Talk:Islam/Archive 7

message: In the article it says Islam means "submission" it actually means "Faith" as in "Faith to Allah." Or "Faith to the betterment of mankind"
: Not true.... --GNU<B>4</B>Eva 17:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam's true meaning

message: A new editor has arrived, and has split the Tenets of Islam into two sections, Sunni and Shi'a, and vastly elaborated the Shi'a section. It is now longer than the Sunni section. It seems to me that this disturbs the flow of the article (introducing sectarian divisions in advance of the sectarian section) and unduly amplifies the distinction between Sunni and Shi'a. There is so much that these sects have in common. I'm not sure I want to revert -- the earlier version, with its presentation of the Sunni list and a footnote for the Shi'a seems, to slight the Shi'a, which may have upset the new editor -- but I don't have time to rewrite today. 
Could someone else tackle it? I'm thinking that we need to avoid the clash of lists and just identify, informally, the beliefs that all Muslims (Sunni, Shi'a, Ibadi) hold in common. The Qur'an, Muhammad, the Hajj ... what else? Zora 01:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't know about that either... I am rather deficient in Shia knowledge.... but that section was meant to be very basic... which, is what the five pillars are... the basics.  I also think in the Islam and other religion section we have some problems... it says fight... but I think it should be clarified whether it is QITAL, JIHAD, or HARB because they have different meanings but can all be translated as fight... so, I'm not really sure how to fix it though. gren 16:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've given it a try... - Mustafaa 17:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! That looks good to me. Zora 21:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AdamCaliph's edits 

message: Plus I get the feeling he's a fan of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which is problematic in and of itself. BrandonYusufToropov 12:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And you seem to be very keen on stoking the fires of religious hatred by pushing the gitmo flush the koran in the toilet scandal. Its not POV , the info is sourced and you can check it for yourself, only you cant stand the truth .--68.130.206.88 13:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously, though, what's your favorite MMST3K episode? We're big fans at my house.BrandonYusufToropov 13:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to blow your bubble but I have never seen any of those shows, can't help you there.--68.130.206.88 13:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent POV problems and unsourced edits from 68.130.206.88 

message: There appears to be an extreme intolerance of alternate views on this page being perpetuated by a small clique of editors who have been  attempting to monopolize all edits on this page. Wikipedia is a colloberative endeavor not a tug of war between zealots. IF you have any questions on Wikipedia's NPOV policy go here.  WIKIPEDIA NEUTRALITY POLICY .
Thank you for your cooperation.--Urchid 00:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMINDER TO ALL EDITORS OF THIS PAGE

message: Anyone with a remote knowledge of the atrocities being constantly carried out by Muslims in the world today must speak out. These horrible attacks on truth by Muslims who would hide it are not acceptable. Muslims murdered 2,000 on September 11, 2001. Islam is responsible for the heartless murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. The term "Islamic extremist" should not be used because all Muslims are a threat. Even Islamic clergy are now encouraging and promoting murder of "infidels". Islam is an evil religion that enslaves women, turns men into bloodthirsty monsters, and calls for the murder of those not stuck in its stinking, rotting quagmire. Muslims are even now trying to infiltrate the U.S. bringing their foul, scum of a religion here. There is no love in Islam, only hate, a vicious murderous hatred. The crusades were entirely necassary. If the Christians had not driven out the Moors, Europe might today be the living hell that the Middle East is now. There is not a shred of honor, not one iota, in Islam. It would have been better if Mohammed had never been born. Osama Bin Laden is one of his monsters, blood-thirsty and murderous who masterminded the NYC mass murders on 9/11 nearly 4 years ago. Islam is no religion of "peace", whatever people like Cassius Clay may call it. Muslims are a lost people, floundering in the darkness, following a distant, unloving god, and trying to get to Heaven by murdering Christians and Jews. Jesus came into the world to redeem mankind; to save us from our sins. Muslims' only hope for happiness, a changed heart, and eternal life is to give their lives over to the one who truly loves them, Jesus Christ and to make him their savior and Lord. Therein lies true freedom. 4.158.211.175 01:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, like... do we put that all in our article?????? gren 01:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No I am not that user 4.158 however  I do agree with the general premise about Islam posed above minus the references to Jesus.--Urchid 03:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Anonymous Editor , you do seem so full of hatred, deceit and  intolerance of other POVs that you certainly make a poor example of a Muslim , if I was a muslim  I would be embarrased by your behavior.--Urchid 03:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Racism, as you call it, can go both ways.  Please do not forget that. I did not and do not agree with many of Urchid's posts and edits but your response to him is just as bad.  Neither of them constitute NPOV in my book.  If you were to call Christianity a fad in that article I think there'd be more problems (and rightfully so) than Urchid has created. gren 03:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes I am tolerant,uh? oh I am intolerant because my opinion does not match yours? I inserted edits that obviously reflect my POV. I have sourced and discussed these. Embarrased by MY behavior? Lets make something very clear, I am not that Christian editor you seem to confuse me with. The trouble here is that whenever someone expresses a different opinion than yours you blow your top and act like those zealots ranting in the streets of Pakistan about their little book. What 19 people killed for what? on hearsay ?--Urchid 03:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: To urchid: Well man , if U have any authentic , neutral , non Islamphobe , non-pro-islam source saying anything about conversion rates , it deserves to be  on Islam page . What 100-500 people in the world think , isnt important . There R thousands of people who will consider themselves as God , we cant give their names in God page . Christian/non-christian stuff isnt relevent . If a christian brings some authentic info , it deserves to be added . The rest , well .... doesnt matter . Your use of words like " their little book " , " hatred, deceit and intolerance " & by 4.158 "foul, scum of a religion " , "trying to get to Heaven by murdering Christians and Jews" , clearly shows your mindset . But then...i've seen worse . Sorry if I was rude b4 , my exams R goinon , & I am very much irritable . Hope this gets my point across . Thanx for your cooperation . Farhansher 07:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The truth about Islam 

