Talk:Islam/Archive 16

message: Due to the lack of attention, I decided to bring this up in a seperate heading:
FACT: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the World according to Guinness World Records 2006 Edition. This is indeed a very credible and reliable source. What do you people think?
(216.99.56.61 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree, but then we get into the realms of debating whether it is due to the rate of converts/reverts OR, a higher birth rate in muslim populations, OR something else. Then we can ask at what point does the Guinness book of records consider a person to be muslim. Could be interesting. 86.133.72.79 00:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "FACT: Islam is the fastest growing religion" - Perhaps, but so is Buddhism, Falun Gong, Atheism and Wikka (see Fastest growing religion). So, by which method did Guinnes determine who's fastest? And do you have a quote/link? --Frescard 04:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether it is due to the rate of reverts, etc OR a higher birth rate, the fact does not change: Islam is recognized as the fastest growing religion under the Guinness World Records (216.99.58.51 16:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement (Islam is recognized as the fastest growing religion under the Guinness World Records) would be true and verifiable. 86.133.72.79 22:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try it once more: How does Guinness define "fastest growing"? As you can see in the Fastest growing religion article there are all kinds of definitions.  And how did they come to that conclusion? While I may trust Guinness with personally verifying how long someone's fingernails are, or how far somebody can spit, I have my doubts that they went and established these kinds of population statistics themselves; so those numbers must've come from somewhere. But where? What is the original source? --Frescard 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK here is entry from the Guiness World Records 2005: Special Anniversary Edition
"Fastest growing religion: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. In 1990, 935 million of the world's population were Muslims; however, the estimate for January 2004 is 1.4 billion or 23% of the world's population. Although the religion originated in Arabia, in 2002 around 80% of all believers lived outside the Arab world." Page 97.
Guiness World Records is indeed a reliable source.. lol   (206.126.82.232 01:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...For 2004, maybe. Homestarmy 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that supposed to mean, please elaborate.. (206.126.82.232 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry lists a time peroid between 1990 and 2004, therefore, the maximum range where Guiness claims that Islam is the fastest growing religion stops around january of 2004. It's 2006 now and in the fall, the entry is about 2 and a half years out of date, and when it comes to numbers concerning members of a religion, alot can change in that amount of time. Homestarmy 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The entry might be 2.5 years old in the text book, but trust me, the fact still remains unchanged. Muslim population numbers are still growing :)  (206.126.82.232 02:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunently for you, "Trust me" is OR. From what I have read of Muslim culture, I have little doubt that the population is indeed growing, but if some reports i've read are true, some imam-type people are starting to become worried about how Christianity is moving upwards through Africa, and a population can switch religions after all.... Homestarmy 02:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Christian people will be 0 at the end.. so that doesn not matter :) (216.99.61.54 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make much sense, wherever people go in the afterlife, they don't just stop existing. Homestarmy 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, what hurts who now? Homestarmy 12:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Information 

message: The Historians like Massignon and others has made some statistics about christian and islamic conquest:
islamic conquest has engendered about 392 victims in the two camps.
croisad and Religion's war engendered 10 M victims in central Europe.
thanks
:What camps, and how did they possibly break down all the hundreds of years of the expansion of the Islamic world, Darfur, Mogadishu, and who knows what else down to exactly 392 people? Homestarmy 15:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Well then why is Hinduism still in India, and what about the Judea area, and northern Africa? And I'd still like to know how exactly 392 people on the dot were recorded as being "endangered" (I assume that's what you mean.) by Islam, was there some running tally? Homestarmy 17:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About islamic conquest 

