Talk:Islam and other religions

message: Have tried to make this page more balanced and added a lot of historical information. --Zeeshanhasan 09:17, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Begin

message: According to the Zoroastrianism article, and according to other sources I am aware of, Zoroastrians are regarded as people of the book by most Muslims.  Deserves a mention here, I don't feel confident enough of the material to do so myself ---- Charles Stewart 21:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Zoroastrianism

message: I took the long disquisition on inclusive and exclusive Islam out of the Islam article and melded it with the material already in this article. Then I completely reorganized everything as a historical survey, which I think does better justice to the enormous scope of the material. 
This article is mostly wikified, but there may be things I overlooked. Ditto typos. Also, some subjects are treated rather cursorily. I've worked on this for hours and I'm tired! There are also no references and no external links, etc. I hope I can trust my fellow Wikipedians to supply the fully panoply. Yours in total exhaustion, Zora 06:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate all your hard work, Zora, but I don't see a lot of the material in the original section there as having made it here. I really believe that stuff gave a person that cared to learn a lot of information about specifics. I am copying it into a Islam/temp article here, for future reference.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Some things I dropped as being just too specific. It was mainly a question of style: if some sections were treated in great detail, and others were mere sketches, the article looked lumpy. But perhaps this was the wrong choice. Perhaps sketchy areas would have invited contribution. You're probably thinking of the material on the Bauls? That was one thing I hated dropping, as it was good. If you'd like to interrupt your wikivacation to further refine the article, add sections to be filled out later, and then add some of the information you feel should be restored, please do. I've usually approved of edits that you do. Zora 08:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Good edits, IFaqeer. I just tweaked the wording a little. Mostly breaking long sentences into shorter ones. Hope this is OK. Zora 10:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely new version 

message: VampWillow made this editorial comment "markup; maybe this will also stop the rv problems ..." in adding a link to CE.  
However, Zora has misrepresented what Jguk did in his reversion, claiming in another talk page that "a few hours later Jguk had changed the CE dates to AD!".  
:: BTW, I just looked at the debate again. I didn't claim that he changed CE to AD; I just said that he changed the article within hours of my posting it. Which he did. Please don't misquote me and THEN accuse me of lying. Jguk is now changing many Islam-related articles, removing any use of CE. Zora 12:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CE is not Christian Era, it's Common Era. I may have been inaccurate in my objections (I was angry!!) but I'm darn sure I don't want Christian POV warriors looking over my shoulder when I make edits in Islam-related articles. Zora 11:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a person prefers BC/AD to BCE/CE doesn't make them a "Christian POV warrior" – if you were to call me that I'd view it as a personal attack. violet/riga (t) 12:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current rules allow for either BC/AD or BCE/CE. It's up to the editors who are actually working on the substance of the article to come to some agreement on what's appropriate (just as for UK/US spelling, and other such practices). It's needlessly provocative for editors to comb Wikipedia for articles using BCE/CE in order to remove or change the dates -- just as it's needlessly provocative for editors to try to change all Wikipedia articles to UK or US spelling. I have been involved in LOTS of arguments re the Islamic articles -- they're some of the most controversial and most vandalized in Wikipedia -- but no one has ever objected to the use of CE, or BCE when it was necessary. No one even seemed to notice. Now the Jesus dispute seems to have sparked a rash of BC/AD vigilantism in completely disparate topics. It's pointless -- conflict for its own sake, IMHO. Zora 12:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but I hope you can realise that some people don't like BCE/CE and prefer BC/AD even though they are not Christian.  The US/UK spelling issue is usually resolved not by discussion between collaborators but by original author choice.  I think the policies need to be updated to stop these arguments. violet/riga (t) 14:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary thing original author choice should do is to require discussion and collaboration to take place before any change is made, and to justify reverting in cases where that is not done.  It should not be determinative, but this does give great weight to that original choice. Furthermore, you haven't even considered what happens when the original author wants to change it, after the original choice has been in place for a considerable time with intervening edits by many others. Gene Nygaard 16:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Calendar system name

