi being something started by a known and resepected scholar, Mohammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab is a futile claim.  This could not be further from the truth, he fought against groups/sects in Islam and reformed the Muslims to make them follow the Qur'aan, sunnah, and the understanding of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him.  This is what Salafi (salafeeyah, dawatul Salafeeyah) really is. --Abu Mahdhoorah 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is your belief. Those who do not share your belief regard the tradition as one started by Abdul-Wahhab. There's a parallel phenomenon in Christianity, in which many sects claim to be the one true, real, pure Christianity. Zora 03:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been told that Islam means "submission" to God, not to Muhammad and his followers.Timothy Usher 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Islam is the submission to God this is correct.  As part of this submission, a Muslim must be obidient to God and that which was revealed in the scriptures, the last of which is the Qur'aan.  The Qur'aan explicitly explains that one must follow the way of the Prophet Muhammad who is the final Messenger and Prophet of God.  This coincides with the scriptures of before where the people were ordered to follow the way of the prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham, for example).  Muslims also follow the way of these prophets, which is an obidence to God, which is submission to God.  I hope that is clear. --Abu Mahdhoorah 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As for Zora's comment, go and verse yourself with the works of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab.  He does not innovate any matters into the religion, rather he strictly commits himself to that which is revealed in the Qur'aan and thes sunnah and this is the meaning of "Salafeeyah."  This is the truth, and if anyone disagrees please feel free to explain it to us here.  If you are goign to use people as examples, then this is not correct because everyone makes mistakes.  Rather, "Salafeeyah" is following the pure way of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him without innovating anything into the religion. Also, maybe people have Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab confused with a deviant "scholar" that lived a thousand years before him with the same last name. --Abu Mahdhoorah 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salafi/Wahhabi explaination is inncorrect 

message: The God section needs to be rewritten so that it's historical and depicting an Islamic promotion of its viewpoint on a so called-god.شيطان
:It seems pretty neutral to me. Any more neutrality would require annoying caveats on every sentence. Are there any specific sections you think are POV? What sort of changes do you think it needs? Ashmoo 02:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the section, and I think it's quite neutral.  Since the section is supposed to explain Muslim belief, and does that without equating it as fact, it is neutral. Regardless, at most the NPOV tag, should be placed in that section, and not for the whole article. -- Jeff3000 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article Jihad state is very poorly written and controversial. I'm not convinced that 'Jihad state' is a term that is used. Please see it's talk page for my comments. MP   (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jihad state 

message: This subject is too broad to allow specific books or chapters to be referenced in this section, unless they are broad and widely used. --Jumbo 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of arts and culture references. 

message: * Does the threat of death to anyone leaving the religion impact claims of 2nd largest religion? If someone holds a knife to someone's head telling them , that they are will be killed if they leave Islam , should the person under the knife be counted as Muslim?
* Should people who privately renounce Islam , without making a public announcement to the knife wielding mobs on the streets of the Islamic world still be counted as Muslim?
--Eslamdemize 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is completely irrelevant to the article (not to mention, also untrue). And your username seems to indicate some negative (or hateful?) feelings towards Islam. joturner 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Eslamdemize, your question here would seem to constitute original research.Timothy Usher 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: his question is not OR, it's simple trolling, thus WP:DFTT. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wandered onto this talk page, but even if he wanted to be a troll, it seems like a good question: how accurate can the number of followers of Islam be if there is a death sentence for leaving? 67.70.17.152 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's hardly a good question. It is an intentionally flawed question for polemic purposes. Religion as something you are free to pick is a modern, European idea. Before the 1700s, this would hardly have occurred to anybody in Europe itself. In fact, heresy means the "picking" of an idiosyncratic doctrine. This was of course done from earliest times, but the difference is that this was not considered "leaving" a religion so much as inventing your own doctrines. Thus, Islam was considered a heresy, and of course any Christian converting to the Mohammedan heresy would have been executed as an apostate just like a Waldensian or a Hussite. In fact, Islamic theology is rather close to Protestant theology, and obviously, from the point of view of the Catholic and/or Eastern Orthodox church, Islam and Lutherism qualify as the same sort of distortion of Christian doctrine. You can "pick" a doctrine, but you can not "pick a monotheism". Paganism is again different in that they are ethnic or local religions that are not necessarily in theological conflict, but again you are born with your religion and do not "pick" it. Therefore, the normal case is that "religion" is something related to ethnicity and language, you don't "pick" your language, you "pick it up" from your tribe/clan/people. That religion became a matter of choice in the West during the 19th/20th centuries really renders the concept of "religion" obsolete: as a consequence, "religion" in the West is rapidly becoming a lifestyle accessoire. But I don't see how
this is related to counting adherents of any given religion. You just count them, period. The demographic numbers of both Christian and Musim populations obviously include many people without religious conviction (how the hell do you want to count these?) and likely a large number of atheists or people who just don't care about religion either way. They are just Christian or Muslim culturally, maybe going through religious motions because they were so conditioned as children.   They are still Muslims/Christians by virtue of going through these motions. The question is trollish because it was phrased polemically, and stupid because it implies an extremely naive notion of religion or apostasy. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion under duress