message: AS OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2006, THE PAGE IS CURRENTLY VANDALIZED; it is locked and no one can alter it. The main page has deleted ALL previous information and instead has a hate-filled message of bigotry which the owners of Wikipedia have allowed to remain up. This situation *MUST* be resolved as long as Wikipedia does not wish to offend Muslims with this blatantly vandalous bigotry.
- EDIT: It now seems to be fixed, thank you. Blacksun1942 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on a second here, let me get this straight, if we hadn't of fixed the vandalism, than rather it being the vandal's fault, it's Wikipedia's fault?  Homestarmy 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't blame Wikipedia for locking people out. It may be the vandal's fault for the info being there, but it's still Wikipedia's fault for leaving it on their webstie. Therefore, they are culpable and likewise justifided.
Well forgive me but the page is locked; My understanding is that it cannot be edited by users (I've been a user for many months now and I don't have access to edit locked pages); my understanding is that only Wikipedia can edit those pages. Is that correct? If that is the case, then yes I blame Wikipedia since they are the only ones who can edit the page (again, that's my understanding) Blacksun1942 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, it's only semi-protected, you should be able to edit it, the new user lockout I think should go to like only a week or two. Maybe they changed S-protect policy? When a page is Semi-protected like this one, only "established" editors can edit it, generally because a page has had a problem with anonymous users vandalizing. Very new users are also not allowed to edit, since they might just be new creations by anon's to get around the semi-protect. Homestarmy 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A lot of people should be aware of anti-Muslim bigots as well. BhaiSaab talk 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was an oddly gross hasty generalization there anon.... Homestarmy 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean, please elaborate (216.99.61.54 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Hasty Generalization is a logical fallacy, it essentially is when one presumes that because something is true of a certain (usually small, but in this case arguably large) part of a group, the same thing is true of all members of that group. For instance, "All the trees near my home have squirrels living in them and pestering me, therefore, all trees in the entire world have squirrels, which annoy people to no end. Therefore, we must destroy all trees!" would be a hasty generalization, coupled with a bad concluding idea because of it. Homestarmy 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, why did you delete that anon's post, that's generally not a good thing. Homestarmy 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I know it is someone who recently visited this site. Whoever is doing this needs to stop. It is wrong.--Sefringle 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read about the archiving process. No one is deleting material; it's still accessible. BhaiSaab talk 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wha? Homestarmy 23:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is starting to turn into a forum; comments should be limited to discussion of the Islam page only. Can't irrelevant messages be removed? Qjuad 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who keeps deleting all previous discussions 

message: I read this article and read nothing about Ismaili Muslims who follow the Aga Khan, in the context of Islam.  There are a lot of them and I think they should be mentioned under Islamic denominations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studge (talk • contribs) .
:In the Islam Info-Box, click on 'Branches of Islam', then go to Shi'a Sects & Ismailiyah, which then brings you to the Ismaili page --Frescard 04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although their status is quite contentious, Ismaili's are considered by many to be Shi'a. I was careful in writing the Shi'a section on this page so that everything written in that section would apply to twelvers, fivers, and Ismailis. So no, they are not being ignored. BhaiSaab talk 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about Alevis and Druze, but I know the Ismailis consider themselves Muslim. BhaiSaab talk 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ismailis 

message: I think the section on denominations needs to be rewritten. There are really only two major denominations in Islam and they are Sunni and Shia. Salafis or Wahabbis are just Sunnis who have rather more strict interpretations of Sunna. I must also say that the word "Wahhabi" is a word that is mostly used in the western media. The word is hardly heard in the Arab world and I'm sure people who are categorized as Wahhabis would rather refer to themselves as Salafis. "Wahhabiya" or Wahhabism is indeed a movement
Ijtihadists are another demontaion that I don't think exsist. A Sunni and a Shia maybe an Ijtihadist but he too would not refer to himself as such. The word that is more commonly used for Ijtihadists is "Ahlu Al-Ra'i" which litterally means "the people of opinion"
Marwan123 05:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. BhaiSaab talk 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Source on that? Because I don't believe that at all. Zazaban 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denominations 

message: How many muslims are there really? Encarta says "about 1 billion" but this article says 1.4 billion. That's a big difference!
:As with every statistic, the answer always depends on who you ask... --Frescard 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we have everything you ever wanted to know about that question, and more, see Demographics of Islam, Islam by country. Until Islamic nations get their act together and do proper censuses, you won't get any more defninite answer. dab (ᛏ) 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Many? 

message: I believe that there is enough information to make a separate article out of Islamic extremism. After all, they've been the ones always getting highlighted in the media. This post is in response to a message I received.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diez2 (talk • contribs) .
:There is already Islamic extremist terrorism. BhaiSaab talk 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't look hard enough.  Its there, under Demographics of Islam Today.PelleSmith 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the separation of Islamic Extremism 

message: I was going to explain this in my edit sumary but accidentally pressed enter. all the pages on the mentioned religions say they are extinct. this is a message to homestary. Zazaban 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's just I didn't see how you can say a religion has "gone extinct", I mean, how can you fact check whether their truly all gone? But I wouldn't want to edit war over it or anything. Homestarmy 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related religions. to homestary. 