message: The description of Sufis here seems a bit slanted to me.  Sufism is not just about wandering mystics; it's also about strongly hierarchical organizations which took on a significant political and economic role, and still maintain that in countries such as Senegal. Several Sufi orders fought valiant campaigns - notable Sufi fighters include Emir Abdelkader and Imam Shamyl in defense, as well as the Sanusi order, and Uthman dan Fodio in attack. And, as I understand it, Islam's peaceful spread in West Africa had less to do with Sufism than with the Dyula, devoutly Muslim traders with a tradition of living in infidel lands and attempting to convert by example and word. - Mustafaa 20:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mustafaa, I trust you. Fix it please. You clearly know more about it than I do. Zora 03:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  I'll try and research this more.  I'm especially curious about how Islam first arrived in Indonesia and among the Cham; that would seem to be one of the higher-profile cases of Islam spreading by trade, but I know little about it. - Mustafaa 18:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sufis

message: "Some distance themselves completely from their “idolatrous” surroundings and look forward to the day when their new countries will become Muslim. Some of these zealots are willing to engage in violence to advance the day. Most diasporic Muslims, however, appreciate their religious freedoms and are willing to tolerate other faiths."  This entire paragraph seems kind of silly.  Looking
forward to the day when their new countries will become Muslim has nothing to do with dissociation, or any type of extremism, and certainly doesn't imply some sort of absence of tolerance. - Mustafaa 20:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it made me laugh... really POV, some members of any religion gain in violence... Catholics tried to turn cities into mob run Little Italies ~_~ Now, the question is, "is it Catholics" or, a small minority of Sicilians... uhh, bad analogy... but, that really does need to be worked on. gren 21:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am very willing to have my late, exhausted, and perfunctory para superseded by better info. In fact, an article on Muslims in diaspora or some such title might be a good idea, and then it could be summarized for the Islam and other religions article. Please go ahead. Zora 03:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslims in the West

message: An anon editor has been working on this article and making generally good edits (won't you take a username, anon?). But he/she added one thing I excised ruthlessly -- a note that "Islam says" forced conversion is not allowable. One, given that there are so many sects, theologians, preachers, opinions, etc., one can't say "Islam says", as if Islam were a monolithic organization. We should be specific. (Question to self: have I trangressed this rule? probably! <g>) Also, in the very early history of Islam the "pagan" Arabian tribes were converted by force, so far as I know. There is a line to that effect in the article, so it's self-contradictory to later say that this is not allowed. Now this could be open to argument -- anyone want to say that the Ridda Wars weren't about forcing errant tribes back into the Islamic fold? Zora 03:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the generalization of "Islam says" bothers me a lot and since we are really dealing with the most basic facts in most of our articles it is sometimes hard to avoid since we will not be describing different minute points about issues... I think it varies from leader to leader how forced conversions were... and like with most things people who took the title caliph often had political interests moreso than religious ones in mind. gren 04:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islam says" 

message: This article mainly mentions quotes from the quran about the relationship between Islam and other Abrahamic religions i.e. Judaism and Christiannity.
What is the position of Islam on people of non-Abrahamic faiths ?
----
Overall, Islam has been generally tolerant of other faiths and still remains so. But ofcourse you do get that minority of individuals who excercise radicalism. Generally, Islam respects the non-Abrahamic faiths but  that overall, the followers of non-Abrahamic faiths are considered the disbelievers. You will undoubtedly find a similar position in most other religions too including the other Abrahamic ones.
Obviously some reasearch is needed on this issue so that people may ascertain the facts. Generally, many have avoided saying things about the inter-faith positions becuase of the large amounts of controversy that it leads to, especially from those who know absolutely nothing about Islam but add large amounts of material to criticise it. Hope that helps a little. --Anonymous editor 05:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  For anonymous to speak of tolerance is a joke - he abuses his position as a moderator to block on a permanent basis those who disagree with him, in clear violation of wikipedia policy.  Anonymous is a vandal who should be stripped on his administraive position - not to do makes a mockery of wikipedia.  Incorrect 05:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Islam is traditionally more tolerant than the other Abrahamic faiths, but not so much as a lot of non-Abrahamic faiths, when we are looking at it as a whole, as Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Jains etc. believe that all people will reach nirvana/moksha (or be re-united with their Fravashi, in the case of Zoroastrianism), but of course most Muslims accept Zoroastrianism, a non-Abrahamic, Indo-European faith related to Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Norse mythology etc) as People of The Books, and some count Hindus (especially Muslim Indian scholars during some years of the Mogul Empire), and Sufis share a similar believe to Hindus often. Anon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.245.63 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran on non-Abrahamic faiths ? 

