Talk:Islam/Archive 10

message: I've checked both the Quran and Islam articles, neither of them mention with any specificity the rules Muslims commonly abide by.  I know for a fact that murder is against the teachings of Islam, despite what some believe, but I don't really know much else about the religion, and I don't have access to a copy of the Quran, particularly one in English...--69.235.142.87 22:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to take a look at Sharia. We also have multiple English translations of the Qur'an on wiksource, listed at wikisource:Qur'an. Dmcdevit·t 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharia is Islamic law, established in some Muslim countries. If you need access to many different teachings of Islam click here  or if you need access to many different websites with teachings of Islam click here Dmoz.org Open Directory Project: Islam. Hope that helps, a.n.o.n.y.m   t 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Rules 

message: An anon added a long discursus re Wansbrough, Crone, and Hagarism. I don't think this is necessary. If the anon wants to detail the theory in an article so we can link to it, fine. However, Wansbrough is dead, Crone has abandoned the theory, and it's academically defunct. Pining for the fiords. 
Someone else added a long bit to Islam and other religions vehemently defending Islam against charges of intolerance. Not everything needs to be shoehorned into the main article. There's another, breakout article. The few paras in the Islam article are just meant to be a summary and a pointer. Also ... the addition is arguably POV. Zora 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagarism, Moghuls 

message: Not happy with using the word 'sect' for both Shia and Sunni. The Shia are a 'sect'. I agree that 'sect' means any division, but the principal use of the word 'sect' is in describing a splinter/smaller group separated from the main group. Note that the Christianity article uses the word 'branches' just before giving the 3 'coherent groups' and 'denominations': 
Christianity encompasses numerous religious traditions that widely vary by culture and place, as well as many diverse beliefs and sects. It is usually represented as being divided into three main branches, at least since the Reformation:
*Catholicism (includes the largest coherent group, the Roman Catholic Church, including Eastern Catholics, representing over one billion baptized members), 
*Eastern Christianity (includes the second-largest coherent group, the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Oriental Orthodox Churches), 
*Protestantism (many denominations and schools of thought, including Anglicanism, Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, Anabaptist, Evangelicalism, Charismatics and Pentecostalism)
Consistency ? I think we should have some. ---Mpatel  (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Firstly it's not wrong what we have now by any means.  Both are sects in the sense of sub-groups which is one part of the definition.  Sunnis are usually not considered the splinter group because of their size, and it does seem to me that historically speaking they probably weren't (whether they be wrong or right).  Branches might be better although I believe I usually hear sects associated more with Islam, not that this justfies anything.  I'd like to hear discussion on this. gren グレン 12:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I gather that many Muslims, and Sunni Muslims in particular, object to the use of the word "sect". They all claim to represent the pure, true faith taught by Muhammad. It's those other guys that are sectarians, not them. I've learned to write around the word. Zora 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 main sects  

message: Can I please urge editors to give a reference for each translation that is quoted. Sura al-Ikhlas (verse 112) as quoted (?) in the article misses out a crucial word and is slightly misleading - at least when compared to Yusuf Ali's translation. ---Mpatel  (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: The history of islam would be incomplete if you did not state something to the effect that it was originally spread quite militantly with the approach of 'convert to islam or die by the sword'.   Failure to include this makes your history incomplete and somewhat biased.  At least be honest.
:We don't write stuff here on WP based on hearsay and biased/mistaken/misguided opinions (although we mention those views). Bring some unbiased sources and we'll see. MP
::Yes, might I add that this article is not about the history of Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moreover, that's just not true. There was some confusion in the minds of Arabs, in the first few centuries of Islam, as to whether or not one had to be an Arab to convert to Islam. Would-be converts had to find an Arab sponsor and then be enrolled in his tribe as a client. Mass conversions were discouraged, as this eroded the tax base. Zora 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That article is not particularily credible. I'm relying on solid academic works like Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Zora 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History should not strive to hide details 