message: *As Wikipedia is not censored, if the article is benefited significantly by a certain image, there is no question that the image in question should be included; there is plenty of precedent for this. However, I'm unconvinced that an image of Muhammad is vitally necessary on the Islam page, per se, despite his importance to the religion: this poll would be much more appropriate on the Muhammad page, where I could see much stronger arguments being made for including images of Muhammad's face than could be made here. One issue is that there are no known accurate portraits, photographs, etc. of Muhammad, so any image we could include would be purely an artistic imagining. This makes the situation different from the one at Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h#Photograph (where, note, a photograph of the founder is included, but is kept at the very bottom of the article on that person, and isn't included on any other article, including Bahá'í Faith), in that the image is similarly considered unacceptable by believers, but isn't necessarily an especially accurate or informative image with respect to Muhammad himself (though certainly such art can be important with respect to the culture and artists that created it). For that reason, although it's clear that Wikipedia does not censor itself for the sake of a certain religious belief (else we wouldn't have an image at the top of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]), it's not clear that we necessarily need an artistic depiction of Muhammad on this particular article. We have an entire article for this topic, after all: Depictions of Muhammad. -Silence 12:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a reason for a  picture !? of Mohammed,one reason being is that there was no photography in the era of Mohammed, second, all the  paintings  I've seen depict a person with a beard. Finally as a curtosy to the Muslim readers of Wikipedia, I'm against such painting for it's against the Musllim religion and many would protest. --The Brain 14:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that there is no need for a picture here. That doesn't mean we couldn't put one elsewhere on Wikipedia, but not here. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against Votes

message: Looks like this one is a no.  BhaiSaab  talk 04:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam contains this 1-May comment "The 'see also' section is a disgrace. It carefully avoids links to any of the controversial topics (which I think some of the Muslim editors would like to cover up) ...".  There is a "Terrorism" section above started on 10 May that also started because it was believed that the subject was too important to omit.  I haven't gone back through the Talk archives to look further - but I would be shocked if there were not prior discussions there.
While the Islamic terrorists are a small fraction of Muslims, they are the most visible face of Islam in the Western World.  This article will not deserve to be a featured article unless it finds an adequate way to address modern islamic terrorism.
The Islamism article does not have a daughter article on terrorism by Muslims.  So, the argument that having a link to Islamism covers the topic fails.  Something more must be done.
A summary section of, and link to Islamic extremist terrorism is an adequate way of addressing this topic.  However, the first version of that summary section posted here could be improved upon.  I would suggest making prominent use of what is now the lead paragrpah of that article: "Islamic extremist terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by its supporters and practitioners to be in furtherance of the goals of Islam. The validity of an Islamic justification for these acts is contested by other Muslims."  This two sentence paragraph might by itself be adequate summary and is certainly expressed in the NPOV, although I think if you work together you can come up with a better and longer summary to use here.  GRBerry 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After watching Striver's latest edit (this diff), I asked him to enlighten me as to why he thought there was a  summary section on criticism.  Discussion at his talk page revealed that he was thinking of one that used to be in this article.  Reinstating it somehow should also be done.  There has been at least one proposal to make a paragraph in Criticism of Islam about terrorism and islam.  If that was done so that the appropriate terrorism article was a child of the criticism article, and the criticism article was brought here as a true child of the Islam article, that might be sufficient.  Today at least, the Criticism article has fewer bad-article type tags on it than the "Islamism" or "Islamic extremist terrorism" articles.  GRBerry 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Response 

