Talk:Muslims/Archive 3

message: According to the article:
The singular form of the word Muslim comes from the Arabic plural form 'Al-Muslimīn, from the tri-consonantal root SLM, also found in the words Islam and salām (peace). The plural form is instanced in the Qur'an, 22:79, Al-Hajj.
I have two questions regarding this section:
(1) Why is the Arabic plural cited as the etymological source, when the Arabic singluar is exactly the same word minus the "īn"?
(2) Can someone elaborate on the relationship bewtween the Arabic words for "submission" (Islam) and "peace" (Salam)? If not, this reference strikes me as arbitrary and misleading. 24.63.125.78 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Svest, it's consonant rather than consonent, and consonantal rather than consonental. Plus, I don't think the red link to an as-yet-nonexistent page for tri-consonantal root should be deleted, since it's a crucial concept in the study of Semitic languages, not just Arabic. Zora 01:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry for the mistake. As for tri-consonantal root, I think that for good editing, it's better to remove  for red links until they exist. I just wonder why you think I removed them because I thought it was smthg related only to Arabic!! If you ever have visited my User page you'd have read that I am a Citizen of the world speaking a couple of languages. Cheers -- Svest 01:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I changed the first para slightly -- I don't think it changed the meaning, it's just an attempt at less pompous and circuitous wording. I said "Most Muslims" because the Kharijites wanted being a Muslim to include much much more than just saying the Shahada. One could reasonably argue that contemporary Salafis and jihadis also require much more of Muslims than just saying the Shahada, since they're willing to kill Muslims whom they believe to be infidels or hypocrites. We don't need to go into that, but "Most Muslims" seems more accurate. 
As for the use of the word "Musselmaun" in WWII German concentration camps -- this is not something that can be disputed. I've run across it numerous places. I'm starting to get the impression that using the word for JEWS is upsetting (which is anti-Semitism) and that using it as slang is NOT OK. Well, folks play with words and do weird and upsetting things with them. For an analogous case, take the current US teen use of "gay" to mean inferior, stupid, bogus, etc. I think that's homophobic, and I wouldn't use the term that way. But other people do, and I can't scold or punish them all. I imagine that this bit of slang will die and be a historical curiosity some day. Now, imagine anti-homophobic activists declaring that this slang use of "gay" had never really existed, it was all made up, there were very few attestions of its use ... they would be trying to whitewash history. Those of you trying to remove or deny the concentration camp usage of "Musselmaun" are doing the same thing. Just accept that people play with words and they're not always nice. That's a fact. Zora 20:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest tweaks 

message: The addition of the "Disputes" section on the surface seems like a good idea, and the material that Zeenhasan added is well-written, balanced, and useful, but .... I'm worried that this is going to open the door for another inflation of the article. At one point this article had turned into another version of Islam, just less well-policed. I trimmed the article down RADICALLY, to just a discussion of the word. If we open the article up to a discussion of who's a Muslim and who's not, then it could balloon. I'll wait and see what happens before I say "I told you so". I could be wrong (what a shock!). Zora 18:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeenhasan's edits 

message: Striver, I've read one academic essay that suggests that that medieval Muslims were much more concerned with faith (iman) than Islam, and would describe themselves as believers rather than as Muslims. I'm not sure that the Qur'an verse can necessarily be interpreted in the fashion you describe. Since I don't think we have any editors who could deal with this matter, it should be dropped. I've removed it. Zora 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "medieval Muslims"? The verse addreses Muhammads contemporaries. "would describe themselves as believers rather than as Muslims" suggest the same thing as the verse, that there is a distinction between Islam and belief. Its not going to be removed, the verse is as clear cut as it gets, there is no alternative way at looking at it. --Striver 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between a believer and a Muslim  