message: Surely this article should include some mention of the many criticisms of Islam? In particular the widespread concern about the oppression of women and homosexuals instituted in the name of Islam. Canderra 03:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a whole article on the subject -- Criticism of Islam. Zora 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Islam 

message: * The data in that section is informative and encyclopedic and relevant to the main topic of Islam. 
* Note:That section was blanked out by BrandonYusuf perhaps in an effort to conceal unsavory aspects of Islam from the uninformed reader. He recruited foot soldiers from the Muslim guild group of editors to back him up in his endeavor. See his messages of 10/28/2005 and 10/29/2005 . He can of course do that as there is no rule against it , but it shows you the tactics used to strong arm a POV on this page. --Wibidabi 04:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's consistent with in tone, style, and level of detail with what appears in other articles on major faiths, I personally have no problem with a section on "Islam and persecution." I would like to get feedback from other editors, of course. Also, on an article of this importance and size (and just as at Christianity) I think it's a bad idea to try to add major chunks of text without consensus. Let's use the talk page to address exactly what should be in this section. BrandonYusufToropov 10:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should keep this article neat and clean. It's good as it is. Additional information including many controversial aspects are found on other articles that are linked to this article or found in category Islam. This article should remain as small and to the point as possible. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have re-added the key facts about apostasy into the article as it belongs there . If we need to go to a wikipedia vote on the matter then we can do that. --Wibidabi 13:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section makes a concise mention and description of Apostasy and Blasphemy within Islam. It is perfectly informative and encyclopedic. Brandon and company keep reverting it but there is no reason to delete this relevant section.--Wibidabi 13:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Prior decisions must be respected. You can't just come in and override a previous decision that was based on consensus. --Juan Muslim 08:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy in Islam section should be re-added to this article

message: []
Does anyone have any ideas?  BrandonYusufToropov 11:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again, BrandonYusufToropov is harassing new editors by calling them sockpuppets without any rhyme or reason. BrandonYusufToropov suffers from sort of psychological state of paranoia that is causing him to behave this way. When I first started editing, he called ME a sockpuppet for MONTHS. -- Zeno of Elea 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he wouldent feel that way if certain people in a certain infamous group did not give him a reason to suspect it. We all know what we are talking about. --Striver 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might recongize Striver, our resident paranoid conspiracy theorist, from  groups such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy, WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild, WikiProject Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild, and of course WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild. -- Zeno of Elea 06:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: why are you talking to the camera, Zeno? Your sarcasm is hollow. You may want to remove the beam from your own eye first. Anyway, Fredwlerr certainly looks like a sockpuppet, but he made four edits and left. Not worth arguing over. Baad 08:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not worth arguing over, why are you arguing? If you are arguing then instead of simply asserting that "Fredwlerr certainly looks like a sockpuppet" you should explain why you think so rather than what you think of my sarcasm. -- Zeno of Elea 10:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: . please, Zeno, if you have so much spare time, why don't you write some useful encyclopedic articles? Fair enough, so Islam is what you are interested in, but couldn't you at least pretend to have a broader interest in building an encyclopedia? How many of your 879 namespace edits as of October 7 were not immediately reverted as partisan? Do you have no other interest than telling the world about the terrible evils of Islam? dab 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder who this [[sockpuppet]] is 

message: In the 'Prophets' section, 202.163.102.37 has amended the text to add (Salalah ho alaihey wasalam, Peace be upon him) or (Peace be upon him) after several instances of Muhammad's name.  I understand this is common practice for many Muslims, but, respectfully, it isn't common practice in common English.
I have reverted the amendments for now, but would welcome any debate on the subject.  -- Caroline Sanford 10:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are constantly removing these from articles, and probably will be forever. Trick is to do so politely; people simply don't understand it's a secular encyclopedia.BrandonYusufToropov 10:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not really debatable. Some users are trying to build a "bot" to automatically remove the "PBUH" insertions. Obviously Wikipedia articles cannot put "peace be upon him" or "PBUH" (abbreviated form) after every mention of Muhammad the "prophet." If we did that then Wikipedia would have no integrity as an encylopedia. While the "PBUH" insertions would be beneficial to the cause of Islam, they are clearly detrimental to the cause of Wikipedia. We can only assume that all random people who edit Wikpedia are loyal Wikipedians editing in good faith. You might want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG/Manual_of_Style. -- Zeno of Elea 10:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- Svest 00:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions of the Prophets 