message: Ok, here is the section as it stands:
Islamic Terrorism
Where such violent and terrorist activity aims to establish a pan-Islamic theocracy and impose religious law (Sharia), it is sometimes termed Islamist terrorism. The term Islamic terrorism is more widely used, while governments often refer to it as Islamic extremism. Islamic extremist terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by its supporters and practitioners to be in furtherance of the goals of Islam. The validity of an Islamic justification for these acts is contested by other Muslims. There is much debate about whether commentary on the subject unfairly caricatures Muslims, and Arab Muslims in particular (see the Muhammad cartoons controversy for example).
According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified [1]. Extremist acts have included airline hijacking, kidnapping, assassination, and suicide bombing. Terrorist threats have included fatwas and death threats. Children have been used in the administration and perpetration of these attacks. Both Muslims and non-Muslims have been among the targets and victims.
Islamic extremist violence is not synonymous with all terrorist activities committed by Muslims. Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies. These are not well described as either Islamic extremist or Islamist.
How can we improve on this for the Islam article, as per GR Berry above? Dev920 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could...remove it. :)  BhaiSaab  talk 18:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't have anything to do with Islamic beliefs.  BhaiSaab  talk 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article isn't about Islamic beliefs. I wouldn't dream of putting terrorism on  Islamic beliefs. This article is about Islam and notable parts of Islam. And unfortunately, Islamic terrorism is a very visible development and, to improve accessibility under WP:SS, it ought to have a section. Now GR Berry says that the section should be there but edited, so why don't you discuss how it should be edited rather than repeatedly taking it off?Dev920 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me another encyclopedia that has an Islam article and dedicates a fair portion of it to terrorism?  BhaiSaab  talk 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. But Then, I don;t want Wikipedia to, either.Dev920 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks; I learned my lesson a few days ago about 3RR.  BhaiSaab  talk 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This grandchild approach also works.  In fact, the Islamism summary section is here now. (Although it is new enough that I have no idea if it will stick.)  It does require improving that article, which is itself contentious.  But I encourage you all that it is possible to improve contentious articles.  GRBerry 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue I have with that, as I explained repeatedly in the very long conversation with  Dab above, is that Islamic terrorism isn't a natural consequence of Islamism. Islamism is poltical in nature; deen and all that. Much Islamic terrorism is for religious reasons, enough that it can't be considered a daughter article, but more a sister one.
Another concern I have is that people looking for Islamic terrorism won't read through Islamism first. Which, given I wanted to add the section for WP:SS made it seem rather pointless... Dev920 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A legitimate concern.  It could be addressed by giving a paragraph or so to Islamism in the summary section here, including a single sentence linking to the appropriate terrorism article.  That would help new readers understand that that the terrorism is related to Islam as a political movement, yet give a quick direct link.  Remember that summary sections in the parent article do not need to match the introduction to the child article.  (If they ever did, the natural effect of editing each separately over time would be the creation of differences.)  To achieve this requires only a minimal edit to the current Islamism summary section here now, in changing [Islamic extremist terrorism|terrorism]] to [Islamic extremist terrorism|Islamic terrorism]].  GRBerry 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could add a paragraph and link for both islamic extremist terrorism and islamism, in the same section, and title it something like "extremism"? This will allow people skimming through the TOC to get what they're looking for. Dev920 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As I have explained previously, "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism." from the main article. Islamic terrorism is, as I have argued before, not solely motivated by political ideals. Therefore I do not, and will not, refer to it as Islamist terrorism, because this is a subtopic. If you wish to assume bad faith on my part, that is your perogative, but please don't use it as a threat, particularly as your continuous arguing of this particular point belies your intelligence and suggests wilful misunderstanding. Dev920 09:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to your other point, yes I think there is "moderate terrorism". Throwing a molotov cocktail at an empty building in a protest as the invasion of your country seems mild compared to crashing three planes into buildings and killing 3000 people. Dev920 09:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how is throwing a molotov cocktail "terrorism"? Your terminology seems extremely idiosyncratic. One can disagree over terms like "terrorism" or "Islamism", but throwing molotov cocktails, shooting armed soldiers and assassinating political leaders certainly does not qualify as terrorism. Terrorism needs to aim at the generation of fear in the population by random attacks on civilian targets. "molotov cocktail at an empty building" indeed... dab 
(ᛏ) 10:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I didn't realise that the best efforts of the IRA to engender fear and terror in the British population by bombing empty buildings didn't count as terrorism... What would you call it? Childish pique? Dev920 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing the section