message: Quote:
:As I understand it, and I think this can be Qur'anically justified, at the very basic level Islam sees two types of people: Muslim and non-Muslim. However, each of these two categories have further categories within themselves, which includes mu'min (believer), 'alim (scholar), salih (righteous), munafiq (hypocrite) for Muslims and Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), mushrik (idolater), dhimmi (non-Muslim who has submitted to paying the jizya tax) as well as a myriad of others. In addition to this -- and actually somewhat irrespective of these categories -- is the question of what relations should be like between Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors, whether hostile or non-hostile, on a political or even geo-political level.
http://www.mereislam.info/2005/05/anti-islamic-books-in-public-schools.html
--Striver 10:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But this sense of grievance, though correct, also emanates from an inadequate understanding of the word Kafir and its implications on their part. Few people are aware that the lowest depths of Hell are reserved in Islam, not for the Kafir, but for those people who may be today claiming to be Muslims. For God in the Quran condemns and consigns to the lowest depths of Hell, not the Kafir, but the munafeqeen (the hypocrites) who profess to believe in what they do not accept at heart: the Kafir on the other hand has at least the forthrightness to proclaim his beliefs. So the greatest insult is not in being called a Kafir, but in being called a Munafiq, a term that can only be applied to someone claiming to be a Muslim.
http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight9908.html --Striver 10:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If you start talking about who IS a Muslim, or a believer, and who isn't, and making subtle distinctions between them, you're going into religious territory that Wikipedis should not touch. It's controversial and it's khutbah, not encyclopedia, material. Zora 10:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This would be an interesting way to teach new programmers the otherwise dry subject of class inheritance.
But I believe that you have missed a few classes. The class Believer inherits from Muslim. It contains the attribute:
faithEnteredHeart --this comes from ayah 49:14.
Also I think that your current class Muslim should really be an interface. Within it the class Muslim should be implemented. At least one attribute is:
submitToGod(fivePillars);
http://www.mpadc.com/forums/attachment.php?s=c2a154a1ae011aac5f02210170f12b71&attachmentid=410&d=1080649056
http://www.mpadc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16252
Thirty First Hadith: The Kinds of Hearts
http://al-islam.org/fortyhadith/33.htm
TABLE-2: TYPES OF INDIVIDUAL ACCORDING TO RELIGIOSITY LEVELS
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:6cz-dPrnZIgJ:www.pide.org.pk/pdf/psde%252018AGM/Towards%2520Divine%2520Economics.pdf+believer+Muslim+munafiq+category&hl=sv
Zora i have clearly shown that things run much deeper than Muslim-Kafir.
Of course you wont belive it, since Madelund didnt tell you so, but im geting tirred of you opposing me for fun... --Striver 11:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If you start talking about who IS a Muslim, or a believer, and who isn't, and making subtle distinctions between them, you're going into religious territory that Wikipedis should not touch. It's controversial and it's khutbah, not encyclopedia, material. Zora 10:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Striver, there's no need for that Qur'an cite. It really doesn't explain anything. Nor is there any need to link to all those lists you created, which are empty, pointless vanity articles. There is a List of Muslims, that's enough. 
I put back the concentration camp cite just because someone MIGHT look for it here. (I've read material re the camps that used the word Muslim.) It's off at the bottom of the page, all by itself, it's clearly indicated that there's no documented link to Islam, and it doesn't hurt anything or anyone. Reaally. Zora 11:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Striver's edits again 

message: The reference to the world musselman during the Holocaust keeps re-appearing at the bottom of the article. Not only is there no source stating that the word relates to the alternative word for Muslim, but it's also in the incorrect place. Based on the Talk page from September, it seems like no one believes the mention is relevant. Therefore, I'm taking it off until someone proves otherwise. joturner 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Muzulman. `'mikka (t) 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musselman Reference 

message: Since the last para is proving to be controversial, as I feared, I'm making an attempt to make it less provocative. It is indeed true that religious squabbles often ended in declarations of takfir. Hence it's not just the Ahmedi or the Shi'a who are the targets -- it seems like every group of Muslims is regarded as unbelievers by another group of Muslims. Zora 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at Anonymous Editor's edits and then thought a bit and rephrased that last section rather thoroughly. Judging a group deviant by the "principles of Islam" -- or some such wording -- implies that the writer knows what the principles of Islam are, and can judge others by these principles. However, since every group believes that it alone knows the true principles of Islam, this is not really a good yardstick. All you can say is that some groups accept or reject other groups as fellow-Muslims. Zora 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am okay with the change, however, I believe that section shouldn't exist at all. This article was better when it was just simple and factual and not argumentative. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is vital, in terms of pointing out that there isn't a concensus on the concept of who is a muslim. This page deals with the concept Muslim, not Islam, and there role of the last passage is not to judge who is a Muslim or not, but to point out that there are diverging views. --Soman 23:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to last section 

message: What is it about pigs that muslims don't like.  I don't get it. User:slamdac
:Eating pigs is wrong in Islam and it is also in Judaism. I could explain why but instead here's a good article about this . --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muslims "keep kosher" to a certain extent. Animals must be slaughtered in a certain way if the meat is be "halal", and some animals, such as pigs, are entirely off limits. Zora 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pigs 

message: Zeenhassan, please don't try to widen the definition of Muslim to include "cultural Muslim". It's inherently argumentative, as it seems to claim that you can be a "Muslim" without any religious belief whatsoever. 
It's not news that there are many many people who are formally adherents of various religions but who take their religious obligations very lightly. These may be "Christians" who go to church once a year, on Easter, or Muslims who never do salat or go on Fridays, but keep Ramadan because everyone else in their family does. There are people whose religious affiliation is so merely formal that they may participate only when dead -- as they get a Christian or Muslim funeral. 
However, the existence of such folks doesn't mean that they should be accepted as the standard by which being a Christian or a Muslim (or a Buddhist or a Hindu or whatever) should be defined. Zora 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say, "from my perspective" ... that seems like prima facie evidence of consulting ONLY your own opinions. You have no references! Is there anyone besides Zeeshanhasan who believes in "cultural Muslims"? Unobservant Muslims, yes, but cultural? I have never heard the term, and I read a lot (books, journals, newspapers -- even European and Indian newspapers). Show that this is a notable opinion (held by a significant number of people) and then of course we'll include it. Zora 08:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Muslim 