message: islam is the best way of living,it preaches good and forbidds bad,the example for us to live in islam is the life of prophet MOHAMMED aliahiva salam
:hey, the Bible teaches the same. The trick is to be a decent person, not to follow this or that prophet or messiah. The division runs between decent people (Christian, Muslim, and other) on one hand, and fanatics and/or assholes (Christian, Muslim, and other) on the other, it doesn't run between the religions. If you need Muhammad or Jesus to tell you you shouldn't be bad, you still have some maturing to do. Baad 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why we are taking many comments of this kind seriously especially from an anon. Editors are dealing with vandalism from both sides. So no need to worry Northern Aurora. -- Svest 12:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam yhe best way of living 

message: Check out Islam in Korea. freestylefrappe 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam in Korea 

message: Why do Wahais get manny lines, while Ahmadis only get a blind and total revert?--Striver 15:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blind revert by Zora 

message: All,
Remember the film The Lion of the Desert? And remember the famous film Mohammad, Messenger of God (film) that you all loved to watch?
The director of these films was one of the victims of Jordan's recent bombings.
There should be links to these pages, or maybe an article like Movies in Islam ?
And there should be pages comemmorating all Islamic directors maybe. 
My source of info about his death was .
His name was مصطفی عقاد 
Be cool.--Zereshk 03:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw him last year at an ASACA (syrian cultural association) meeting.  One of the few Arabs to succeed in hollywood.  Here's his article : Moustapha Akkad.Yuber(talk) 04:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Omar Mukhtar" and...

message: Variances in belief does not mean apostasy. Variances in belief is a vague, meaningless, wishy-washy phrase almost devoid of meaning, and completely inadequate as a description of the issue. Some Muslim-majority countries punish or execute people deemed apostates and blasphemers! Some have these laws on the books, but don't enforce them! I don't think there are any editors here defending these laws, are there? We can take it that no one approves of them?
:Given they're on the books of at least "[s]ome Muslim-majority countries", I think we can safely assume that someone approves of them (even if we might find them barbaric). Remember, wikipedia is not just for the editors. — JEREMY 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I for one have no problem calling the section "Apostasy and blasphemy," as that's certainly what's under discussion. Where I draw the line is using the section to launch propaganda missiles in a manner that has no parallel in other articles on major religions. BrandonYusufToropov 19:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostasy 

message: I've just gone through this page and (against normal protocol) changed the html tags in several users' sigs, because they were affecting the text following them. Having done so I discovered that my own sig is (now) broken. I suspect the problem is due to a system-wide change that will almost certainly have to be reversed because of the chaos it has caused, making my efforts redundant. I hope I haven't offended anyone by these actions. — JEREMY 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature-fiddling

message: I've been thinking. If Islam is a green-colored religion, then what colors would be associated with other religions...?
My guesses:
Judaism - blue - the blue of the tallis and the Israeli flag.
Christianity - brown (the Cross).
Shinto - red (the color of the torii gates, oftentimes).
Numerous religions, including Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Shinto - gold (there are or were numerous golden shrines, including the Dome of the Rock and at least one of the ancient Temples on the Temple Mount, and Amaterasu has a symbolic golden mirror).
However, I have yet to come up with any particularly symbolic color for Baha'i, or Buddhism (other than that golden shrine in Japan), or Jainism, or Caodaism...204.52.215.107 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbols

message: The Sufis (whirling dirvishes, Christian-hybrid shrines, etc) are not Muslim. --Answar 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufism 