message: Every religion has ideals, and then it has what happened in practice. Islam is no different. Even though there are strictures against forcible conversion, it did occur, and in significant numbers in the Indian subcontinent. By editing out  my changes and removing my references, one of which is- STORY OF CIVILIZATION, Will Durant (), you cannot erase history. You can remove wikipedia's version of it, but not if I can help it. The history of Islam in India is very bloody, and I intend to have it heard.
:Sorry, Wikipedia will not serve as a support ground for your opinions. The article already reflects the history accurately and besides the early invasions and battles, not all of it is bloody. I know the history quite well and that quote by Durant is already on the correct article in Wikipedia. Please avoid bias in the future. If you "intend to have it heard" from your POV then get a web page. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:32 (UTC)
::I am not airing my opinions, I am trying to not get historical facts removed. Please refute the source, don't just claim that I have a POV, and hence my edits are unjustified. I know the history quite well too, and I read with dismay the attempts to airbrush it. : viv June 28, 2005 21:37 (UTC)
::The quote seems relevant, though its presentation isn't particularly neutral. Will Durant is certainly a respected historian. Where is the quote already found, and why is the correct article? Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)
::And please be careful with your Talk: edits, you've overwritten mine. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)
::::The quote is already given on the Islamic invasions of India article. No one is refuting the source itself, but the point being made is that one historian's opinion on the matter in such a small overview of the invasions is not needed. Btw, even beside the quote, as Jayjg said, your presentation of the matter is quite POV. Also please don't delete other people's comments. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
:::::I have in front of me a 1942 edition of Will Durant's book. Page 459, 'The Moslem Conquest'. Sorry if the presentation tone wasn't neutral. I will attempt to be more neutral. I just want to get the facts heard, and not get airbrushed out. :viv June 28, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
:::::Actually if you read that particular section of Will Durant's book, it  goes on too say other things that I didn't quote in the article. It quotes muslim historians - "No Hindu, could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold and silver.. " and so on. :viv June 28, 2005 21:49 (UTC)
::::::I am aware what Durant said about the invasions, but I repeat: "No one is refuting the source itself, but the point being made is that one historian's opinion on the matter in such a small overview of the invasions is not needed." Thanks. Also I agree Jayjg this overwrite is probably just another Wiki 1.5 bug.  --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 21:52 (UTC)
:::::::How about we link to the Islamic invasion of India article here? That should give adequate context. My intension by the edits was to give readers a sense of what happened during the spread of Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Islam came to a region that already had an established religion which was at odds with Islam beliefs (idolatory etc.), and there was a lot of bloodshed. viv June 28, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
:::::::: Linking to that article is an excellent idea in any event. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 21:57 (UTC)
::::::::: Fine, I'll roll back my changes and link to the article. I should do it in the next half hour. :viv June 28, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
::::::::: Well, an anonymous editor beat me to that, and has made the changes. I am fine with them. :viv June 28, 2005 22:08 (UTC)
::::::::: *Hooray for Harmony! I'm glad a decision was reached. -Lance
I've read Story of Civilization (well, the first few volumes, anyway) and it's a terrible source to be quoting on India. It's obsolete, written by an author whose main interest and expertise was in Europe (as illustrated by the other 10-odd volumes), and highly opinionated (as shown by this quote.) The facts he presents are of interest; the philosophical conclusions he constantly draws, while entertaining, have no place here, being neither neutral nor verifiable. Now if you were to give some details on the claimed forced conversions, that would be verifiable and relevant, unlike someone's musings on the precariousness of civilization. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)
:: I take it that is your POV :-) :viv June 28, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
:: Actually I dont have just Will Durant as the source, but many other. One is right at hand now- India, A concise history (Francis Watson). I would on the other hand, love to read a historian who claimed otherwise, i.e. the Islam conquest of northern India was 'peaceful', and that there was no forcible conversion, or persecution of Hindus:viv June 28, 2005 22:08 (UTC)