message: I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Islam heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Islam's view on forgiveness?  Any help would be appreciated.  --speet 04:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help on Forgiveness article 

message: Although it may be true, there really should be a source stated for this number.
Travelbird 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.5 billion muslims 

message: I removed a section that an anon had added, saying that "Muslims" were considered an ethnic group in the Balkans. It's not clear quite what the anon means -- is he saying that other ethnicities consider you a Muslim if any one of your grandparents was a Muslim? If that is so, it should be referenced, not just asserted. Also, it would probably be better to discuss this in Balkans-related articles and perhaps just put a link there. If I'm understanding the anon correctly, this is an idiosyncratic use of the term Muslim. I don't think an observant Muslim would accept someone as Muslim on the basis of a Muslim ancestor. Zora 23:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims as ethnic group in the Balkans 

message: Cltfn, Muslims called themselves Muslims, or Believers, from the beginning. Crone and Cook argued that Hagarenes was used by outsiders back in 1977, I think it was, but they're no longer standing behind that book. I don't know what terms were used by all the groups that the Arabs conquered. Why don't you learn Byzantine Greek, Syriac, Aramaic, and Pahlavi to find out? :) Zora 09:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora, simply not true, if you were to check the primary sources of the 7th century you might see that Muslim is never mentioned , only saracens , or hagarenes or derivations of these 2. I plan on writing a wikipedia article on those primary sources shortly that will make this abundantly clear.No offense but the  argument of " they do not stand behind the book " is getting worn out. --CltFn 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the final outcome of the sources debate. The paragraph belongs in the Other words for Muslims section. Ashmoo 03:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagarenes 

message: Why dont muslim´s eat Swines? --Comanche cph 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eat Swines 

message: --Comanche cph 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sharia and Islamic dietary laws articles provide more details regarding those questions. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some Muslims do drink beer, just like they do other wrong things. However, yes it is forbidden in Islam. --- Faisal 20:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does muslims drink beers? 

message: If those of the nation of islam are not considered muslims, and malcolm X was a muslim through the nation of islam, then how is it that Malcolm X was aloowed on Hajj. Documentation is required to prove one is a muslim to participate, if those of the nation of islam are not muslim, why was he not forbiden to take the Hajj.. Fabio
::He went after he converted to mainstream Islam. You should read his biography. Yas121 16:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nation of Islam

message: Someone added a long list of exactly what Muslims must believe to be considered Muslims. WP can't take any stand on such things, and it's not appropriate here in any case. People keep trying to turn this article into a duplicate of the Islam article. Zora 23:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article growing again 

message: We should either remove or find an alternative to the image:Esharplar.jpg used in this article. See  --Delta Tango | Talk 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Esharplar (Hijab image) 

message: As a Muslim who has recientally converted to Chritianity i have to say that this artical is very bias in favor of Muslims. It should include a criticisms of Muslims section as would be the norm with most other topics. --Omar Muhammad 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles such as Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, or Sikh don't have criticsm sections, becuase these are the generally terms for the adherents of a religion, not beliefs or events related to Islam.  I don't see why a critism section is necessary for any of them, after all, these are isolated cases within the religious group.  Criticism with Islam is delt with in the  Criticism of Islam article, just like Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, and Criticism of Hinduism.  (Buddhism, a major religion, doesn't seem to have a criticism page). Mar de Sin Speak up! 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the sentence above should stay, since it does deal with the definition of who is a Muslim, which is relevant to the article topic.  Don't worry about putting up the notice, you did have a real concern.  If you don't object, I would like to remove the notice.  Thanks. Mar de Sin Speak up! 20:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We already have Criticism of Islam, Islamic extremist terrorism, Islamofascism, Controveries related to Islam and Muslims, we also have categories of all sort related to the subjest (i.e. Former Muslims, Books critical of Islam; Documentaries critical of Islam). We must note that the main articles are done for this. They should be general while pointing to other fork articles (be it criticism or not). We also have categories that are there to help navigate all related categories and articles. -- Szvest 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: Someone had rewritten the last para to say that Islam forbids takfir. WP is not a qualified Islamic scholar to say what Islam is or isn't. We can only describe what self-proclaimed Muslims do and say. The same person had also erased sentences saying that Muslims of all sects takfired each other and members of their own groups. Erasing this is censorship; all you have to do is look at the history of Islam to see Muslims takfiring right and left. I think it's OK to say that Muslims disapprove of takfir in the abstract, but  in practice do it. Zora 06:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote section on takfir 

message: As of the time of this comment, this talk page is 89 kilobytes long.  Could someone involved with the article please do some archiving? --Rschmertz 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please archive/clean up