message: This is the Islam article, and thus should present mainstream views of Islam. The mainstream view of Islam is that Ahmadis are a heretical cult that violate the most basic of premises in Islam, that Muhammad (pbuh) was the final Messenger of God. Also, they say that Jesus traveled to India. I attempted to portray this in that section on Ahmadis in this article, but I was reverted. Here is my edit, followed by what it was changed to.
Patstuart claims "last comments are POV - the job of wikipedia is not to "isolate" groups". However, isolation is a descriptive term, not a judgmental one. The fact is, Ahmadis are isolated in that region, just like how the Falun Gong are isolated within China. And also, my comment on why Ahmadis are considered a separate group was removed. I added that so that it would fall in line with the other groups which explain how they are different from mainstream (Sunni, 90%) Islam. Finally, I also added that they are going against the wishes of mainstream Muslims by claiming that they are Muslim, which is also entirely relevant to this article on Islam. So I have reverted back to my edit, and if you disagree please tell me why. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem was the wording, and the specific changes. By adding changing the words from "small" to "very small and isolated", it appears to be an attempt to marginalize the group   Perhaps if you could state it more kindly, like "located exclusively in". Or in other parts, like the majority of mainstream Islam does not consider this to be an Islamic group rather than against the desire of mainstream Islam (which makes it sound like mainstream Muslims have been somehow wronged). My comments might not sound right here, but if you objectively sit down and read the wording, you will see it is biased. Look at Christianity, for example; it treads very carefully on ground when dealing with modern-day organizations like Mormons and Jehovah's Witness, considered by nearly all mainstream Christians to be a cult. As an objective (non-Muslim) reader, I found the changes to be POV. -Patstuart 04:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm simply trying to show that they are a fringe group. And I'm not sure what you mean by "stating it more kindly". Is it WP policy to do such a thing? Wikipedia is not written in a sympathetic point of view, that's another wiki project. Also,  I say that they go against the desire of mainstream Muslims because that's what they are doing; they are illegitimately calling themselves Muslims. This is a very important fact that they call themselves Muslims. The Nation of Islam considers its members Muslims too, but this self-description is rejected by mainstream Muslims as well. I have looked over Christianity, and in fact, I think that it is too extreme. Mormons are delegated to a single sentence in that article, while Ahmadis have a full paragraph describing them. I think that's more than enough. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadis 

message: Surely a large discussion of this should be present, especially regarding recent comments made by Muslim clerics in the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlosPauloEthetheth (talk • contribs) .
:It is: see the section Political and Islamic extremism. --Patstuart 11:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would add in a sentence or two about how Islamic terrorism is the most prevalent form of 21st century terrorism, but it was more your idea. I don't think it would be unencyclopedic, so I'll support you if anyone disagrees. -Patstuart 11:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on the strong connection between Islam and terrorism 

message: Two reverts have already happened over the deletion of "democratic" as a description of the Caliphate.  I would like to propose that people discuss the issue here and not start an edit war.  My own opinion is that the removal was a good edit because even at times when the Caliph was chosen he was never chosen "democratically" by the members of the ummah.  Just take a look at the entry democracy and the entry Caliph if you have doubts.  Therefore the differences between the two systems are actually obscured by the use of "democractic".  It may be or seem more democratic, in other words more like democracy, than the Shia system, but it isn't "democratic" strictly speaking.  The end result is simply making the Sunni system seem better by associating it with a term like democracy instead of accurately describing the difference between the two, which I'm assuming is the "good faith" intention of the adjective "democratic" in the first place.  My vote is for removing "democratic".  What are the objections?PelleSmith 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and thank you. My removal doesn't have to do with the beliefs of either Shi'a or Sunni, but simply the description of the caliphate, which was certainly not always democratic. BhaiSaab talk 19:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For anyone that would like to know, "democratic" was inserted on September 17th, 2006. It's not always been there.  BhaiSaab talk 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Democracy" and the Caliphate 

message: In the article, it said "Islam is growing faster numerically than any of the other major world religions." However, this is not true. Islam has the fastest percentage growth rate, but it isn't the fastest growing religion in terms of number of converts.
 