I am aware of no one who claims that the Ghaznavid conquests were "peaceful" (that would be ridiculous.)  However, bloody conquests do not imply forced conversion, and you still haven't provided any details on the nature of the claimed forced conversions. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 22:07 (UTC)
: Exactly...bloody wars of conquest and persecution of religious groups do not necessarialy imply forced conversion, which I believe was the issue, right? -Lance
: Lance I agree that bloody wars don't imply forced conversions. The article should focus on other policies aimed at conversion, like actual forced conversion, imposition of heavy jiziya taxes on non-Muslims, making their economic activities unviable and uncompetitive, etc. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 01:23 (UTC)
: Look, the fact is that it is historian's opinion . But everything is an opinion in some way. The attempt here should be that all opinions should be represented. As long as we are saying: According to Will Durant: "...." it should be fine, no matter what the historian's opinion were. And please do not question the authority of the historian just because you don't like what he said. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 01:20 (UTC)
Still no answer to my question.  I am removing the claim pending provision of details. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 18:33 (UTC)
Ok, whoever is editing this behind my back - is it not true that AI calls the actons of the Northern Sudanese ethnic cleaning against the black Christians - you know it is so so don't take that out;  and did not the Taliban force Hindus to wear yellow dress - again, widelly reported, if you take that out you are trying to whitewash the Taliban, it makes me suspect your ulitimate goal here.  And are there not many fundamentalist Imans who claim that targeting civilians is proper if doing so is in defense of Islam - you know that is true, again, take it out if the truth embarrasses you, but it's your religions (I assume) so deal with it.
So the Taliban sympathizers continue to reedit this page.  Simple dude, you will not be allowed to do so, everytime you do the forces of truth and justice will set forth the truth.  This is not Saudi Arabia, this is not the Sudan, this is the free world at work.  If you feel you must lie, exaggerate and tell untruths, do it on the Arabic version of the Wikipedia - the English version will tell the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Well, I was wrong, Wikipedia can be gamed, the anonymous "moderator" who controls this site was able to "disappear" me for attempting to edit these pages, claiming I was vandalizing the site, if you want to look at my editing changes you will see my corrections were not destructive but an attempt to correct the abuses of the "owner" of this site.  I now know that wikipedia is perhaps informative when talking about the structure of the atom, or the geography to Tibet, but when dealing with a controversial subject the "owner" of a particular page can ban those who object to their biases.  So one more cultural icon proves to have clay feet.  So sad.
I'm very much in sympathy with the signed and unsigned complaints about this article. Although there are hints of intolerance -- for instance, the persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran -- the article understates Muslim religious intolerance to such an astonishing degree that it is, for all practical purposes, a propaganda piece. One can only guess what one writer means by "freedom of religion adhering to democratic principles," but the apparent intent is to give the impression that there are predominantly Muslim countries in which citizens enjoy freedom of religion equal or comparable to the freedom of religion enjoyed by citizens of Western Europe and North America. That is not true. The statement that Saudi Arabia "limits religious freedom to a high degree, prohibiting public worship by other religions" is a gross understatement of Saudi religious intolerance, and the statement that the Taliban regime "was considered intolerant by many observers" is very remarkable. One wonders which observers considered the Taliban tolerant, and how intolerant a regime would have to be before it could be plainly acknowledged as intolerant by Wikipedia. The footnote about jizya is disingenuous, and the complete omission of any mention of the concepts of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb inexplicable. The "Muslims in diaspora" section is ridiculous in its understatement of Muslim difficulties with religious freedom in the West -- and what does it mean, anyway, to speak of "Muslims in diaspora"? What is the Muslim "homeland?" As it presently stands, the article includes no mention of the French headcovering controversy, the Danish cartoons, al-Qaeda, Theo van Gogh, the Flying Imams, etc., etc. Remarkable. I haven't made any edits to the article, since doing so seems an exercise in futility.  WilliamBarrett 09:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, William Barrett, for that breath of fresh air. Couldn't agree with you more. 4.4.153.183 (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisionist history