message: Right to address Bhai saabs concerns about the size of a terrorism section, and Dab's on the flow of the article, what I've done is merge the two under political and religious extremism. This gives me the accesibility I've been seeking, Dab the flow, and Bhaisaab the smaller entry. It's all been taken from the leads of the concerned articles, I think it works, what do you reckon? Dev920 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a reasonable treatment. Any concerns about weight could be addressed by expanding on liberal movements within Islam, maybe adding a third sub-section about it. I don't know enough about the subject to do it myself though. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're forgetting significance. I can, of the top my head, think of four Islamic terrorist groups, 1 Jewish, and 1 Irish. As mentioned way back at the beginning, Islamic terrorism accounts for 57% of world terrorism. Of course it would have a larger section than Christianity, which I think is confined to killing abortion doctors (as is my understanding, anyway. You can certainly try to add stuff about christian terrorism if you would like.
But in any case, just because another article doesn't contain certain info, doesn't mean a similar article shouldn't. If it did, Wikipedia would never have got off the ground... Dev920 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's pretty silly to pretend that Christian terrorism is a salient issue in the world today.  However,t this section - and this article generally - is woefully undersourced.Timothy Usher 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and would like to add that adding something about Iran's program for heroin addicts, which is extremely progressive and I think should be copied everywhere, would be a good place to start. Dev920 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest update

message: I noticed Encarta dedicates a fair portion of their Islam article to explaining Mosques. The word "mosque" is used two or three times in this article but their significance is never explained.  BhaiSaab  talk 19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosque Subsection or Details 

message: The current text in this section states:
"There is no official authority who decides whether a person is accepted into, or dismissed from, the community of believers, known as the Ummah ("family" or "nation"). Islam is open to all, regardless of race, age, gender, or previous beliefs. It is enough to believe in the central beliefs of Islam. This is formally done by reciting the shahada; which should be made sincerely from the heart, the statement of belief of Islam, without which a person cannot be classed a Muslim. It is enough to believe and say that one is a Muslim, and behave in a manner befitting a Muslim to be accepted into the community of Islam."
I think it has little to do with "religious authority" and more with accepting converts. It should be rewritten.  BhaiSaab  talk 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Authority 

message: I will continue to remove the unspecified  for being unhelpful, bordering on defacement. I am very much for asking references for each and every claim on Wikipedia, but it is not true that this article cites no references. Therefore, it is just lazy to slap a generic "unreferenced" template on it. There is a reason we have the more surgical , and I certainly won't remove any of those until references are brought forward. dab (ᛏ) 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have requested, I've added the  tags; not unexpectedly, they are numerous. Pecher Talk 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You've hit a nail on the head: yes, every statement in wiki needs a reference. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit, so an uncited claim on a Wikipedia article has the reliability of a Usenet posting. Pecher Talk 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What WP:POINT? The rule of thumb is that everything must be referenced. New Dehli is a straw man example; such things are extremely few, especially in this article. Pecher Talk 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: It is inappropriate in terms of the balance of the article to give to the Shi'a Islam twice as much space as to the Sunni Islam as the article currently does. Sunni Muslims are at least six times as numerous as the Shi'as, allocating more space to the Shi'as means giving them undue weight. Pecher Talk 08:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already trimmed the Shi'a section and planned to do it further soon. But if you have the time, be my guest. BhaiSaab talk 08:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be alright now. BhaiSaab talk 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbalance 

message: The article contains this sentence: "...the addition of a hamza to the beginning of the triliteral root, followed by the first two consonants, a short vowel, and the final consonant, is the first-person singular imperfect tense in Arabic." Wait... what??? You're playing games with us here. You can't possibly have written this sentence with the goal of communicting information to another human being. It's ridiculous. I haven't decided yet if Wikipedia has any chance of working as a source of knowledge or not, but if it's full of sentences like this, it looks like maybe it isn't. Andrew Carlssin 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  Is the problem that it's wrong or that it's too technical.  I don't know enough Arabic to know it's wrong... but, I just linked triliteral which should show how Arabic language roots work and then hamza is linked to show you that it's an Arabic character.  We could link the specific parts "first-person singiular imperfect tense" but those are all ideas that the average English speaker should know at least some about.  Please clarify because I'm not sure what you mean. gren グレン 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can't be serious 

message: Islam didn't just contribute a theology and political conflict to history. I suggest adding a few more sections on "Contributions of Islam to World Culture". Under that, small subsections with links to articles such as "Islamic art", "advances of science under Islam", philosophical contributions and reviews by prominent non-muslim historical figures (Gandhi and the like) etc. What do you guys think? His Excellency... 01:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  It would help with Wikipedia's systemic bias toward the present.  (Of course, evey encyclopedia I'm aware of has it, but the more we can do to fight systemic bias the better.)  If there isn't yet a parent article on Islamic Culture, that ought to be written as well and introduced to the navigation template in the upper right.  GRBerry 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Sections

message: Could a knowledgable person start something about islamic cosmology (i.e. origin of the universe, man's place in it, etc.) and add an appropriate summary to the religious cosmology page?  Dragons flight 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can have a look at Islamic astronomy. An article named Islamic cosmology would only be a duplicated article. -- Szvest 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic cosmology