According to this article:
:There are 1.4 billion muslims.
:The growth rate of Islam is 2.9% annually.
:(1,400,000,000)(2.9%)=40,600,000 people annually
According to the Christianity article:
:There are 2.1 billion Christians 
:The growth rate of Christianity is 2.3%
:(2,100,000,000)(2.3%)=48,300,000 people annually
Conclusion: Christianity is growing faster than Islam and Islam is NOT the fastest growing religion.
Sefringle 22:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nice research, though original. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I didn't realize that policy--Sefringle 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps there ought to be some latitude to the WP:NOR policy to allow for mathematically accurate and self evident extrapolations from sourced references. If a reference states that there are 2 men and 2 women in a room , we should be able to say that there are a total of 4 people in the room. In any case there must be some reliable source out there that makes the point presented by sefringe.--CltFn 06:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Islam the fastest growing religion? 

message: Why on Earth is there not a section on the Six Beliefs? Dev920 (Tory?) 15:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something rather fundamental missing... 

message: Move all of the inline citations to the end of sentences, after the full stop/period. It's one of the first things any Peer Reviewer or FA reviewer will pick up on. Dev920 (Tory?) 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you're bored and want to make it to FA... 

message: I propose a split between these two topics, as they are quite different.--Sefringle 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Islamophobia warrants its own section in this article. BhaiSaab talk 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta agree here. Islmophobia isn't really a global issue. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily. They're closely related -  a lot of the critics are just plain Islamophobes. BhaiSaab talk 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just assume all critics of Islam are islamophobes though. They are different topics.--Sefringle 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This topic should not be discussed here. Talk:Islam is discussion about the factual accuracy of the article Islam, not general opinions about islam. Go use usenet instead of this place! Be warned!! User:Rursus 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I know, wearing a veil is a requirement in some Muslim countries (e.g., Iran, Taleban Afghanitan, perhaps Saudi Arabia(?)), a choice in others, and disallowed in Tunisia (I was unaware that it was disallowed in Turkey). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In America, the choice on whether or not to wear a veil is that of the individual.  At least we got that much right.  Shame on you, France, for banning veils.  And "shame on you" as well to any countries that require it by law. RobertAustin 22:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Criticism section is lacking too in that it does not mention Muslim responses. BhaiSaab talk 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The muslim responses are mentioned in the article.--Sefringle 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Islam vs. Islamophobia 

message: User:Rursus inserted heading - User:Rursus 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic should not be discussed here. Talk:Islam is discussion about the factual accuracy of the article Islam, not general opinions about islam. Go use usenet instead of this place! Be warned!! User:Rursus 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I know, wearing a veil is a requirement in some Muslim countries (e.g., Iran, Taleban Afghanitan, perhaps Saudi Arabia(?)), a choice in others, and disallowed in Tunisia (I was unaware that it was disallowed in Turkey). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In America, the choice on whether or not to wear a veil is that of the individual.  At least we got that much right.  Shame on you, France, for banning veils.  And "shame on you" as well to any countries that require it by law. RobertAustin 22:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim Veils

message: The summary omits the concept's criticism and fawns disputed organisation CAIR. --tickle me 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Criticism section is lacking too in that it does not mention Muslim responses. BhaiSaab talk 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The muslim responses are mentioned in the article.--Sefringle 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This statement is not true under Organization "Muhammed died without appointing a successor or leaving in place a system for choosing one."
There are a plethora of recorded history agreed by both sects of Islam Ahla Sunna and the Shia's that have proven this statement otherwise. I have given refrencees below to show that Imam Ali Bin Abu Talib(a.s) was infact appointed by the Prophet Mohmmed(s.w.t) during his lietime.
Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of 'Ali as the leader of the Muslim ummah.  The Prophet [s] held up the hand of 'Ali and said: 
"For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla)."1,2,
1)Ibn Hanbal, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal b. Hilal b. Asad, Abu `Abd Allah al-Shaybani al-Marwazi      
 Al-Musnad   
Unidentified edition,   vol. 5, p. 366    
no. 22028   
2)Ibn Kathir, `Imad al-Din Isma`il b. `Umar b. Kathir b. Daw', al-Qarashi al-Dimashqi      
 Al-Bidayah wa'l-Nihayah fi al-Ta'rikh   
Cairo: Matba`at al-Sa`adah (14 vols), 1932-  vol. 7, p. 347   
There are sevral more factuals proof availabe if required. Hence if need be I will be more then willing to supply you with more information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.92.178 (talk • contribs) .
:This is a problem with Sunni and Shi'a point of views. BhaiSaab talk 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the sections for the caliphate and Shi'a, I believe you'll now find this problem addressed. BhaiSaab talk 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement  