message: needless to say, the information in "Islam and slavery" was in the wrong article. After all, we don't have "Christianity and Islam" in the Christianity article, discussing all the good Christians who shipped slaves to America after outbidding their Islamic Arabic counterparts. The names of Muhammad's slaves should go to the Muhammad article. Islamic laws on slavery should go to the Sharia article. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, read it carefully , it is written in NPOV and it presents an accurate representation of those topics , now if you want to add it to those other pages you are welcome to. --Urchid 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   As Dab correctly notes, this is in entirely the wrong article, as well as being neither NPOV nor even accurate ("Islamic slave traders over the centuries in Africa were responsible for capturing and selling nearly twelve million indigenous black africans to European traders"?)  This section belongs in the article about as much as "Islam and cousins" or "Islam and honeybees" would - both topics are, after all, alluded to in the Qur'an... - Mustafaa 23:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  The numbers are accurate , I can tell that you do not like those numbers and want this out of sight , however , this is an encyclopedia and history is history.--Urchid 23:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Care to support that assertion?  (Not that it would make the section any more relevant - as practically everyone except you has so far noted...) - Mustafaa 23:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have provided all the references to support those statements , only you and other fellow travellers keep shooting those down cause you cannot disprove them. This page could use a little more intellectual honesty and less religious Jihadism.--Urchid 00:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, you haven't "provided all the references", or indeed any references. - Mustafaa 00:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a very good point dab, especially where you say we can't attribute all Muslim action to Islam.  gren 20:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: slaves

message: Looks like Anonymous editor is editing Farhansher 's text. 
A slip up? sock puppets?--Urchid 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes  very funny , cause I believe you were included in Farhansher comment, in any case , I believe farhansher is quite capable of making his own clarifications and you should not go around revising other peoples discussion inserts.--Urchid 11:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Anonymous editor and Farhansher sockpuppets?

message: So please stop putting that at the top of the article, Urchid. BrandonYusufToropov 12:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there not a dispute on this page? Are you willing to have my inserts added then?--Urchid 12:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags not needed 

message: of course you need the second part. Any monotheist would subscribe to "there is no god but God". To be a Muslim, you need the additional belief that Muhammad's testimony is authentic, just as to be a Christian, you need to believe that Jesus was sent by God (not necessarily that he is God, viz. Arianism, Unitarianism). Just saying la ilaha illa llahu says nothing about the status of the Quran, i.e. you may testify that, and still think the Quran is a surrealist poem, which would hardly make you a Muslim. 80.219.219.208 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: shahadan

message: Was there not a section called "Problems with Islam" in this article, which covered various issues, and has now been removed?
:There is no such thing as a problem with a religion.  If it is believed to be God's will then that doesn't make sense and is only the editors subjective concept of "problems with Islam".  Conflict between and other beliefs and viewpoints is a different matter, and I believe such things are covered in some places. gren 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, we had a section of external links to directories of websites critical of Islam, but -- if I remember correctly -- that kept getting wiped by people who felt that any criticism of islam was too much. Figuring that the section title was a signpost to "vandalize here", we combined all the directory links, pro and con. The links are still there and still labeled as critical, just not in the section title. Zora 21:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Islam 

message: Paul August, who hasn't been involved here previously, has been making a great many changes, most of which seem to be mere copyediting. In checking his edits, I found that I generally approved of them -- but felt that they didn't go far enough. I've been sucked into the skirmishing over sentences and sections, and haven't looked at the article as a whole for a while. Some of the prose seemed to me to rather substandard (which is frequently the case in often-edited articles). I ended up reorganizing the sects section and rephrasing a number of things that I felt were ... dubious.
:(For an explanation of my recent dozen or so small edits, see below. Paul August  ☎ 13:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC))
I found that someone had inserted a large lump of Qur'an-only proselytizing, which I removed. I also found that someone had upped the percentage of Sunnis to 95% -- clearly a Sunni triumphalist. 
There is one section that I would like to delete, but don't want to do it unilaterally. There is a whole section on liberal Islam that floats unmoored from the "sects" section. Though I would certainly be a liberal Muslim if I were a Muslim, it seems to me to be POV for the liberals to get their own section when other sects don't. OK to remove? 
Zora 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge changes at the last moment