message: This article doesn't give any mention of all about Islam and it's relationship with more recently created religions (examples include Mormonism and Scientology), does anyone have any information about this subject? The Fading Light 20:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on Islam and Sikhism and hope to have something informative up soon. I'll put something here on that too. Arrow740 07:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam and Modern Religions 

message: I have objected to the repeated use of non-Muslim authorities in lieu of Muslim authorities and the rejection of Muslim authorities and divergent opinions, only to be constantly threatened with blocking and banning for speaking up against the use of Friedman as the voice of Islam.  I have had prominent sheikhs and jurists edited out and replaced with Friedman in preference for a rigid, biased opinion of Islamic law and traditions, refusing to take into account the traditon of diversity of thought in Islam.
I am a Muslim woman who is married to a non-Muslim man, and we were married with a nikah.  I am one of many married out women, and we have existed since Islam was introduced into the Arab world.  That there were Muslimas married to non-Muslim women in the Prophet's circle is well-known in history, but that fact has been buried by ultra-conservatives, and aided and abetted by those here who refuse to allow for any other viewpoint than that which places culture over Islam, for Islam, the sharia, has imposed no prohibition against Muslim women marrying out.  That is a point we can discuss openly and objectively, or, some more posters can come to my page again to threaten me and/or block me, and delete this post.  I'm not sure what the fear is of someone who has done what is written about in error.  I don't know of any Islamic scholars here, and I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why Freidman has more say about Islam than true Islamic scholars.  FOA 05:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Preference for Non-Muslim Authorities and Disallowance of Divergent Thought 

message: Firstly, I cannot find any reference to data source. Is this original work?
Second, there are two countries presented as Muslim in Europe, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH). BH is neither Muslim country (Muslims are relative majority), nor belongs to group where other religious groups are somehow oppressed.
Third, by Constitution, Turkey is secular in public/government issues, but religions, either Islam or others, are not oppressed by state. 
This picture has to be changed, or removed. Plantago (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture - religious tolerance in Muslim countries

message: "600-900 Qurayza men were beheaded (except for the few who chose to convert to Islam) and their properties confiscated, and their women were taken as sex slaves, and children were slaves."
The following is dubious, as it is contended as being false, and also the claim of sex slaves presents a POV that is unrealistic and dubious in itself. Faro0485 (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam and the jews 

message: my name is siddiq.ISLAM NEED TO BE PUT BACK ON THE SIRITA MUSTAQEEM.ISLAM IS NOT BEING REPRESENTED ON THEP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.115.186 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnamed section 

message: Greetings: A question I've often wondered about and never got any clear answer to. If a verifiable, documented answer can be given to it, it could go into the article. This is the question: Where do non-Muslims go after death according to Islam? What happens to them at the Last Judgement? Does a righteous non-Muslim automatically go to Hell just for not being a Muslim, even though he or she may in all other respects be a good, righteous and moral person? Or can righteous non-Muslims also go to Paradise and be saved at the Last Judgement? I'm inquiring not only about scriptural authority but also about the common interpretations and answers that may have been given to the question through the history of Islam, down to this 21st century of ours. Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 20:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do non-Muslims go after death? What will happen to them at the Last Judgement? 

message: The christian supreme court justice of Pakistan was in office during the 1960's. It is misleading to say that could happen today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.110.202 (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates for the supreme court members of Pakistan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islam and other religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716191151/http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1Griffith.html to http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1Griffith.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406052350/http://www.metimes.com/ to http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061220-033209-2100r
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070123145617/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/825/eg5.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/825/eg5.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/031109/031109francis_bok.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Islam and other religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327204751/http://www.cismor.jp/en/publication/jismor/documents/JISMOR5en_Rabkin.pdf to http://www.cismor.jp/en/publication/jismor/documents/JISMOR5en_Rabkin.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122103247/http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/zoroaster_zoroastrians_in_iran.php to http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/zoroaster_zoroastrians_in_iran.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210053854/http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article31 to http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article31
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213224038/http://www.islam.tc/alhilaal/site/war6.html to http://www.islam.tc/alhilaal/site/war6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207112427/http://www.islamicbookseller.com/product_info.php/6_Modern_Issues/Islam_and_Universal_Peace/ to http://www.islamicbookseller.com/product_info.php/6_Modern_Issues/Islam_and_Universal_Peace/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930105840/http://www.weltethos.org/data-ge/c-10-stiftung/13-deklaration.php to http://www.weltethos.org/data-ge/c-10-stiftung/13-deklaration.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ...pending their becoming Muslim, of course.
And what they are permitted to do in that circumstance.
This seems like the appropriate article for this subject, but I'm not seeing it. So I suggest someone knowledgeable add it. Andyvphil (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duties (if any) of Muslims living in in non-Muslim states 

message: Will Durant, in The Story of Civilization, described this as "probably the bloodiest story in history."
The above mentioned sentence is absolutely wrong. Therefore, I would like to request the editors panel, to cancel or delete the sentence permanently. Maisha82 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: If you are saying Durant did not say this, then you are demonstrably incorrect. If you are saying that Durant's opinion is wrong, then that is potentially something that could be discussed here on the talk page where you would need consensus to remove  Cannolis (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023