message: Please express your opinion in Talk:Islamic account of Sulayman about renaming Islamic account of Sulayman into Islamic view of Solomon, which was made unilaterally by user:Striver without any previous discussion, who now refuses to discuss the name claiming that "Solomon"  is "English name". Mukadderat 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulayman 

message: Other OGG files like Muhammad work for me, but not (Arabic: ). Anyone else having the same issue? --JohnsAr 05:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam Audio not working for me 

message: Please excuse my arabic to english conversion spelling (the words have been spelled phonetically)
I cannot edit the page because I am not a registered user, so I would like someone to do this on my behalf:
The web page states that islam derives from the word 'salam' (which is incorrect).
Islam does not derive from 'Salam' (meaning peace) but actually derives from the word ‘is-tis-lam’ - meaning submission. When you become muslim, you ‘is-tes-lim’ (i.e. you submit (to god and his orders))—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.229.58 (talk • contribs) .
:I've commented out the section until we can find a reliable source for the etymology of "Islam." BhaiSaab talk 06:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see Lane's lexicon for a bit of information on this, where it states that "islam" refers to submission and is derived from istislam, a variant of the root s-l-m. ITAQALLAH 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you translate please? BhaiSaab talk 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but keep the original please! I need a sample text for making arabic in my true type font. User:Rursus 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need - I took an UTF-8 and a bitmap snapshot! God bless You! User:Rursus 12:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam and Salam 

message: Sorry for not mentioning this before, but I've nominated Islam at the Article drive. Vote here to support it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have much time to check what it will achieve if sucessuful. Can you please explain a bit that how this will improve it quality? --- ابراهيم 15:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, if it is successful we'll get a whole load of editors coming in and improving the article, because it will be placed on the Community Portal front page. This article isn't lacking anything essential, after I did that Peer Review, but as you may have noticed, most editors to this page do not have very good English, so the writing is very poor. This would probably be dealt with in an FA drive. I don't know if the referencing problem would be dealt with, but it might be enough to get it to GA standard at least. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think it's already suitable for GA standard. It has been listed as a GA previously, but the main problem the last time we tried to get it back to that status was edit warring. BhaiSaab talk 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArDr nom. 

message: Please give your vote there Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam. Thanks. Be careful about your vote and before voting read the article (other than introduction) and see the disucssion too. --- ابراهيم 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please vote 

message: Without these distortions, known as tahrif, or tabdīl ("alteration, substitution") the main content of the Torah and Gospels would allegedly have been in accord with the later teachings of the Qur'an.
This is problematic, because Muslims believe (as far as I know) that earlier prophets brought guidance that was suited specifically to the requirements of their community. So for instance, the prohibition on shellfish is a provision of Mosaic law, but not of Islamic law, and this difference is not attributable to alteration or substitution of text in the Torah.
How should we address this? BYT 12:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i would suggest removing it altogether, whilst relocating the descriptions of the types of distortions (tahrif, tabdil). the previous sentences in general discuss it sufficiently- or could perhaps use a bit of expansion, but the above is not really it. ITAQALLAH 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. BhaiSaab talk 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question -- In "Beliefs" section, we now have ... 