message: - I would like to bring to your notice of this quranic verse which states:   
-    
- "Everything good that happens to you (O Man) is from God, everything bad that happens to you is from your own actions". (4:79)   
-    
- Which contradicts the english version of the muslim creed stated above    
- "that Good and Evil are from God", only good is from god, the bad ones is your own responsibility.   
-    
- Please correct as applicable 
These were the comments left by an anon IP on the article page. I'm adding these here as the regular editors of the page may want to consider the same. --Gurubrahma 05:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments left on the article page by an anon IP that belong here 

message: I keep getting all my edits reverted by Zora as soon as I put in my additions. My edits are not da'wa related but they are based on facts. Most of the times the paras are incomplete so I shoulder them up with my comments. I would request Zora to confirm whether she is a practising Muslim who continuously update her Islamic knowledge or is she merely a researcher at the academic or university level? I note that Zora is an orientalist with most of her info on Islam coming from non-Muslim text like the ones she got from Cambridge. Her research seems to come from academic books from libraries of American universities. Since these people are not actually PRACTISING Muslims, nor attend classes or have in depth knowledge (to the levels the ulamaks possess), I believe they should not be accepted as qualified contributors on the article of Islam in Wikipedia. The orientalist books are way, way too shallow on Islam and do not even consititute a significant percentage of the total Islamic knowledge library. If one hasn't studied to become a practising medical practitioner, I don't believe one should pretend to be an expert and start diagnosing diseases and giving treatments and medications out to innocent patients. So I would suggest that Zora live it to real practising Muslims to maintain the Islamic entry in Wikipedia. I do not believe that orientalist views on Islam (meaning Western academics who study Islam but do not practise or believe it) should be entertained in Wikipedia.
: This gentleman also left a message on my talk page, where he's a little more explicit about the responsibility of Wikipedia to present TRUE Islam and dismiss the views of deviationist sects. I suggest that he read WP:NPOV. Perhaps it may make an impression. Zora 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be NEITHER an infidel nor a Muslim encyclopedia. Zora 02:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a secular encylopedia, which means that it is an infidel (kafir) encylopedia. -- Zeno of Elea 02:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeno, might I ask why you have to make such comments? gren グレン 07:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "This is not a secular encyclopeida ... You dont get to say "there is no god" As long as you don't get to assume the existance of Allah, this is a secular encylopedia for all intents and purposes. -- Zeno of Elea 05:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "I read WP:NPOV ... let us make sure that this doesn't override the truth ... I DO accept that NPOV is a core rule in WP but I would however hope that management in WPOV would at least consider my comments ..." Management just sent the word down: you are fired. -- Zeno of Elea 05:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The issue, 210.187.7.122, is that while there is a truth no doubt we cannot assume our human faculties know this truth. We are therefore agnostic in a most rudimentary sense. If I was Ahmadiyya, you are Shia, and Zeno is Sunni then we will likely have, to some degree, differing beliefs in what is the truth.  If we all come together to write an encyclopedia we would get nowhere if we all claimed our views were the truth.  So, what we do is report our views because there is no agreement on truth. So, you are correct in what you say, but what you ask for is beyond our human faculties.  I sure we could get into a long debate over these points but I merely mean to point out that there cannot be any general knowledge encyclopedia for release to everyone if we make the assumption that one faith is true to the exclusion of others.  You must be willing to write objectively (neutrally) about the beliefs of the sects without placing value judgment on them.  The moment you push the faith judgments of one group you have gone beyond neutrality. If you believe you know the truth then maybe you are one of the lucky few, but you cannot write about them here as if they are truth. Truth may lose out to neutrality, but in the end it's the only viable way when an agreement on truth cannot be reached. gren グレン 08:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Truth may lose out to neutrality" factual accuracy is one of the cornerstones of any encylopedia, including this one. it is quite erroneous to assert that truth and neutrality can be mutually exclusive. -- Zeno of Elea 08:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  210.187.7.122 Response to Zora (You Keep Reverting My Changes)