message: So what's the ethymology of the word 'Islam'? What did it mean? --euyyn 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Submission (to the will of God). BhaiSaab talk 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethymology 

message: Factual discrepancy: This Islam page states that only 20% of muslims are Arabs (from Arabic countries), yet the wikipedia page on 'Arab' states that Arabs are predominantly muslim in religion.  Another site on the web about arabs states that 85% of them are sunni muslims, and 10% are shi'a.  Clearly saying that only 20% of arabs are muslim is contradictory.  If this is true, then what religion are the other 80% of arabs?  I'd appreciate it if someone would clarify.  The info. on this Islam page should correlate with what's on the Arab page..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.78.198 (talk • contribs) .
:There is no discrepancy- yes, most Arabs are muslims, but that does not mean most muslims are arabs! the page doesn't say that 20% of arabs are muslims, it states 20% of muslims are arabs--khello 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: x-posting to the Islamic Wikiprojects.
It looks like Islam is going to win the ARCAID on Sunday(and if you haven't voted yet, please do so), so, to coincide with it, I would like to request your help. This Sunday, take a book on Islam from your shelves (or borrow one from your library). It doesn't really matter what book. Then spend a few hours flipping through it and reference Islam. Either reference facts that are already on the article, or add new ones that you find. 
It doesn't matter how much information gets dumped on the article, we can always move it off into more appropriate articles. Just find a fact, and give a reference. If we all do that, Islam could reach FA by Christmas. Anyone with me on this? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a chance it could be Rosetta Stone? BhaiSaab talk 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That's why I said "looks like", and requested anyone who hasn't voted to do so. I was going to suggest this anyway, so if Islam doesn't win the ARCAID, it'll be disappointing but not an insurmountable problem. I still think we should do it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 09:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you have against Islam, Opiner? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats aloaded question but I'll answer it anyway. All I have against is loading the NOT neutral things onto wikipedia. Remember Neutral mean not believing OR disbelieving. NOT for NOT against. If you are FOR or AGAINST than you are NOT neutral.Opiner 10:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I meant the article Islam actually. As mentioned above, I am not Muslim and am perfectly neutral regarding this article.  But I do want it to be FA. Why don't you? Dev920 (Please vote here) 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be the feature article when and because editors make it reliable AND neutral. I make a simple change aboiut the redundant prophet in the introduction and what happen? Are people nice to me or compromising with me? Its revert revert fight the infidel revert O ye Muslim revert. Come on were going to say the PROPHET Muhammad? NEUTRAL PLEASE. They not even trying!Opiner 10:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets get some perspective here.  I am NOT a Muslim.  In fact I'm a non-religiuos individual of a variously European background.  So lets not let our assumptions get the best of us.  You didn't make a "simple change" you made a major change which included not calling the Qu'ran "scripture" and getting rid of a common emic descriptor, "the prophet" Muhammad.  My concerns with this and any other entry are neutrality and realiability.  This should be more than obvious above as I was arguing against a major and quite POV edit.PelleSmith 12:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vigilante editing", not a very civil way to describe editor's work on this article. I agree that it is false to generically use the term "prophet" as in this edit before Muhammad's name. Muhammad is only a prophet to those who believe him to have been one. Additionally the "central religious text" wording comes directly from the Qur'an article itself. (→Netscott) 13:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know guys if you are aware of the existence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). -- Szvest 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Szvest, this section in particular covers what's being discussed here. I know for a long time that even though that MoS isn't established policy editors both Muslim and non-Muslim have been abiding by that. (→Netscott) 13:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Scott. Yes true but i still see some disagreements here. I see that Opiner is not satisfied. This may mean that some editors do not abide by the MoS and that's why he is making that clear. -- Szvest 13:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preparation for Article Improvement. 

message: Can we move the text from above, about "the prophet" and "scripture", here?  I'm afraid that I may have contributed to messing up an entry that really wasn't about this issue but about the ARCAID.  The original discussion was above the last posting.  What is the policy on moving around text on the talk page?PelleSmith 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PelleSmith, if you're not familiar with it you might want to peruse Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. What you describe as haphazard others would describe as "being bold". Please do remove the "prophet" wording. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages but it also states that it is "reckless" to disregard debates on the talk pages.  I will make the change, but I'm making the change as per the style conventions that have come to light, in order to remove possible "honorifics".  Of course it could have been changed to "their prophet" Muhammad, and not been at all an honorific.  Personally I don't see anything wrong with establishing the internal belief of his status upon first mention, as a matter of clarity.  But it isn't worth arguing I guess since the very next sentence states that he is considered the last prophet.PelleSmith 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree w/ removing the honourific titles. Obviously, people would know from the article that Muhammad is considered a Prophet by Muslims. We have to follow the MoS and encourage everyone to do so, otherwise it would be a waste of time of all the contributors who participated in the establishment of the MoS. -- Szvest 14:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophet and Scripture again.